The chronicle reported the conclusion of four treaties with Byzantium by the Russian princes in 907, 911, 944 (945) and 971. The first agreement has come down to us not in the original text, but in the retelling of the chronicler.

Byzantine sources do not contain any information about these agreements, and therefore the question of their origin and sources, their relationship has long been the subject of lively debate.

Some researchers, in particular the Normanists, believed that the Russian-Byzantine treaties were later forgeries. Initially, the opinion about the forgery of the treaties of 911 and 945 (944) was expressed by the German historian A. Schlozer in his study “Nestor*. Schletser relied on the fact that the treaty of 911 was written on behalf of three Byzantine emperors: Leo, Alexander and Constantine. He argued that such three emperors did not exist at the same time either in 911 or at any other time. According to Schletser, proof of the falsity of the treaties was that Byzantine sources did not mention such treaties. It was also considered proof that the story about Prince Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople in Byzantine sources was of a fabulous nature (Shletser A.L. Nestor. Russian Chronicles in the Old Slavic Language. St. Petersburg, 1816. - T.I.S. 694, 751, 758- 759; T. P. 90, 208-209, etc.). Representatives of the so-called skeptical school in Russian also spoke about the falsity of Russian-Byzantine treaties. historical science- M. T. Kachenovsky and V. Vinogradov.

However, over time, the opinion about the falsity of Russian-Byzantine treaties was criticized. Thus, in studies devoted to Byzantine chronology, it was established that Alexander was called emperor during Leo’s life; Constantine, while still a baby, had already been crowned - therefore, the mention in the treaty of 911 of three Byzantine emperors at once is not at all an anachronism, the treaty could have been signed on their behalf (Krug P. Kritischer Versuch zur

Aufklarurig der Byrantischen Chronologie mil besonderer Riichsiht auf die fiuhre GescUihte Russlands. S.P., 1810). Then it was exhaustively proven that the text of the Russian-Byzantine treaties was translated into Russian from the Byzantine (Greek) language, and by substituting Greek words, many figures of speech and the meaning of individual phrases could be easily understood. It is necessary to note the merits of N. A. Lavrovsky, who devoted a special study to these issues (Lavrovsky N. About the Byzantine element in the language of treaties between Russians and Greeks. SP6D853). After Lambin’s work, which basically proved the historicity of Prince Oleg’s campaign against Byzantium in 907, the last doubts about the authenticity of the treaties should have disappeared - (Lambin. Is Oleg’s campaign near Constantinople really a fairy tale // Journal of the Ministry of People, Enlightenment 1873, VII ).

At present, the views about the falsity of Russian-Byzantine treaties can be considered completely refuted. A number of works have proven that there are no inconsistencies in their text. And the silence of Byzantine sources about Russian-Byzantine treaties is explained by the fact that the Byzantine chronicles contain gaps regarding the years when the treaties were concluded.

However, while denying the falsity of the Russian-Byzantine treaties, it is difficult to insist that their text has reached us without any changes. There is no doubt that during the three hundred to four hundred years of their copying by copyists of the chronicles, their text could have undergone more or less significant changes. It is possible that there are omissions in the text.

If the question is about authenticity or falsification Russian-Byzantine treaties is considered to be finally resolved, the origin of some treaties is still not clear.

The greatest difficulty is posed by the question of the origin of the treaty of 907. Thus, N.M. Karamzin and K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin believed that a completely independent treaty was concluded in 907. G. Evers, Tobin, A.V. Longinov did not agree with Karamzin and recognized the treaty of 907 only as a preliminary agreement, on the basis of which later (in 911) a formal peace treaty was concluded. A. A. Shakhmatov generally denied the existence of the treaty of 907 and considered the text of the chronicle about this treaty to be a conscious interpolation of the chronicler.

A later researcher M.D. Priselkov gave his explanation for the fact that the treaty of 907 contains brief retelling the same decrees that received detailed regulation in the treaty of 911. He suggested that Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavovich provided Nestor with the opportunity to use the princely treasury, where the treaties between the Russians and the Greeks were kept, for compiling the “Tale of Bygone Years”, and these treaties were not in proper condition: Some of the texts were lost, the texts were scattered. In particular, part of the treaty of 911 was torn off from the rest of the text, which gave Nestor reason to consider the torn piece as the remainder of the text of an earlier treaty with Byzantium. Moreover, among the documents there was another, complete copy of the treaty of 911, which Nestor cited in its entirety in his chronicle. The view of M.D. Priselkov was accepted by the largest researcher Ancient Rus' V.V. Mavrodin.

