Oleg's campaign against Constantinople. Prophetic Oleg, Prince

The year 907 became a milestone in the history of Russian diplomacy no less, if not more, significant than the year 860, when Russia was recognized by Byzantium as a state and concluded the first treaty of "peace and love" with the empire.

Under 907, the author of The Tale of Bygone Years places a story about a new campaign of the Russian army against Constantinople and about the conclusion of a new Russian-Byzantine treaty. This time, the annals preserved a message about the conclusion of a truce, and about the course of negotiations on the development of a peace treaty, and about its content.

In the works of historians of the XVIII century. the version of The Tale of Bygone Years about the treaty of 907 was accepted unconditionally. V. N. Tatishchev, M. V. Lomonosov, M. M. Shcherbatov, I. N. Boltin did not doubt the authenticity of this agreement. A long-term discussion was opened by A. L. Schlozer, who questioned the annalistic news about the campaign and the treaty of 907. 2 He was the first to introduce into historiography to confirm his position such an argument as silence about these events from Byzantine sources.

Over the next 150 years, two lines were clearly defined in the discussion: some historians considered the treaty to be the fruit of the fiction of the author of The Tale of Bygone Years; others believed that it was a historical reality, but differently assessed its content and place in the system of Eastern European diplomacy.

During the 19th century Russian official and liberal historiography perceived the treaty traditionally: its content was covered in almost all general courses on national history and in special historical, historical and legal, historical and church works. And at the beginning of the 20th century, relying on the opinion of A. L. Schlozer, a new blow to the reliability of the treaty of 907 was dealt by G. M. Barats. He wrote that in the treaties between Russia and the Greeks "you will not understand anything", that these are just "tattered rags" accidentally linked together by the inept hand of a bad compiler 3 .

V. I. Sergeevich adhered to the skeptical line in relation to the treaty of 907. He believed that “the reasons that led to the conclusion of a new peace (agreement of 911 - A.S.) remain ... unclear,” and the very presentation of the treaty of 907, according to Sergeevich, looks fragmentary, it has no beginning. Opposing the point of view of a number of historians that the agreement may have had a preliminary (preliminary) character and only preceded the further agreement of 911, V. I. Sergeevich wrote that this concept is too artificial in relation to “such primitive figures as there were Russians from the time of Oleg” 4 .

The reality of the treaty of 907 also raised doubts among A. A. Shakhmatov. He argued that the treaty of 907 was a fiction of the chronicler, and a well-thought-out, premeditated fiction. A. A. Shakhmatov also explains the motives for this ancient falsification. The chronicler, having familiarized himself with the text of the treaty of 911, found in its title an indication that it was preceded by some kind of treaty, identical with the treaty of 911, - this is how A. A. Shakhmatov understood initial words agreement of 911: "Equal to another meeting, which was under the same kings Leo and Alexander." From the title, the chronicler deduced that the first world refers to the time Oleg's campaign to Tsargrad. He also calculated the time of the campaign - 907, simply taking this "date from the folk tradition, which turned out to be right here in the annals, and spoke of Oleg's death four years on the fifth after his campaign against Byzantium. But in 907 Emperor Constantine, who was crowned king later, had not yet ruled, and it was he who was mentioned in the preamble of the agreement of 911. Then the chronicler crossed out the name of Constantine from the preamble and left there the names of Leo and Alexander, who reigned in 907, which they concluded in 907 , with Oleg some kind of agreement, in some ways “equal” to the agreement of 911. But the series of fakes does not end there The chronicler invents the agreement of 907. In addition, notes A. A. Shakhmatov, in Igor’s agreement of 944 There are references to the articles of the "old world" that lead to 911, but the articles themselves are not in the treaty of 911. So, A. A. Shakhmatov concludes, they were artificially transferred from 911 to 907. And here is the result: the agreement of 907 did not exist, “Oleg concluded only one agreement with the Greeks” - 911

The doubts of A. A. Shakhmatov were further shared by A. E. Presnyakov, S. P. Obnorsky, S. V. Bakhrushin b. Echoes of a skeptical approach to the treaty of 907 were also felt in Soviet historiography. 7 ak, D.S. Likhachev, on the one hand, did not doubt the realities of the 907 campaign and wrote about four treaties (907, 911, 944 and 971) of Russia with the Greeks, including the treaty of 907 in their composition. On the other hand, he agreed with the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov that the treaty of 907 is an extract, “a simple selection of some articles from the treaty of 911.” 7. B. A. Rybakov in his works passes both the date of the campaign (907) and the treaty of 907 itself, although he recognizes the facts of the campaign as historically real. A. A. Zimin mentions the treaty of 907, but he relies on the opinion of those scientists who considered it a literary compilation based on the material of the treaties of 911 and 944. Thus, he notes that “the treaty of 907 appeared only under the pen of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years from the materials at his disposal” 8 . Once again, the version about the artificial origin of the text of the treaty of 907 was voiced in the works of A. G. Kuzmin and O. V. Tvorogov 9 .

Another group of scientists - both pre-revolutionary and Soviet - does not deny the authenticity of the chronicle information about the treaty of 907, but considers it a preliminary peace, which was renegotiated in 911.

M. S. Grushevsky, denying the historical authenticity of the fact of the attack of Russia on Constantinople, nevertheless admitted that some campaigns of Russian troops against Byzantium were undertaken, which resulted in the conclusion of agreements beneficial for Russia with the empire, which included conditions for the payment of indemnity by the Greeks, tributes and other favorable points for Russia.

In Soviet historiography, B. D. Grekov, M. V. Levchenko, V. T. Pashuto expressed an opinion about the preliminary nature of the treaty, and in legal literature, F. I. Kozhevnikov. B. D. Grekov, without indicating, however, the date of the campaign, believed that under the walls of Constantinople, the Byzantines went to an unfavorable peace for them, “after which a written agreement was concluded that determined relations between Kiev state and Byzantium. The treaty of 907, presumably, did not yet regulate such relations. Analyzing the treaty of 911, B. D. Grekov also considered in its composition the articles placed by the chronicler under 907, that is, he relied on the understanding of the articles of the treaty of 907 that had become traditional by that time as extracts from the text of the treaty of 911 12 M. V. Levchenko believed that the agreement of 907 did not fully correspond to the conditions of developing Russian-Byzantine relations, which explained the sending of Oleg’s embassy to Byzantium and the conclusion of a new agreement in 911. 13 This point of view is shared by V. T. Pashuto. “It seems that those are right,” he writes, referring to M. V. Levchenko and the Polish historian S. Mikutsky, “who consider it (the treaty of 907 - A. S.) a preliminary agreement, the fate of which was decided campaign of 911. The Treaty of 907 is characterized by V. T. Pashuto as “interstate”, “legally mature”. He emphasizes that the agreement of 907.g. “only fixed and united the norms that already existed in the previous agreements of individual Slavic lands with Byzantium” 14 .

There is also a third version, according to which the treaty of 907 was the main, decisive one in relations between Russia and Byzantium at the beginning of the 10th century. and was of universal importance for subsequent relations between the two states in the X-XI centuries. N. A. Lavrovsky was the first to express this point of view, and V. V. Sokolsky substantiated it in detail in a public speech in 1870. He drew attention to the fact that the very execution of this act was accompanied by a preliminary agreement, which was characteristic only of independent foreign policy agreements. The agreement of 911, according to Sokolsky, was only an addition to the agreement of 907, which became necessary in the course of trade and political cooperation between Russia and Byzantium 15 .

S. M. Solovyov gave an almost everyday sketch on this matter, which, in general, quite clearly fits into the concept of independence and universality of the treaty of 907. Having allowed the Russians into Byzantium, wrote S. M. Solovyov, “the Greek court had to put itself in order with the Kiev prince, what to do in case of necessary clashes between Russians and subjects of the empire. This is how the treaty of 911 appeared, which was approved "on the basis of the previous row, concluded immediately after the campaign." His point of view was shared by A. V. Longinov and D. Ya. Samokvasov. " Ancient world"became the basis for subsequent agreements - this is how D. Ya. Samokvasov defined the significance of the treaty of 907. were only confirmations and additions to the treaty of 907. 16 .

The Soviet scientist V. M. Istrin defended this concept. He believed that the agreement of 907 met all the diplomatic canons of his day, but was not enough to further regulate relations between the two countries. Therefore, in 911, Oleg sent "special ambassadors" to Constantinople to make up for the missing mutual conditions. They appeared in the treaty of 911, but the later chronicler shortened them as a simple repetition of the norms of the treaty of 907. 17

Finally, some historians, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, recognizing the independence of the treaty of 907, gave it a restrictive, commercial character.

