Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium (907, 911, 945, 971, 1043)

Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium (907, 911, 945, 971, 1043)

So called treaties between Russia and Byzantium are the first known international treaties Ancient Rus', which were concluded in 907, 911, 944, 971, 1043 . At the same time, today only Old Russian texts of treaties have been preserved, which were translated into Old Church Slavonic from Greek. Such treaties have come down to us as part of the Tale of Bygone Years, where they were included at the beginning of the eighth century. The earliest written sources of Russian law are considered to be the norms of the Russian Law.

The treaty of 907 is considered the first of the above treaties. However, the fact of his conclusion is disputed by some historical researchers. They suggest that the text itself is a chronicle construction. According to another assumption, it is considered as a preparatory treaty for the 911 Treaty.

The treaty of 911 was concluded on September 2 after the most successful campaign of Prince Oleg’s squad against Byzantium. This agreement restored friendly relations and peace between the two states, and also determined the actual procedure for the ransom of prisoners, punishment for crimes committed by Russian and Greek merchants in Byzantium, changed coastal law, etc.

The Treaty of 945, which was concluded after the unsuccessful military campaigns of Prince Igor against Byzantium in 941 and 945, confirmed the norms of 911 in a slightly modified form. For example, the treaty of 945 obliged Russian merchants and ambassadors to use princely charters to enjoy previously established benefits. In addition, this agreement introduced many different restrictions for Russian merchants. Rus' also pledged not to lay claim to the Crimean possessions of Byzantium, and also not to leave its outposts at the mouth of the Dnieper and to help Byzantium in every possible way in military affairs.

The Treaty of 971 became a kind of outcome for the Russian-Byzantine war, which took place in 970 - 971. This agreement was concluded by Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich with the Emperor of Byzantium John Tzimiskes after the Russian troops were defeated near Dorostol. This agreement contained an obligation for Rus' not to wage war with Byzantium, and also not to push other parties to attack it (as well as to provide Byzantium with assistance in the event of such attacks).

Treaty 1043 was the result Russian-Byzantine war 1043 years.

All treaties between Rus' and Byzantium are a valuable historical source of Ancient Rus', Russian-Byzantine relations and international law.

907

Oleg, moving a little away from [Tsar]grad, began negotiations for peace with the Greek kings Leon and Alexander, sending Karl, Farlaf, Vermud, Rulav and Stemid to their city with the words: “Pay me tribute.” And the Greeks said: “We will give you whatever you want.” And Oleg indicated to give (his) soldiers for 2000 ships 12 hryvnia per rowlock, and then to give maintenance to those arriving from Russian cities: first of all from Kyiv, and also from Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities, because according to The princes subordinate to Oleg sit in those cities.

When the Russians come, let them charge as much maintenance as they want, and if merchants come, then let them charge a month's allowance for 6 months: bread, wine, meat, fish and fruits. And let them give them a bath as soon as (they) want. When the Russians go to their home, then let them take food, anchors, tackle, sails and whatever else they need from your Tsar for the journey.

And the Greeks obliged. And the kings and all the boyars said.

If the Russians do not come for trade, then let them not charge a month. Let the (Russian) prince prohibit his ambassadors and (in general) Russians arriving here from committing outrages in our villages and in our country. Let the Russians arriving (here) live near (the monastery) of Saint Mammoth; and when our royal majesty sends (to them someone) who will copy down their names, then (only) they will take their monthly allowance - first (those who came) from Kyiv, then from Chernigov and Pereyaslavl and from other cities. And let them enter the city only through one gate, accompanied by a royal official, unarmed, about 50 people each, and let them trade as much as they need, without paying any trade duties.

So, Tsar Leon and Alexander made peace with Oleg, pledged to pay tribute and both sides swore allegiance; the Greeks themselves kissed the cross, and Oleg and his warriors were sworn in according to Russian custom; and they swore by their weapons and their gods Perun and Veles, the god of cattle. And so the world was established.

911

In the year 6420. Oleg sent his warriors to establish peaceful relations and conclude an agreement between Byzantium and Russia; and, having sent (them), he said:

The list is from another (copy) of the treaty, kept by the same kings Leo and Alexander.

1. We, on behalf of the Russian people, Karla, Ingeld, Farlaf, Vermud, Gudy, Ruald, Carn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidulfost, Stemid, sent by Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, and all the noble boyars subject to him to you, Leo, Alexander and Constantine, by the grace of God, the great autocrats, the Greek kings, to confirm and strengthen the friendship that has existed between the Greeks and Russians for many years, according to the desire and command of our princes [and] all Russians subject to them. Our Lordship, desiring more than anyone else by the grace of God to confirm and strengthen the friendship that existed between Christians and Russians, many times really strove not only in words, but also in writing and with an inviolable oath, swearing by our weapons, to confirm and strengthen this friendship, according to our faith and custom.

2. These are the divisions, by the grace of God, of the peace agreement as we have agreed upon it. First of all, let us make peace with you, the Greeks, and let us become friends with each other with all our souls and hearts, and let us not, in accordance with our mutual desire, allow any disorder or offense on the part of the bright princes at our side; but we will try, as far as possible, to maintain with you, the Greeks, (from now on) an impeccable friendship, expressed in a written agreement and confirmed by an oath. Also, you Greeks, henceforth always observe the same indestructible and impeccable friendship towards our to the bright princes to the Russians and to everyone who is under the hand of our bright prince.

3. As for crimes, if an atrocity occurs, let us agree as follows: let the accusation contained in publicly presented (material) evidence be recognized as proven; if any (evidence) is not believed, then let the party who seeks not to trust it (the evidence) swear oath; and when he has sworn according to his faith, let the punishment be according to the nature of the crime.

4. About the following. If anyone kills (anyone) - a Russian Christian or a Russian Christian - let him die at the scene of the murder. If the murderer runs away and turns out to be a rich man, then let the relative of the murdered man take that part of his property that is due to him by law, but let the murderer’s wife also keep what is due to her according to custom. If the murderer turns out to be indigent and (at the same time) he fled, then let him be put on trial until he is found (if he is found, then), let him die.

5. If (someone) strikes with a sword or beats (someone) with any weapon, then for that blow or beating let him give 5 liters of silver according to Russian custom. If the one who did this turns out to be poor, then let him give as much as he can, even to the extent that he even takes off the very clothes in which he walks, and (as for) what is missing, then let him swear, according to his faith, that no one can help him, and let the prosecution for the purpose of collecting (from him) a fine end there.

6. About the following. If a Russian steals something from a Christian, or a Christian from a Russian, and the thief is captured by the victim at the very time when he commits the theft, and he resists and is killed, then his death will not be exacted by either Christians or Russia, but even the victim will take back his (property) that was lost from him. If the thief surrenders without resistance into the hands of the one from whom he stole, and is bound by him, then let him return what he dared to encroach on in triple the amount.

7. About the following. If someone - a Russian from a Christian or a Christian from a Russian - while causing suffering and clearly committing violence, takes something belonging to another, let him pay triple the damages.

8. If a rook is thrown out strong wind to a foreign land and one of us Russians happens to be there (nearby), then if (the owner) wants to keep it along with his goods and send it back to the Greek land, let us take it (we) through any dangerous place until she comes to a safe place; If this boat, saved after a storm or after it was thrown aground, cannot return to its place on its own, then we, Russians, will help the rowers of that boat and see it through unharmed with their goods. In the event that such a misfortune happens near the Greek land with a Russian boat, then (we, the Greeks) will lead it to the Russian land, and let the goods of that boat be sold (freely); (so) if you can sell something from (that) rook, then let us Russians unload their rook. And when we (we, Russians) come to Greece for trade or with an embassy to your king, we (we, Greeks) will honorably let through the goods (with) their boats brought for sale. If it happens that one of those who arrived on that boat is killed or beaten by us, the Russians, or something turns out to be taken from the boat, then let the Russians who did this be sentenced to the above punishment.