But it should be noted that M.D. Priselkov’s assumptions are unconvincing. The story about Nestor writing “The Tale of Bygone Years” and Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who allegedly allowed the chronicler to use the treasury, where there was an incomplete text with a piece torn off and a complete text, is not confirmed by anything.

More justified is the opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov that no special agreement was concluded in 907 or, rather, only an agreement on peace and indemnity was concluded. V.I. Sergeevich, in our opinion, also correctly pointed out that the Greeks should have sought the speedy removal of Prince Oleg’s soldiers from their territory and that for this purpose they should have rushed to give the ransom that Oleg demanded of them, and not initiate negotiations, which could only slow down the cleansing of their land.

An analysis of the chronicle story about the treaty of 907 shows that in this story there are obvious repetitions and insertions that interrupted the consistent flow of thought. The compiler undoubtedly had a variety of material in his hands, from which he tried to build something whole, but he failed. In any case, there are traces of the chronicler’s use of the texts of the treaties of 911 and 944. (restrictive clauses) are undeniable.

The Treaty of 911 was considered by researchers as a completely reliable document. It was divided by publishers, in particular M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, into 15 articles. At the beginning of the agreement it is stated that the envoys of Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, listed by name, to the emperors Leo, Alexander and Constantine, in order to strengthen the love that had long existed between Christians (Greeks) and Russia, concluded this agreement. Next comes a declaration on the inviolability of the peace treaty.

Most of the content of the 911 treaty is devoted to criminal law, and the articles related to this section are mixed with articles of other content.

Articles 9, 10 and 11 concerned the situation of captives sold to Rus' or Greece. These articles established a mutual obligation and the right to ransom and return prisoners to their homeland, as well as a mutual obligation to release prisoners of war to their homeland. According to this agreement, if Russian polyanyniks arrived for sale to Christians (i.e., Greeks) from some other country, and Christian (i.e., Greek) polyanyniks ended up in Russia in the same way, then they were sold at 20 gold and were sent home. Those of the released prisoners or prisoners of war who wished to serve the Byzantine emperor could do so.

One of the articles of the 911 treaty talks about mutual assistance in case of shipwreck (Article 8). The article meant the abolition of the so-called coastal law. Instead of seizing the ship that had suffered an accident and its property, the contracting parties pledged to mutually assist in rescuing the ship and property and in delivering it to the borders of the earth (Rus or Byzantium). In the event of any violence and murder, the perpetrators had to be punished in accordance with those articles of the treaty that provided for punishment for these crimes.

The literature has long raised the question of the relationship between the treaty of 911 and the treaty of 944. The circumstances in which the 944 treaty was drawn up influenced its content. The position of Prince Igor was different from that of Prince Oleg. Igor was defeated in the previous campaign, and although the Greeks found it expedient to make peace when organizing his second campaign, he was nevertheless forced to accept a number of restrictions in comparison with the treaty of 911 and to accept a number of obligations.

The treaty of 944 was not a repetition of the treaty of 911. The Ero articles had the nature of clarifying and developing the articles of the previous treaty. And most importantly, it contained quite a significant new text. As in the 911 treaty, most of the articles of the 944 treaty are devoted to criminal law. There are no articles in it devoted to the military service of Russians with the Greeks, articles about inheritance, or about the extradition of criminals. But in the treaty of 944 there were articles that defined the trade rights of Russians in Byzantium, clarified the position of Russian merchants in Constantinople, and most importantly - articles related to foreign policy Rus' and Byzantium.

At the beginning of the agreement, it was reported that it was concluded by the ambassador of Grand Duke Igor Ivor, ambassadors from the grand ducal house, ambassadors of other princes, ambassadors of the boyars, as well as merchants sent to “renew the old world” and “establish love between the Greeks and Russia.”

The first point of this agreement established the right on the part of the Russians, in particular on the part of the Grand Duke and his boyars, to send ships to Greece in the number they desired with ambassadors and guests. The sending of ships should have been notified to the Greeks with a special letter. If the Russians arrived without a letter, they were delayed and the Grand Duke was informed of their arrival. If the Russians, who arrived in Greece without a letter, resist, they will be killed. Grand Duke pledged to prohibit his ambassadors and Russian guests (merchants) from committing atrocities in Byzantium.

