Category Archives: HIST253-Archive

Power Shifts in Post- Kievan Rus’

Posted on by

In post- Kievan Rus’, the power dynamics shifted significantly because of the changing sources of the power. There were two specific ways that the power in the area shifted: through dispersing power from the prince to other officials in the area, and to give the elite citizens more power. The first type describes a system where officials had to be elected to power, but once in office had authority to limit the prince’s power and to govern the area (mainly found in the northwestern region). The second type mainly took place in the southwest and consisted of the princes power being reduced once again, but this time the authority went to the elite who only placed people in power who would aid their personal goals. Of course, many places saw no change, but in general this era marks a shift from entirely princely rule to a, somewhat, more open system.

The Start of Moscow’s Rise

Posted on by

The documents ascertaining to different regions of Rus’ in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries depict rather well how power was viewed and exacted.  The most important thing to note is since the different regions of Rus’ were ruled differently, the expansion eastward and away from Kiev is logical.

Firstly, we can tell how the mentality of the Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast parts of the Rus’ were different in the types of the documents given.  The document for Northwest Rus’ is a treaty between boyars and the prince.  In this document, it lays out ground rules for the prince to abide by.  The aristocrats in Novgorod clearly write in a tone of authority, but in the document itself they state more or less that power is to be shared between the people of Novgorod (the aristocrats) and the prince.

The document for the Southwestern Rus’ is an extraction from a chronicle, which tells a tale of boyars conspiring against the prince in this region.  When their first conspiracy plan is foiled, many boyars flee to Hungary, convince the king of Hungary to overtake Prince Danilo’s lands, and eventually the boyars end up making princely decisions over the land without the knowledge or permission of Prince Danilo.  Of course, as this document is a chronicle, it carries a religious tone, especially when Prince Danilo finds out about how his Boyar’s betray him, but acts meekly in seeking favor from God, and how he “[prays] to God for his native land, which [is] held by these godless [boyars] and ruled by them” (KM, pg. 87).  Here we can see that the prince is merely a figurehead with no authority over his lands, while the aristocracy holds any real power.

The third document, coming from Moscow, is Prince Dmitrii Donskoi’s will and testament.  This document are the prince’s own words, and were recorded in witness by members of the Church and aristocracy.  However, these witnesses are mentioned penultimately, and Prince Dmitrii is clearly in control over his lands and its profits.  In this document, there are two important aspects to note about how he divvies up his property.  Firstly, he gives his wife shares of property from each of the shares of his sons, and gives her authority over her sons about how in any circumstances that are not outlined in the will, she can change each son’s share (though this is still outlined rather carefully in the will how she is supposed to distribute the land).  He also states several times throughout the document how his sons must obey the princess, or they lose his blessing, and therefore, their shares of his lands and property.  Secondly, Prince Dmitrii divides the land unevenly.  He gives the largest share of inheritance and his princeship to his eldest son, and the following sons receive less than their older brother(s).  In the lands he gives each of his sons, he mentions how they are to inherit the lands that his father had obtained, meaning before Prince Dmitrii’s rule, Moscow had greatly expanded.

As each Moscow heir receives an uneven amount of inheritance, this exhibits how eventually over time, Moscow heirs would inherit close to nothing.  However, since there is evidence of a previous Moscow expansion, what this does in turn is encourage the Muscovite royalty to further expand, making there more lands to inherit.  What this leads to is a novel expansionist attitude in Muscovite princes that is not seen in the other regions of Rus’.

With that said, this is exactly how true power began to gravitate toward Moscow:

  1. In the western parts of the Rus’, the princes lost most if not all of their princely power in government, while in Moscow, the rule of the prince was absolute.
  2. Moscow was beginning to express a need to expand their lands.  In the expansion of their lands, it would in turn result in Rus’ expanding in general.

The Rise of the Individual States in Rus’

Posted on by

As Kievan Rus’ became less and less centralized, individual principalities rose in its place as the chief governing bodies in the land.  These were much more independent of one another, and largely stayed more personal.  While this movement was occurring on the own accord of the princes, the pace was changed drastically as the hordes of Mongols began to go West.  While making it difficult for princes to stay sovereign, a large proportion of inhabitant of Rus’ felt the inclusion of Rus’ into the Mongol Yoke certainly had some benefits.

One of the greater success stories of the decentralization was Novgorod.  Novgorod, even after the Mongols had entered the region, became even more prosperous and powerful.  This is in large part due to the creation of a number of political institutions that was controlled by a “merchant republic”.  One of the larger treaties between the city of Novgorod and the local princes was the First Treaty of Novgorod with Tver’ Grand Prince Iaroslav Iaroslavich.  This document provided the ground work for the city and prince’s relationship.  Many of the statutes within the document inhibit Iaroslav from a number of powers a prince would typically have.  The ability of Novgorod to create such a document, in which Iaroslav agreed too exemplifies how beneficial the decentralization of the Kievan Rus’ region was larger cities and the merchants in them.