Soviet historians, the authors of collective summarizing works, undoubtedly took into account the lack of a unanimous opinion about this historical plot. Hence the cautious estimates. So, in the multi-volume “Essays on the History of the USSR” it is said: “There are disagreements in the literature about the correlation of the texts of these treaties (90? - and 911 - A.S.). In any case, the fact of concluding an agreement in 907 is beyond doubt and we can safely say that an agreement beneficial for Russia was (M "the result of a successful campaign of Russian" warriors "on Tsargrad A few years later, the authors of the multi-volume" History of the USSR from ancient times to our days "passed over this controversial issue in silence. The authors of the two-volume" Brief history The USSR”, on the contrary, recognized Oleg’s campaign of 907 as a concrete historical fact, but considered that the terms of the peace of 907 were formalized later, in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911, “very beneficial for Russia”. Neither the campaign nor the treaty of 907 was reflected in the History of Diplomacy. In the History of Bulgaria, the treaty of 907 is assessed as purely “trading”. The course and results of the military campaign of 907 are interpreted in a different way in the History of Byzantium. Author of the chapter "Byzantium and Russia in the IX-X centuries." GG Litavrin has no doubts about the credibility of the campaign and the treaty of 907. In his opinion, in 907 an agreement was reached near the walls of Constantinople, and in 911 another treaty was concluded 19 .

The works of foreign historians reflected a sharp controversy on this issue in Russian historiography. In the XVIII-XIX centuries. in generalizing works on Russian history published abroad, the history of the campaign and the treaty of 907 was presented in accordance with the interpretation of this issue in Russian historiography of the 18th century. 20 But already in the first third of the XIX century. in the West, voices of skeptics were heard who expressed distrust of the message of The Tale of Bygone Years. "A completely mythical tradition" called the events of 907 the German historian S. Wilken. He was echoed by the Englishman S. Runciman. The German historian G. Lehr considered the history of Oleg's campaign and the treaty of 907 to be an "ordinary saga" 21 . These scholars regarded the silence of the Greek sources as the main argument in favor of denying the realities of 907.

Particularly active against the reliability of the information in the Russian chronicle about the campaign and the treaty of 907 were in the 30-50s of the XX century. Belgian Byzantinist A. Gregoire and English historian R. Dolley.

V. Gregoire in the article "The Legend of Oleg and Igor's Expedition" wrote that Prince Oleg never existed, that Nestor's chronicle "contains as many errors as words." Later, A. Gregoire's position on the “non-historicity” of the campaign was developed by R. Dolley, who again argued his position with references to the silence of Greek sources about the campaign and the treaty of 907 and subsequent “borrowings” from the history of Bulgarian-Byzantine relations 22 .

In the early 60s of the XX century. in Paris, the work of I. Sorlen “Treaties of Byzantium with Russia in the 10th century” was published. Without clearly defining his position in the approach to the treaty of 907, I. Sorlen, on the one hand, admits that "the reliability of the treaties can be called into question if the very campaign that preceded them is only a legend", and on the other hand - - notes that if both treaties are accepted as real facts, then the agreement of 907 "is a document independent of the Umg agreement." .

In the 70s of the XX century. D. Obolensky and his student D. Shepard opposed the authenticity of the treaty of 907. D. Obolensky in the work “Byzantine community. Eastern Europe. 500--1453" accepted the version that the agreement of 907 was only a part of the agreement of 911, but passed by such subjects of negotiations in 907 as the conclusion of peaceful relations between the two countries or the payment of tribute to Russia by Byzantium. D. Shepard in a small student work on the problems of Russian-Byzantine relations from 860 to 1050, without bothering with arguments, generally omitted the date of 907. 24

However, A. Gregoire was deeply wrong when he argued that by the end of the 30s of the XX century. not a single voice was heard in defense of the authenticity of the Russian annalistic news about the events of 907. In 1938, the American historian G. Rondal spoke in favor of the credibility of the campaign and the treaty of 907. In 1947, the famous French Byzantinist L. Breyet not only noted the reality of Oleg's campaign and the defeat of the Greeks, but even insisted on the authenticity of the fact of the meeting of Leo VI and Oleg to approve the peace treaty. In 1948, the Canadian scholar A. Boak adopted the annalistic version of the campaign and the treaty of 907. Like historians of the past, he viewed the negotiations of 907 only as a preliminary agreement, which was completed by the “formal agreement” of 911. 25

But in 907 G. Ostrogorsky and A. A. Vasiliev spoke most decisively in defense of the reliability of chronicle information about Russian-Byzantine relations. In the article "The Campaign of Prince Oleg against Constantinople in 907" G. Ostrogorsky noted that the Russian chronicle text goes back to some ancient source. He explained the fact that the Greek chroniclers were silent about the events of 907 by the fact that all their information also goes back to a common root - the chronicle of Simeon Logothetes, in which the campaign of 907 is not really mentioned. A. A. Vasiliev in the book “The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople ”examines in detail the circumstances of the campaign and the agreement of 907. True, he considers Kievan Rus a Norman state, and Oleg a Varangian leader, but he does not doubt for a minute the reality of Oleg himself, his campaign and the agreement of 907. Like G. Ostrogorsky , he does not agree with the negative assessment of the 907 treaty by A. A. Shakhmatov and tried to reconstruct it full text, arguing that this agreement also contained an article on allowing Russian soldiers to serve in Byzantium. A. A. Vasiliev opposes the skeptical assessments of A. Gregoire. This view of A. Gregoire's work is also shared by G. Vernadsky 6 .

Thus, in our opinion, an objective understanding of the events of 907 is possible only when answering two interrelated questions: was the campaign of 907 a historically real fact and whether the information of the author of The Tale of Bygone Years about the conclusion of an agreement by Oleg in 907 is reliable. Each of these questions is fraught with an independent research topic.

Plan
Introduction
1 Position of Byzantium
2 Oleg's campaign in "The Tale of Bygone Years"
3 Treaty of 907
4 Information about Oleg's campaign from other sources
5 Interpretations
6 Dating of the campaign
Bibliography
Russo-Byzantine War 907

Introduction

The Russian-Byzantine war of 907 is the legendary victorious campaign of the ancient Russian prince Oleg against Constantinople.

The campaign is described in detail in The Tale of Bygone Years (beginning of the 12th century) and ended with the signing of a peace treaty in 907. Widely known in Russian society by the phrase: "Prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople." However, this raid is not mentioned in any Byzantine or other source, except for the ancient Russian chronicles. In 911, a new Russian-Byzantine treaty was concluded, the reliability of which is not in doubt.

1. Position of Byzantium

At the beginning of the 10th century, Emperor Leo VI the Philosopher ruled in Byzantium, who came into conflict with church hierarchs because of his 4th marriage. The main enemy of Byzantium during this period of time were the Saracens, advancing in Asia Minor on Byzantine possessions and making sea raids from the south. The most famous raid was the capture by the pirate Leo of Tripoli in July 904. Greek city Thessaloniki. The Byzantine fleet under the command of the Drungaria Imeria was unable to interfere with the Saracen flotilla, which consisted of only 54 ships.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the empire, in the same year 904, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I took away part of the land from Byzantium, which paid off with an annual tribute, paying it regularly until 913. In Europe at the beginning of the 10th century, new power, Hungarians who settled in Pannonia, defeating the Slavic state of Great Moravia. Soon European chronicles will be filled with reports of Hungarian raids on neighboring countries, but in the 900s they posed a threat primarily to the Bulgarian kingdom, and Byzantine diplomacy tried to set them against Simeon I.

Of the events close in time to 907, the Byzantine chronicles note the victory of their fleet over the Saracen fleet in October 906. In 907 and the following years, no major battles or wars were recorded near Constantinople. The next battle took place in October 911 near Crete, in which the Byzantine fleet was defeated by the Saracens. 700 Rus fought for the Byzantines. In the summer of 913, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I made a victorious campaign under the walls of Constantinople, culminating in a peace treaty beneficial to the Bulgarians.

