THE CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPALITIES
[Sidenote: [1054-1224 A.D.]]
The period extending from the year of Iaroslav’s death (1054) to the
year of the appearance of the Tatars (1224) is one of the most troublous
and confused epochs in the history of Russia. As the Scandinavian custom
of partition continued to prevail over the Byzantine idea of political
unity, the national territory was constantly divided.
The princely anarchy of oriental Europe finds a parallel in the feudal
anarchy of the Occident. Pogodine enumerates for this period sixty-four
principalities which enjoyed a more or less protracted existence; two
hundred and ninety-three princes who during these two centuries contended
over Kiev and other Russian domains; eighty-three civil wars in which the
entire country was concerned. Foreign wars helped to augment the enormous
mass of historical facts. The chronicles mention against the Polovtsi
alone eighteen campaigns, while these barbarians invaded Christian
territory forty-six times.
The ancient names of the Slav tribes have entirely disappeared, or are
preserved only in the names of towns--as, for instance, that of the
Polotchanes in Polotsk; that of the Severians in Novgorod-Seversk. The
elements in the composition of Russia were thus rather principalities
than peoples. No more is said of the Krivitchi or of the Drevlians;
we hear only of Smolensk or of Volhinia. These little states were
dismembered at each new division among the children of a prince; they
were then reconstituted, to be again divided into appanages. In spite of
all these vicissitudes, however, some among them had an uninterrupted
existence due to certain topographical and ethnographical conditions.
Setting aside the distant principality of Tmoutorakan, established
almost at the foot of the Caucasus in the midst of Turkish and Circassian
tribes and counting eight different princes, the following are, from the
eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, the principal divisions of Russia:
(1) The principality of Smolensk, which occupied the important territory
which is in a manner the central point of the orographic system of
Russia; it comprises the old forest of Okov, where the three greatest
rivers of Russia, the Volga, the Dnieper, and the Dvina, have their rise.
Hence the political importance of Smolensk, which is attested by the many
wars undertaken against her; hence also her commercial prosperity. It is
noticeable that all her towns were built on some one of the three rivers;
all the commerce of ancient Russia thus passed through her bounds.
Besides Smolensk it is necessary to cite Mozhaisk, Viasma, and Toropets,
the capital of a secondary principality, the domain of two famous
princes--Mstislav the Brave and Mstislav the Bold.
(2) The principality of Kiev, which was _Rus_--Russia in the strict sense
of the term. Its situation on the Dnieper, the proximity of Greece, the
fertility of its Black Lands, long assured to this state the supremacy
over all other Russian principalities. To the south it was bordered by
the Nomad tribes of the steppe. Against the inroads of these tribes
the princes of Kiev were obliged to construct frontier fortresses;
though frequently they ceded them lands and took them into their pay,
constituting them into veritable military colonies. The principality of
Pereiaslavl was a dependency of Kiev; Vishgorod, Bielgorod, Tripoli, and
Torlshok were at different times constituted into appanages for princes
of the same family.
[Illustration: LAPLANDER]
(3) The two principalities of Tcheringov with Starodub and Lubetz and of
Novgorod-Seversk with Putivl, Kursk and Briansk, which extended along
the tributaries flowing into the Dnieper from the left--the Soj and the
Desna swelled by the Seim. Tcheringov, extending towards the upper Oka,
had thus one foot in the basin of the Volga; its princes, the Olgovitchi,
were the most redoubtable rivals of those of Kiev. As for the princes of
Seversk, they were ceaselessly occupied with wars against their dangerous
rivals on the south, the Polovtsi. It is the exploits of a prince of
Seversk against these barbarians which form the subject of a _chanson de
geste_--The _Song of Igor_.
(4) The duplex principality of Riazan and Murom, another state whose
existence was maintained at the expense of ceaseless war against the
nomads. The principal towns were Riazan, Murom, Pereiaslavl-Riazanski,
on the Oka; Kolomna, at the junction of the Moskva with the Oka; and
Pronsk, on the Pronia. The upper Don bounded it on the west. This
principality was established in the midst of Finnish tribes--the
Muromians and the Meshtseraks. The warlike character and the rude and
coarse habits attributed to the people of the principality doubtless
resulted not less from the assimilation of the aborigines by the Russian
race than from the continuous brutal strife of the inhabitants with the
nomads.
(5) The principalities of Suzdal--with their metropolitan towns of Tver,
Suzdal, Rostov, Iuriev-Polski, and Vladimir on the Kliasma; of Iaroslavl
and Pereiaslavl-Zaliesski--which were established on the Volga and the
Oka, in the densest of the northern forests, surrounded by Finnish
tribes--Mouromians, Merians, Vesses, and Tcherimisses. Though situated at
the extreme limit of the Russian world, these principalities nevertheless
exercised great influence over it. We shall see their princes now
reducing Novgorod and the Russia of the lakes to a certain political
dependence, the consequence of a double economical dependence; then
victoriously intervening in the quarrels of the Russia of the Dnieper.
The Suzdalians were of the same character as the Riazanians--rude and
warlike. The characteristics of a new nationality were already noticeable
among these two peoples. That which differentiated them from the Kievans
and the Novgorod-Severskans, who, like themselves, were occupied in the
great struggle against the barbarians, was that the Russians of the
Dnieper, sometimes mingling their blood with that of their enemies,
became fused with Turkish tribes, nomadic and essentially mobile, while
the Russians of the Oka and the Volga united with Finnish tribes,
agricultural and essentially sedentary. This difference between the two
foreign elements which entered into the blood of the Slavs, without
doubt contributed to that marked difference in character between the two
branches of the Russian race. During the period from the eleventh to the
thirteenth centuries, as colonization advanced, from the basin of the
Dnieper to the basin of the Volga, the divisions of Little Russia and
Great Russia were formed.