9. About the following. If a captive (from among the subjects) of one country or another is forcibly held by the Russians or Greeks, having been sold to another country, and a (compatriot of the captive), Russian or Greek, turns up, then (then it is allowed) to ransom him and return the ransomed person to his homeland, and (merchants , those who bought it, will take its price, or let the daily (spent market) price of the servants be counted into the redemption price. Also, if in the war (he) is taken by those Greeks, still let him return to his country, and his price, existing in ordinary trade calculations, will be given (for him), as stated above.

10. When is it necessary to go to war? When you need to go to war, and these (Russians) want to honor your king, then no matter how many of those who came (to you) at any time want to stay with your king of their own free will, let their desire be fulfilled.

11. About captured Russians (Christians), brought from any country to Rus' and immediately sold to Greece. If ever captive Christians are brought from any country to Rus', then they must be sold for 20 spools and returned to Greece.

12. About the following. If a Russian servant is stolen, or runs away, or is forcibly sold and the Russians begin to complain, then let this be confirmed by the testimony of the servant, and (then) the Russians will take him; also, if the merchants lose a servant and report it, then let them carry out a search and, having found it, take it away... If someone does not allow a local official to carry out this search, he will be considered guilty.

13. Russians in the service of the Greek Tsar in Greece. If someone (of them) dies without bequeathing his property, and he does not have his own (relatives) (in Greece), then let his property be returned to his closest relatives in Rus'. If he makes a will, then let the one to whom (he) wrote (the order) to inherit the property, take what was bequeathed and inherit it.

13a. About Russians committing trading operations…

About various (people) going to Greece and remaining in debt... If the villain (? does not) return to Rus', then let the Russians complain to the Greek royal majesty, and let him be captured and returned by force to Rus'.

15. Let the Russians do the same to the Greeks if the same thing happens (to them).

For confirmation and inviolability of the present peace treaty between you, Christians, and (us) Russians, we have drawn up in cinnabar (? Ivan's writing) on ​​two charters: your king's and his own, and, having sealed it (with an oath), presented with an honest cross and by the holy consubstantial trinity of your one true god, they gave it to our ambassadors. We swear to your king, who was appointed (to the kingdom) by the grace of God, according to the custom and according to the institution of our people, that neither we nor anyone from our country (will) violate (these) approved points of the peace treaty. And this written copy of the treaty was given to your kings for approval, so that the peace existing between us would be confirmed and strengthened by this treaty.

The month of September is 2, index 15, in the year from the creation of the world 6420.

Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts, gold and silks, and precious fabrics, and sent his husbands to show them the church beauty, the golden chambers and the wealth stored in them: a lot of gold, precious fabrics, gems, as well as the miracles of their god and the passion of the Lord: a crown, nails, a scarlet robe, the relics of saints, teaching them their faith and showing them the true faith. And so he released them to his land with great honor.

The ambassadors sent by Oleg came to him and told him all the speeches of both kings, how they established peaceful relations and concluded an agreement between the Greek and Russian lands, and (decided that in the future) not to break the oath - neither to the Greeks nor to the Russians.

944

In the year 6453. Roman, Constantine and Stefan sent ambassadors to Igor to restore former peaceful relations. Igor, having talked with them about peace, sent his warriors to Roman. Roman convened the boyars and dignitaries. And they brought the Russian ambassadors and ordered (them) to speak, and also to write down the speeches of both sides on the charter.

The list is from another (copy) of the treaty, which is in the possession of the kings Roman, Constantine and Stephen, Christ-loving rulers.

1. We, on behalf of the Russian people, are ambassadors and merchants, Ivor, ambassador of Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and general ambassadors: Vuefast - Svyatoslav, son of Igor; Iskusev - Princess Olga; Sludy - Igor, Igor's nephew; Uleb - Vladislav; Kanitsar - Predslavy; Shikhbern - Sfandra, wife of Uleb; Prasten - Turdov; Libiar - Fostov; Make-up - Sfirkov; Prasten - Akuna, Igor's nephew; Kara - Studekov; Egri - Erliskov; Voist - Voikov; Istr - Amindov; Prasten - Bernov; Yatvyag - Gunarev; Shibrid - Aldan; Kol - Klekov; Steggy - Etonov; Sfirka...; Alvad - Gudov; Froudi - Tulbov; Mutur - Utin. Merchant (? merchants): Adun, Adulb, Iggizlad, Uleb, Frutan, Gomol, Kutsi, Emig, Turbrid, Fursten, Bruny, Ruald, Gunastre, Frasten, Igteld, Turbern, another Turbern, Uleb, Turben, Mons, Ruald, Sven , Stir, Aldan, Tiliy, Apubkar, Sven, Vuzlev and Sinko Borich, sent by Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia and every prince and all the people of the Russian land. And they are entrusted with renewing the old peace treaty, which has been broken for many years, to the evil-hating, hostile devil, and to establish friendship between the Greeks and Russians.

And ours Grand Duke Igor, and his boyars, and all the Russian people sent us to Roman, Constantine and Stefan, the great Greek kings, to strengthen friendship with the kings themselves, and with all the boyars, and with all the Greek people for all the years (until) it shines the sun and the world itself exist. And if (anyone) from the Russian country plans to violate this friendship, then let those of them who have been baptized receive from the Almighty God retribution and condemnation to destruction both in this world and in the afterlife; and let those of them who are not baptized receive help neither from God nor from Perun, may they not be protected by their shields, and may they perish from their swords, from arrows and their other weapons, and may they remain slaves in this world and the afterlife.

2. And let the Russian Grand Duke and his boyars send to Greece to the great Greek kings (as many) ships with their ambassadors and merchants as they want. If (previously) it was decreed that ambassadors should bring gold seals, and merchants - silver ones, now your prince has ordered that letters be sent to our royal majesty; Let the ambassadors and guests sent by them (i.e., the Russians) bring a letter, where it will be written like this: “sent so many ships”; so that from such (letters) we learn that they come with peaceful intentions. If they come without a letter and find themselves in our hands, then we should detain them (until) until we inform your prince; if (they) do not allow themselves to be detained and resist, then (if they are killed) let your prince not demand their death; if, having escaped, they come to Rus', then we will write to your prince - and let them do (with them) what they want.

2a. If the Russians do not come for trade, then let them not charge a month. And let the (Russian) prince forbid his ambassadors and (in general) Russians arriving here to commit outrages in our villages and in our country. Let those arriving (here) dwell near the monastery of St. Mammoth; and when our royal majesty sends (to them someone) who will rewrite their names, then let them (only) take their due monthly allowance - first (those who came) from Kyiv, then from Chernigov and Pereyaslavl.

And let them enter the city only through one gate, accompanied by a royal official, unarmed, about 50 people each, and let them trade as much as they need, and go back out, and let the royal official guard them. If any of the Russians or Greeks commit lawlessness, let him (the official) judge them. When the Russians enter the city, let them not commit outrages - let them not have the right to buy precious fabrics worth more than 50 spools (each). And if anyone buys any of those fabrics, then let him show (them) to the royal official, and he, having put a seal, will give them to him. And let the Russians departing from here collect from us, as needed, food for the journey and what is needed to provide for the people, as was established earlier, and let them return unharmed to their country, but they have no right to spend the winter with Saint Mammoth.

3. If a servant runs away from the Russians who have come to the country of our Tsar's Majesty and (living) near Saint Mammoth, and if he is found, then let him be taken; if it is not found, then let our Russians swear allegiance - Christians in accordance with their faith, and non-Christians in accordance with their custom - and then they will take from us, according to the previously established price, 2 precious fabrics per servant.

4. If our servant runs away to you from the people of our royal majesty, or from our capital, or from other cities and brings something (with him), then you should return him; and if everything he brought is intact, then take from him (i.e. the owner) two spools for the capture (servant).

5. If any of the Russians tries (unauthorizedly) to take something from the people of our Royal Majesty and carries out his attempt, he will be severely punished; if (he) already takes (something), then let him pay double; and if a Greek does the same to a Russian, then (he) will be subjected to the same punishment to which he (the Russian) was subjected when he committed the theft.

6. If a Russian happens to steal something from the Greeks, then he should return not only what was stolen, but also (paying in addition) its price; if it turns out that the stolen property has already been sold, then let him pay double its price and be punished according to Greek custom and according to Russian regulations and customs.