2. Oleg's hike in The Tale of Bygone Years

The Tale of Bygone Years, the earliest surviving ancient Russian chronicle (beginning of the 12th century), begins the story of the campaign against Constantinople by listing the Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples and tribes that Oleg attracted to the campaign:

“In the year 6415 (907). Oleg went to the Greeks, leaving Igor in Kiev; he took with him many Varangians, and Slavs, and Chuds, and Krivichi, and Meryu, and Drevlyans, and Radimichi, and Polyans, and Severians, and Vyatichi, and Croats, and Dulebs, and Tivertsy, known as interpreters: these were all called Greeks "Great Scythia". And with all these Oleg went on horseback and in ships; and there were 2000 ships. And he came to Constantinople: the Greeks closed the Court, and closed the city. And Oleg went ashore, and began to fight, and did many murders in the vicinity of the city to the Greeks, and they broke many chambers, and burned the churches. And those who were captured, some were cut off, others were tortured, others were shot, and some were thrown into the sea, and the Russians did many other evils to the Greeks, as enemies usually do.

According to the chronicle, part of the army moved along the coast on horseback, the other by sea on 2,000 ships, each of which could accommodate 40 people. However, the text of the Novgorod Chronicle of the younger edition, which, according to the assumption of the historian Shakhmatov, contains in its original form part of the earliest non-preserved chronicle (Initial Code), does not speak of 2 thousand ships, but of 100 or 200 ships (“ And the commandment Oleg gave tribute to 100, 200 ships ..."). Historians avoid interpreting the obscure phrase of the initial chronicler of the 11th century, but the figure of 2000 ships is easily deduced from it by the later author of the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL). Otherwise, the author of the PVL follows the story of the Initial Code with a more accurate indication of dates. The round figure of 200 ships could be taken from the story of an earlier Russian raid on Constantinople in 860.

Then legends begin in the description of the campaign. Oleg put his ships on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved across the field to Constantinople. Frightened Greeks asked for peace, took out poisoned wine and food, which Oleg did not accept. Then the Greeks agreed to Oleg's conditions: to pay 12 hryvnias to each soldier, to make separate payments in favor of the princes of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities. Novgorod was not included in the list of cities, which is consistent with the archaeological date of the formation of the city (after 931). According to the PVL, the tribute is also indicated in 12 hryvnias " to the oarlock”, which leaves the equestrian participants of the campaign without remuneration.

In addition to one-time payments, a permanent tribute was imposed on Byzantium and an agreement was concluded (an agreement of 907) regulating the stay and trade of Russian merchants in Byzantium. After mutual oaths, Oleg hung a shield on the gates of Constantinople as a sign of victory, then ordered the Greeks to sew sails: for Russia from pavolok (golden silk), for the Slavs from koprina (plain silk). According to the chronicle, upon returning to Kiev with rich booty, the people called Oleg the Prophet.

Some analogy with sails made of precious fabrics can be traced in the Scandinavian saga about the future Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, written down by the monk Odd at the end of the 12th century. Olaf served with Prince Vladimir in the 980s and made a trip to Byzantium, according to the saga for baptism. One of his military raids is described as follows: They say after one great victory he turned home to Gardy [Rus]; they sailed then with such great pomp and splendor that they had sails in their ships of precious materials, and so were their tents. »

If the ancient Russian chronicler tells about the campaign of Russia against Constantinople in 860 exclusively according to Byzantine sources (the chronicle of Amartol), then the story about the campaign of 907 is based only on local oral traditions, some of the motifs of which are reflected in the Scandinavian sagas. Although the legends themselves may not correspond to historical reality, they testify that the campaign was, although it apparently developed differently than the chronicle describes it.

3. Treaty of 907

According to the PVL, after the victory, Oleg concluded peace in Constantinople for a very favorable conditions. The Russians coming to the city were in fact on the payroll of the Byzantine authorities and did not pay duties. The contract is retold in words, the formal procedural content is omitted.

In September 911 (according to the PVL in 912 due to the beginning of the new year on March 1), a new agreement was concluded, a list of which is fully given in the annals. The content of the agreement of 907 does not intersect with the agreement of 911 in any way, with the exception of the names of the ambassadors, but almost literally reproduces a fragment from the Russian-Byzantine agreement of 944. The table below conveys the text of the treaty of 907 in accordance with fragments from later Russian-Byzantine treaties.

4. Information about Oleg's campaign from other sources

The Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition sets out the events differently, naming two campaigns against Byzantium by Igor and his governor Oleg, dating them to 920 and 922:

And he had a governor, named Oleg, a wise and brave husband ... In the summer of 6430. Oleg went to the Greeks and came to Tsesaryugrad; and Greece is the castle of Susud, and the city is closed.

At the same time, the campaign of 920, according to the description, reproduces the well-documented campaign of Prince Igor in 941.

The Byzantine chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon (the last third of the 10th century) tells about dews (Rus):

The Ross, or dromites, got their name from a certain powerful Ros, after they managed to escape the consequences of what the oracles predicted about them, thanks to some kind of warning or divine illumination from the one who dominated them. They were called dromites because they could move quickly.

In the year 6415 (907). Oleg went to the Greeks, leaving Igor in Kiev; he took with him a lot of Varangians, and Slavs, and Chuds, and Krivichi, and Meryu, and Polyans, and Severians, and Drevlyans, and Radimichi, and Croats, and Dulebs, and Tivertsy, known as interpreters: these were all called "Great Scythian ". And with all these Oleg went on horseback and in ships; and there were two thousand ships. And he came to Tsargrad; the Greeks closed the Judgment, and closed the city ...

And Oleg ordered his soldiers to make wheels and put ships on wheels. And when a favorable wind arose, they raised sails in the field and moved towards the city. The Greeks, seeing this, were frightened and said, sending to Oleg: “Do not destroy the city, we will agree to the tribute you want.” And Oleg stopped the soldiers, and brought him food and wine, but did not accept it, since it was poisoned. And the Greeks got scared and said: “This is not Oleg, but Saint Dmitry, sent to us by God.” And Oleg demanded to pay tribute to two thousand ships: twelve hryvnias per person, and there were forty husbands in each ship ...

The Caesars, Leon and Alexander, made peace with Oleg, pledged to pay tribute and swore allegiance to each other: they themselves kissed the cross, and Oleg and his husbands were led to swear allegiance according to Russian law, and they swore by their weapons and Perun, their god, and Volos, the god of cattle, and made peace. And Oleg said: “Sew sails from curtains for Russia, and silk for the Slavs,” and it was so. And they hung their shields on the gates as a sign of victory, and went from Constantinople. And Rus raised the sails of the curtains, and the Slavs of silk, and the wind tore them apart. And the Slavs said: "Let's take our thicknesses, they are not given, to know, the Slavs have silk sails." And Oleg returned to Kiev, carrying gold and curtains, and fruits, and wine, and all sorts of patterns. And they called Oleg the Prophetic, since people were pagans and unenlightened.

NAILS YOUR SHIELD ON THE GATES

At the end of the chronicle story, a fact is cited that caused particular delight of those who doubted the authenticity of the chronicle messages: it says that after the establishment of the world, which is still to come, Oleg, as a sign of victory, hung his shield on the gates of the city and only then left for his homeland : "And hang your shield in the gates to show victory, and go away from Constantinople."

Nihilist historians laughed a lot about this, considering this message the most legendary in the whole story, along with the movement of the rooks on dry land under sail. But, in general, there was nothing to laugh at. Many historians have noted that reports of this kind of symbolic acts repeatedly reach us from antiquity and do not represent any legend. So, the Bulgarian Khan Tervel at the beginning of the VIII century, after the war with Byzantium and the conclusion of peace with it, hung his shield on the gates of one of the Byzantine fortresses. And a few decades later, another Bulgarian lord, Khan Krum, tried to stick a spear into the gates of Constantinople as a sign of victory over the Byzantines.

The custom of hanging your shield on the gates of the city as a sign of peace was widespread among the ancient Normans. Thus, the "legend" acquires real features and may be another confirmation of the authenticity of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople in 907.

LEGENDS ABOUT PROPHETIC OLEG

Oleg was the hero of the Kiev epics. The chronicle history of his war with the Greeks is permeated folklore motifs. The prince moved to Byzantium as if a quarter of a century after the "prince" in Kiev. When the Russians approached Tsargrad in 907, the Greeks closed the fortress gates and blocked the bay with chains. "Prophetic" Oleg outwitted the Greeks. He ordered to put 2000 of his rooks on wheels. With a fair wind, the ships moved towards the city from the side of the field. The Greeks got scared and offered tribute. The prince won and hung his shield on the gates of Constantinople. Kievan epics, retold by the chronicler, described Oleg's campaign as a grandiose military enterprise. But this attack of the Rus was not noticed by the Greeks and was not reflected in any Byzantine chronicle.