(6) The principalities of Kiev, Tchernigov, Novgorod-Seversk, Riazan,
Murom, and Suzdal, which formed the marches of Russia on the borders of
the steppe with its devastating hordes--constituting its frontier states.
On the confines of the northwest, opposite the Lithuanians, the Letts
and the Tchuds, the same rôle devolved on the principality of Polotsk,
occupying the basin of the Dvina, and on the republican principalities
of Novgorod and Pskov on the lakes of Ilmen and Petpus. The principality
of Minsk was attached to that of Polotsk. It was situated in the basin
of the Dnieper and, owing to that circumstance, its possession was
frequently disputed by the grand princes of Kiev. The towns of Torzhok,
Volok-Lamski, Izborsk, and Veliki Luki belonged to Novgorod; at times
they were the capitals of individual states.
Southwestern Russia comprehended (1) in the fan-shaped territory formed
by the Pripet and its tributaries--Volhinia, with Vladimir in Volhinia,
Lutsk, Turov, Brest, and even Lublin, which is unquestionably Polish;
(2) in the basins of the San, the Dniester, and the Pripet--Galicia
proper, or Red Russia, whose ancient inhabitants, the white Croats,
seem to have originated in the Danubian Slavs. Its principal towns were
Galitch, founded by Vladimirko about 1444; Peremishl; Terebovlia, and
Svenigorodka. The near neighbourhood of Hungary and Poland contributed
to these two principalities distinctive characteristics, as well as a
more advanced civilisation. In the epic songs Galicia, the land of the
hero Dvorik Stepanovitch, is a country of fabulous wealth. _The Narrative
of the Expedition of Igor_ gives an exalted idea of the power of its
princes: “Iaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia,” cries the poet addressing one
of them, “high art thou seated upon thy golden throne! With thy iron
regiments thou guardest the Carpathian mountains, thou shuttest the gates
of the Danube, thou barrest the way to the king of Hungary; at will thou
openest the gates of Kiev, and thine arrows reach far into the distance.”
THE UNITY OF THE PRINCIPALITIES
The disposition of these fifteen or sixteen principalities confirms
what has been previously stated concerning the essential unity of the
configuration of the Russian soil. None of the river-basins forms a
closed or isolated region; no line of heights establishes between them
barriers or political frontiers. The greater number of the Russian
principalities belonged to the basin of the Dnieper, but pushed their
limits everywhere beyond. Kiev, with Pereiaslavl, is the only one
strictly confined within it; but Volhinia puts the basin of the Dnieper
in communication with those of the Bug in the south and of the Vistula;
Polotsk connects it with the basins of the Niemen and the Dvina,
Novgorod-Seversk with that of the Don, Tchernigov and Smolensk with that
of the Volga. Between these principalities, water-courses everywhere
establish communications. Russia, though divided into appanages, was
already making toward a great united empire. The lack of cohesion among
nearly all the states and their frequent dismemberments prevented their
becoming actual nationalities. The principalities of Smolensk, of
Tchernigov, of Riazan never possessed that definite historical existence
so characteristic of the duchy of Brittany or the county of Toulouse in
France, the duchies of Saxony, Swabia, or Bavaria in Germany.
The interests of the princes and their ambition to provide an appanage
for each of their children, necessitated at the death of every sovereign
a fresh distribution of Russian territory. Yet a certain cohesion was
evident in the midst of these vicissitudes. There was visible a unity
of race and language, the more marked, notwithstanding differences of
dialect, in that the Russian Slavs, excepting in the southwest, were
surrounded everywhere by entirely dissimilar peoples--Lithuanians,
Tchuds, Finns, Turks, and Magyars. There was also unity of religion;
the Russians were differentiated from nearly all their neighbours in
that, in contradistinction to the Slavs of the west, the Poles, Czechs,
and Moravians, they represented a distinct form of Christianity,
acknowledging no tie with Rome and rejecting Latin as the church language.
There was also a unity of historical development, since hitherto the
Russian Slavs had all followed the same destiny, had equally accepted
Greek civilisation, submitted to Varangian conquest, and pursued in
common certain great enterprises, such as the expeditions against
Byzantium and the wars with the nomads. There was finally political
unity, as among all--in Galicia as in Novgorod, by the Dnieper as in
the forests of Suzdal--the same family sat upon all the thrones. All
the Russian princes were descended from Rurik, from St. Vladimir, and
from Iaroslav the Great. The civil wars which desolated the country
affirmed anew this unity. No state in Russia could regard the rest as
outsiders, when the princes of Tchernigov and Suzdal were seen to take
up arms solely to decide which among them was the eldest--which held the
right to the title of grand prince and to the throne of Kiev. There were
descendants of Rurik who governed successively the most distant states
in Russia, and who, having reigned at Tmoutarakan on the straits of
Ienikale, at Novgorod the Great, at Toropetz in the country of Smolensk,
finished by obtaining recognition of their right to reign over Kiev.[b]
THE THEORY OF SUCCESSION
[Illustration: A KORIAK]
If the question be asked why the Russian state continued undivided
throughout the two hundred years of the Varangian period, our answer is
that it was due solely to the fact that during the greater part of this
period the grand princes left one son and heir. Whenever the case was
otherwise, as after the death of Sviatoslav and Vladimir, the brothers
straightway entered upon a struggle for mastery that did not terminate
until all but one were destroyed. That one then became undisputed master,
for no one dared dispute the possession of power with the descendants of
Rurik.