7. And no matter how many captive Christians from our country come here

the Russians brought no matter, then if there is a young man or a good girl, let (at their ransom) give (ours) 10 spools and take them away; if (there is) an ordinary (prisoner), then they give 8 spools and take him away; if he is old or small, then they will give 5 spools.

If the Russians from among the captives find themselves enslaved by the Greeks, then let the Russians ransom them for 10 spools; if a Greek bought (a Russian), then he should swear allegiance to him and take his price, how much he gave for him.

8. And about the Korsun country. The Russian prince has no right to fight in those countries, or in any cities of that land, and that country will not be subject to you; when the Russian prince asks us for soldiers to fight, we will give him (as many) as he needs.

9. And about the next thing. If the Russians find a Greek ship washed up somewhere on the shore, let them not cause damage to it; if anyone takes anything from him, or converts any person (from this ship) into slavery, or kills him, he will be punished according to Russian and Greek custom.

10. If the Russians find the Korsunians fishing at the mouth of the Dnieper, let them not cause them any harm. And even though the Russians do not have the right to winter at the mouth of the Dnieper, in Beloberezh and near St. Elfer, but with the onset of autumn, let them go to Rus' to their homes.

11. And about the next thing. If the black Bulgarians come and begin to fight in the Korsun country, then we ask the Russian prince not to allow them to cause damage to his country.

12. If any crime is committed by the Greeks, subjects of our royal majesty, then (you) do not have the right to punish them (arbitrarily), but, according to the command of our royal majesty, let them receive punishment to the extent of their misdeeds.

13. If a Christian kills a Russian or a Russian Christian and the killer is captured by the relatives (of the murdered person), then let him be killed.

If the murderer runs away and turns out to be a rich man, then let the relatives of the murdered man take his property. If he turns out to be poor and (at the same time) he ran away, then let them search for him until he is found; if he is found, then let him be killed.

14. If a Rusyn hits a Greek with a sword or a spear or any weapon, or a Greek hits a Rusyn, then let him pay for such lawlessness, according to Russian custom, 5 liters of silver. If he turns out to be poor, then let everything from him be sold so much that even the clothes in which he walks, let them be taken off him, and (as for) what is missing, then let him swear, according to his faith, that he has nothing. has, and let him be released.

15. If our royal majesty wishes (to receive) soldiers from you to fight our opponents, and if they write (about this) to your Grand Duke, then let him send to us (as many of them) as we wish; and let other countries learn from this what kind of friendship connects the Greeks with the Russians.

16. We wrote this agreement on two charters: and one charter is with our royal majesty - on it is a cross depicted and our names written; and on the other (they wrote the names) of your ambassadors and your merchants. Going (back) together with the ambassador of our royal majesty, let (they) escort her to the Grand Duke of Russia Igor and to his people; and let them, having received the charter, swear that they will truly observe what we have agreed upon and what we have written on this charter, on which our names are written.

We (swear): those of us who are baptized, we swear in the cathedral church by the Church of St. Elijah, by the honorable cross presented and by this charter to observe everything that is written on it, and not to violate anything (that is written in it); and if this is violated by (anyone) from our country, whether a prince or anyone else, baptized or unbaptized, may he not receive help from God, may he be a slave in this life and in the afterlife, and may he be stabbed to death with his own weapon.

And the unbaptized Russians, laying down their shields, naked swords, hoops (?) and other weapons, swear that everything written on this charter will be carried out by Igor, all the boyars and all the people of the Russian country always, in all future years.

If any of the princes or Russian people, Christian or non-Christian, violates what is written on this charter, then he should die from his own weapon, and may he, as having broken an oath, be cursed by God and Perun. And if Grand Duke Igor worthily preserves this rightful agreement of friendship, may it not be destroyed (that is, this agreement, as long as) while the sun shines and the whole world stands, in modern times and into the afterlife.

The ambassadors sent by Igor returned to him with the Greek ambassadors and told (him) all the speeches of Tsar Roman. Igor called the Greek ambassadors and told them: “Tell me what the king punished you?” And the king’s ambassadors said: “The king sent us, delighted at the peace, (for) he wants to have peace and friendship with the Russian prince. And your ambassadors took our kings to the oath, and they sent us to swear you and your warriors.” And Igor promised to do so. And the next morning Igor called the ambassadors and came to the hill where Perun stood; and they laid down their weapons, shields and gold, and Igor and his warriors swore allegiance, and no matter how many Russian pagans there were, Russian Christians were sworn in in the Church of St. Elijah, which stands above the Brook at the end of the Pason's conversation. It was cathedral church, for many Varangians and Khazars were Christians. Igor, having established peace with the Greeks, released the ambassadors, giving them furs, servants and wax. The ambassadors came to the kings and told all the speeches of Igor and about his friendship for the Greeks.

971

And [Svyatoslav] sent ambassadors to the Tsar in Dorostol, for the Tsar was there, saying this: “I want to have with you lasting peace and friendship." (The Caesar) heard this, rejoiced and sent him gifts, more than before. Svyatoslav accepted the gifts and began to think with his squad, saying this: “If we do not make peace with the Tsar, and he finds out that we are few, then he will come and besiege us in the city. Russian land is far away, and the Pechenegs are fighting with us, who will help us (then)? If we make peace with the Tsar - after all, he has undertaken to pay us tribute - then that will be (quite) enough for us. If he does not send tribute (to us), then again, having gathered many soldiers, we will go from Rus' to Constantinople.” And the squad liked this speech. And they sent best husbands to the Caesar. And when they came to Dorostol, they told the emperor about this. The next morning the Caesar called them and said: “Let the Russian ambassadors speak.” They said: “This is what our prince says: I want to be in lasting friendship with the Greek Caesar in all future times.” The Caesar, overjoyed, ordered the scribe to write down all the speeches of Svyatoslav on the charter. And the ambassadors began to make all the speeches and the scribe began to write. This is what they said:

A list from another (copy) of the treaty, kept by Svyatoslav, the Grand Duke of Russia, and by the Greek Caesar John, called Tzimiskes, was written by Sveneld and the sinkel Theophilus in Dorostol in the month of July, indictment 14, in the year 6479.

1. I, Svyatoslav, Prince of Russia, as I swore, and confirm my oath with this agreement: I want, together with the Russian boyars and others under my control, to have peace and lasting friendship with John, the great Caesar of Greece, with Vasily and Constantine, God-given Caesars, and with all your people until the end of the world.

2. And I will never encroach on your country, nor gather troops (for war with it) and will not bring another people into your country and the lands subject to the Greeks, the Korsun region with all its cities and the Bulgarian land.

3. And if anyone else encroaches on your country, then I will be his opponent and will fight with him.

4. As I already swore to the Greek princes, and with me the boyars and all of Rus', let us observe (from now on) these inviolable treaties. If I and those who are with me and who are subject to me do not observe the above, let us be cursed by the god in whom we believe, Perun and Veles, the god of cattle, and let us turn yellow like gold, and let us be cut off by our own weapons. And do not doubt the truth of what has now been depicted on the golden tablet, written on this charter and sealed with your seals.

Svyatoslav made peace with the Greeks and set off in boats to the rapids.

For the first time, the idea of ​​a national, all-Russian representation of a diplomatic mission was formulated in 911.

The chronicler noted that Oleg sent his ambassadors to Constantinople “to build peace and establish a line” between Russia and Byzantium. These words clearly define the nature of the 911 agreement: on the one hand, it is “peace”, and on the other, “a series”. These concepts are not equivalent for the chronicler. Judging by the text of the treaty, “peace” means precisely its general political part. And this is not just “stylistics”, “moral maxim”, a formal protocol, as D. M. Meichik and A. V. Longinov wrote about it, but a reflection of existing historical realities, which were really deposited in stereotypical protocol phrases taken long ago armament by the state diplomatic services of many countries of the early Middle Ages.