Russian ambassadors and guests who came for trade, according to the agreement, settled in a special suburb of Constantinople, near the Church of St. Mother. Their names were written down and after that they received a month's allowance (ambassadors - "slebnoe", and guests - "monthly"), food ("brew") and boats for the return journey. For production trading operations Russians were allowed into Constantinople in groups of no more than 50 people at once, without weapons, accompanied by a “royal husband” who was supposed to guard them and sort out disputes between them and the Greeks. It was also established that the Russians who entered the city did not have the right to purchase pavolok (precious silk fabrics) in excess of the permitted norm, i.e. over 50 spools. Russian ambassadors and merchants also did not have the right to winter on the outskirts of Constantinople, near the Church of St. Mother.

The foreign policy obligations of Rus' were set out in the following articles concerning the Kherson (Kopsun) country. According to Article 8, the Russian princes renounced their claims to this territory. When fulfilling this point (“and then even”), the Russian prince had the right, if necessary, to ask the Byzantine emperor for an auxiliary army. According to Article 10, Rus' assumed the obligation not to do any harm to the Korsun (Chersonese) people fishing at the mouth of the Dnieper. Rus' also took upon itself the obligation not to winter at the mouth of the Dnieper, in “Belberezh and near St. Elfer”. According to Article 11, the Russian prince also assumed the obligation to defend the Korsun country from attacks on it by the “black” Bulgarians.

The article on assistance in case of a shipwreck in the treaty of 944 was given in a different wording than in 911. This article (Article 9) only said the following: “If the Russians find the ship, castaway, then they pledged not to cause him any harm. If, nevertheless, they robbed this ship or enslaved or killed people from this ship, then they had to be punished according to Russian and Greek law*.

The treaty of 944 also had an article on the ransom of prisoners, and there was a difference in relation to the provisions on this issue of the treaty of 911. The difference was that the price of ransoming prisoners was lowered from 20 spools to 10 spools and lower (depending on age captives) and a difference was established in the price of the purchased captive. If the captive was Russian and, therefore, bought by the Greeks, then the price varied depending on age (10, 8 and 5 spools). If the prisoner was Greek and was ransomed by the Russians, then 10 spools were paid for him, regardless of his age.

Researchers have repeatedly expressed the idea that the treaty of 944 was only additional to the treaty of 911, and therefore contained only additional articles that supplemented or changed the articles of Oleg’s treaty. From this point of view, the articles of the 911 treaty, not changed by the 944 treaty, continued to be in force, although they were not repeated. But V.I. Sergeevich correctly, in our opinion, rejected these considerations. He pointed out that both treaties contain provisions in which no difference can be discerned. If in one case they found it necessary to repeat the old rule, why was this not done in the other? “In addition,” said Sergeevich, the treaty of 944 sometimes refers to the previous world, directly confirming its articles. If there is no such confirmatory reference, this means that the drafters of the new treaty did not find it necessary to insist on preserving this or that article of the first world” (Sergeevich V.I. Lectures and Research. P. 622-623). Undoubtedly, it was not about adding to the previous 911 Treaty, but about updating it.

As for the treaty of 972, no doubts are currently being expressed about its origin.

Let us now turn to the question of what law underlies the Russian-Byzantine treaties. Much has been said on this issue different opinions Thus, V. Nikolsky believed that the Russian-Byzantine treaties reflected Varangian-Byzantine law, K. G. Stefanovsky - that it was a reflection of Slavic-Greek law, V. I. Sergeevich saw purely Greek law in them, D. . Y. Samokvasov - purely Slavic law. A number of researchers, for example, P. Tsitovich and G.F. Shershenevich, refused to recognize in these treaties the elements of one or another national law and saw in them the presence of a special treaty international law.

Undoubtedly, V.I. Sergeevich’s opinion that the agreements were based on Greek law cannot be accepted, since the text itself speaks of the application of the norms of the “Russian Law* (on collecting from the thief three times the value of the thing, blows with a sword etc.). In addition, the sanction for some crimes was not specific to Greek law (for example, the death penalty for murder).

It is also impossible to accept the opinion that the treaties reflected purely Slavic law. First of all, the very concept of “Slavic law” is a mere abstraction, since the system of law of individual Slavic peoples in the 9th-10th centuries. varied significantly. But if we compare the provisions of the Russian Pravda with the treaties, which is a monument that most fully reflected the system of law of the Eastern Slavs, then it turns out that there is a big difference between the norms of the Russian Pravda and the norms of the Russian-Byzantine treaties (for example, for theft it was not remuneration in the amount of three times the cost of the item, but pre-established lessons).

