The chronicle reported on the conclusion by the Russian princes of four treaties with Byzantium in 907, 911, 944 (945) and 971. The first treaty has come down to us not in the original text, but in the retelling of the chronicler.
Byzantine sources do not contain any news about these treaties, and therefore the question of their origin and sources, their relationship has long been the subject of a lively dispute.
Some researchers, in particular the Normanists, believed that the Russian-Byzantine treaties were the latest 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*. Schlozer was based on the fact that the treaty of 911 was written on behalf of three Byzantine emperors: Leo, Alexander and Constantine. He argued that there were no such three emperors at the same time either in 911 or at any other time. According to Schlozer and TO, the proof of the falsity of the treaties was that Byzantine sources did not mention such treaties. It was also considered evidence that the story about the campaign of Prince Oleg against Constantinople in Byzantine sources had a fabulous character (Shletser A. L. Nestor. Russian Chronicles in Old Slavonic. St. Petersburg, 1816. - T. I. S. 694, 751, 758- 759; T. PI. S. 90, 208-209 and others). Representatives of the so-called skeptical school in Russian historical science, M. T. Kachenovsky and V. Vinogradov, also spoke about the falsity of the Russian-Byzantine treaties.
However, over time, the opinion about the forgery of the Russian-Byzantine treaties was criticized. So, in studies on Byzantine chronology, it was found that Alexander was also called emperor during the life of Leo; Constantine, while still a baby, had already been crowned - therefore, the mention in the contract of 911 of three Byzantine emperors at once is not an anachronism at all, the contract 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 proved that the text of the Russian-Byzantine treaties was translated into Russian from the Byzantine (Greek) language, and when Greek words were substituted, many turns of speech and the meaning of individual phrases could be easily understood. It should be noted the merits of N. A. Lavrovsky, who devoted a special study to these issues (Lavrovsky H. On the Byzantine element in the language of Russian treaties with the Greeks. SP6D853). After the work of Lambin, who 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 Tsargrad really a fairy tale / / Journal of the Min. people, enlightenment 1873, VII ).
At present, the views on the forgery of the Russian-Byzantine treaties can be considered completely refuted. A number of works have proved that there are no inconsistencies in their text. And the silence of the Byzantine sources about the Russian-Byzantine treaties finds its explanation in the fact that the Byzantine chronicles contain gaps regarding the years when the treaties were concluded.
However, denying the forgery of the Russian-Byzantine treaties, it is difficult to insist that their text has come down to us without any changes.
There is no doubt that over the three hundred to four hundred years of their copying by the scribes of the annals, their text could have undergone more or less significant changes. It is possible that there are gaps in the text.
If the question of the authenticity or falsity of Russian-Byzantine treaties is considered finally resolved, then the origin of some treaties has not yet been clarified.
The greatest difficulty is the question of the origin of the treaty of 907. So, N. M. Karamzin and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin believed that in 907 a completely independent treaty was concluded. 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 a formal peace treaty was later (in 911) 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 that the agreement of 907 contains in a brief retelling the same decisions that received detailed regulation in the agreement of 911. He suggested that Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavovich provided Nestor for compiling the Tale of the Time years” the opportunity to use the princely treasury, where the agreements between the Russians and the Greeks were kept, and these agreements were not in proper condition: some of the texts were lost, the texts were scattered. Including part of the agreement of 911 was torn off from the rest of the text, which gave Nestor a reason to consider the torn off piece as the rest of the text of an earlier agreement with Byzantium. At the same time, among the documents there was another, complete copy of the treaty of 911, which Nestor cited in his chronicle in its entirety. The view of M. D. Priselkov was also adopted by V. V. Mavrodin, the largest researcher of Ancient Russia.
But it should be noted that the assumptions of M. D. Priselkov are unconvincing. The story about Nestor, who wrote The Tale of Bygone Years, and Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who supposedly allowed the chronicler to use the treasury, where there was an incomplete text with a torn off piece and the full text, is not confirmed by anything.
More justified is the opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov that no special treaty 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 the soldiers of Prince Oleg from their territory and that for this purpose they should hasten to give the ransom that Oleg demanded from them, and not initiate negotiations, who could only slow down the cleansing of their land.
An analysis of the chronicle story about the treaty of 907 shows that this story contains 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 did not succeed. In any case, traces of the chronicler's use of the texts of the treaties of 911 and 944. (restrictive clauses) are certain.