The 911 Treaty speaks of the “retention” and “notification” of the “former love” between the two states. The first article of the treaty, coming after the protocol part, is directly devoted to this general political subject: “The essence, as we have always been about God’s faith and love, the chapters are as follows: according to the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks, let us love each other with all our hearts.” souls and wills...”, and then there is a text that says that both parties swear “to preserve other and always years”, “immutable always and throughout the years” to observe “love that is immutable and unshameable.” This political commitment is formulated precisely in the form individual chapters, one of which speaks of Rus'’s promise to preserve this world, and the other reflects the same obligation on the part of the Greeks: “In the same way, you, Greeks, may you keep the same love for our bright Russian princes...”

The Treaty of 911 again returns to the same idea that is expressed in the protocol and the first articles of the agreement - to the idea of ​​peace between the two states: “the former world was created ...”, “we swear ... not to transgress ... the established heads of peace and love,” “such writing is done... for approval and notification of the existing world between you” 3. Here the concept of “peace and love”, already formulated in a generalized form, refers to the entire agreement, to all the articles “set out” in it, regardless of whether they are they are directly related to the issue of “keeping” peace or are devoted to more specific issues.

The question naturally arises: why did both Rus' and Byzantium need to return four years later to this general political idea, expressed back in the treaty of 907?

The answer to this is contained in the treaty of 911 itself. Nowhere does it say that “love and peace” are concluded between states anew - after the peace of 907 this would be meaningless. The treaty only states that the ambassadors are aimed “to maintain and communicate” “peace and love,” i.e. to consolidate what has already been achieved. Let us remember that after the military conflicts of 941 and 970–971. “peace and love” were concluded anew and were considered as a return to the “old”, “first” world, by which we, as noted above, understand the treaty of 907.

The first article talks about the ways of dealing with various atrocities and the penalties for them;

the second is about liability for murder, and in particular about property liability;

the third – about liability for intentional beatings;

the fourth is about responsibility for theft and the corresponding punishments;

fifth - about responsibility for robbery;

sixth - about the procedure for helping merchants of both countries during their voyage with goods, helping shipwrecked people;

the seventh - about the procedure for ransoming prisoners - Russians and Greeks;

the eighth - about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service of the Russians in the imperial army;

the ninth is about the practice of ransoming any other captives;

the tenth - about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants;

eleventh – about the practice of inheriting the property of Russians who died in Byzantium;

twelfth - about the order of Russian trade in Byzantium (article lost);

the thirteenth is about responsibility for the debt taken and about punishments for non-payment of the debt.

Thus, a wide range of problems regulating the relationship between the two states and their subjects in the most vital and traditional spheres for them are covered and regulated by these thirteen specific articles, which constitute the content of the word “series”.

The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 was neither an addition to the agreement of 907, nor a formal written act in comparison with the previous oral agreement, nor a “new” peace in relation to the peace of 907. It was a completely independent interstate equal “serial world” , which not only included the main provisions of “peace and love” proclaimed in 907, but also supplemented them with specific articles of the “series”.

Subsequent analysis of the 911 agreement confirms the idea that this is an ordinary interstate agreement. Firstly, this is evidenced by the characteristics of the partners participating in the negotiations: on the one hand, this is “Rus”, on the other, “Greeks” (or “Rus” and “Christians”). These concepts, identical in this context to the concept of a country or state, run through the entire treaty, from the preamble to its final part. Secondly, the general political, interstate nature of the treaty of 911 is evidenced by the fact that it is a typical treaty of “peace and love”: its general political part repeats the agreements of 860 and 907.

The chronicler noted that Oleg sent his ambassadors to Constantinople “to build peace and establish a line” between Russia and Byzantium. These words clearly define the nature of the 911 agreement: on the one hand, it is “peace”, and on the other, “a series”. These concepts are not equivalent for the chronicler. Judging by the text of the treaty, “peace” means precisely its general political part. And this is not just “stylistics”, “moral maxim”, formal protocol, as D. M. Meichik and A. V. Longinov wrote about it, but a reflection of existing historical realities, which were really deposited in stereotypical protocol phrases taken long ago armament by the state diplomatic services of many countries of the early Middle Ages.

The Treaty of 911 speaks of the “retention” and “notification” of “former love” between the two states. The first article of the treaty, coming after the protocol part, is directly devoted to this general political subject: “The essence, as we have always been about God’s faith and love, the chapters are as follows: according to the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks, let us love each other with all our hearts.” souls and wills...”, and then there is a text that says that both parties swear “to preserve other and always years”, “it is immutable always and throughout the years” to observe “love that is immutable and unshameable.” This political commitment is formulated precisely in the form of separate chapters, one of which speaks of Rus'’s promise to preserve this world, and the other reflects the same commitment on the part of the Greeks: “The same way you, Greeks, keep the same love for our bright Russian princes. ..” 2

This general political part is quite definitely separated in the agreement from subsequent articles devoted to specific subjects of the relationship between the two states, since it further says: “And about the chapters, even if leprosy is in full swing, let’s put things in order.” This means that below are set out “chapters” concerning “leprosy,” atrocities, controversial issues, etc. After setting out these “chapters” on “leprosy,” the 911 treaty again returns to the same idea as expressed in the protocol and the first articles of the agreement - to the idea of ​​​​peace between the two states: “the former world was created...”, “we swear... not to transgress... the established heads of peace and love”, “such a writing is done... on approval and notification of the existing world between you” 3. Here the concept of “peace and love”, already formulated in a generalized form, refers to the entire agreement, to all the articles “established” in it, regardless of whether they are directly related to the issue of “maintaining” peace or are devoted to more specific issues. But be that as it may, this line of “peace and love” runs through the entire agreement and is connected both with its general political part and with specific subjects 4 .

The question naturally arises: why did both Rus' and Byzantium need to return, four years later, to this general political idea, expressed back in the treaty of 907? "

The answer to this is contained in the treaty of 911 itself. Nowhere does it say that “love and peace” are concluded between states anew - after the peace of 907 this would be meaningless. The treaty only notes that the ambassadors are aimed “to maintain and communicate” “peace and love,” that is, to consolidate what has already been achieved. Let us remember that after the military conflicts of 941 and 970-971. “peace and love” were concluded anew and were considered as a return to the “old”, “first” world, by which we, as noted above, understand the treaty of 907. There is no such return here: there was no military conflict between the countries over these years.

The agreement of 911 clearly states why it was necessary to return to this “retention”: the peace of 911 is “not just words, but writing and a firm oath,” that is, from the point of view of the creators of the agreement of 911, it is , some new stage in the contractual relations between Byzantium and the ancient Russian state. Perhaps we are talking about the first written general political treaty of “peace and love”, which repeated in principle the previous “verbal” (or mostly verbal) similar agreements - the treaties of 860 and 907. It is interesting to note that the question of the need to formalize the agreement in writing, and not verbally, refers precisely to this general political plot - “peace and love”, and not to the subsequent chapters about “leprosy”, which once again may suggest that in 907, some specific conditions could have been discussed and enshrined in writing, perhaps in the form of a chrisovul, as evidenced by traces of documentary passages traced in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and marked 907.

At the same time, if in 907 the agreement was formalized in the form of a chrisovul, i.e., an imperial grant, then in 911 the Russians could insist on a different form of agreement - on an equal bilateral agreement, since, as noted by F. Delger and I . Karayannopoulos, “according to the political theory of the Byzantines, the treaty was a privilege, a favor: the Byzantine emperor condescended to show such favor to foreign rulers. That is why the Byzantine emperors used charters of privilege, such as chrysobulos, as contractual documents.” It is possible that the Russians insisted on eliminating this “lenience,” which could also be the reason for the conclusion of a new comprehensive general political agreement. In this regard, we would like to draw attention to the translation of this part of the agreement by A. A. Zimin. He emphasized that Oleg wanted to “confirm and strengthen friendship,” that the Russians, even before that, “really tried many times, not only in words, but also in writing and with an inviolable oath, swearing by their weapons, to confirm and strengthen this friendship...” 6 . This means that written agreements existed before, as well as verbal ones, as well as an oath on weapons, which is reflected in the source.

On the other hand, the agreement of 911 was not only a treaty of “peace and love”, but also “nearby”. This “series” refers to specific subjects of relations between two states (or their subjects) in the spheres of both economic and political 7 .