It is also impossible to accept the view that the Russian-Byzantine treaties reflected “contractual” international law, which was neither Slavic nor Byzantine. The fact is that it is difficult to imagine that in the 10th century. such an abstract system of law could have developed, divorced from national basis. And most importantly, in ca-mom The text contains norms that should be considered norms of Russian law (references to “Russian Law”) or norms in which the main provisions of Greek law were manifested.

The refusal to see in the Russian-Byzantine treaties either purely Greek or purely Slavic or the so-called “contractual”, “international” law should entail the recognition of the presence in them of mixed law, the norms of which were established as a result of a compromise between the contracting parties. The drafters of the treaties made, in our opinion, a rather skillful attempt to adapt Greek (Byzantine) law, characteristic of a developed feudal society, to Russian law (“Russian Law”).

But what was this Russian law - “Russian Law”? Is it “Slavic” law, i.e. some kind of abstraction, or the right of the Eastern Slavs? We have already indicated that the idea of ​​“Slavic”, or rather “common Slavic” law cannot be accepted, since the Slavs in the 10th century. were at different stages of socio-economic development, and, therefore, there should have been great differences in their legal systems. But the Eastern Slavs were also not homogeneous in their socio-economic development. Suffice it to recall the existence of such a tribe as the Vyatichi, who even by the 12th century. have not yet left the stage of tribal relations. Consequently, there could not be any single system of law for the tribes of the Eastern Slavs. Probably, “Russian Law” means the system of law that has developed in the main centers of Rus'. Undoubtedly, there were no major differences between the individual centers of Russia, and, therefore, a one system Russian law, which can be contrasted with the system of Greek law.

Among the authors of the first commentaries on the text of Russian-Byzantine treaties were V. I. Sergeevich, M. F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, A. V. Longinov. The study of the language of Russian-Byzantine treaties was carried out by S. P. Obnorsky, who provided in a special article devoted to this issue, comprehensive evidence that the translation of Russian-Byzantine treaties was originally made from Greek into Bulgarian (i.e. the translation was made by a Bulgarian) , and then was corrected by the scribes.

Russian-Byzantine treaties are of great importance in the history of Russian law. They are not only indisputable monuments of strong economic, political and cultural ties between the Kievan state and Byzantium, but also provide an opportunity to establish the level of legal consciousness and legal thought in the 9th-10th centuries. And most importantly, they show that they are already early period existed relatively complete system Russian law (“Russian Law”), which preceded the Russian Pravda system of 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 treaty established friendly relations between Byzantium and Kievan Rus, determined the procedure for ransoming prisoners, punishments for criminal offenses committed by Greek and Russian merchants in Byzantium, 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 the possibility of hiring Russians for military service in Byzantium.

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.

see also

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the “Russian-Byzantine Treaty of 911” is in other dictionaries:

Oleg the Prophet leads his troops to the walls of Constantinople. Miniature from the Radziwill Chronicle (early 13th century). Date 907 ... Wikipedia

Byzantine fleet ... Wikipedia

Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium are the first known international treaties of Ancient Rus', concluded in 911, 944, 971, 1043. Only ancient Russian texts of treaties, translated from Greek language into Old Church Slavonic and reached ... ... Wikipedia

Art. glory Olga Vishchii ... Wikipedia

Rus' originally historical name lands Eastern Slavs and the first state of Ancient Rus'. It was first used as the name of the state in the text of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911; earlier evidence deals with the ethnonym ... Wikipedia

This article is about the Grand Duke of Kievan Rus. For other princes named Igor, see Prince Igor (disambiguation). Igor Rurikovich Sr. glory... Wikipedia

It is proposed to rename this page to Novgorod Rus'. Explanation of the reasons and discussion on the Wikipedia page: To rename / May 15, 2012. Perhaps its current name does not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian language and/or ... ... Wikipedia

Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian Radyanska Socialistichna Respublika), Ukraine (Ukraine). I. General information The Ukrainian SSR was founded on December 25, 1917. With the creation USSR On December 30, 1922 it became part of it as a union republic. Located on... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Byzantine Empire Eastern Roman Empire Roman Empire Imperium Romanum Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn ... Wikipedia

Eastern Roman Empire Roman Empire Imperium Romanum Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn ... Wikipedia

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 of 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.