The theory of succession in the Rurik family was as follows: the grand
prince of Kiev was lord paramount of Russia. He disposed of all vacant
principalities, and was supreme judge and general; but each of his
brothers had, according to his seniority, the right of succession to
the throne. The death of every elder brother brought the younger ones
a step nearer to that goal. The order of advance was from Smolensk to
Pereiaslavl, from Pereiaslavl to Tchernigov, from Tchernigov to Kiev.
But none could attain to the highest dignity, save him whose father had
held it before him. Sons of a father who had died before reaching the
goal were excluded from Kiev and were confined to the possessions in
their hands at the time of their father’s death. The technical Russian
term for those members of the Rurik family who were excluded from the
highest dignity was Isgoi, and the attempts of the Isgoi to break through
the law of exclusion have had no small share in the bloody and desolate
history of Russia during the period upon which we now enter. But another
factor contributed to the same end. The power of the grand prince was
not so predominant as to enable him to enforce his will and put down
disobedience. His position was based on the idea of patriarchal power,
and was respected by the princes only when it was to their advantage. To
maintain himself he had to resort to the expedient of making coalitions
with some of the princes against the others, and the sword was the final
arbiter between the grand prince and his nominal vassals.[c] Accordingly
the whole of Russia was always divided in its support of the claims of
this or that candidate. The civil wars which ensued were after all but
family quarrels.[a]
CIVIL WARS
[Sidenote: [1055-1069 A.D.]]
Iaroslav left five sons. To Iziaslav, the oldest, he gave Kiev; to
Sviatoslav, Tchernigov; to Vsevolod, Pereiaslavl; to Viatcheslav,
Smolensk; and to Igor, Vladimir in Volhinia. The order in which they are
given here represents the order of their respective dignities and their
position in the line of succession. Two of the brothers did not long
survive their father. In 1056 Viatcheslav died, and Igor, in accordance
with the law of succession, moved to Smolensk, where he too died in 1060.
About this time a new wave of migration set in from Asia towards the
south-Russian steppe--the Turkish tribe of the Polovtsi. In 1055 Vsevolod
of Pereiaslavl concluded peace with them by bribing them to retire
into the steppe. In 1061 he suffered a defeat at their hands, but they
did not follow up their success and again retired into the steppe. The
civil wars, however, which soon broke out, were to bring them back as an
ever-menacing plague to the Russian population.
[Illustration: SVIATOSLAV]
Among the minor princes, who were excluded from the succession, was
Vseslav of Polotsk, a descendant of St. Vladimir. He had helped his
uncles in a war against the Torks, a tribe kindred to the Polovtsi, and
expected a reward in an accession of territory. Being disappointed,
he determined to help himself. First he ravaged the territory of
Pskov, but being unable to take that city, he invaded the territory of
Novgorod, and it seems that for a while he was master of the city. His
bold procedure compelled his uncles Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, and Vsevolod
to unite against him; but, though beaten by their superior forces, he
could not be expelled from the north. The uncles thereupon resorted to
treachery. They proposed to him a friendly meeting under a guarantee of
his personal security and liberty, which they confirmed by an oath upon
the cross. But when he had reached the vicinity of Smolensk, beyond the
Dnieper, he was surprised, captured, and brought to Kiev, where he was
imprisoned. At this juncture the Polovtsi made another of their raids
and defeated the united forces of the brothers, so that Sviatoslav was
obliged to take refuge at Tchernigov, while Iziaslav and Vsevolod fled
to Kiev. There they intended to await the nomad hordes behind the walls
of the cities, sacrificing the open country to the invaders. But the
citizens of Kiev thought differently. At a stormy meeting of the _vetché_
it was decided to take up arms, and when Iziaslav refused to lead them
against the enemy they liberated Vseslav from his confinement and made
him their prince (1068). Iziaslav was obliged to flee to Poland, where
he found a champion in Boleslav the Bold. Menaced in front by the Poles,
and suspicious of his uncles in his rear, Vseslav thought himself obliged
to flee to Polotsk, leaving the Kievans to the vengeance of Iziaslav
(1069). The events of two generations previous, when Boleslav the
Brave captured Kiev for Sviatopolk, were now to be repeated. The Poles
demeaned themselves as masters and committed many excesses. The Kievans
bore it for a year; then exasperated, fell upon the Poles, who were
scattered in their various quarters, and compelled Boleslav to evacuate
the city. After protracted fighting and negotiations, Polotsk was finally
restored to Vseslav, and the old order seemed re-established, when the
two brothers of Iziaslav became suspicious of his designs and suddenly
appeared before Kiev. Iziaslav now fled for the second time, Sviatoslav
became grand prince, while Vsevolod advanced to the principality of
Tchernigov.
[Sidenote: [1075-1078 A.D.]]
Iziaslav left nothing unattempted to regain his position. He had escaped
with his treasure into Poland, but Boleslav was unwilling to renew his
former adventure. The German king Henry IV, whom Iziaslav met at Mainz
in January, 1075, was more favourably disposed and sent an embassy to
Sviatoslav; but it accomplished nothing. Iziaslav also entered into
negotiations with pope Gregory VII, to whom he sent his son Iaropolk. The
pope hoped to be able to annex Russia to the western church, and even
went so far as to grant it to Iaropolk as a fief from the holy see.
But meanwhile Sviatoslav died (1076) and Vsevolod, a man whose mild
character did not exclude the possibility of a peaceful settlement,
became grand prince. Boleslav now lent troops to Iziaslav (1077), and
though Vsevolod marched against him with an army of his own, yet they
soon came to terms. Iziaslav was to be reinstated grand prince for the
third time, while Vsevolod was to retire to Tchernigov, in return for
which he was secured in the succession. Thus Iaropolk’s plans came to
naught, and with them the hope of a reunited church.