The first article talks about the ways of dealing with various atrocities and the penalties for them; the second is about liability for murder, and in particular about property liability; the third - about liability for intentional beatings; the fourth - about responsibility for theft and the corresponding punishments for it; fifth - about responsibility for robbery; sixth - about the procedure for helping merchants of both countries during their voyage with goods, helping shipwrecked people; the seventh - about the procedure for ransoming Russian and Greek prisoners; the eighth - about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service of the Russians in the imperial army; the ninth is about the practice of ransoming any other captives; the tenth - about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants; the eleventh - about the practice of inheriting the property of Russians who died in Byzantium; twelfth - about the order of Russian trade in Byzantium (article lost); the thirteenth is about responsibility for the debt taken and about punishments for non-payment of the debt.

Thus, a wide range of problems regulating the relationship between two states and their subjects in the most vital and traditional spheres for them are covered and regulated by these thirteen specific articles, which constitute the content of the word “series”.

Domestic historians, as we have already seen, wrote a lot about the comparison of the treaty of 911 and the Greco-Persian agreement of 562, but did not consider these two documents from the point of view of the components of stereotypical treaties of “peace and love” and their article-by-article analysis. Meanwhile, it gives very remarkable results 8 .

In the treaty of 562, the agreement on peace for 50 years and on the payment of tribute by Byzantium to the Persians was formalized in the form of a separate document - a sacra, or an approved charter of peace. This document, drawn up in Greek and Persian and accordingly coming on behalf of the Byzantine emperor and the Persian shah, said: the parties “had negotiations between themselves about peace, and interpreted it, and approved peace for 50 years, and put seals on everything written. And we establish peace on the terms on which Zichus, the Roman master and Eusebius agreed among themselves, and we remain there.” 9

Then, Menander reports, another ambassadorial meeting followed, during which “after many disputes” the treaty itself was developed, consisting of 13 articles of a specific nature. In the first article, the Greeks and Persians agreed not to use the Derbent Pass for military purposes; in the second - to prohibit their allies from waging war against both sides 10; in the third - to conduct trade “according to existing custom through certain customs offices”; in the fourth - to facilitate ambassadorial exchanges and provide them with “proper security”, and diplomatic representatives were allowed to carry goods with them and trade them duty-free"; in the fifth - to observe the order of trade on the part of merchants of “barbarian” peoples dependent on each side; in the sixth - allow the transfer of citizens from one country to another only in war time, and in a period of peace hand over defectors to each other; in the seventh - to determine the procedure for considering complaints from citizens of both states against each other; in the eighth - do not build border fortifications and thereby not give rise to a new war; in the ninth - do not attack the territory of another state; in the tenth - do not keep the Greeks in the border fortress Gifts of military forces beyond what is necessary to protect the fortress and do not use it for raids on Persian possessions; in the eleventh - to determine the practice of judicial proceedings on controversial property issues, various kinds of grievances that arose between subjects of both states.

The twelfth article contains an appeal to God, who must support “those who keep the peace” and be an enemy to those who violate this peace; the last article states that peace is concluded for 50 years, and defines the procedure for the approval by the sovereigns of both countries of the document agreed upon by the ambassadors.

A special agreement was concluded regarding freedom of religion for Christians in Persia.

Thus, the same structure is visible in the Greco-Persian treaty as in the later Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The only difference is that the oath and credentials part and the general political agreement of the Menander Treaty were included in a separate document, while in the treaty of 911 they are an integral element in the protocol of the document and in its first two articles; As for the assurance of loyalty to the agreement and the appeal to the gods, as well as the procedure for their formalization in the agreement of 562, they are included in the last two separate articles. And in the 911 Treaty, these motives are presented in the same way in the final part of the document. Specific articles of the Greco-Persian treaty represent a kind of “series”. In content, many of them are very close to the clauses of the 911 treaty, as well as other agreements of the early Middle Ages, devoted to the regulation of trade and embassy contacts, consideration of property disputes, settlement of territorial, including border, conflicts, etc. 13 In this sense, the “series” of 562 and the “series” of 911 only reflected the concrete historical specifics of the relations of the states that concluded the treaty.

At the same time, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that the agreement of 911 is a more developed diplomatic document than the agreement of 562. It clearly shows three components that have become classic over time:

I. Introduction, which names the ambassadors who concluded the treaty, the person and state whose interests they represent, as well as the state and person with whom the agreement was concluded. The general political goal of the concluded agreement is also formulated here;

II. The direct content of the contract itself, its articles, the procedure for its approval, the oaths of the parties;

III. The final part containing the date of signing the contract.

The treaty of 562 only outlined the lines that were later molded into clear articles of medieval diplomatic documents. And this is understandable, since in the 6th century. both in the empire itself and in the countries surrounding it, the future diplomatic traditions that had developed in Byzantium only towards the end of the 10th century were barely emerging.

In order to determine the political nature of the agreement of 911 - whether it is an equal treaty or an imperial chrisovul, an obligation of Rus' or Byzantium, etc., it is necessary to analyze the agreement from the perspective of how it reflects and to what extent the interests of these two states 15 .

Already in the introductory part of the agreement, where the Russian side takes the floor and the ambassadors declare that they were “from the Russian family” sent by Oleg to the Byzantine emperors, we see the first sign of the bilateral nature of the agreement. Indeed, two sides - the Greeks and Rus', Oleg and the imperial trio - are counterparties in the negotiations here. The chapters of “peace and love” also have the nature of a bilateral commitment with complete equality of partners.

First, the obligation of the Russian side is formulated: in the agreement on behalf of the Russians there is the text “Let us make peace with you, Greeks...”; The Russians undertake not to disturb the peace by any “temptation” or “guilt”. And then the text, although it continues to come from the Russian side, already contains a commitment from Byzantium in this regard: “In the same way, you, Greeks, keep the same love for our bright Russian princes...” The Russians were supposed to observe “peace and love ” forever (“always years”), and the Greeks pledged to keep peace “all years long.”

In the first of the chapters on “leprosy” we read that if any crime is committed and it is not proven, then one should resort to an oath and everyone who is suspected of a crime must swear according to his faith (“... let him always swear according to his faith.” This means that the Greeks swear according to the customs of the Christian faith, the Russians - according to the pagan faith. For some reason, the modern translator missed this important aspect of the article and translated this text as follows: “... and when that side swears...” No, we're talking about that the suspected party must swear precisely “according to his faith,” which in this case also implies the bilaterality of the agreement and the equality of partners.

More precisely, this text was translated by A. A. Zimin: “... and when he takes the oath, according to his faith...” 16

The second article conveys this idea of ​​bilateralism and equality of rights of the treaty even more clearly. It says that if a Russian kills a Greek or a Greek Russian, the murder will be punishable by death. If the murderer escapes, the latter (that is, both the Greek and the Russian) must suffer the following punishment: his property is transferred to the neighbors of the murdered person; if the killer is “poor”, that is, has no property, then the “heaviness” will remain on him, and he will be killed if he is found.

The third article formulates sanctions for striking with a sword or any other object. The offender must pay 5 liters of silver “according to Russian law”; if he does not have this money, then he gives as much as he can, and to pay for the rest he gives everything, even clothes. This article also refers to both parties and their equal responsibility for the crime. As for the words “according to Russian law,” they only indicate the application in this case of the norm of Russian law; This norm itself, as can be seen from the text, applies to both the Greeks and the Russians who are guilty.

In the fourth article - about responsibility for theft - we read again: “...if a Rusyn steals anything from a Christian, or a Christian from a Rusyn...”, or the thief prepares to steal and is killed at the scene of the crime, then his death will not be punished “neither from the Christians, nor” from Rus'.” And again, both contracting parties act here as equal partners.

The fifth article states that both the Greeks and the Russians, who attempted robbery, pay for it threefold: “...if anyone from the peasants or from Rus' creates torture in an artful way and reverses the threefold.”