The campaign “in boats on wheels” led to the conclusion of a peace favorable to the Rus in 911. Oleg’s success can be explained by the fact that the Greeks remembered the pogrom perpetrated by the Rus in 860 and hurried to pay off the barbarians when they reappeared at the walls of Constantinople in 907 The payment for peace on the borders was not burdensome for the rich imperial treasury. But to the barbarians, “gold and pavoloki” (pieces of precious fabrics) received from the Greeks seemed like great wealth.

The Kiev chronicler wrote down the legend that Oleg was a prince "at the Varangians" and in Kiev he was surrounded by the Varangians: "Oleg was the prince in Kiev and the men of the Varangians were besha from him." In the West, the Varangians from Kievan Rus called Ruses, or Normans. The Bishop of Cremona Liutprand, who visited Constantinople in 968, listed all the main neighbors of Byzantium, harming them the Rus, “which otherwise we (the inhabitants Western Europe. - R. S.) we call the Normans. The data of the annals and chronicles are confirmed in the text of the treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks. Oleg's treaty of 911 begins with the words: "we are from the Russian family of Karla, Inegelf, Farlof, Veremud ... even messages from Oleg ..." All the Rus who participated in the conclusion of the treaty of 911 were undoubtedly Normans. The text of the treaty does not indicate the participation of merchants in negotiations with the Greeks. An agreement with Byzantium was concluded by the Norman army, or rather, by its leaders.

The largest campaigns of the Rus against Constantinople in the X century. took place at a time when the Normans created for themselves extensive strongholds at a close distance from the borders of the empire. These points began to turn into the possessions of the most successful leaders, who there themselves turned into the owners of the conquered territories.
Oleg's treaty with Byzantium in 911 included a list of persons sent to the emperor "from Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from all those who are under the hand of his bright and great princes and his great boyars." By the time of Oleg's invasion, the Byzantines had very vague ideas about the internal orders of the Rus and the titles of their leaders. But they nevertheless noticed that the “Grand Duke” Oleg had other “bright and great princes” under his command. The title of the kings reflected a fact aptly noticed by the Greeks: the equality of military leaders - the Norman Vikings, who gathered "at hand" Oleg to march on the Greeks.

From The Tale of Bygone Years it follows that both the semi-legendary Askold and Dir and King Oleg collected tribute only from the Slavic tribes on the territory of the Khazar Khaganate, without encountering resistance from the Khazars. Oleg told the Khazar tributaries - the northerners: “Az them (the Khazars) are disgusted ...” But that was all. There is evidence that in Kiev before the beginning of the X century. the Khazar garrison was located. Thus, the power of the kagan over the surrounding tribes was not nominal. If the Rus had to wage a long war with the Khazars, memories of it would certainly be reflected in folklore and on the pages of the annals. The complete absence of such recollections leads to the conclusion that Khazaria sought to avoid clashes with the militant Normans and let their fleets pass through their possessions to the Black Sea when this met the diplomatic goals of the khaganate. It is known that the Khazars carried out the same policy towards the Normans in the Volga region. With the consent of the kagan, the kings descended the Volga into the Caspian Sea and ravaged the rich cities of Transcaucasia. Without conducting major military operations against the Khazars, their “allies”, the Rus, nevertheless robbed the Khazar tributaries through whose lands they passed, since they had no other way to provide themselves with food.

The short-lived Norman Khaganates that appeared in Eastern Europe in the early period, least of all resembled strong public entities. After successful campaigns, the leaders of the Normans, having received rich booty, most often left their camps and went home to Scandinavia. No one in Kiev knew for sure where Oleg died. According to an early version, after a campaign against the Greeks, the prince returned through Novgorod to his homeland (“over the sea”), where he died from a snake bite. The Novgorod chronicler wrote down the local Ladoga legend that Oleg, after the campaign, passed through Novgorod to Ladoga and "there is his grave in Ladoza." Kiev chronicler of the XII century. could not agree with these versions. In the eyes of the Kiev patriot, the first Russian prince could not die anywhere except Kiev, where "there is his grave to this day, the word is Olgov's grave." By the XII century. more than one king Oleg could be buried in Kiev land, so the words of the chronicler about the "Olgov's grave" were not fiction. But whose remains rested in this grave, it is impossible to say.

Skrynnikov R.G. Old Russian state

HOW OLEG GOT LOST

Oleg, after a victorious campaign against Tsargrad (911), returned not to Kiev, but to Novgorod “and from there to Ladoga. There is a grave of him in Ladoza. Other chronicles speak of Oleg’s burial place differently: “friends say [that is, they sing in legends] that I will go across the sea to him and peck a snake in his leg and die from that.” Disagreements about where the founder of the Russian state died (as the Normans characterize Oleg) are curious: the Russian people of the middle of the 11th century did not know exactly where he died - in Ladoga or in his homeland across the sea. Seven decades later, another unexpected answer will appear: Oleg's grave will be on the outskirts of Kiev. All the data of the Novgorod “Ostromir Chronicle” are such that they do not allow us to draw a conclusion about the organizing role of the Normans, not only for the long-established Kievan Rus, but even for that federation of northern tribes that experienced the burden of the Varangian raids ...

For decades, the Russians landed on any shore of the “Khorezmian” (“Khvalynsky”, Caspian) Sea and conducted peaceful bargaining, and at the very beginning of the 10th century, when Oleg owned Kiev, the “Russes” (in this case, obviously, the Varangians of the Russian service) produced a series of brutal and senseless attacks on the inhabitants of the Caspian coast.

Russo-Byzantine War of 907- the legendary campaign of the ancient Russian prince Oleg to Constantinople.

The campaign is described in detail in The Tale of Bygone Years (beginning of the 12th century) and ended with the signing of a peace treaty in 907. Widely known in Russian society by the phrase: "Prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople." However, this raid is not mentioned in any Byzantine or other source, except for the ancient Russian chronicles. In 911, a new Russian-Byzantine treaty was concluded, the reliability of which is not in doubt.

Position of Byzantium

At the beginning of the 10th century, Emperor Leo VI the Philosopher ruled in Byzantium, who came into conflict with church hierarchs because of his 4th marriage. The main enemy of Byzantium during this period of time were the Saracens, advancing in Asia Minor on Byzantine possessions and making sea raids from the south. The most famous raid was the capture of the Greek city of Thessaloniki by the pirate Leo of Tripoli in July 904. The Byzantine fleet under the command of the Drungaria Imeria was unable to interfere with the Saracen flotilla, which consisted of only 54 ships.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the empire, in the same year 904, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I took away part of the land from Byzantium, which paid off with an annual tribute, paying it regularly until 913. In Europe at the beginning of the 10th century, a new force appeared, the Hungarians, who settled in Pannonia, defeating the Slavic state of Great Moravia. Soon, European chronicles will be filled with reports of Hungarian raids on neighboring countries, but in the early 900s they posed a threat primarily to the Bulgarian kingdom, and Byzantine diplomacy tried to set them against Simeon I.

Although, after the raid on Constantinople in 860, Byzantine sources do not record any conflicts with the Rus, there is circumstantial evidence that the raids continued later. So in his military manual (written around 905) in the chapter on naval battles Emperor Leo VI noticed that a hostile people, "the so-called northern Scythians" (the name of the Rus in the Byzantine tradition), use small fast ships, since they cannot otherwise get out of the rivers into the Black Sea.

Of the events close in time to 907, the Byzantine chronicles note the victory of their fleet over the Saracen fleet in October 906. In 907 and the following years, no major battles or wars were recorded near Constantinople. The next battle took place in October 911 near Crete, in which the Byzantine fleet was defeated by the Saracens. 700 Rus fought for the Byzantines. In the summer of 913, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I made a victorious campaign under the walls of Constantinople, culminating in a peace treaty beneficial to the Bulgarians.

Oleg's hike in The Tale of Bygone Years

The Tale of Bygone Years, the earliest surviving ancient Russian chronicle (beginning of the 12th century), begins the story of the campaign against Constantinople by listing the Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples and tribes that Oleg attracted to the campaign:

According to the chronicle, part of the army moved along the coast on horseback, the other by sea on 2,000 ships, each of which could accommodate 40 people. However, the text of the Novgorod Chronicle of the younger edition, which, according to the assumption of the historian Shakhmatov, contains in its original form part of the earliest non-preserved chronicle (Initial Code), does not speak of 2 thousand ships, but of 100 or 200 ships (“ And the commandment Oleg gave tribute to 100, 200 ships ..."). Historians avoid interpreting the obscure phrase of the initial chronicler of the 11th century, but the figure of 2000 ships is easily deduced from it by the later author of the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL). Otherwise, the author of the PVL follows the story of the Initial Code with a more accurate indication of dates. The round figure of 200 ships could be taken from the story of an earlier Russian raid on Constantinople in 860.