The 911 treaty 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 indicated that the ambassadors of Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, listed by name to the emperors Leo, Alexander and Constantine, in order to strengthen the love that has long existed between Christians (Greeks) and Russia, concluded this agreement. Next comes the declaration of the inviolability of the peace treaty that has taken place.
Most of the content of the treaty of 911 is devoted to criminal law, and articles related to this section are mixed with articles of a different content.
Articles 9, 10 and 11 dealt with the situation of captives sold to Russia or Greece. These articles established a mutual obligation and the right to redeem and return captives to their homeland, as well as a mutual obligation to release prisoners of war to their homeland. According to this agreement, in the event that Russian polonyaniki arrived for sale to Christians (i.e., to the Greeks) from some other country, and Christian (i.e., Greek) polonyaniki ended up in Russia in the same way, then they were sold at 20 gold and were released to their homeland. Those of the freed captives or prisoners of war who wished to serve the Byzantine emperor could do so.
One of the articles of the treaty of 911 speaks of mutual assistance in case of a shipwreck (Article 8). The article had in mind the abolition of the so-called coastal law. Instead of capturing a ship and its property that had suffered from an accident, the contracting parties pledged to mutually help in saving the ship and property and in delivering it to the borders of the land (Rus or Byzantium). In the event of any violence and murder, the perpetrators were to be punished in accordance with those articles of the treaty that provided for punishment for these crimes.
In the literature, the question of the relationship between the treaty of 911 and the treaty of 944 has long been raised. The situation in which the treaty of 944 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 he organized a second campaign, he was nevertheless forced to accept a number of restrictions compared to the treaty of 911 and to accept a number of obligations.
The agreement of 944 was not a repetition of the agreement of 911. The Ero articles were in the nature of clarification and development of the articles of the previous agreement. And most importantly, it contained a fairly significant new text. As in the treaty of 911, most of the articles of the treaty of 944 are devoted to criminal law. There are no articles in it devoted to the military service of Russians among the Greeks, articles on inheritance, on the extradition of criminals. But in the treaty of 944 there were articles that determined the rights of Russian trade in Byzantium, clarified the position of Russian merchants in Constantinople, and most importantly, articles related to the foreign policy of Russia and Byzantium.
At the beginning of the agreement, it was reported that it was concluded by the ambassador of the 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 “affirm love between the Greeks and Russia.”
The first clause 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 quantity they desired with ambassadors and guests. 0 the sending of ships should notify the Greeks with a special letter. If the Russians arrived without a letter, they were delayed and the Grand Duke was informed about their arrival. If the Russians, who arrived in Greece without a letter, resist, they will be killed. The Grand Duke undertook to forbid his ambassadors and Russian guests (merchants) to commit excesses 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. Mama. Their names were written down and after that they received a month (ambassadors - “weak”, and guests - “monthly”), food (“brew”) and boats on the way back. For the production of trade 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 protect 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 allowed norm, i.e. over 50 gold pieces. Russian ambassadors and merchants also did not have the right to winter in the suburbs of Constantinople, near the church of St. Mama.
Russia's foreign policy obligations were outlined in the following articles concerning the Kherson (Kopsun) country. Under Article 8, the Russian princes renounced their claims to this territory. In the performance of this clause (“and then even more”), the Russian prince had the right, if necessary, to ask the Byzantine emperor for an auxiliary army. According to Article 10, Russia assumed the obligation not to do any harm to the Korsunians (Chersones) fishing at the mouth of the Dnieper. Russia also assumed the obligation not to spend the winter at the mouth of the Dnieper, in "Belberezhi and near St. Elferya." Under Article 11, the Russian prince also assumed the obligation to defend the Korsun country from attacks by "black" Bulgarians.
The article on assistance in case of a shipwreck in the agreement of 944 was given in a different edition than in 911. This article (Article 9) only said the following: “If the Russians find a ship that has been wrecked, 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 *.
In the contract of 944 there was also an article on the ransom of prisoners, and there was a difference in relation to the provisions on this issue of the contract of 911. The difference was that the price of the ransom of prisoners was reduced from 20 spools to 10 spools and lower (depending on age captives) and established the difference in the price of the purchased captive. If the prisoner was Russian and, therefore, bought by the Greeks, then the price varied depending on the age (10, 8 and 5 spools). If the prisoner was a Greek and ransomed by the Russians, then 10 spools of gold were paid for him, regardless of his age.