In the sixth article, this line continues: if a Russian or Greek boat is shipwrecked, then both parties bear equal responsibility for saving the ship of the other party. At the same time, Rus' must, having provided the boat with “its rudder,” send it “to the land of the Christians.” If a disaster occurs with a Russian boat near the Greek coast, the Greeks must escort it to the “Russian Land” 17.

In the seventh article - about captives - it is also emphasized: “...if we hold polonyanik from both countries, either from Rus' or from the Greeks, sold to that country, if a Rusin or a Greek turns up, so that we can redeem and look to the redeemed person in our direction. ..”, i.e. we are talking about the fate of captured Russians and Greeks and the obligations of both Rus' and Byzantium regarding the ransom of prisoners and their return to their countries.

The two-sidedness and equality of obligations are visible in article thirteen, devoted to establishing responsibility for the debt incurred. It says that if a Russian makes a debt in his homeland and then does not return to Rus', then the lender has the right to complain about him to the Byzantine government, and the offender will be captured and returned by force to Rus'. But the Russians must do the same in relation to the Greeks fleeing from debt. “Let all of you make Rus' Greek, wherever that may be.”

Some articles contain obligations only of the Greek side 18 . This refers to the article on allowing Russians to serve in the Greek army. At the same time, this permission is derived from the first part of this article, the meaning of which is that in the event of a war between Byzantium and any enemy, Rus' can provide military assistance to the empire: “When it demands to go to war, and these want to almost your king...” And if the Russian soldiers who came want to remain in the Byzantine service “of their own free will,” they receive such a right by this agreement. It seems that allied assistance from Rus' is its voluntary matter (“to want to honor”), but this matter is not at all voluntary for the soldiers themselves: they are obliged to go to war as allies of Byzantium and only then “of their own will” can remain in service in the empire. Thus, in the above case we are dealing with the first alliance agreement between Rus' and Byzantium that we know of, formulated in writing, and only Rus' bears allied obligations in relation to the empire. We believe that the parties concluded such an agreement between Russia and Byzantium verbally both in 860 and 907; Rus''s allied obligations were paid with Byzantine gold in the form of tribute and other trade and political benefits, recorded, in particular, in the treaty of 907. In the light of these agreements, supported by the article on allied assistance of the 911 agreement, the blows of the Russian army against Transcaucasia become especially obvious in 909-910 and 912/13, the threat of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas the Mystic to the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon to send “Scythian tribes” to him, and among them Rus', subsequent collaboration Russians and Greeks against Arabs. These allied relations were broken only somewhere in the mid-30s of the 10th century.

Greek obligations can also be traced when it comes to the inevitable return of stolen or runaway Russian servants. The Greeks also pledged to return to Rus' the property of Russian subjects who died in Byzantium, if no orders were made in this regard before their death. At the same time, in one case we trace the obligation of only the Russian side: it concerns the return of Greeks captured by the Russians for ransom at a set price.

Both Greek and Russian obligations are related to the immediate interests of the parties and are dictated by the real historical situation. The Greeks needed military assistance from Rus' in their military enterprises against the Arabs - and then a clause appeared about allowing the Russians to serve in the Byzantine army, which apparently reflected a long-established practice. The Russian feudalizing elite was interested in strengthening their rights to their servants and slaves - and so the Greeks undertake to return to Rus' the servants who had escaped from captivity. Byzantium, in turn, obtained from the Russians an obligation to return Greek prisoners, which, most likely, was an echo of the recent Russian campaign against Constantinople. Thus, these articles not only do not violate the general bilateral and equal nature of the entire agreement, but also emphasize its mutually beneficial nature.

The bilateral and equal nature of the agreement is confirmed by its termination. It says that the “former world” was written on “two charities,” that is, on two charters. One of the charters was certified by the Byzantine emperor and handed over to the Russian ambassadors (“the former world was created by Ivan by writing two harats, your king and with his own hand, presented by the honorable cross and the holy consubstantial Trinity of your one true god, to be announced and given by our ambassador”). The Russian ambassadors swore on another “haratya”. This letter was handed over to the Byzantine emperors (“We swear to your king, who is from God, like God’s building, according to the law and according to the law of our language... And this is the writing of your kingdom for approval...”; .

Thus, both the introductory part of the treaty, where the Russian side takes the floor and declares the retention and written execution of the treaty of “peace and love,” and the “row” of the treaty with its specific articles, and the final part of the document, again returning us to general political issues, are based on bilateral and equal obligations of both Rus' and Byzantium.

The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911, in this respect, repeats the Greco-Persian treaty of 562. There, the “chapters” of “peace and love” were also formulated on a bilateral and equal basis in the approved peace document. In the same way, the Greco-Persian “series” had bilateral equal obligations. True, there were also deviations: a separate document on the freedom of religion of Christians in Persia contained only the obligations of the Persian side. But in this case, as in the case of the Byzantine government’s permission to serve the Russians in the Greek army, we are dealing with historically developing relations between the two countries, when these obligations were not general, but absolutely specific and unique.

What is the system for concluding this agreement? The document was written in two versions: one, as already noted in historiography, came from the Greek side, was handed over by the Greeks to the Russian embassy and, apparently, was written in Greek. It was this Greek original that the Byzantine emperor signed “with his own hand.” Another copy came from the Russian side and was apparently written in Russian. This Russian original, on which Russian ambassadors swore, was handed over to the Byzantine emperors.

The agreement was drawn up in a similar way and the procedure for concluding it between the Greeks and Persians in 562 was exactly the same. At the same time, two authentic charters were prepared in Persian and Greek. The authenticity of both texts was carefully verified, and the parties verified not only all words and concepts, but also “the power of each word.” Exact lists were made from these two originals. The Persian ambassador Zich then gave the Byzantine ambassador Peter a copy written in Persian; Peter gave Zich a copy written in Greek, i.e. each embassy received in its hands the original, written in the language of the other side and bearing the appropriate signature and seal. But Zikh took for memory what was written in Persian language a list identical to the Greek and without seals. Peter did the same 21.

In 911, the Greeks and Russians also exchanged the texts of authentic letters, as was the case with the conclusion of the Greco-Persian treaty: the Greeks gave a copy signed by the emperor to the Russian ambassadors, and in exchange received the Russian text.

In this case, were copies made from both originals, as in 562? The chronicle is silent about this. But an analysis of the treaty of 911 and its comparison with the only known detailed agreement of the early Middle Ages, the treaty of 562, convinces us that such copies could well have been made. This is also supported by the fact that the texts of the sacra about peace (562), coming from the side in whose language the original was written, opened with the titles of the rulers of a given country and the names of ambassadors who concluded a diplomatic act on behalf of a given country, and the original, belonging to the other side, in turn was opened with the titles of the rulers, the names of the ambassadors of this other country. IN in this case authenticity was observed only in the form of representation; the names of the rulers, their titles, the names of ambassadors and their titles were naturally different in each charter 23. The situation is exactly the same with the treaty of 911. We read the copy that was deposited in the chronicle and comes from the Russian side: “We are from the Russian family... like the message from Olga...” Next, the Russian point of view on the purpose of the treaty is stated. The text comes from Oleg’s name: “our lordship,” the document says about him.

Judging by the analogy with the treaty of 562, there must have been an authentic text coming from the Greeks; This is also indicated by the final part of the treaty of 911, which states that there was a copy of the Greek “haratia” signed by the emperor. But Leo VI could not sign the text of the treaty coming from the Russian side. He signed the text coming from the Greek side, a text authentic to the Russian original.

From these positions, it is possible to assert more definitely than was done before that the chronicler had precisely a copy of the Russian text, the original of which was given to the Greeks during the final ceremony 24. This means that the entire procedure for drawing up the treaty of 911 was similar to that which accompanied the conclusion of the treaty of 562 and Byzantine-foreign agreements in the 10th-15th centuries.

There is no doubt that the Kiev Grand Duke's archive should also have contained a Greek original, which, like a copy of the Russian original, was later irretrievably lost.

K. Neumann showed that the inclusion of the partner’s obligations in the contract, i.e., the transformation of chrisovul into a bilateral equal contract, begins at the end of the 12th century, when Byzantium lost its former power. However, having considered the point of view of a number of historians that the inclusion of bilateral obligations in treaty texts could have been a Byzantine payment for military assistance from the state with which the agreement was concluded, K. Neumann rejected this possibility on the grounds that until the end of the 12th century ., for example, in Byzantine-Venetian relations, treaties could have taken place that included bilateral obligations, but were not preserved.