Then legends begin in the description of the campaign. Oleg put his ships on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved across the field to Constantinople. Frightened Greeks asked for peace, took out poisoned wine and food, which Oleg did not accept. Then the Greeks agreed to Oleg's conditions: to pay 12 hryvnias to each soldier, to make separate payments in favor of the princes of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities. Novgorod is not included in the list of cities. According to the PVL, the tribute is also indicated in 12 hryvnias " to the oarlock”, which leaves the equestrian participants of the campaign without remuneration.

In addition to one-time payments, a permanent tribute was imposed on Byzantium and an agreement was concluded (an agreement of 907) regulating the stay and trade of Russian merchants in Byzantium. After mutual oaths, Oleg hung a shield on the gates of Constantinople as a sign of victory, then ordered the Greeks to sew sails: for Russia from pavolok (golden silk), for the Slavs from koprina (plain silk). According to the chronicle, upon returning to Kiev with rich booty, the people called Oleg the Prophet.

Some analogy with sails made of precious fabrics can be traced in the Scandinavian saga about the future Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, written down by the monk Odd at the end of the 12th century. Olaf served with Prince Vladimir in the 980s and made a trip to Byzantium, according to the saga for baptism. One of his military raids is described as follows: They say that after one great victory he turned home to Gardy [Rus]; they sailed then with such great pomp and splendor that they had sails in their ships of precious materials, and so were their tents.»

If the ancient Russian chronicler tells about the campaign of Russia against Constantinople in 860 exclusively according to Byzantine sources (the chronicle of Amartol), then the story about the campaign of 907 is based only on local oral traditions, some of the motifs of which are reflected in the Scandinavian sagas. Although the legends themselves may not correspond to historical reality, they testify that the campaign was, although it apparently developed differently than the chronicle describes it.

Treaty of 907

According to the PVL, after the victory, Oleg concluded peace in Constantinople on very favorable terms. The Russians coming to the city were in fact on the payroll of the Byzantine authorities and did not pay duties. The contract is retold in words, the formal procedural content is omitted.

In September 911 (according to the PVL in 912 due to the beginning of the new year on March 1), a new agreement was concluded, a list of which is fully given in the annals. The content of the agreement of 907 does not intersect with the agreement of 911 in any way, with the exception of the names of the ambassadors, but almost literally reproduces a fragment from the Russian-Byzantine agreement of 944. The table below conveys the text of the treaty of 907 in accordance with fragments from later Russian-Byzantine treaties.

Information about Oleg's campaign from other sources

The Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition sets out the events differently, naming two campaigns against Byzantium by Igor and his governor Oleg, dating them to 920 and 922:

At the same time, the campaign of 920, according to the description, reproduces the well-documented campaign of Prince Igor in 941.

The Byzantine chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon (the last third of the 10th century) tells about dews (Rus):

In this fragment, some researchers are ready to see elements similar to the sorcerers' prediction of the impending death of Oleg, and in Dew itself - Prophetic Oleg. The popular literature widely cites the constructions of V. D. Nikolaev about the raid of the Ross-Dromites on Byzantium in 904. The dews, according to Nikolaev (Pseudo-Simeon does not mention this), were defeated at Cape Trikefal by the Byzantine admiral John Radin, and only a part of them escaped the "Greek fire" thanks to the insight of their leader.

A. G. Kuzmin, examining the text of The Tale of Bygone Years about Prince Oleg, suggested that the chronicler used Greek or Bulgarian sources about Oleg's campaign. The chronicler cites the words of the Byzantines: This is not Oleg, but Saint Dmitry, sent to us by God. These words may indicate the events of 904, when Constantinople did not provide assistance to the city of Thessaloniki, whose patron was Demetrius of Thessalonica, as a result of which the inhabitants of the city were massacred and only part of them managed to be redeemed from the hands of Arab pirates. In a phrase, incomprehensible from the context, of the Byzantines about St. Dmitry could contain a hint of Dmitry's revenge on Constantinople, guilty of the sack of Thessalonica.

Interpretations

The campaign is known exclusively from Russian sources, the Byzantine keep silent about it. Only in the "History" of Leo the Deacon is there evidence of the reality of not so much a campaign as a peace treaty: John Tzimiskes, during negotiations with Svyatoslav, reminds him, as Prince Igor, " defying an oath attacked the Byzantine capital. Here, according to M. Ya. Syuzyumov and S. A. Ivanov, as well as A. A. Vasiliev, Oleg’s treaty of 911, concluded after the campaign of 907 and known from the Tale of Bygone Years, is meant.

G. G. Litavrin found the agreement in such a way that he “ without military pressure from Russia was absolutely impossible". When the empire concluded an agreement with another country, the main copy of the agreement was drawn up on behalf of the emperor, then the same in Greek, but on behalf of the ruler of another country, and already this letter was translated into the language of the people with whom they agreed. The well-known linguist, academician S.P. Obnorsky concluded that the text of the treaty of 911 is precisely translated, full of Greekisms and violations of the requirements of Russian syntax.

Thus, the texts of the treaties included in the Tale of Bygone Years testify that the campaign was not a complete fiction. Some historians are inclined to explain the silence of Byzantine sources by the incorrect dating of the war in the Tale. There were attempts to connect it with the raid of the "Dromite Rus" in 904, at a time when Byzantium was fighting the pirate Leo of Tripoli. The most likely hypothesis was put forward by B. A. Rybakov and L. N. Gumilyov: the description of the campaign of 907 in the Tale actually refers to the war of 860, which was replaced by a message about the unsuccessful raid of Askold and Dir in 866, inspired by Byzantine legends about the miraculous deliverance of Christians from hostile pagans.

This is all the more likely that since the beginning of the 10th century Russia has appeared in Greek texts as an ally of Byzantium. Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (901-906 and 912-925) threatens Bulgaria with a Russian invasion, 700 Russian mercenaries took part in the unsuccessful Byzantine expedition to Crete in 911.

In his work on the campaign of the Prophetic Oleg against Tsargrad, the historian A. A. Vasiliev came to the conclusion that Oleg’s raid was not a fiction of the ancient Russian chronicler, who, in the tradition of the Scandinavian heroic sagas, turned an ordinary predatory raid on Byzantine possessions into an epoch-making event.

Campaign dating

In addition to the question of whether Oleg's campaign described in The Tale of Bygone Years took place, there is the problem of dating such a campaign.

The date of 907 in The Tale of Bygone Years is conditional and arose as a result of complex calculations by chroniclers when conjugating the absolute and relative chronologies of sources that had dates indicated in different eras. Initially, the story about Oleg's reign was not dated, so later the story was divided into parts that gravitated towards the dates of the beginning and end of Oleg's reign.

According to A.G. Kuzmin, initially the information about the end of Oleg’s reign was dated in the Tale of Bygone Years in 6415 (907), but when compared with the date of the agreement of 911, the dating was changed, so two chronicle articles appeared that spoke about the campaign, the conclusion agreement and the death of Oleg. Thus, two treaties appeared in the annals (the text and its “retelling”). Thus, the events described in the articles of 907 and 912 were not originally dated in any way, but were connected, as, for example, in the text of the Chronicle of Joachim, which does not contain absolute dating and information about the death of the prince: “After that, Oleg possessed the whole country of that country, conquered many peoples for himself, went to fight against the Greeks by sea and forced them to buy peace, returned with great honor and many riches.”

According to indirect data, the campaign dates back to 904-909. The lower date, 904, is determined by the news of the allied dew-dromites and the attack of the Arabs on Thessaloniki. The upper date, 909-910, is determined by the news of the reconnaissance campaign of the Rus in the Caspian Sea, followed by the campaign of 913. The Rus, who made this campaign, could not pass through the Black and Sea of ​​Azov to the Don without allied relations with Byzantium. The union of Russia and Byzantium by 909-910 is confirmed by the data of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (middle of the 10th century) about the participation of Russian auxiliary vessels in the Cretan expedition of 910.