Researchers repeatedly suggested 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 treaty of 911, not changed by the treaty of 944, continued to operate, although they were not repeated. Ho VI Sergeevich correctly, in our opinion, dismissed these considerations. He pointed out that in both treaties there are provisions in which no difference can be discerned. If in one case it was found necessary to repeat the old rule, why was it not done in the other? “Besides,” Sergeyevich said, the treaty of 944 sometimes refers to the former world, directly confirming its articles. If there is no such confirmation reference, this means that the drafters of the new treaty did not find it necessary to insist on the preservation of one or another article of the first world ”(Sergeevich V. I. Lectures and Research. S. 622-623). Undoubtedly, it was not about an addition to the previous treaty of 911, but about updating it.
As regards the treaty of 972, there are no doubts about its origin at the present time.
Let us now turn to the question of what law underlies the Russian-Byzantine treaties. Many different opinions were expressed on this issue. So, V. Nikolsky believed that the Varangian-Byzantine law was reflected in the Russian-Byzantine treaties, K. G. Stefanovsky - that it was a reflection of Slavic-Greek law, V. I. Sergeevich saw they contain purely Greek law, D. Ya. 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 special treaty international law.
Undoubtedly, the opinion of V. I. Sergeevich that Greek law was the basis of the contracts cannot be accepted, since their text itself refers to the application of the norms of the “Law of the Russian *” 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 purely Slavic law was reflected in the treaties. First of all, the very concept of "Slavic law" is a bare abstraction, since the system of law of individual Slavic peoples in the 9th-10th centuries. varied significantly. But if we correlate the provisions of Russian Pravda, which is a monument that most fully reflects the system of law of the Eastern Slavs, with the treaties, it turns out that there is a big difference between the norms of Russian Truth and the norms of Russian-Byzantine treaties (for example, not a reward in the amount of three times the cost of a thing, but pre-established lessons).
It is 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 X century. such an abstract system of law, divorced from the national basis, could have been formed. And most importantly, in the text itself there are norms that must be considered the norms of Russian law (references to the “Russian Law”) or norms in which the main provisions of Greek law are manifested.
The refusal to see in 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”).
Ho what was this Russian law - "Russian Law"? Is it "Slavonic" law, i.e. some kind of abstraction, or the right of the Eastern Slavs? We have already pointed out 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, in their systems of law there must have been great differences. Ho and the Eastern Slavs were also not homogeneous in their socio-economic development. It is enough to recall the existence of such a tribe as the Vyatichi, who by the XII century. have not yet left the stage of tribal relations. Consequently, there could not be any unified 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 Russia. Undoubtedly, there were no major differences between the individual centers of Russia, and, consequently, a single system of Russian law could arise, which can be opposed to the system of Greek law.
Among the authors of the first comments 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, in a special article devoted to this issue, provided exhaustive 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 awareness and legal thought in the 9th-10th centuries. And most importantly, they show that already in the early period there was a relatively complete system of Russian law (“Russian Law”), which preceded the legal system of Russian Pravda.
The agreement - one of the earliest surviving ancient Russian diplomatic documents - was concluded after the successful campaign of the Kyiv prince Oleg and his squad against the Byzantine Empire in 907. It was originally compiled in Greek, but only the Russian translation has survived as part of The Tale of Bygone Years. The articles of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 are devoted mainly to the consideration of various offenses and the penalties for them. We are talking about responsibility for murder, for deliberate beatings, for theft and robbery; on the procedure for helping merchants of both countries during their voyage with goods; rules for the ransom of prisoners are regulated; there are clauses about allied assistance to the Greeks from Russia and about the order of service of the Russians in the imperial army; on the procedure for the return of fled or stolen servants; the order of inheritance of the property of the Russ who died in Byzantium is described; regulated Russian trade in Byzantium.
Relations with the Byzantine Empire since the 9th century. constituted the most important element of the foreign policy of the Old Russian state. Probably already in the 30s or the very beginning of the 40s. 9th century the Russian fleet raided the Byzantine city of Amastrida on the southern coast of the Black Sea (the modern city of Amasra in Turkey). In sufficient detail, Greek sources tell about the attack of the "people of the Ross" on the Byzantine capital - Constantinople. In The Tale of Bygone Years, this campaign is erroneously dated to 866 and is associated with the names of the semi-mythical Kyiv princes Askold and Dir.