However, Vseslav of Polotsk did not yet give up his ambitious designs.
Foiled in his attempt on the throne of Kiev, he tried to create an empire
for himself in the Russian north, and it required three campaigns of
the south-Russian princes to annul his plans. It was during these wars
that Vladimir Monomakh, son of Vsevolod and son-in-law of King Harold of
England, first distinguished himself, though not in a glorious manner.
He was the first Russian prince to engage in a domestic quarrel the
Polovtsi, with whose aid he ravaged the city and principality of Polotsk.
Vseslav died in 1101 as prince of Polotsk, and his memory lived long
after him in the traditions of the people, by whom he was regarded as a
sorcerer. The _Song of Igor_ tells how he accomplished in one night a
march from Kiev to Tmoutorakan, and how he could hear at Kiev the ringing
of the church bells at Polotsk.
Russian dynastic conditions had now been restored to the legal order,
and there seemed nothing left to disturb the tranquillity. But the
cupidity of the grand prince soon brought on new dissensions among the
members of the house of Rurik. Viatcheslav and Igor died at an early age,
leaving minor sons whom their uncle refused to provide with appanages.
They therefore tried to gain their right by force. Boris, a son of
Viatcheslav, temporarily got hold of Tchernigov, but being unable to
maintain himself in that city he fled to Tmoutorakan, the last refuge
of all the discontented. There he was soon joined by his brother Gleb,
who was expelled by Iziaslav from Novgorod, and by another brother from
Volhinian Vladimir, both of whose appanages were divided among the sons
of Iziaslav and Vsevolod. In the civil war which followed, the nephews at
first had the advantage and captured Tchernigov; but they were defeated
in a decisive battle fought near that city on the third of October, 1078.
Both the grand prince Iziaslav and Boris fell, and Oleg was obliged to
flee once more to Tmoutorakan.
_Vsevolod_
[Sidenote: [1078-1093 A.D.]]
Iziaslav was succeeded by Vsevolod, whose reign (1078-1093) was even more
unfortunate than his brother’s had been. He too favoured his own sons and
those of Iziaslav at the expense of his other nephews and in consequence
the sons of Sviatoslav and Igor and of his nephew Rostislav waged against
him unremitting warfare with the aid of the Polovtsi and Chazars, who
wasted the country. Vsevolod’s attempt in 1084 to conquer Tmoutorakan,
the breeding-place of revolts, failed miserably. Finally even Iaropolk,
the son of Iziaslav, who had received so many favours from his uncle,
revolted against him and was assassinated during the war. In those days
of turmoil and confusion, even old Vseslav ventured forth once more from
Polotsk and plundered Smolensk. The grand prince was ill most of the
time at Kiev and the conduct of his affairs lay in the hands of his son
Vladimir Monomakh.
_Sviatopolk_
Vsevolod died April 13th, 1093, leaving two sons, Vladimir Monomakh, who
held Tchernigov, and Rostislav, who held Pereiaslavl. He was succeeded by
Sviatopolk, the second son of Iziaslav, who was the rightful successor
after the death of his brother Iaropolk, who, it will be remembered,
was assassinated. Monomakh could easily have made himself grand prince,
for he was the most popular of the princes and gained great fame in his
campaigns against the Polovtsi, whom he defeated twelve times during the
reign of his father; but he was anxious to avoid violating the law of
succession and thus inviting civil war.
[Illustration: SVIATOPOLK]
Sviatopolk’s reign began with a violation of the law of nations by
imprisoning ambassadors of the Polovtsi, who had come to negotiate a
treaty with him. In retaliation the nomads invaded the country, and with
so great a force that Vladimir and Rostislav, who had come to the aid
of the grand prince, advised him to purchase peace from the enemy. He
paid no heed to them, but the event soon justified the prudence of their
counsel. In the battle of Tripole, fought on May 23rd, 1093, the Russians
sustained a disastrous defeat. Rostislav was drowned, while Sviatopolk
and Vladimir saved themselves by flight. The next year’s campaign against
the Polovtsi was equally disastrous, and Sviatopolk returned to Kiev
with but two companions. Tortchesk was compelled to capitulate, and the
nomads returned to the steppe rich with booty and prisoners. Sviatopolk
now bought peace and took to wife a daughter of the Polovtsian khan.
They returned, however, the same year under the leadership of Oleg, son
of Sviatoslav, who had stayed till now in Tmoutorakan and thought the
moment opportune for enforcing his undoubted rights upon Tchernigov,
which had been the original seat of his father as the second son of
Iaroslav, and which was held by Monomakh, who was the son of Iaroslav’s
third son.
Oleg, was therefore, no Isgoi and would not be treated as such. When he
appeared before Tchernigov, Monomakh had only a small band with him, and
after a siege of eight days was compelled to evacuate the city and retire
to Pereiaslavl, where he had to defend himself during the next three
years against continual irruptions of the Polovtsi. The refusal of Oleg
to join in a combined campaign of the princes against the Polovtsi, and
the sudden capture of Smolensk by his brother David, gave the occasion
for a general war that lasted two years and covered the whole territory
of Russia, from Novgorod to Murom and thence to the steppe, and in
course of which one son of Monomakh fell in battle, while two other sons
suffered a decisive reverse at the hands of Oleg. Finally, a congress
of princes was held at Lubetz, in the territory of Tchernigov, for the
settlement of all existing disputes. The result of its deliberations was
that the grand prince was to retain Kiev and Turov, while to Vladimir
were assigned Pereiaslavl, Smolensk, and Rostov; Novgorod to his son
Mstislav, and Tchernigov with all its dependencies to the sons of
Sviatoslav--Oleg, David, and Iaroslav. The latter thus gained possession
of the greater part of Russia. There still remained to be satisfied the
three Isgoi, Volodar, and Vassilko, sons of Rostislav, and David, son of
Igor. Of the former two, Volodar received Peremishl, Vassilko received
Terebovl, while Vladimir in Volhinia was given to David. Polotsk remained
in the hands of Vseslav.