At the same time, K. Neumann, F. Dölger and I. Karayannopoulos proved that the execution of agreements in the form of chrisov-lov-awards began to be practiced by the Byzantine diplomatic service only in 992. 26

Thus, the Treaty of 911 does not fit either in time or in essence into any of the schemes noted above. This means that the treaty of 911 as a type of document occupies its own special place in the system of Byzantine diplomacy, even if we admit that it is close in type to the imperial chrisovul. But that's not true. This agreement differs from chrisovul in a number of ways. The procedure for its registration definitely indicates that we have before us a completely equal, bilateral interstate agreement. It was drawn up in accordance with international diplomatic traditions that came down from earlier times, and it should be compared not with later treaties of privilege, but with equal agreements of the 1st millennium such as the Greco-Persian treaty of 562.

In this regard, it is difficult to agree with the opinion of S. M. Kashtanov that we have before us a charter approaching the type of chrisovul issued without preliminary negotiations in another country. In first place in this type of chrisovul is the oath of foreign ambassadors. S. M. Kashtanov saw such an oath in that part of the text that opens with the words: “We are from the Russian family...” - and further to the words: “And about the heads that cause leprosy, we will settle this.” However, S. M. Kashtanov did not pay attention to the fact that this oath included a bilateral text about compliance by both the Russians and the Greeks with the treaty of “peace and love.” An identical text was found in the original Greek. He considers the words about writing “in two harathys” as the compilation of two documents: one “haratya” - “an amended version of the oath” and the other “haratiya” - the imperial chrisovul 28. As we have tried to show, this part of the document deals with the compilation of two authentic texts in Greek and Russian, approved by both parties. A comparison of the endings of the charters-chryso-bulos (where, in fact, it is said that this document is an imperial chrisobulum) with the final part of the treaty of 911 also convinces of their difference from each other. In the chrisovule issued to Genoa on behalf of the emperor in 1192, it is said that thanks to this document Genoa received the rights formulated in it as obligations of Byzantium. The emperor’s oath to observe this treaty is also given here 29 . There is nothing of the kind in the 911 Treaty, which, as already noted, ends with bilateral oaths and obligations.

The text of the chrisovul was translated into the language of the country with which the agreement was concluded; if it was a Western European country, then chrisovul was translated into Latin. In this case, it retained its shape. The translation of the charter of 911, which was a copy of the text coming from the Russian side to the Greeks, is of a completely different nature.

The reasoning of A. Dimitriou and other authors that the treaty of 911 was not finally approved, since Oleg did not ratify it in the face of the Byzantine embassy in Kyiv, seems to us untenable, since such ratification was carried out by the Russian embassy in Constantinople. On behalf of Oleg, the Russian ambassadors swore on the charter “according to the law and according to the law of our language,” that is, they fulfilled the entire ritual of oath on the contractual charter, which was accepted in Rus' and which was demonstrated by Oleg in 907 and Igor in 945 G.

The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 was neither an addition to the agreement of 907, nor a formal written act in comparison with the previous oral agreement, nor a “new” peace in relation to the peace of 907. It was a completely independent interstate equal “serial world” , which not only included the main provisions of “peace and love” proclaimed in 907, but also supplemented them with specific articles of the “series”. The formalization of this agreement took place according to all the canons of the then diplomatic practice regarding the conclusion of an agreement between two equal sovereign states. This agreement was another step forward in the development of ancient Russian diplomacy and was a step on the path from the oral oath agreement of 860 and, possibly, the Chrisovul agreement of 907 to detailed written diplomatic documents, the pinnacle of early feudal diplomatic documentation.

In connection with this basic significance of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911, many heated disputes of the past seem to us not so relevant. These include, in particular, disagreements about what language this act was originally created in: whether the text placed in the chronicle was a translation, or whether it was immediately written in Russian, and if it was a translation, then who was the translator? - Greek, Russian or Bulgarian? Where was the treaty originally created - in Kyiv or in Constantinople? Etc. First of all, regarding the language of the document. Scholars have repeatedly noted the presence of Greekisms in the language of the treaty; drew attention to the fact that in its text there are many Christian concepts alien to pagan Rus'; saw a trace of translation from Greek in the heavy, elaborate style of the act (G. Evers, N. A. Lavrovsky, I. I. Sreznevsky, S. A. Gedeonov, A. Dimitriu, D. M. Meichik, A. E. Presnyakov, S. P. Obnorsky, V. M. Istrin, S. Mikutsky, etc.); pointed out the stylistic differences in the introductory part, the features of the conclusion texts and articles. Today it is impossible to prove exactly what the linguistic basis of the text written in the chronicle was. Judging by the procedure for developing the treaty, which took place in Constantinople, it can be assumed that initially the text of the Russian charter could have been written in Greek, and then translated into Russian, and the entry and conclusion of the treaty changed accordingly, due to the fact that the Russian side took the floor thirty . In this case, the translator could be Russian, or Bulgarian (V.M. Istrin, S.P. Obnorsky), or Greek. It still seems that if the document is a translation, then it was carried out by a representative of the Russian side, since specific articles of the agreement have a Russian linguistic basis (N.A. Lavrovsky), close to the language of Russian Pravda, and the introduction and conclusion carry Byzantine diplomatic linguistic and conceptual stereotypes.

In this regard, in our opinion, A.V. Longinov’s assumption that the draft treaty, at least a “series” of it, could have been developed in Kyiv or some other place during preliminary negotiations with the Greeks is legitimate.

But one more assumption can be made. The well-known ponderousness of the presentation of the agreement, the confusion with the possessive pronouns “our” and “your” could be associated not only with the translation of the letter from the Greek original and the corresponding change in pronouns, since the text no longer came from the Greeks, but from the Russians, but also from the “speech” the nature of the negotiations and their “verbal” presentation, as mentioned above. This is to a certain extent confirmed by the text of the document: in the introduction and conclusion (except for one case), coming from the Russian side and developed not in “speech” disputes, but taken from forms kept in the imperial chancellery, there is no such confusion: all pronouns are placed correctly ; confusion begins when specific articles are presented, when Russian and Byzantine ambassadors alternately took the floor. Thus, the article on mutual assistance to shipwrecked people states that the Russians are obliged in this case to provide all possible assistance to the Greek boat. The text here comes from the first, Russian person - “us”, “we”. And then the same duties of the Greeks are formulated: if misfortune happens to a Russian boat, then the Greeks must escort it to Rus', but the text again sounds in the first person: “... let us escort Yu to the Russian land.” In this case, we are faced with either traces of Greek “speeches”, or with an error of a scribe, translator, or with a tradition, which was pointed out by K. Neumann.

He noticed that with the change in the form of Byzantine-Venetian treaties from chrisovuls to charters with bilateral obligations (after 1187), confusion with possessive pronouns also appeared here: the same subject appears either in the first or in the third person. K. Neumann analyzes the first such known charter from 1187 and notes that in the introduction the text is in the first person, and in the main part of the agreement both parties present themselves in the third person. And one more important detail was noticed by K. Neumann: during negotiations with the Byzantines, there were cases when the other side insisted, for reasons of prestige, that certain clauses of the treaty should be formulated by the Byzantines in the first person, although this was contrary to the rules of grammar. Thus, in 1198, the Venetian ambassadors demanded that Alexei III Komnenos state the oath part of the treaty in the first person, which was done. Confusion (similar to that which took place in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911) could arise, as K. Neumann points out, due to the fact that the imperial office sometimes could not cope with stylistics, especially in cases where the traditional form was chrisovula “turned out to be blown up” by bilateral obligations.