Similarly, in Southwest Rus’ the princes were also losing power, as power was at an even smaller level.  Boyars held the most power within their lands, thus the state was losing even more control.  In the Extracts from the Galician-Volhyniam Chronicle, in 1231, a boyar set out against a prince with only 18 men.  However, as he marched, more and more individuals joined his cause.  This shows that boyars had a large proportion of the popular support of the lower class individuals in the region.

Moscow was yet another region that was becoming decentralized.  Within The Second Testament of Moscow Grand Prince Dmitrii Domskoi, he separates Moscow between his four sons.  Dmitrii Domskoi goes into incredible detail on what each prince should recieve, such as Prince Vasilli receiving “the beekeepers in the city districts, and the horse and the falconers and the huntsmen” (88).  This separation of a single city/ region into four separate areas adds to the decentralization of the Kievan Rus’ state.

Conflicting Ideas in Christianization of Rus

Posted on by

The author’s opinion of Christianity and Paganism is made clear in the first paragraph of The Christianization of Rus’ According to the Primary Chronicle, in which pagan idols are referred to as “devils” and Russia pre-Christianization was a land “defiled with blood”. As Vladimir is visited by representatives of different faiths, it is again beaten into the reader that Christianity is the only reasonable choice.

Not only do followers of Islam not drink wine, but most of what they say is “false” and crude. The validity of the Jewish people as the chosen ones of God is similarly looked down upon because God had dispersed them, his favorite people, to foreign lands as punishment long ago. Later, when Vladimir sends emissaries to investigate these religions further, nothing is said about the Bulgarians’ Islamic practices other than that they are “disgraceful” while there is a detailed description of the lavishness and beauty of the Greek Orthodox worship.

After being told of the glory of the Greeks’ practices, a year passes and then Vladimir marches an armed force against a Greek city. I find his actions to be confusing, as he had just been told of the emissaries’ respect and admiration for the Greeks. Would he not want to set out in purpose of creating good relations with these people, as opposed to sacking their city? This could be an example of Vladimir’s many conflicting motives for choosing a religion for Rus – the primary being to make his land and his own reign stronger, as opposed to his desire to worship God.

I found The Life of St. Theodosius to depart from a few of what I consider to be the primary teachings of Christianity, in particular the Ten Commandments. A primary theme throughout the text is Feodosii’s refusal to obey his parents. Obedience and respect of one’s parents is generally very important to Christianity (i.e. “Honor your father and mother”) but, in this case, Feodosii is a saintly figure because he refuses to do as he is told. For example, he would rather wear shabby clothing and read divine teachings instead of dressing nicely and playing with other children. Feodosii disobeys his mother and runs away from home to become closer to God. His obedience and adherence to God’s call comes above all else. This is illustrated most obviously when God speaks to him and says, “Whosoever hath not forsaken his father and mother and followed after me is not worthy of me…”

In the introduction to this text, it is clarified that this particular view of religion is not unique to Rus. If so, what region or group of people are these values unique to? Or did everyone pick and choose the aspects they liked about St. Theodosius and ignore others, such as his self-abuse? Can any religion really be valid or credible if its current form is the result of a compilation of conflicting ideals and teachings?

Birchbark scrips and Russian Graffiti.

Posted on by

Once again thanks to the wonders of archaeology, we are able to recover artifacts such as birch bark writings and graffiti embedded into the deep layers of walls in several cathedrals in Russia. There are approximately 700 different birch bark writings that have been found around modern day Russia. Embedded deep in many meters of damp soil these scripts can be extracted. The dampness is responsible for the preservation of the writings. (p-71) Although we are able to clearly see characters inscribed in the birchbark, they are very tricky to read as they come in small fractions of a whole. (p-71) From these various writings that can be anything from a simple business note or a doodle to an intimate letter we can take away how they ate, what the currency was, and what they wore. (birchbark script n-384, p-72)

The other form of writings recovered from ancient Russia, graffiti, can be found on the deep layers of cathedral walls. These writings were very brief and most of the time the authors name is rarely revealed. Likewise, dates that can not be unveiled can be dated by a reference to a god, like in the case of #10 inscription.  (p-72) On the surface of the walls, the naked eye could only see a normal wall, however during restoration periods the graffiti was uncovered.

Discussion questions post reading…

1.) What type of people would be writing these birchbark scripts? For instance, businessmen and bureaucrats were most likely able to write, but who were responsible these random doodles? What percentage of the population could read and write? My assumption is that birch bark wasn’t very hard to come by, so was everybody writing?