[Sidenote: [1097-1110 A.D.]]
The congress of Lubetz (1097) brought a respite to the sorely tried
Russian north, but the south was soon subjected to new calamities.
Vassilko, son of Rostislav, was revolving in his mind extensive plans of
conquest in Poland, among the Danubian Bulgarians, and finally against
the Polovtsi. He had begun making extensive preparations, and had taken
into his pay several nomad hordes. David of Volhinia, who was ignorant
of Vassilko’s plans, became alarmed at these warlike preparations, began
to suspect a conspiracy between Monomakh and Vassilko, and succeeded
in inoculating the grand prince with his own alarms and suspicions.
Vassilko was allured to Kiev to attend a religious festival, and there
he was captured, thrown into chains, dragged to Bielgorod, and blinded
in an unspeakably cruel manner. The horror of the bloody deed resounded
throughout Russia. Monomakh united his forces with those of his old
enemies, the sons of Sviatoslav, and marched upon Kiev. The grand prince
tried to clear himself of blame and throw the guilt upon David, and peace
was arranged through the mediation of the metropolitan of Kiev and of
Monomakh’s mother.
The grand prince took upon himself the obligation to revenge the outrage
on Vassilko, who was surrendered to Volodar; and David was obliged to
flee to Poland (1099). The grand prince annexed David’s territory, and
then turned, most unjustifiably, against the sons of Rostislav. Defeated
by Volodar, he formed an alliance with Koloman, king of Hungary. The
alliances now assumed a most unexpected and distorted character. David
united with the Rostislavitchi and with Buiak, khan of the Polovtsi;
and at Peremishl defeated the grand prince and his allies. The war,
the horrors of which were increased by repeated raids of the Polovtsi,
seemed to draw out without end or aim, when finally Monomakh convoked a
second congress of the princes, which met in August, 1100, at Uvetitchi,
on Kievan territory. The result of its deliberations was that only a
few towns of Volhinia were left to David, the greater part of the
principality being transferred to Iaroslav, son of Sviatopolk; while the
Rostislavitchi were to remain in the undiminished possession of their
territories.
[Sidenote: [1111-1116 A.D.]]
Thus order was restored for some time, but the direction of affairs
really passed out of the hands of the grand prince into those of
Monomakh. Under his leadership the Russian princes were now united
against the Polovtsi, and there ensued a series of campaigns of which no
clear account has come down to us. The Russians generally had the upper
hand, but for a long time the balance wavered, and the enemy seemed so
dangerous to the princes that, following the example of Sviatopolk, they
entered into matrimonial alliances with him. Thus Monomakh, as well as
the two sons of Sviatoslav, David and Oleg, took Polovtsian wives for
their sons. But the year 1111 witnessed a decisive campaign, in which
Monomakh is again seen at the head of the Russian princes. After crossing
the Dnieper and the Vorskla, the Russians pressed on into the enemy’s
country as far as the Don. Two Polovtsian cities were taken, and one was
reduced to ashes; the Don was crossed, and on March 24th and 26th a great
battle was fought. The Russians were on the Sula, the last tributary of
the Don before reaching the sea of Azov, in a most unfavourable position
and surrounded from all sides by the Polovtsi. But the scales were turned
when the drujinas of David and Monomakh, which had been kept all the time
in the rear, made a terrific onset on the exhausted enemy, who fled in
panic. According to tradition, angels preceded the Russians and smote the
Polovtsi with blindness.
_Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125 A.D.)_
After a reign filled with civil war and misfortune Sviatopolk died (April
16th, 1113), and all eyes turned toward Monomakh. Legally, however, the
throne belonged to his cousin Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, and Monomakh
seemed at first resolved to recognise his superior right. But the Kievans
were determined to accept no one but Monomakh, and an uprising of
theirs, which was directed primarily against the Jews, whom Sviatopolk
had employed for fiscal purposes, but which threatened to assume larger
dimensions, induced him to yield to the universal demand. Thus the
race of Sviatoslav--otherwise called the Olgovitchi--was excluded, and
Monomakh succeeded in bringing a large part of Russia under his house.
During his reign he continued the wars against the Polovtsi, as well
as against the Finns in the north and east, and the Poles in the west.
The steppe was cleared so thoroughly that tradition, with its customary
exaggeration, says that he forced the Polovtsi back into the Caucasus.
His relations with the Byzantine Empire have not yet been sufficiently
cleared up. He himself was the son of a Byzantine princess, and his
daughter Maria was married to Leo, son of the unfortunate emperor
Romanus Diogenes, who was blinded in 1071 and banished to an island.