The year 907 in the history of Rus' was marked by the legendary campaign against Constantinople (or, as it was also called, Constantinople), which was led by the Novgorod prince Oleg. This event is associated with a lot of speculation and doubt on the part of historians, many of whom do not believe in its authenticity for a number of reasons. In this article we will tell you in detail about Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople ( summary), and let's try to figure out whether this event really happened as the ancient Russian chronicles depict it.

Who is Prince Oleg?

Oleg was the prince of Novgorod and the great from 882 to 912, which was the year of his death. After he received power over the Novgorod land (which happened after the death of Rurik) as regent of the minor Igor, he captured ancient Kyiv. It was this city that at that time was destined to become the capital and symbol of the unification of the two main centers for the Slavs. That is why historians often consider the founder Old Russian state. And Oleg’s subsequent campaign against Constantinople became the reason for him to be called “Prophetic”.

Why was Oleg called the Prophetic?

As The Tale of Bygone Years tells us, Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place in 907. In the chronicle we're talking about about how the city was besieged and taken, and the courage and sharp mind of the prince, who outwitted the Byzantines, are glorified. According to this source, he refused to take poisoned food from them, which is why he was nicknamed “The Prophetic One.” This is exactly what people in Rus' began to call Oleg, who defeated the Greeks. In turn, his name comes from Scandinavia, and when translated means “saint”.

March to Constantinople

As already mentioned above, the content of the campaign and the Russian-Byzantine war is described in PVL (Tale of Bygone Years). These events culminated in a peace treaty being signed in 907. This became popular among the people thanks to the following words: “ Prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.” But, nevertheless, this campaign is not mentioned in Greek sources, and, in general, it is not mentioned anywhere except in Russian legends and chronicles.

In addition, already in 911 the Russians signed new document. Moreover, none of the historians doubt the authenticity of the conclusion of this agreement.

Byzantium and the Rus

It should be noted that after the Rus' campaign against Constantinople in 860, Byzantine sources indicate nothing about conflicts with them. However, there is a number of indirect evidence confirming the opposite. For example, the instruction of Emperor Leo IV already at the beginning of the 10th century contains information that the hostile “northern Scythians” are using small size ships sailing at fast speed.

Oleg's hike through The Tale of Bygone Years

As the legend about Oleg’s campaign says, Constantinople was taken not only with the involvement of the Slavs, but also the Finno-Ugric tribes, which are listed in the ancient Russian written monument of the early 12th century - “The Tale of Bygone Years”. If you believe the chronicle, some warriors rode horses along the coast, while others moved by sea with the help of two thousand ships. Moreover, each ship accommodated more than thirty people. Historians are still hesitant about whether to believe the “Tale of Bygone Years” and whether the data about the campaign indicated in the chronicle are genuine.

Legends in the description of the trip

The legend about Prince Oleg's campaign against Constantinople contains a large number of legends. For example, the narrative indicates that the ships moved on wheels, on which they were placed by Oleg. The Byzantines were afraid of the Rus heading towards Constantinople and asked for peace. However, they brought back poisoned dishes, which the prince refused. Then the Greeks had no choice but to give their consent to what Oleg proposed. As the legend says, they had to pay 12 hryvnias to all soldiers, as well as a separate amount to the princes in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Rostov and other cities except Novgorod. But the prince’s victories did not end there. In addition to the one-time payment, the Greeks of Byzantium had to pay a permanent tribute to the Rus, and also agree to conclude an agreement (we are talking about the same agreement signed in 907), which was supposed to regulate the conditions of stay and trade of Russian merchants in Greek cities. The parties took mutual oaths. And Oleg, in turn, committed that very famous act, which made him legendary, according to legend, in the eyes of the common people. He hung a shield on the gates of the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, as a victorious symbol. The Greeks were given the order to sew sails for the Slavic army. Chronicles say that it was after Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople was completed in 907 that the prince became popularly known as the “Prophetic One.”

However, if the stories of the ancient Russian chronicler about the Rus' raid on Constantinople in 860 are based only on Byzantine chronicles, then the story about this raid is based on information obtained from legends that were not written down. Moreover, several plots coincide with similar ones from the Scandinavian sagas.

