Inside the churches and the monasteries were the objects and pictures and sounds and words and smells that created the distinctive atmosphere of East Christian ritual and worship and contemplation. The continuous history of East Slav high culture, of art and literature (terms which are not, however, entirely appropriate to the devotional context), begins in the mid- eleventh century. It would be hard to overemphasise the ambitions of the mid-eleventh-century patrons and practitioners, who set standards of sophisticated opulence that few could rival for half a millennium: the dazzling mosaics covering huge surfaces of the upper walls in St Sophia in Kiev (see Plates 3 and 5);[76] the elegant argument and harmonious rhetoric of the Sermon on Law and Grace by Ilarion;[77] the luxurious Ostromir Gospel (1056-7), the first surviving dated Slavonic book, in format the grandest book of the entire pre-Muscovite age (see Plate 4).[78] These three monuments also happen to exemplify three distinct types of cultural transmission. The St Sophia mosaics are, in effect, Byzantine works which happen to have been commissioned in Kiev. Even their inscriptions are in Greek (see Plate 5). The Ostromir Gospel is a copy of a traditional Greek text in Slavonic translation. Ilarion's sermon uses traditional Byzantine theological argument to construct a framework of interpretation for native Rus' history. These are the three principal modes of the Rus' reception of Byzantine culture: the direct import of objects or personnel; local copying in Slavonic; and adaptation for local purposes. Throughout the Middle Ages the specific texture of Rus' Christian culture can be perceived in the nuances and the interplay of these three modes.
In the mid-eleventh to early twelfth centuries we see the beginnings of such processes, the establishment of models and precedents which were to become the foundations of a Rus' tradition. For example, although the mid-eleventh- century churches of St Sophia were not imitated, the church of the Dormition at the Caves monastery became the model for many of the most prestigious churches around the lands of the Rus'.[79] In the eleventh century the Church formally recognised the first Rus' saints: two of them, - the princes Boris and Gleb, murdered in 1015 - were, conveniently, members of the ruling dynasty, which was thereby proved to be especially favoured (see Plate 6); and one of them - Abbot Feodosii (d. 1074) - was the man who set the communal rules for the Caves monastery, and his Life (as well as one of the accounts of Boris and Gleb) was written by Nestor, a monk of the Caves.[80] Monks of the Caves, and possibly Nestor again, were likewise responsible for the main job of devising and shaping and compiling the Primary Chronicle, which served as the first section of successive East Slav chronicles for centuries, its narrative thereby becoming accepted as the standard 'foundation myth' of the Rus', the tale of their origins and formation.59 Indeed, if we take into account also a somewhat later Caves compilation known as its Paterik, or Paterikon, with stories of notable deeds of its monks,60 then Caves writings constitute a very substantial proportion of all native narrative materials for the period. As a collection of physical and verbal images, therefore, the Kiev- based 'Golden Age' of early Rus' ('Kievan Rus'', as it came to be known in post-medieval writings) was the creation first of the builders and artists and bookmen of Iaroslav Vladimirovich, and then of the monks of the monastery of the Caves. How widely their image of Rus' would have been recognised or accepted as accurate by contemporaries is, ofcourse, open to question, but in retrospect they were extraordinarily successful in shaping the perceptions of their successors.
59 See D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1947).
60 In L. A. Ol'shevskaia and S. N. Travnikov (eds.), Drevnerusskiepateriki (Moscow: Nauka, 1999), pp. 7-80; translation (of a slightly different version) in Muriel Heppell, The 'Paterik' of the Kievan Caves Monastery (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989).
The Rus' principalities (1125-1246)
MARTIN DIMNIK
Introduction
The years 1125 to 1246 witnessed the creation of new principalities and eparchies, the flourishing of some and the demise of others. During this period the system of lateral succession governed the political hierarchy of princes within individual dynasties in their promotions to the office of senior prince, and the political hierarchy of senior princes between different dynasties in their rivalries for Kiev, the capital of Rus'.[81]
From the earliest times, it appears, the princes of Rus' followed a system of succession governed by genealogical seniority. It dictated that, after the senior prince of the dynasty died, his eldest surviving brother replaced him. After all the brothers had ruled in rotation, succession went to the eldest surviving nephew. Vladimir Sviatoslavich (d. 1015) had no surviving brothers. Before his death, therefore, he designated his eldest son, Sviatopolk, to rule Kiev. The latter, fearing that his brothers would usurp power from him, waged war against them. In the end, Iaroslav 'the Wise' (Mudryi) was the victor.[82]
Iaroslav, evidently following the example of his father Vladimir, gave hereditary domains to his sons and observed the principle of lateral succession (for a fuller discussion of dynastic politics 1015-1125, see Chapter 4). Hoping to obviate future fratricidal wars, however, he changed the nature of succession to Kiev. He granted his three eldest surviving sons and their descendants, the inner circle so to speak, the right to rule Kiev. Accordingly, his two youngest sons, Igor' and Viacheslav, became debarred or izgoi. He designated the eldest son, Iziaslav, to replace him in Kiev. After Iziaslav died, Sviatoslav, the next in precedence, would occupy the town. After Sviatoslav, Vsevolod would rule the capital, and after his death succession would pass to the next generation of the inner circle, and so on. Iaroslav also gave the three sons patrimonies adjacent to the Kievan domain: Iziaslav got Turov, Sviatoslav got Chernigov and Vsevolod got Pereiaslavl'.[83] When each occupied Kiev, he would also retain control of his patrimony. This arrangement, Iaroslav believed, would give the prince of Kiev military superiority over the other princes. [84]
Except for one deviation, Iaroslav's revised system worked smoothly during the first generation. Iziaslav succeeded his father but Sviatoslav deposed his brother thus securing for his sons the right to sit on the throne of their father. After Sviatoslav predeceased Iziaslav, the latter returned to Kiev. Following his death, Vsevolod occupied the throne. He was succeeded by his nephew, Iziaslav's eldest son Sviatopolk of Turov. He and Vsevolod's son Vladimir Monomakh of Pereiaslavl', however, violated Iaroslav's design. (See Table 5.1: The House of Iaroslav the Wise.)
77
Simon Franklin,
80
81
Chronicles and charters are the main sources ofinformation for the political, ecclesiastical and cultural history of this period. Archaeological, architectural, artistic, sphragistic and numismatic data also give useful information, especially concerning commerce, trades and culture.
82
Martin Dimnik, 'Succession and Inheritance in Rus' before 1054',
83
Concerning Iaroslav's family, see N. de Baumgarten,
84
Concerning the controversy over Iaroslav's system of succession, see Martin Dimnik, 'The "Testament" of Iaroslav "The Wise": A Re-examination',