2.) How well do the stories in the chronicle line up with the grafiti in the cathedrals? why is this so critical to what we know about Russian history.

The Iroslav Statutes

Posted on by

In addition Pravda Russkaia law code, the Iroslav Statutes were also written at approximately the same time period in the 11th century. The Iroslav Statues, however, focus more on offences dealing with social issues, particularly those that involve women in some fashion.  These laws thus help determine how prominent a role in society gender played was well as sexual behavior among men and women, as well as societies social values.

With a vast majority of these statutes dealing with women, a number of conclusion can be drawn about their place in society.  It can immediately be determined that women of no power, i.e. peasants and slaves, were not deemed very valuable to the general populace.  Statute 3 states that in a boyar’s wife is raped, then the offender must pay 5 grivnas.  If the woman is not related to a boyar, then the punishment is only 1 grivna.  This shows how little women were valued, as even a woman of stature had a meager fine of 5 grivnas.  However, statute 4 states that a boyar must pay a massive 300 grivnas for “throwing out his wife” (50).  Comparatively, if a peasant man does the same crime, he must only pay 1 grivna.

Religion also played a sizable role in the creation of these statutes.  The largest statute, by far, is that describing the reasons in which a man may divorce his wife (but not a wife from her husband).  These 6 causes are heavily influenced by Christianity including the wife “goes to the pagan dances either in the day or at night” (53).  Another statute that in driven by religion is statute 48, which states priests, nuns, and monks may not be publicly intoxicated.

There are a number of interesting similarities and differences between the Iroslav Statutes and the Pravda Russkaia.  One similarity is that of the specific mentioning of arson, which carries a rather substantial fine in both documents.  Another similarity is that of the usage of almost exclusively fines for the reparations of the crimes.  Both of these also utilize the grivna currency.  One interesting difference with the fines however, is that the Iroslav explicitly states that a portion of the fine is to be paid to the metropolitan.  This state fine is exclusive to the Iroslav Statutes, as it is not stated whether all, some, or no amount of money is to be paid to the state within the Pravda Russkaia.

The Iaroslav Statutes: an Expansion on the Law

Posted on by

While some articles from The Statute of Grand Prince Iaroslav carries over from the Pravdaya Russkaya (such as the prohibition of cutting another’s beard, stealing, and arson), there are several notable differences between the two sets of law. On the part of the Iaroslav Statutes, there is quite the inclusion of new laws. These new statutes predominantly fall under the relations between the men and women of the Rus’, with conspicuous ties to the Bible. In the first article, Iaroslav himself even notes he and his officials looked over the Greek Nomocanon in the making of these laws (KM, pg. 50).

Throughout the document, there are nearly identical parallels to verses in the Bible.  I personally noted fifteen cases, but there are most likely more.  One of the strongest examples of the parallels between the statutes and and the Bible would be Statute 22, which states:

If someone copulates with an animal, [he is to pay] the Metropolitan 12 grivnas, and [execute] penance and punishment according to the law. (KM, pg. 51)

The Bible has quite the similar law, and is even noted twice in the same book. In the book of Leviticus, it states the following about fornication with animals:

Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (Leviticus 18:23, NKJV)

If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:15-16, NKJV)

It is important to note here that while the Bible exacts death as the punishment for bestiality, the Rus’ law only specifically holds a fine of twelve grivnas, then mandates the individual (gender not specified) also must seek penance and follow the law accordingly, here presumably meaning the ecclesiastical law.  While a fine of twelve grivnas is not a lenient fine, it is most certainly not one of the more severe fines found in the Iaroslav Statutes.  Furthermore, a fine of any amount is more lenient than the punishment called for in Leviticus, being the death of the animal in question and the human offender.

Additionally, I’d like to note that most of the parallels I found are most commonly found in the book of Leviticus, and more specifically in chapters 18 and 20.  The main purpose for the book of Leviticus in the Bible was to establish laws for man to abide by, not only pertaining to sexual relationships, but also to acceptable and prohibited foods, behaviors of priests, the appropriations of offerings, and hygiene.

Chances are that during the rule of Prince Iaroslav, as a practicing Christian, he observed the sins of the people he ruled over, and along with the influence of the church, mandated new laws that were in accordance to the laws set out in the Bible.  The main reasons for doing so are the prince’s salvation of his people, an attempt to convert more people of the Rus’ to Orthodoxy, and to provide a broader, generalized law to his people. In making the general punishments for the crimes mentioned a fine paid to the Metropolitan, he differs from Biblical mandate in order to modernize these laws, adapt them for Rus’ society, and make it easier for people to convert over to Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, Prince Iaroslav divides his judicial power to the Metropolitan and to the Church, which was an advancement of the Rus’ government.  More laws are specified for the protection of women, and how these laws are written give insight to the social status of all people in the Rus’.  A handful of mandates are written to determine punishment for rape, however, unlike laws written today, the Iaroslav Statutes do not provide a definition for rape, which leaves one to question what constituted rape in Rus’ society at this time.