Leo then made an attempt at revolt against Alexius Comnenus, but was
poisoned in 1116. Vladimir now espoused the cause of Leo’s son Basil
and sent an army to the Danube, which returned without accomplishing
its purpose. According to a later tradition, which arose under the
influence of Moscow, the emperor Alexius Comnenus, in order to put an
end to the devastation of Thrace by the Russian troops, sent to Vladimir
a diadem and other imperial insignia through Neophyte, metropolitan of
Ephesus, who put the diadem on Vladimir’s head and called him czar. But
contemporary accounts tell us nothing of all this, and it is inherently
improbable that Byzantium would bestow upon the Russian grand prince,
who was no longer formidable, a title whose exclusive possession it so
jealously guarded. On the other hand, it is known that in 1122, or six
years after the supposed campaign to Thrace, a granddaughter of Monomakh
was married to a prince of the house of Romanus.
[Sidenote: [1122-1125 A.D.]]
But the greater portion of Monomakh’s military activity fell into the
reigns of his two predecessors. He was in his sixty-first year when he
became grand-prince, and he naturally avoided all fighting as far as
it could be avoided, employing force only when requisite to maintain
his position as overlord of Russia. As far as circumstances permitted,
he was a prince of peace, and a number of most important legislative
measures are attributed to him, especially the laws relating to usury
and to the half-free (_zakupi_). Russia had suffered very severely from
the civil wars and the raids of the Polovtsi, and men of small property
were reduced to extreme poverty. Being unable to maintain themselves on
their wasted lands, they went to live in large numbers on the estates of
the rich, who sought to reduce them to absolute slavery, or else they
borrowed money at usurious rates and soon sank into a servile condition.
To remedy this ruinous state of affairs, Monomakh reduced the rate of
interest from 120 per cent. to 20 per cent., and decreed that one who had
paid one year’s interest according to the old rate, was thereby absolved
from his debt. He also ordered the expulsion of the Jews from the whole
of Russia.[9] But the problem of the _zakupi_ could not be solved in this
summary fashion. According to the regulations adopted they were to be
regarded as free men who had become bound to the soil by contract, but
who retained the right to acquire property and were not subject to the
master’s jurisdiction. A half-free man loses his freedom only when he
attempts to escape from his master. It was also fixed what payments and
services he was to render, and it was made impossible for the lord to
reduce him to a condition of unrestricted serfdom.
Monomakh died in 1125, at the ripe age of seventy-three. He has left us a
curious paper of instructions to his sons, which dates from 1117, and in
which he gives them much sound advice, enforced by examples from his own
life.[c]
_The “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh_
The grand prince begins by saying that his grandfather Iaroslav gave
him the Russian name of Vladimir and the Christian name of Vasili, and
his father and mother that of Monomakh; either because Vladimir was
really through his mother the grandson of the Greek emperor Constantine
Monomachus, or because even in his tenderest youth he displayed
remarkable warlike valour. “As I draw near to the grave,” writes he, “I
give thanks to the Most High for the increase of my days. His hand has
led me to a venerable age. And you, my beloved children and whosoever
reads this writing, observe the rules set forth in it. When your heart
does not approve them, do not condemn my intentions, but only say: The
old man’s mind was already weakened.” Having described in their chief
features, and for the greater part in the words of the Psalmist, the
beauty of the works and the goodness of the Creator, Vladimir continues:
“O my children! give praise to God and love also mankind. Neither
fasting, nor solitude, nor monastic life shall save you, but good deeds.
Forget not the poor, feed them; and remember that every possession is
God’s, and only confided to you for a time. Do not hide your riches in
the bowels of the earth: this is against the law of Christianity. Be
fathers to orphans; judge the widows yourselves: do not let the strong
destroy the weak. Do not slay either the righteous or the guilty: the
life and soul of the Christian are sacred. Do not call upon the name of
God in vain; ratify your oath by kissing the cross, and do not transgress
it. My brothers said to me: Let us drive out the sons of Rostislav
and take their possessions, otherwise thou art no ally of ours! But
I answered: I cannot forget that I kissed the cross. I turned to the
Psalter and read with compunction: ‘Why art thou so vexed, O my soul? O
put thy trust in God, for I will yet thank him. Fret not thyself because
of the ungodly: neither be thou envious against the evil doers.’ Do not
forsake the sick and do not fear to look upon the dead: for we shall
all die; receive the blessing of the clergy lovingly; do not withdraw
yourselves from them; do good unto them, for they shall pray to the Most
High for you.
“Do not have any pride either in your mind or heart, and think: we are
but mortal; to-day we live, to-morrow we are in the grave. Fear every
lie, drunkenness and fornication, equally pernicious for the body and
the soul. Esteem old people as fathers, love the young as brothers. In
your household see carefully to everything yourselves, do not depend
either on your pages or bailiffs, that your guests may not blame either
your house or your dinner. Be active in war, serve as an example to
your captains--it is no time then to think of feasting and luxury. When
you have set the night watch, take your rest. Man perishes suddenly,
therefore do not lay aside your arms where you may meet danger; and
get to horse early. When you travel in your dominions, do not let the
princely pages be a cause of offence to the inhabitants, but wherever you
stop give your host food and drink. Above all, respect your guests and do
them honour, both the distinguished and the supplicants, both merchant
and ambassador; if you cannot give them presents, at any rate regale
them with food and drink, for guests spread good and evil reports of us
in foreign lands. Greet every man when he passes by. Love your wives,
but do not let them have an authority over you. Everything good that you
learn, you must remember; what you do not know, learn. My father, sitting
at home, spoke five languages, for which those of other lands praised
him. Idleness is the mother of vices; beware of it. A man should ever be
occupied; when you are on the road, on horseback, without occupation,
instead of indulging in idle thoughts repeat prayers by heart--or the
shortest, but best prayer of all, ‘Lord have mercy!’ Never sleep without
bowing yourself down to the earth; and if you feel unwell, bow down to
the earth three times. Let not the sun find you in your bed! Go early
to church to render morning praise to God: so did my father; so did all
good men. When the sun shone on them, they praised God joyfully and said:
‘Lighten mine eyes, Christ God, and give me Thy beauteous light.’ Then
take counsel with the droujina, or judge the people, or go to the chase;
and at midday sleep, for God has ordained that not only man but also the
beasts and birds should rest at midday.