At the same time, the Tale of Bygone Years also contains a relative dating of the campaign. The text says that the prediction of the Magi about the death of Oleg came true on the fifth summer after his campaign against Constantinople. Oleg's "death" can be dated no later than July 912 (the offering of sacrifices, mentioned by V.N. Tatishchev, when Halley's comet appeared), or the autumn of this year, indicated in the annals (the time of polyudya). The campaign of 913 put an end to Oleg's career (he died or went north). Consequently, the campaign against Byzantium falls on 907-908, and the chronicler was not mistaken in his calculations. The correctness of the relative date indicated in the legend is confirmed by another place in the Tale - under the year 1071 it is said that a sorcerer appeared in Kiev: “... He told people that in the fifth year the Dnieper would flow back and that the lands would begin to move” Apparently, the five-year period of prophecy was common for the Magi.

The dating of the campaign is also confirmed by the dynamics of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations. In 904, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I made a campaign against Thessalonica, plundered by the Arabs, in an attempt to expand his possessions. In 910-911, he is going to start a war with Byzantium, but he will start it only in 913. As one of the deterrents against the Bulgarians, the Byzantines used the fleet of the Rus.

According to The Tale of Bygone Years, the negotiations of the Russians with the Greeks began with the fact that the latter sent their parliamentarians to Oleg and they declared: “Do not destroy the city, there is a tribute, as if you were good.” Oleg stopped his soldiers.

It is possible that the Greeks spoke some other words, that the author of this ancient chronicle passage used some kind of figurative stereotype. But we want to draw attention to two points that in all versions, with all the emotional coloring of the story, were classic in situations of this kind. Firstly, at the very moment of the negotiations and the fact of sending Greek representatives to the Russians, and secondly, on the consent of the Greeks to pay tribute - namely to pay, and not to pay at a time. The Greeks stopped hostilities and transferred the conflict from the military to the political sphere. The idea of ​​tribute as an indispensable condition for further peaceful relations is already clearly visible here. Immediately, in the hot pursuit of the events, Oleg demanded to pay him a “tribute” of 12 hryvnia per person for 2 thousand ships, “and 40 husbands per ship”. The Greeks, as it is said in the chronicle, agreed to this and asked to start peace negotiations: “And the Greeks are afraid of this, and ask the Greeks for more peace, so that the Greek lands do not fight” 2 .

Thus ended the initial stage of negotiations between the Greeks and the Russians. The former promised to satisfy Oleg's demands for tribute. The Russian prince requested a huge amount of a one-time indemnity, which was the main topic for extensive negotiations on a peace treaty. In any case, this is all that Russian chronicles can tell us on this occasion 3 .

How was this situation assessed in historiography? V. N. Tatishchev, and later M. M. Shcherbatov and G. Evers noted that before the conclusion of the treaty of 907, preliminary negotiations took place under the walls of Constantinople, which resulted in the cessation of hostilities, the retreat of the Russians from the city and the beginning of peace negotiations 4 . But later this idea was lost. In subsequent writings, the history of both the campaign and the treaty was fairly compromised. In a number of studies by Soviet historians, this important detail of the events has disappeared altogether. In most generalizing works, this plot was not paid attention at all, in some of them it is interpreted indistinctly. So, G. G. Litavrin believes that “an agreement was reached under the walls of Constantinople, the most important articles of which are reported by the Russian chronicle” .

To be precise, under the walls of the Byzantine capital, only an agreement was reached that ended hostilities, and further negotiations regarding the treaty were held in the city itself and were separated in time from the preliminary agreement. Moreover, talking about the appearance of Greek parliamentarians in the camp of Oleg, the chronicler did not invent anything supernatural: he simply reflected a very stereotypical situation when hostilities were suspended and a truce was concluded. Following the first stage of negotiations, as a result of which the Greeks promised to pay tribute to Oleg, whatever he wants, the chronicle reports that the second stage of negotiations has begun: 6 . Oleg's embassy went to Constantinople, consisting of five people - Karl, Farlof, Velmud, Rulav and Stemid.

Historians have long paid attention to the second stage of negotiations, which began after the departure of the Russian squads from Constantinople and was connected with Oleg's embassy sent to the capital of the empire 7 . Previous historiography considered this fact in isolation, meanwhile it had a direct connection with international practice. After the military clashes between Byzantium and the Persians, Arabs, and Bulgarians, following the armistices, as a rule, negotiations were held on supposedly receiving 12 hryvnias “for the key”, which V. T. Pashuto translates as a ship’s steering wheel, although “initially he demanded this amount for each warrior” 15 .

Let us pay attention to one more curious circumstance, which was noticed by I. N. Boltin, and then emphasized by M, S. Grushevsky and recently by G. G. Litavrin and O. M. Rapov: we are talking about the appearance in the course of negotiations of a condition on a one-time indemnity to the Russian army and the annual tribute that Byzantium had to pay to Russia 16 .

In the chronicle text, along with the condition of paying money “for a key”, which, as it were, corrects Oleg’s first requirement (“12 hryvnia per person”), in the part where it refers to the course of negotiations between the Russians and the Greeks, a new condition is mentioned: “... give ways to Russian cities.” Among these cities are Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl 17, Polotsk, Rostov, Ayubech and “other cities”, where Russian princes were sitting - vassals and tributaries Kiev prince. In this text, one can see a certain differentiation of tribute. The amount that the Greeks had to pay to the Russians “for the key”, apparently, was a one-time monetary contribution to the winner. Evidence in favor of this version is also a parallel text in the Novgorod First Chronicle, which says: “And Oleg commanded tribute to give ... he himself took gold and drags, and lay tribute, to give south and hitherto the Russian prince.” Oleg, judging by this text, requested a one-time contribution in his favor and in favor of his soldiers. The final text of The Tale of Bygone Years fully corresponds to this fact in the Novgorod First Chronicle: “And Oleg came to Kiev, bringing gold, and dragging, and vegetables, and wine, and all sorts of ornaments” 18. The Russian army returned to their homeland, burdened with untold riches plundered in the suburbs of Constantinople and taken in the form of a one-time indemnity. A similar demand of the victors in 907 corresponds to the practice of the Russians in 860. Then, according to the testimony of Patriarch Photius, the Russians also left unavenged and from the time of the attack on Constantinople received "innumerable riches" 19 .

The practice of paying indemnity to the winners was well known in Byzantium and became just as important for the empire. business as usual, as well as the "barbarian" attacks on its long borders. In the VI century. Byzantium repeatedly paid off with the help of indemnities from the invasions of the Slavs. The facts of the payment by the Byzantines of a one-time indemnity in fabrics, furs, gold are found in the treaties between Byzantium and Bulgaria in the 7th-10th centuries. Receiving indemnity was, for example, integral part agreements with Byzantium of the Bulgarian khans Tervel (in 705-706 and in 716), Krum (811-813), which were concluded after the attack of the Bulgarian troops on Byzantium 20 . Later, Russia entered the same channel in the 60s of the 9th and early 10th centuries. And in the subsequent history of Russian-Byzantine relations, the Greeks more than once paid a one-time monetary contribution to the Russians, thereby fulfilling one of the main conditions for the cessation of hostilities by them. So, during Igor's second campaign against Byzantium, the Greek ambassadors came to the Russian camp and, promising Igor to pay all Byzantine debts according to the tribute established by Oleg, immediately offered the Russians a one-time indemnity. Further, the chronicle notes that Igor took from the Greeks gold, curtains “for the whole howling” and turned back. After 25 years, during negotiations with Svyatoslav, who, having devastated Thrace, led his army to the Byzantine capital, the Greeks again used the familiar formula: "Take tribute on us and on your squad." And once again, the Greeks tried to pay off a one-time tribute from the Russian offensive - Emperor John Tzimiskes conveyed through his ambassadors to Svyatoslav: “Do not go to the city, take tribute, hedgehog.” Svyatoslav suspended the offensive against Constantinople, took tribute on the living soldiers and the dead, declaring to the Greeks: “Take his family” 21, and returned with “many gifts” to Pereyaslavets on the Danube. It was this one-time indemnity that Oleg demanded from the Greeks in 907 in full agreement with the then practice of war and peace between the “barbarian” states and the Byzantine Empire.

Another thing is “forms”. This is a regular annual tribute that Byzantium, as a rule, paid either to its allies or to those winners who “for peace and friendship”, that is, for the observance of peaceful relations, wrested this burdensome obligation from the empire.

In pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography (with the possible exception of A. A. Shletser and V. I. Lamansky 22), as well as in the works of foreign historians, there were no doubts about the fact that Byzantium paid tribute to Russia. True, recently another point of view on the “way of life” has appeared. V. T. Pashuto expressed the opinion that the “way of life” is the same six-month allowance in the form of bread, wine, meat, fish, fruits, which was received in Byzantium under the agreement of 907 by Russian merchants who came there for trade.