Treaty of 907

What were the terms of the agreement, and was it concluded? If you believe the Tale of Bygone Years, then after the victorious actions of Prince Oleg in Constantinople, a document quite beneficial for Rus' was signed with the Greeks. The goal of its main provisions is considered to be the resumption of peaceful and good neighborly relations between these peoples and states. Byzantine power took upon herself the obligation to pay the Rus a certain amount of annual tribute (and its size is quite substantial), as well as to pay a one-time payment of indemnity - both in money and in things, gold, rare fabrics, etc. The agreement stipulated the above amounts of ransoms for each warrior and the amount of monthly allowance that the Greeks had to give to Russian merchants.

Information about Oleg’s campaign from other sources

According to the information of the Novgorod First Chronicle, a number of events occurred in a different way. At the same time, the campaigns against Constantinople were carried out under the leadership and the “Prophetic” was just a governor. The chronicle describes Oleg’s legendary campaigns against Constantinople as follows. The year is indicated as 920, and the dating of the next raid places the events in 922. However, the description of the campaign in 920 is similar in detail to the description of Igor's campaign of 941, which is reflected in several documents.

The information contained in the Byzantine chronicles, written by Pseudo-Simeon at the end of the 10th century, provides information about the Rus. In one of the fragments, some historians see details indicating the predictions of the sages about the future death of Oleg, and in the personality of Ross - the prince himself. Among popular science publications there is an opinion expressed by V. Nikolaev about the campaigns of the Russians against the Greeks, carried out around 904. If you believe his constructions (which were not mentioned in the chronicles of Pseudo-Simeon), then the Dews were defeated at Tricephalus by the Byzantine leader John Radin. And only a few managed to escape from the Greek weapons due to the insight of their prince.

A. Kuzmin, when studying the text of the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the actions of Oleg, suggested that the author used texts from Bulgarian or Greek sources about raids led by the prince. The chronicler quoted the phrases of the Greeks: “This is not Oleg, but Saint Demetrius, who was sent to us by God.” Such words indicate, according to the researcher, the time of events in 904 - the Byzantines did not provide assistance to the Thessalonians. And Demetrius of Thessalonica was considered the patron of the robbed city. As a result, a large number of residents of Thessalonica were slaughtered, and only some of them were able to be freed from the Arab pirates. These words of the Greeks about Demetrius, unclear in context, could contain indications of revenge from the saint on Constantinople, who was indirectly guilty of such a fate for the population.

How do historians interpret the information in the chronicle?

As mentioned above, information about the raid is contained only in Russian chronicles, and nothing is indicated in this regard in the Byzantine writings.

However, if we look at the text part of the document fragments, which is given in the Tale of Bygone Years, we can say that, after all, the information about the campaign of 907 is not completely fictitious. The lack of data in Greek sources is explained by some researchers by the incorrect date to which the war is attributed in the Tale of Bygone Years. There are a number of attempts to connect it with the campaign of the Rus (Dromites) in 904, while the Greeks fought with an army of pirates led by Leo of Tripoli. The theory that most closely resembles the truth belongs to the author of Boris Rybakov and, according to their hypothesis, information about the raid in 907 should be attributed to the events in 860. This war was replaced by information about unsuccessful campaigns under leadership that was inspired by legends about the extraordinary liberation of the Christian population from pagan tribes.

Dating of the campaign

It is not known exactly when exactly Prince Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place. The year to which these events are attributed (907) is conventional and appeared after the chroniclers made own calculations. From the very beginning, legends about the reign of the prince did not have exact date, as a result of which the information was later divided into stages, which were attributed to the initial and final periods of his reign.

In addition, the Tale of Bygone Years contains information about the relative dating of the raid. It contains information that what was predicted by the sages (the death of the prince) actually happened five years after the campaign against Constantinople took place. If Oleg died no later than 912 (this is evidenced by the data on sacrifices in Tatishchev’s works, which took place during the appearance of Halley, the legendary comet), then the author calculated everything correctly.

The significance of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople

If the campaign really happened, then it can be considered a significant event. The document that was signed as a result of the campaign should be considered as a defining moment in the relations between the Greeks and the Russians for the next decades. Subsequent historical events, one way or another, were associated with the raids carried out by Prince Oleg, regardless of their correct dating.

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 treaty established friendly relations between Byzantium and Rus', determined the procedure for the ransom of prisoners, punishments for criminal offenses committed by Greek and Russian merchants in Byzantium, the rules of litigation and inheritance, created favorable trading conditions for Russians and Greeks, and 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 the possibility of hiring Russians for military service in Byzantium was also allowed.

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: Publishing house of Volgograd State University, 2003. - 164 p.
• Yushkov S. V. Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1949. - 544 p.