The news about the first diplomatic contacts of Russia with its southern neighbor also date back to this time. As part of the embassy of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (829-842), who arrived in 839 at the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious, there were some "peace seekers" from the "people of Ros". They were sent by their Khakan ruler to the Byzantine court, and now they were returning to their homeland. Peaceful and even allied relations between Byzantium and Russia are evidenced by the sources of the 2nd half of the 860s, primarily by the messages of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (858-867 and 877-886). During this period, through the efforts of Greek missionaries (their names have not reached us), the process of Christianization of Russia began. However, this so-called “first baptism” of Russia did not have significant consequences: its results were destroyed after the capture of Kyiv by the squads of Prince Oleg who came from Northern Russia.
This event marked the consolidation under the rule of the northern, Scandinavian in origin, Rurik dynasty of lands along the transit Volkhov-Dnieper trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." Oleg, the new ruler of Russia (his name is a variant of the Old Norse Helga - sacred) first of all sought to assert his status in confrontation with powerful neighbors - the Khazar Khaganate and the Byzantine Empire. It can be assumed that initially Oleg tried to maintain partnership relations with Byzantium on the basis of an agreement of the 860s. However, his anti-Christian policy led to a confrontation.
The story of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople in 907 is preserved in the Tale of Bygone Years. It contains a number of elements of clearly folklore origin, and therefore many researchers have expressed doubts about its authenticity. In addition, almost nothing is reported about this military campaign by Greek sources. There are only separate references to the "Rose" in documents from the time of Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), as well as an unclear passage in the chronicle of pseudo-Simeon (late 10th century) about the participation of the "Rose" in the Byzantine war against the Arab fleet. The main arguments in favor of the reality of the 907 campaign should be considered the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The authenticity of this document is beyond doubt, and the conditions contained therein, which are extremely beneficial for Russia, could hardly have been achieved without military pressure on Byzantium.
In addition, the description in the "Tale of Bygone Years" of negotiations between Oleg and the Byzantine emperors, co-rulers Leo and Alexander, is consistent with the well-known principles of Byzantine diplomatic practice. After Prince Oleg, together with his army, appeared under the walls of Constantinople and devastated the surroundings of the city, Emperor Leo VI and his co-ruler Alexander were forced to enter into negotiations with him. Oleg sent five ambassadors with his demands to the Byzantine emperors. The Greeks expressed their readiness to pay a one-time tribute to the Rus and allowed them duty-free trade in Constantinople. The agreement reached was secured by both parties through an oath: the emperors kissed the cross, and the Rus swore on their weapons and their deities Perun and Volos. The taking of the oath was apparently preceded by an agreement, since the oath had to refer precisely to the practical articles of the treaty, which it was called upon to approve. What exactly the parties agreed on, we do not know. It is clear, however, that the Russians demanded some kind of payments and benefits from the Greeks, and that they received this in order to then leave the district of Constantinople.
The formal treaty between Russia and Byzantium was concluded, apparently, in two stages: in 907 negotiations were held, then the agreements reached were sealed with an oath. But the verification of the text of the treaty was delayed in time and took place only in 911. It is worth noting that the most favorable articles of the treaty for the Russians - on the payment by the Greeks of indemnity ("way of life") and on the release of Russian merchants in Constantinople from paying duties - are only among the preliminary articles 907, but not in the main text of the treaty of 911. According to one version, the mention of duties was deliberately removed from the article “On Russian Traders”, which was preserved only as a headline. Perhaps the desire of the Byzantine rulers to conclude an agreement with Russia was also caused by the desire to get an ally in the ongoing war against the Arabs. It is known that in the summer of the same year 911, 700 Russian soldiers participated in the campaign of the Byzantines on the island of Crete occupied by the Arabs. Perhaps they remained in the empire, having entered the military service there, after Oleg's campaigns, and did not return to their homeland.
A detailed textual, diplomatic and legal analysis showed that the texts of the diplomatic protocol, act and legal formulas, preserved in the Old Russian text of the treaty of 911, are either translations of well-known Byzantine clerical formulas, attested in many surviving original Greek acts, or paraphrases of Byzantine monuments. rights. Nestor included in the Tale of Bygone Years a Russian translation made from an authentic (that is, having the power of the original) copy of the act from a special copy book. Unfortunately, it has not yet been established when and by whom the translation was made, under no circumstances were extracts from copies of the books found their way to Russia.