The question of “way of life”, in our opinion, should also be resolved not in isolation, only in terms of Russian-Byzantine relations, but on the basis of traditional diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the entire “barbarian” world surrounding it, and primarily with states adjacent to Russia .

As mentioned above, for many centuries Byzantium annually paid significant sums of money to various states. In one case, it was a tribute to the defeated winner (Persia - VI century), in the other - a payment for maintaining peaceful relations and allied assistance, also torn out military force(Avar Khaganate - VI-VII centuries, Russia - IX-X centuries), but under all circumstances, peaceful relations (to which both Byzantium and the states surrounding it came in different ways) were supported by annual monetary contributions, tributes that the empire paid to its neighbors. In the second half of the 1st millennium, this practice was so widespread and generally accepted when concluding peace agreements that followed military conflicts that there is no doubt that Russia was also thoroughly familiar with it, especially since Russia itself paid for peace and allied assistance annual tribute to the Varangians and agreed to an annual payment to her Ugrians.

Thus, the payment by Byzantium of the annual tribute to Russia has a strong and ancient historical analogy. And this fact itself has become a tradition in Byzantine-Russian relations. In 944, during the second campaign of Igor against Byzantium, the Greek ambassadors tried to stop Russian army on the Danube and save Constantinople from new military trials. They conveyed to the Russian prince the words of Emperor Roman I Lekapin: “Don’t go, but take tribute, Oleg was imal south, give it to that tribute.” Svyatoslav, according to The Tale of Bygone Years, also received tribute before the start of his campaign against Byzantium: “The prince sits in Pereyaslavtsi, paying tribute to the grave.” During negotiations in the summer of 970 with Svyatoslav, the Greeks declared to the Russian prince: "Take tribute on us, and on your squad." And here again we see the chronicler's separate understanding of tribute and one-time indemnity. In the same direction, Svyatoslav's chronicle speech to the squad, delivered by him at a difficult hour for the Russians in the besieged Dorostol, leads us. Svyatoslav persuaded the squad to make peace with Tzimiskes and take tribute from the Greeks: “Is it really worth not to manage the tribute, but from Russia, having collected the howl of the greatest, we will go to Tsaryugorod” 24. In this case, we are interested not so much in the reliability of the very fact of Svyatoslav's speech (we fully admit that the Russian prince could not have said this), but in the logic of the conclusions of the chronicler, who was accustomed to the fact that Byzantium paid tribute to Russia for many years and its non-payment could serve cause of a new Russo-Byzantine war. The clause of Oleg's agreement on the "orders" taken on Russian cities just speaks of this regular tribute.

Thus, under the treaty of 907, the ancient Russian state established relations with Byzantium that had already become the norm for the states surrounding the empire. The rupture of these relations led to interstate complications and to war. So it was with Bulgaria at the beginning of the 10th century. or in the 60s under Nikifor Fok. Byzantium could stop paying regular tribute to the Russians after the murder of Askold and Dir and the capture of Kiev by Oleg, and definitely stopped paying it at some stage in the reign of Prince Igor, which, according to V. N. Tatishchev, caused the campaign of the Russians against Constantinople in 941. 25 At the same time, Byzantium maintained “tributary relations” when it needed allied assistance from its neighbor or vassal. By the way, the frequency of such a tribute is also emphasized by the word “dayati”. If we were talking about “way of life” as a one-time contribution, then, of course, the chronicler would have to use the word “give”. The words “give orders,” that is, give orders, clearly indicate the long-term effect of this clause of the contract 26 .

Byzantium's regular payment of tribute to the ancient Russian state 27 for the sake of protection from attacks from the north - and possibly also for the sake of paying for allied services - from now on becomes the norm of political relations between the two countries. And this was clearly reflected in the final part of the treaty of 907, which says that “Tsar Leon and Oleksandr made peace with Olg, paying tribute” 28 .

The natural development of these negotiations and the provision of the agreement of 907 on the obligation of the empire to pay the "ways" of Russia was the consent of Byzantium to resume the payment of tribute due to Russia, under Igor, in 944. Subsequent negotiations on the payment of tribute by the Greeks to Igor, Svyatoslav invariably return us to negotiations, marked 907, and to the very terms of the 907 tribute treaty. Here is the inevitable conclusion that follows from the analysis of the sources.

So, during the negotiations in 907, three terms of the agreement were distinguished: the restoration of “peace and friendship” between Russia and Byzantium, the payment by Byzantium of a one-time indemnity in the form of money, gold items, fabrics, etc., as well as periodic tribute to Russia. But that's not all. The section that comes after the words: “And Oleg commanded...” also speaks of other conditions of the Russian-Byzantine treaty, expressed in the demands of the Russian side 29 . After the demand for the payment of indemnity and “way of life”, the phrase follows: “Yes, the coming of Russia, they love it, if they want it” 30 .

There is no disagreement in historiography regarding this clause of the treaty. Historians have noted that “loving” or “weak” is the maintenance of Russian ambassadors in accordance with the ambassadorial traditions that have established themselves in the empire. But all those who wrote about this only said that “sweet” is food. Meanwhile, the ambassadors of foreign powers who crossed the Byzantine border were taken by the empire for full free maintenance. The ambassadors were provided with transport, food, shelter; they were provided with escorts both on the way to Constantinople and back, to the borders of the empire.

In this regard, we do not rule out that by "sweet" we meant embassy content in the broadest sense of the word. Moreover, the Greek side undertook to provide the ambassadors with “move, if they want”, that is, the opportunity to use the baths. And when they get together on the way back, which, as you know, went by sea, they will receive “brasno”, and “anchors”, and “shelter”, and “sails” - again, “as much as they need” 31 . This text, however, is placed in the contract after the words about the provision of a monthly allowance to Russian guests, i.e., merchants who trade abroad. However, the words: “... and let them do it to them, if they want. When you go home to Russia, let them take your king on the way to the path ... ”- according to the context, they can be attributed to both guests and ambassadors. Let us pay attention to the words “eliko hotchi” (“as much as they want”). They point out that the time of stay of Russian ambassadors in Constantinople and their maintenance at the expense of the empire were practically not limited.

As noted, the tradition of exchanging embassy missions between Byzantium and Russia, which had a long history, was also reflected in one of the articles of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911, which says: ” 32 . This record testifies to a strong and long tradition of both embassy exchanges and Russian-Byzantine trade. We ventured to suggest that the first agreement on the development of the status of Russian missions in Byzantium, their equalization in rights with the embassies of other empire-friendly countries dates back to the 60s of the 9th century. Now, in 907, this agreement from a hypothetical becomes a historical fact.

This clause of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 907, as well as the previous conditions - on the restoration of "peace and friendship", on indemnity and tribute - "way of life", is purely political in nature and indicates that diplomatic relations between Byzantium and Russia are firmly enter into the mainstream of international traditions, into the mainstream of foreign policy relations of the Byzantine Empire with other states recognized by it.

The next plot of the agreement concerns trade relations between Russia and Byzantium, or rather, the status of Russian merchants in the empire: “And if guests come and eat a month for 6 months, bread, wine, meat, and fish, and vegetables” Russians the opportunity to use the bath, equipment for the way back. This condition undoubtedly reflects the demands of the Russian merchants to grant them a certain status in Byzantium. A month is the monthly allowance of Russian guests, which, as indicated in the text, consisted of bread, wine, meat, fish, and vegetables 34 .

This entire text is, apparently, a kind of draft treaty, or, in the language of the 15th-17th centuries, an embassy “mandate”, where the demands of the Russian side were formulated at the upcoming negotiations. In favor of such an assumption, firstly, the general “cap” to the text speaks: the terms of the contract and the tribute, and the “way of life”, and the “loving”, and the guest month are determined by Oleg’s “mandate” (“Oleg’s commandment ”), Secondly, the preliminary nature of the Russian proposals is indicated by the phrase following them, stating that the Greeks agreed to this (“and yashasya gre-pi”), and then the emperors and Byzantine senior officials "who took part in the negotiations presented Russians their counter terms of the contract.)

N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov were the first to pay attention to this, who wrote: “The emperor and his nobles accepted the condition only with the following changes ...” And then S. M. Solovyov cites facts about the restrictions imposed on Russians guests arriving in Constantinople 35 .

The short record of the chronicler that the Greeks agreed to the demands that Oleg ordered the ambassadors to defend, and that the Byzantine side put forward its demands, introduces us to the atmosphere of the negotiations themselves. The compiler of the chronicle outlined them in a certain sequence: first Oleg “commanded”, then the Greeks “yashya”, i.e. agreed, and then they themselves “resta”, i.e. they said. In fact, these laconic words reflect a typical picture of negotiations on a serious, fundamental issue. Russian troops were stationed not far from Constantinople, so the Byzantines immediately went to pay indemnity, but reduced its amount, agreeing to pay an annual tribute; they also recognized a certain status of Russian ambassadors and merchants in the Byzantine Empire.