“Thus lived your father. I myself did all that could be ordered to a
page; at the chase and at war, day and night, in the heat of summer and
the cold of winter I knew no rest. I did not put my trust in burgomasters
or heralds, I did not let the strong give offence to the poor and widows,
I myself supervised the church and the divine service, the domestic
organisation, the stables, the chase, the hawks and the falcons.”
Enumerating his military exploits, Vladimir thus writes: “My campaigns
were in all eighty-three; the other smaller ones I do not remember. I
concluded nineteen treaties of peace with the Polovtsi, took prisoners
more than a hundred of their chief princes and let them go free, and I
had more than two hundred put to death and drowned in the rivers. Who has
travelled faster than I? Starting early from Tchernigov, I was at Kiev
with my parents before vespers. We loved the chase, and often trapped and
caught beasts with your grandfather. How many times have I fallen from my
horse! Twice I broke my head, injured my arms and legs, without caring
for my life in youth or sparing my head. But the Lord preserved me. And
you, my children, fear neither death nor combats, nor wild beasts, but
show yourselves men in every circumstance sent from God. If providence
decrees that a man shall die, neither his father nor his brothers can
save him. God’s protection is man’s hope.”
If it had not been for this wisely written testament, we should not have
known all the beauty of Vladimir’s soul; he did not lay waste other
states, but was the glory, the defender, the consolation of his own, and
none of the Russian princes has a greater right to the love of posterity,
for he served his country jealously and virtuously. If once in his life
Monomakh did not hesitate to infringe the law of nations and perfidiously
slay the Polovtsian princes, we can but apply to him the words of Cicero,
“The age excuses the man.” Regarding the Polovtsi as the enemies of
Christianity (they had burned the churches), the Russians thought that
the destruction of them--no matter in what manner--was a work pleasing to
God.[d]
_The Fall of Kiev and the Rise of Suzdal_
[Sidenote: [1132 A.D.]]
In the forty-four years that followed the death of Vladimir Monomakh, the
over-lordship passed eighteen times from one hand to another, the average
duration of governments being only two years and a half, and the dignity
attaching to the grand princedom declined in rapid progression until it
sank to a complete nullity. With this constant change of rulers, the
devastation and barbarisation of south Russia proceeded apace, so that it
soon ceased to be the centre of political life. A rapid review of these
evil years will suffice for an understanding of the causes that brought
about this retrogression.
We have seen that Vladimir Monomakh reached the throne of the grand
princedom in violation of the superior right of the Olgovitchi. He
succeeded in bringing the greater part of Russia under his sons.
Mstislav, the eldest, held Kiev and southern Russia, while his sons were
in Novgorod, Kursk and Smolensk; Iaropolk held Pereiaslavl; Viatcheslav,
Tourov; Iuri, Suzdal; and Andrew, Vladimir in Volhinia. On the other
hand, the princes of Polotsk were independent; the descendants of
Rostislav ruled in Red Russia or Galicia; and the descendants of Oleg,
in Tchernigov, Murom, Riazan, erstwhile the land of the Viatitchi and
Radimitchi, and in the extreme southeast, Tmoutorakan. With union among
the descendants of Monomakh and with strong grand princes at Kiev, south
Russia might have been able to maintain its ascendancy notwithstanding
its unfavourable proximity to the steppe; but these conditions did not
exist. Monomakh’s first successor, Mstislav, did, indeed, maintain his
position, and even annexed Polotsk, whose princes fled to Greece. But he
soon died (1132), and his successor, the brave but wavering Iaropolk,
sowed the seeds of discord in his family by bestowing Pereiaslavl upon
the eldest son of Mstislav and naming him his successor. Therewith
he offended his own younger brothers, one of whom, Iuri Dolgoruki
(Longhand), sought to maintain his right by force. The prince of
Pereiaslavl found support among the Olgovitchi, who were delighted at
the sight of quarrels among the descendants of Monomakh. One of the
Olgovitchi, Vsevolod by name, raised himself to the grand princedom by
utilising these quarrels (1139-1146). But immediately after his death
his brother was overthrown, and Iziaslav, son of Mstislav, became grand
prince (1146-1154). Twice he was expelled by Iuri Dolgoruki, and only
maintained himself by making one of his uncles the nominal ruler.
[Sidenote: [1146-1157 A.D.]]
[Illustration: A MORDIRNE WOMAN (ERGIAN TRIBE)]
After his death the turbulence and confusion increased still further. His
brother Rostislav of Smolensk was expelled after one week’s reign by the
prince of Tchernigov, who was expelled in his turn by Iuri Dolgoruki.
The latter might have shared the same fate, for a confederation of the
princes of Smolensk, Tchernigov, and Volhinia had already been formed
against him, but for his timely death (1157). One of the confederates
ruled for eight months, and then he had to make room for his successor,
who ruled four months. In the eighty-three years that elapsed between
the death of Iuri and the capture of Kiev by the Mongols, the government
changed hands thirty times. How much the importance of Kiev and the
dignity of the grand princedom had declined at this period, we can
estimate from the refusal of Andrew of Suzdal, son of Iuri Dolgoruki,
to take the throne, though he came next in the line of succession.