Negotiations regarding the development of the treaty, as is known, were held in Constantinople, where they ended and ended with the “signing” of the act itself. The Byzantine ambassadors did not appear in Kyiv, Oleg did not personally ratify the treaty. It seems that such a practice cannot be considered accidental. Rus' at that time was not yet a state for Byzantium that could lay claim to full diplomatic equality with the world empire, and the fact that the procedure for developing a treaty was carried out in Constantinople confirms this. In this sense, equality has not yet been achieved in the title of the Grand Duke of Kyiv. In the text of the agreement, Oleg is repeatedly called “our lordship,” “our bright prince.”

This title did not arouse interest among scientists. N.A. Lavrovsky considered it a simple borrowing from the Byzantine lexicon, going back to the Roman illustris. S. A. Gedeonov later wrote about the same thing. A.V. Longinov indifferently passes by this title, believing that the Greeks embraced the entire composition of the Russian princes represented in the treaty with the concept of “lordship”.

Meanwhile, the question of the title of the head of state in one or another diplomatic agreement of antiquity and the Middle Ages played a fundamental importance. This issue was associated with the prestige of the state, often with its territorial claims. It seems to us that the title “lordship” as applied to the Grand Duke of Kyiv is not a random translation from Greek, but a precise definition by the Byzantine diplomatic service of the meaning and state prestige of the still young Russian power. In Byzantium, which maintained diplomatic relations with many states of the world at that time, the significance and, in accordance with this, the title of the rulers of these states were precisely defined. In his work “On Ceremonies,” Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrote that in documents addressed to the rulers of ancient Rus', the emperors of Byzantium addressed them as follows: “Certificate of Constantine and Romanus, Christ-loving Roman emperors, to the Archon of Rus'.” A certain title, as we see, was assigned to the ruler of the ancient Russian state. Constantine VII recommended that the Bulgarian king be addressed in exactly the same way, but there, in addition to the title of archon, the epithet “gracious” appeared. Constantine VII recommended addressing the Frankish ruler as the “bright king of the Franks” 33 .

It seems that the concept of “light” corresponded to the place assigned to the Byzantine “diplomatic routine” and to the Russian rulers.

A number of diplomatic stereotypes are also found in other concepts of the 911 act, especially in its introductory and final parts. Here are the ancient concepts of “peace and love”, “affirmation” and “non-movement” of the agreement, and the formula for preserving the agreement “throughout the years”, etc.

The inclusion of Rus' in stereotypical diplomatic relations with the Byzantine Empire is visible not only in the procedure for developing the treaty and its content, but also in the order of stay of the Russian embassy in Constantinople. The chronicler tells how Emperor Leo VI “honored” the Russian ambassadors with gifts - “gold, and pavoloks and fofuds”, “assigned” “men” to them, who showed them “church beauty, and gold plates, and in them there is real wealth, gold there is a lot of grass and precious stones, and the passion of the Lord, and a crown, and a nail, and a scarlet robe, and the relics of saints...” Then he “released” them to Rus' “with great honor” 34.

There was no particular disagreement regarding this chronicle text in pre-revolutionary historiography. Scholars assessed it as evidence of the application of the usual diplomatic practice of receiving foreign missions in Constantinople to the Russian embassy. This is how the Arabs and Venetians were received. Only G. M. Barats, true to himself, noted skeptically: it is unclear why the ambassadors who concluded the treaty did not rush home to ratify it, why they walk around the chambers, accompanied by some men, why they look at churches, but are in no hurry to contact Christianity, etc. 35

In Soviet historiography, this subject was not given any attention at all. True, the commentator of the above text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” noted that this information, which is not in the initial code (reflected in the “Novgorod First Chronicle”), was gleaned by the chronicler from a later narrative (from 988) about Vladimir Svyatoslavich sending his ambassadors to Constantinople 36.

Only in 1968 this question reviewed by V. T. Pashuto. He noted that “special courtiers introduced them (ambassadors - A.S.) to the church sights of Constantinople” 37 .

And later A.G. Kuzmin again revived distrust of this chronicle text. He considered that in this case we are dealing with a “torn continuation of the story” about the events of 907. 38

This means that the embassy of 907 was accepted according to all the canons of the then Byzantine diplomatic tradition; the embassy, ​​which concluded the treaty of 911, the authenticity of which A.G. Kuzmin does not question, was deprived of such a reception. Then the text that the ambassadors were released with honor “to their land”, that they came to Oleg and told him about the progress of the negotiations, the conclusion of “peace” and “order” seems completely unmotivated. The existence of an embassy at all on the occasion of the conclusion of the 911 Treaty is called into question. The real diplomatic tradition is crossed out.

It seems that this chronicle text, like much in the practice of concluding the 911 treaty, reflects a very stereotypical situation. The very set of these gifts, as we see, is the same as in 860; other foreign embassies received the same thing - gold, expensive fabrics, precious vessels. The laws of diplomatic hospitality, widely noted in the practice of medieval embassy relations, indicate that in this case we simply have the first evidence in history of such a reception of the Russian embassy in Byzantium. It was familiarized with the sights of the city, the ambassadors saw the pride of Byzantium - its magnificent temples, its Christian shrines. Then there was a “vacation”, that is, an official farewell reception for the embassy, ​​at which the emperor “dismissed” the embassy to go home. The traditions of the first reception and the last - “vacation” - can be traced in the embassy service of many European countries and peoples of the Middle Ages. This is exactly how we should understand the words of the chronicler that the king “released” the ambassadors “with great honor.”

The ambassadors were accompanied, as V. T. Pashuto noted, by special officials, “men”, who back in 907 were obliged to introduce the Russian, like any other, mission into the city, place it, rewrite it, etc. In this case We meet for the second time with the diplomatic function of the “tsar’s husband,” addressed directly to the Russian embassy. Finally, Oleg’s reception of the ambassadors in Kyiv upon their return to their homeland testifies to this same emerging stereotypical diplomatic practice; they told him “all the speeches to both the king” and told how the conclusion of “peace” and the development of the “row” (“how to create peace” took place) . and put the order...”).

Thus, the description of the pastime of the Russian embassy in Constantinople also indicates the inclusion of ancient Rus' in the orbit of international diplomatic practice, and the treaty of 911 marked a qualitative new level in all respects: the progress of the development of the agreement, its content, the procedure for concluding, the practice of receiving and “vacating” the Russian embassy in Byzantium.

which regulated Russian-Byzantine relations. It was concluded on September 2, 911 in two languages ​​- Greek (not preserved) and Old Church Slavonic. Preserved in later lists of ancient Russian chronicles, in particular, in the Tale of Bygone Years. The oldest written source of Russian law; contains the norms of the Russian Law.

General information about the agreement and its meaning

In 911 (the year of the treaty was entered incorrectly as 6420, so not 912, but 911), according to the chronicles, Prince Oleg sent his people to the Greeks to conclude peace with them and establish an agreement between Russia and Byzantium. The agreement was concluded on September 2, 911 between the two parties:

The agreement established friendly relations between Byzantium and Rus', determined the procedure for the ransom of prisoners, punishment for criminal offenses committed by Greek and Russian merchants in Byzantium, and the rules of conduct trial and inheritance, created favorable conditions trade for Russians and Greeks, changed coastal law. From now on, instead of seizing a beached ship and its property, the owners of the shore were obliged to assist in their rescue.

Also, under the terms of the agreement, Russian merchants received the right to live in Constantinople for six months, the empire was obliged to support them during this time at the expense of the treasury. They were granted the right to duty-free trade in Byzantium. And it was also possible to hire Russians for military service in Byzantium.

see also

Notes

Literature

• Bibikov M.V. Rus' in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. - 2005. - No. 1 (19). - P. 5-15.
• Vladimirsky-Budanov M. F. Review of the history of Russian law. - K.-SPb.: Publishing house N. Ya. Ogloblin, 1900. - 681 p.
• Monuments of Russian law / Ed. S. V. Yushkova. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1952. - Issue. 1. Monuments of the law of the Kyiv state of the X-XII centuries. - 304 s.
• The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. - M.-L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1950. - Part 1. Texts and translation. - 405 pp.; Part 2. Applications. - 559 p.
• Falaleeva I. N. Political and legal system of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. - Volgograd: Volgogradsky Publishing House state university, 2003. - 164 p.
• Yushkov S. V. Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1949. - 544 p.