When analyzing the terms of the agreement of 907, as they are stated by the Russian and Greek sides, one cannot but pay attention to the fact that the “Russian” clauses of the agreement mainly contain requirements of a general political order: peace, indemnity, tribute, embassy and trade status for Russians in Byzantium. The “Greek” conditions, on the other hand, concern mainly the procedure for the stay of Russian merchants on the territory of the empire, which placed them under the control of the imperial administration. Under the stipulated conditions, the Greeks, as it were, introduce the Russian trading element in Byzantium into the mainstream of strict legality, traditional principles, and the point here is not only that the Greek authorities were afraid of conflicts that the Russians could cause in the empire, as M. A. Shangin believed 36 . “If Russia comes without a purchase, they don’t charge a month,” says the first paragraph of the “Greek” conditions devoted to the problems of Russian-Byzantine trade. Thus, one of the restrictions for the Russians in Byzantium was that only those of them who arrived in the empire for “purchase”, trade transactions received a merchant month. How was it installed? In this regard, we want to draw attention to the following text in the agreement, coming from the Greeks: “And let them write their names, and then stir up their monthly, - the first from the city of Kiev, and packs from Chernigov, and from Pereslavl, and other cities” 37 .

Regarding the parallel place in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944, V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “It was a precaution so that Russian pirates would not sneak into Tsargrad under the guise of agents of the Kievan prince.” Later, DV Ainalov, analyzing the terms of the agreement of 907, also noted that "the census was carried out as a precaution." But there was another opinion. A. V. Longinov connected the demand for a census with the receipt of monthly feed by Russian merchants.

We believe that when analyzing this part of the annalistic text, both of these points should be taken into account. Byzantine author of the 11th century. Kekavmen in his "Strategikon" repeatedly speaks of cases of capture in the IX-X centuries. major cities in the Balkans, in Italy by Bulgarians, Franks, Turkish pirates with the help of military cunning 39. It is clear that the Greeks let the Russians into the city only in unarmed and small parties. However, the condition for the census of Russian caravans by the Byzantine authorities is not connected with this precaution (it is hard to imagine how the census could guarantee the city from attack), but with the general procedure for determining the purpose and composition of the trade mission, finding out the required amount of food, housing, etc. By the way, the procedure for issuing a month to Russian guests, established under this agreement, also testifies to the same. First, representatives of Kiev received it, then Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, and then “other cities” followed. It was possible to determine such an order only with the help of the census, which is mentioned in the proposals of the Greek side. Later, this practice became common in medieval states.

The condition of “constitution” of Russian merchant caravans upon their arrival in Byzantium is also connected with the condition of their passage into the city through one gate, without weapons, in parties of 50 people and without fail accompanied by the “tsar’s husband”: “And let them enter the city with the same gates with the husband, without weapons, husband 50”. Who is this "king's husband"? Yes, none other than an official assigned to accompany foreign missions and trade caravans. The existence of the institution of this kind of officials is reported in the “Book of the Eparch” - a Byzantine source of the 10th century. Thus, in the chapter “On the Legateary,” it is said that this prominent state official, deputy and first assistant to the eparch of Constantinople, is charged with the duty to report to the eparch about everyone who arrives in the capital of the empire “from whatever locality and with whatever were commodities”, set deadlines for the sale of commodities, etc. 40 Naturally, the legatee himself could not carry out all this diverse work and had to rely on direct executors in his activities. That is why we argue that this chapter of the "Book of the Eparch" is not so much about the legateary himself, but about the department headed by him.

Four years later, when the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 was concluded, special imperial “men” accompanied the Russian ambassadors in their acquaintance with the sights of Constantinople (“Tsar ... put men to them”). The "Tsar's Husband", mentioned in the treaty of 907, was supposed to bring the Russian caravan into the city and make sure that Russian merchants entered the city without weapons. He also carried out the protection of the Russian embassy and merchant caravans that arrived at Constantinople. Indirectly, this is evidenced by the mention in the agreement of 944 that the Russians who entered the city “let the husband of our kingdom be preserved” 41 . It is possible that the department of the “tsar's husband”, the official legatee, included other duties related to the placement of Russian merchants in the suburbs of Constantinople - near the monastery of St. Mamanta.

Already during the development of the treaty of 907, the motives of the Greeks' concern about the behavior of Russian missions on the territory of Byzantium were clearly manifested. “Yes, forbid the prince with spruce to his coming Russ here, but not to do dirty tricks in the villages in our country,” says the text coming from the Greek side. In our opinion, the Greeks' warnings against possible "dirty things" applied not only to merchant caravans, but also to embassies, since the text refers to an indication of "coming Rus", i.e., to everyone coming from Russia.

In the “Trinity Chronicle”, instead of the words: “Yes, forbid the prince with his word ...”, there is the phrase: “Yes, forbid the prince with his ambassador ...” 42 Apparently, the compiler of the “Trinity Chronicle” considered that the “dirty things” committed by the territories im-peoii, were not made by guests, but by ambassadors. It seems that the chronicle is far from the truth and a restriction of this kind could equally apply to both guests and ambassadors, who did not at all care about the decent behavior of their retinue in foreign territory. It is curious that the identical text of the treaty of 944, in a similar case, refers to the ambassadors and the rest of Russia, and not the princely word, and, perhaps, this is the best evidence of the error of the author of The Tale of Bygone Years here. This is how this phrase is read in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944: “May the prince break his food and those who come to Russia, but not create poverty in the countryside, nor in our country” 43 .

It is no coincidence that this part speaks only of the order established for Russian envoys in the “villages”. The way to Constantinople was sometimes completed by Russian embassy missions and trade caravans overland from the Bulgarian border through settlements past the rich, located on the ancient trade route of settlements and famous monasteries. A lot, apparently, of arbitrariness and violence were allowed by well-armed and numerous Russian caravans on the way to the Byzantine capital. The aforementioned condition of the treaty of 907 was a reflection of this. In the future, the same idea was developed in the order of the placement of Russians near the monastery of St.. Mamanta and their passage to the city. At the same time, the condition on the status of the Russian merchants in Byzantium is quite obviously imbued with the motive of the Russian side's concern about the order in which Russian merchants appear in the empire. Here it is said that the Russians who arrived “the demon of purchase” do not have the right to a month. It is known from the agreement of 944 that, until the new order established by the agreement of 944 (presentation by ambassadors and merchants of letters), merchants had to carry silver seals as a sign proving their identity and occupation. In this fact, we see a reflection not only of the interest of Byzantium in a certain procedure for granting a number of rights and benefits to merchants who came from Russia, but also the desire of the emerging ancient Russian state to put Russian trade with Byzantium under its control. And the treaty of 907 indicates the first steps in this direction, which have an analogy in Byzantium's relations with other countries. Thus, according to the Bulgarian-Byzantine treaty of 716, the merchants of both sides had to present letters of commendation upon arrival in the territory of the partner's country 44 . This level of relations for Russia was reached by 944.

Thus, in the text of the treaty of 907, coming from the Greek side, questions are raised about the behavior of Russian embassy and trade missions on the territory of Byzantium, the procedure for their movement around the country is regulated, the conditions for their stay near Constantinople and in the capital itself are determined. It contained thoughts that were later developed and specified in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. For the time being, they were expressed in a general form, which corresponded to the entire style of the treaty of 907, which resolved key issues of political and trade relations between the two countries. The main, determining the basis of mutual trade agreements between Byzantium and Russia, should also be considered the provision on the exemption of Russian merchants from “myta” - duties on goods sold: “Let them buy, as if they need it, without paying myta in anything” 45 .

This condition, apparently, was a reflection of the military pressure of Russia and lies in line with the same benefits wrested from Byzantium by Oleg, as indemnity, and the payment by the empire of an annual tribute to the ancient Russian state.

V.I. Sergeevich believed that nowhere in the annals was it said that Oleg accepted these Greek conditions 46 . However, the chronicle text reflected not only the procedure for the development in the Russian camp of the preliminary terms of the treaty and the very course of negotiations - a kind of diplomatic discussion, but also the terms of the agreed treaty. Despite the obvious layering of the annalistic text, which probably spoke of the traces of the final treaty, we clearly trace the main features of the treaty as a whole.