In conclusion, Prince Iaroslav progressively advanced Rus’ law, government, and society in the creation of these statutes.  In the creation of these statutes, he ties the Rus’ to the Orthodox Church by writing biblical laws, which would carry strength of the Orthodox Church further into Russia’s future.

Women According to the Law

Posted on by

The readings in Kaiser and Marker pages 49-59 solidify the social presence of the church in Kievan Rus’ society; specifically in the way that women were treated. The most evident is the definitive distinction between “good” and “evil” women. Good women were characterized by their attentiveness to the Christian faith and their strict adherence to social principles; Evil women were those who strayed from the church and asserted their social independence. Even the way that these laws are writhed prove how male- centric the society was. Every law is geared towards the man, and in situations where the male is punished the prince offers punishment whereas where the female is punished she is punished by her husband (page 52, law 37). On the other hand, there certainly are some surprising laws that protect the women and her personal choice. For example, if a girl wishes to marry (or wishes not to marry) but her parents make her do the opposite of her wishes and she causes harm to herself her parents must accept responsibility. It is unclear on whether they simply accept responsibility or must allow her to assert her own wishes, but this still provides some insight into the value of the woman’s choice.  However, there is no way to ensure that these laws were held up in society or just looked at as if the women who enacted these laws were considered “evil” women who were too independent from a male’s rule. In addition, many laws that would appear to be protecting women were simply created to protect their societal role- their ability to care for children (and not respecting their own lives).

Economics in Kievan Russia

Posted on by

Both trade and agriculture were vital parts of the economy of Kievan Rus. We know this based off of materials found in archaeological excavations as well as evidence in written works, such as chronologies and law documents.

Plow agriculture was the basis of the economy from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries in Kievan Rus. We know that this form of agriculture has ancient roots in Southern Rus because  of the depiction of a light plow on a coin from second century BC. Also, excavations produced iron shares, plow blades, and moldboards (all used in plow agriculture) dated between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. We even know the Russian light plow originated in the North due to a sixteenth-century miniature from the life of St. Sergei, in which a light plow is depicted, as well as in juridicial materials which describe plowshares being stolen from peasants in the Iur’ev district. Further evidence of the centrality of agriculture is seen in the heavy penalties for moving field boundaries, which are outlined in the Russian Justice, along with references to the “plough” as a basic unit in tributes and taxes.

Trade was also the basis of the Kievan economy, as evidenced by Viking activity, and amber was a widely-traded item, which we know from  archaeological digs in Novgorod. These Novgorod excavations also indicate that amber came only from the Dnieper region in the tenth through early thirteenth centuries, as do coincidences between graphs of amber with graphs of other objects which reached Novgorod through the Dneiper River trade route. The high value of amber is seen in the Teutonic Order’s establishment of an “amber monopoly” of sorts, in which they declared the exclusive right to amber income and trade. In an order from one of these new rulers, any person caught collecting amber without permission was ordered to be executed. As further evidence of Kievan trade, a Byzantine narrative written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus describes the Kievan princes’ annual collection of tribute down the Dnieper toward the Black Sea and Constantinople, which formed the foundation of future trade routes.

 

The Economy in Kiev

Posted on by

In the latest section of readings we learn that there were two primary staples of the economy throughout the 10th-13th century in Russia. One being the practice of agriculture, the second being trade. Archaeology plays a key role in our understanding of the subject. For instance, we learn about basic tools such as plows used and also the great desire for amber.

Because of Russia’s vast size and land diversity, farming regions were greatly divided. The northern plains were much harsher to grow crops on but on the contrary the southern lands in the right season could be very plentiful. From coins dug up in modern day exhibitions, carved out illustrations display the use of light plows for peasants and live-stock used to soil and clear the lands to be farmed on in more southern regions. While the North used slash and burn techniques to clear out dense forests.

The trade economy was mostly dominated by Russian bureaucrats and land owners, as Novgorod became the central hub of trade. Vikings played a significant role as they introduced amber to this society. The amber came unfinished and then was turned into products such as jewels, crosses and beads. We know this because these items were all found by archaeologists. Novgorod, or “New Town” was primarily built with wood, as it preserved well in the humid forest and lake. By the late 12th century and into the beginning of the 13th, trade routes to the Baltic sea were temporarily deemed threatening as outside Prussian forces were encroaching on Novgorod so amber was scarce. However, peace resumed and the amber supply regained stability.

The Russian economy was supported by trade and agriculture. In my personal opinion agriculture was more important because although the lands were not favorable to farm on it made more sense to be self sustainable than to rely on others for trade.