A history of Russia

them from Denmark and others from Sweden. Their extremely complex and unverified schemes serve little purpose, unless one is to assume that the Rus could be nothing but Scandinavians. For example, Vernadsky in his reconstruction of early Russian history conveyed one group of Normans to the shores of the Black Sea as early as A.D. 740. Vernadsky's reasoning unfortunately is highly speculative and generally not at all convincing. By contrast, recently many scholars have considered the Normans as merely one element in the composition of the Rus linked fundamentally to southern Russia and its inhabitants.

The Primary Chronicle itself, a central source for the Norman theory, has been thoroughly analyzed and criticized by Shakhmatov and other specialists. This criticism threw new light on the obvious inadequacies of its narrative and revealed further failings in it. The suspiciously peaceful establishment of Riurik and his brothers in northern Russia was related to similar Anglo-Saxon and other stories, in particular to a passage in Widukind's Res gestae saxonicae, to indicate, in the opinion of some scholars, the mythical character of the entire 'invitation of the Varangians.' Oleg's capture of Kiev in the name of Riurik's son Igor in A.D. 882, the starting point of Kievan history according to the Chronicle, also raised many issues. In particular it was noted that, due to considerations of age, Igor could hardly have been Riurik's son, and that no Kievan sources anterior to the Primary Chronicle, that is, until the early twelfth century, knew of Riurik, tracing instead the ancestry of Kievan princes only to Igor. Moreover, the Chronicle as a whole is no longer regarded as a naive factual narrative, but rather as a work written from a distinct point of view and possibly for definite dynastic purposes, such as providing desirable personal or territorial connections for the Kievan ruling family. On the other hand, the proponents of the Norman theory argue plausibly that the Chronicle remains our best source concerning the origin of the Russian state, and that its story, although incorrect in many details, does on the whole faithfully reflect real events.

To sum up, the Norman theory can no longer be held in anything like its original scope. Most significantly, there is no reason to assert a fundamental Scandinavian influence on Kievan culture. But the supporters of the theory stand on a much firmer ground when they rely on archaeological, philological, and other evidence to substantiate the presence of the Normans in Russia in the ninth century. In particular the names of the first princes, to and excluding Sviatoslav, as well as the names of many of their followers in the treaties with Byzantium, make the majority of scholars today consider the first Russian dynasty and its immediate retinue as Scandinavian. Yet, even if we accept this

view, it remains dangerous to postulate grand Norman designs for eastern Europe, or to interpret the role of the vikings on the Russian plain by analogy with their much better known activities in Normandy or in Sicily. A historian can go beyond his evidence only at his own peril.

In any case, whether through internal evolution, outside intervention, or some peculiar combination of the two, the Kievan state did arise in the Dnieper area toward the end of the ninth century.

I V

KIEVAN RUSSIA: A POLITICAL OUTLINE

In that city, in the city of Kiev…

THE FIRST LINE OF AN EPIC POEM

KIEVAN political history can be conveniently divided into three periods. The first starts with Oleg's semi- legendary occupation of the city on the Dnieper in 882 and continues until 972 or 980. During that initial century of Kievan history, Kievan princes brought the different East Slavic tribes under their sway, exploiting successfully the position of Kiev on the famous road 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' - that is, from the Scandinavian, Baltic, and Russian north of Europe to Constantinople - as well as other connections with the inhabitants both of the forest and the steppe, and building up their domain into a major European state. At the end of the century Prince Sviatoslav even engaged in a series of far-reaching campaigns and conquests, defeated a variety of enemies, and threatened the status quo in the Balkans and the Byzantine Empire itself.

The failure of Sviatoslav's more ambitious plans as well as a gradual consolidation of the Kievan state in European Russia marks the transition to the next period of Kievan history, when Kievan Russia attained in most respects its greatest development, prosperity, stability, and success. This second period was occupied almost entirely by the reigns of two remarkable princes, Saint Vladimir and Iaroslav the Wise, and it ended with the death of the latter in 1054. While the Kievan rulers from Oleg through Sviatoslav established Kievan Russia as an important state, it was early in the time of Vladimir that a new element of enormous significance entered the life and culture of Kiev: Christianity. The new Christian civilization of Kievan Russia produced impressive results as early as the first half of the eleventh century, adding literary and artistic attainment to the political power and high economic development characteristic of the age.

The third and last period of Kievan history, that of the decline and fall, is the most difficult one to define chronologically. It may be said to begin with the passing of Iaroslav the Wise in 1054, but there is no consensus about the point at which foreign invasions, civil wars, and the general diminution in the significance of Kiev brought the Kievan era of Russian history to a close. Vladimir Monomakh, who reigned from 1113 to 1125, has often been considered the last effective Kievan ruler, and the same has been said of his son, Mstislav, who reigned from 1125 to 1132. Other

historians indicate as the terminal point, for example, the capture and the sacking of Kiev in 1169 by Prince Andrew Bogoliubskii of Suzdal and his decision to remain in the northeast rather than move to the city on the Dnieper. As the ultimate date of Kievan history, 1240 also has a certain claim: in that year Kiev, already a shadow of its former self in importance, was thoroughly destroyed by the Mongols, who established their dominion over conquered Russia.

The Rise of the Kievan State

Oleg, the first historical ruler of Kiev, remains in most respects an obscure figure. According to the Primary Chronicle he was a Varangian, a relative of Igor, who occupied Kiev in 882 and died in 913. Assisted by his retainers, the druzhina, Oleg spread his rule from the territory of the Poliane to the areas of several neighboring East Slavic tribes. Some record of a subsequent bitter opposition of the Drevliane to this expansion has come down to our time; certain other tribes, it would seem, submitted with less struggle. Tribute became the main mark and form of their allegiance to Kiev. Still other tribes might have acted simply as associates of Oleg and his successor Igor in their various enterprises, without recognizing the supreme authority of Kiev. Toward the end of his life Oleg had gathered a sufficient force to undertake in 907 a successful campaign against Byzantium. Russian chronicles exaggerate Oleg's success and tell, among other things, the story of how he nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. Byzantine sources are strangely silent on the subject of Oleg's campaign. Yet some Russian victories seem probable, for in 911 Oleg obtained from Byzantium an extremely advantageous trade treaty.

Oleg's successor, Prince Igor, ruled Kievan Russia from 913 until his death in 945. Our knowledge of him comes from Greek and Latin, in addition to Russian, sources, and he stands out, by contrast with the semi- legendary Oleg, as a fully historical person. Igor had to fight the Drevliane as well as to maintain and spread Kievan authority in other East Slavic lands. That authority remained rather precarious, so that each new prince was forced to repeat in large part the work of his predecessor. In 941 Igor engaged in a major campaign against Constantinople and devastated its suburbs, but his fleet suffered defeat by the Byzantine navy which used the celebrated 'Greek fire.' * The war was finally terminated by the treaty of 944, the provisions of which were rather less favorable to the Russians than those of the preceding agreement of 911. In 943 the Russians campaigned successfully in the distant transcaspian provinces of

* The Greek fire was an incendiary compound projected through copper pipes by Byzantine sailors to set on fire the ships of their opponents. Its exact composition remains unknown.