He rightly comprehended that the future belonged to the Russian
north, rather than to the south, and it was his constant endeavour to
consolidate his power in that quarter; and when one of those powerless
grand princes, Mstislav Iziaslavitch, attempted to strengthen himself by
forming an alliance with Novgorod, Andrew brought about a combination of
eleven princes against him. After a three days’ siege Kiev was taken by
assault and plundered for two days (March, 1169), and Andrew’s brother
Gleb was then installed as grand prince of Kiev. The decay of the south
is attributable chiefly to the following causes:
(1) Its geographical position exposed it to the constant inroads of
the nomads of the steppe. This evil, it is true, existed from remotest
times, but its seriousness was increased by the action of the Russian
princes themselves, who employed the nomads in their civil wars. Many of
these nomads, Torks, Berendians, and Petchenegs, settled on the Ros and
Dnieper, meddled in Russian affairs, and contributed to the barbarising
of the country. (2) Every new grand-prince brought with him into Kiev
a new following from his own principality. These foreign elements
contributed ever anew to the unsettling of existing conditions, and
prevented the growth of a landed aristocracy that had its roots in the
soil, and of a burgher class. The establishment of a political tradition
thus became impossible. (3) The trade with Greece had greatly declined
owing to the increasing dangers of the journey to the sea, and more than
once the princes were obliged to defend caravans to and from Byzantium
with their entire army.
[Sidenote: [1157-1175 A.D.]]
But while the south was decaying, a new centre was forming in the
north that was destined to gather around itself the whole of Russia,
the principality of Suzdal-Rostov. The city of Rostov, situated in the
country of the Finnish Merians, was one of the oldest in Russia, and it
is reported that Rurik had bestowed it on one of his warriors. Suzdal
also arose at an early date, at the latest toward the end of the ninth
century. The early history of the region is not known to us, but we know
that Iaroslav founded the city of Iaroslavl, that it was temporarily
united to Novgorod, and that after the death of Sviatoslav II (1076)
it was merged in the principality of Pereiaslavl. Vladimir Monomakh
founded Vladimir on the Kliasma, a tributary of the Oka, and built a
church at Rostov. The congress of Lubetz assigned the entire territory to
Monomakh’s sons, and Iuri Dolgoruki became the first independent prince
of Rostov. Although this prince always looked to the south, yet the
colonisation of the north made rapid progress during his reign. We know
that three cities were founded by him, and the chronicle also attributes
to him the foundation of Moscow in 1147. Suzdal was his capital. When he
became grand-prince of Kiev he bestowed this whole country upon his son
Vassilko, while he gave Vishgorod, to the north of Kiev, to his eldest
son Andrew.
But the latter had no liking for the south, and fled from Vishgorod with
a miracle-working image of the Virgin, which he deposited in a church
that he built at a place where he had a vision and which he called
Bogolubovo (God’s love). After the death of his father, in 1157, Rostov
and Suzdal refused to obey his younger brothers and called in Andrew,
who was also joined by those of his father’s followers who had fled
from Kiev. But it is most characteristic of the man and his far-sighted
policy that he made no claims to the throne of Kiev, nor did he establish
himself at Rostov or Suzdal but stayed at Vladimir, where there were no
old families nor refractory citizens to deal with. His brothers, his
nephews, the boyars of his father, he expelled from his dominions and
made himself sole ruler. In 1169 he gave Kiev to his brother Gleb, but he
took to himself the title of grand prince. To become the virtual master
of the whole of Russia he only needed to subject Novgorod, and though the
combination of princes that he formed against it was routed before its
gates, yet he ultimately succeeded, by cutting off its supply of corn, in
compelling it to acquiesce in his supremacy and to accept the prince that
he chose for it.
This first would-be autocrat of Russia also comprehended the importance
of making the clergy subservient to his will. He tried to make his
capital Vladimir independent of Kiev in church affairs by establishing
in it a metropolitan, and though he failed in his object, owing to the
determined refusal of the patriarch of Constantinople, yet he succeeded
in obtaining the important concession that in future the Russian
metropolitan was to be appointed only with the assent of the grand prince.
[Sidenote: [1205-1221 A.D.]]
His despotic and cruel rule finally made him hated by his nobles, and he
was assassinated on June 29th, 1175, at Bogolubovo. After a period of
confusion his second brother, Vsevolod, became grand prince. During this
reign the influence of Suzdal was still further increased, and the entire
north, and even the Olgovitchi of Tchernigov, recognised his supremacy.
In the west and south, however, Roman Mstislavitch of Volhinia, who
conquered Galicia and ruled temporarily at Kiev, offered a successful
resistance. But after the death of the latter in battle with the Poles
in 1205, Vsevolod conquered Riazan, and even deprived the Olgovitchi
of Tchernigov, giving them Kiev in exchange. This prince, like his
predecessor, attained his object by diplomacy rather than by the sword,
and at his death in 1212 he was the most powerful prince in Russia.
His death was followed by a civil war between his two sons Constantine
and Iuri. The latter, though the younger, was nominated by Vsevolod
as his successor, but in 1217 he was beaten by Constantine and his
allies--Novgorod amongst them--and compelled to resign the throne.
But Constantine died in 1218 and Iuri reigned undisturbed till 1237.
He fought with success against the Volga Bulgarians, and founded
Nijni-Novgorod (1221). But his power never became as great as had been
that of his father, and he exerted no influence in southern Russia, which
was devastated by Petchenegs from the steppe and by Poles and Hungarians
from the west. All south Russia now lay exhausted before the impending
irruption of the Tatars.[c]
FOOTNOTES
[9] [They were during the Middle Ages the representatives of the
money-power throughout Europe--a foreign element in the “natural economy”
of that time. Hence the universal hatred against them.]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]