During the X-XI centuries. wars between Russia and Byzantium alternated with peaceful, and rather long pauses. These periods are marked by the strengthening of diplomatic actions, the two states - by the exchange of embassies, active trade. Priests, architects, artists came from Byzantium to Russia. After the Christianization of Russia, pilgrims began to travel in the opposite direction to the holy places. The Tale of Bygone Years includes two more Russian-Byzantine treaties: between Prince Igor and Emperor Roman I Lecapenus (944) and between Prince Svyatoslav and Emperor John I Tzimisces (971). As with the agreement of 911, they are translations from Greek originals. Most likely, all three texts fell into the hands of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years in the form of a single collection. At the same time, the text of the treaty of 1046 between Yaroslav the Wise and Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh is not in the Tale of Bygone Years.
Treaties with Byzantium are among the oldest written sources of Russian statehood. As international treaty acts, they fixed the norms of international law, as well as the legal norms of the contracting parties, which, thus, was involved in the orbit of another cultural and legal tradition.
The norms of international law include those articles of the treaty of 911 and other Russian-Byzantine agreements, the analogues of which are present in the texts of a number of other treaties of Byzantium. This applies to the limitation of the period of stay of foreigners in Constantinople, as well as to the norms of coastal law, reflected in the treaty of 911. Paragraphs of some Byzantine-Bulgarian agreements can be analogous to the provisions of the same text on fugitive slaves. Byzantine diplomatic agreements included clauses on terms (baths), similar to the corresponding terms of the agreement of 907. Documentation of Russian-Byzantine agreements, as researchers have repeatedly noted, is largely due to the Byzantine clerical protocol. Therefore, they reflected the Greek protocol and legal norms, clerical and diplomatic stereotypes, norms, institutions. This, in particular, is the usual for Byzantine acts mention of co-rulers along with the ruling monarch: Leo, Alexander and Constantine in the treaty of 911, Roman, Constantine and Stephen in the treaty of 944, John Tzimiskes, Basil and Constantine in the treaty of 971. Such there were usually no mentions either in Russian chronicles or in short Byzantine chronicles, on the contrary, in the form of Byzantine official documents it was a common element. The determining influence of Byzantine norms was reflected in the use of Greek weights, monetary measures, as well as the Byzantine system of chronology and dating: an indication of the year from the Creation of the world and an indict (the serial number of the year in the 15-year tax reporting cycle). The price of a slave in the contract as 911, as studies have shown, is close to the fork of the average price of a slave in Byzantium at that time.
It is important that the treaty of 911, as well as subsequent agreements, testified to the complete legal equality of both parties. The subjects of law were the subjects of the Russian prince and the Byzantine emperor, regardless of their place of residence, social status and religion. At the same time, the norms governing crimes against the person were based mainly on the “Russian law”. Probably, this refers to a set of legal norms of customary law that were in force in Russia by the beginning of the 10th century, that is, long before the adoption of Christianity.
From "The Tale of Bygone Years"
In the year 6420 [from the Creation of the world]. Oleg sent his husbands to make peace and establish an agreement between the Greeks and Russians, saying this: “A list from the agreement concluded under the same kings Leo and Alexander. We are from the Russian family - Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid - sent from Oleg, the Russian Grand Duke, and from everyone who is at hand him, - bright and great princes, and his great boyars, to you, Leo, Alexander and Constantine, great autocrats in God, kings of Greece, to strengthen and to certify the many years of friendship that was between Christians and Russians, at the request of our great princes and by command, from all Russians under his hand. Our Grace, above all desiring in God to strengthen and certify the friendship that constantly existed between Christians and Russians, judged fairly, not only in words, but also in writing, and with a firm oath, swearing by their weapons, to affirm such friendship and certify it by faith and according to our law.
Such are the essence of the chapters of the covenant to which we have committed ourselves in God's faith and friendship. With the first words of our treaty, let us make peace with you, Greeks, and begin to love each other with all our hearts and with all our good will, and we will not let happen, since it is in our power, no deceit or crime from our bright princes who are at hand; but we will try, as far as we can, to preserve with you, Greeks, in future years and forever an unalterable and unchanging friendship, by expression and tradition of a letter with confirmation, certified by an oath. In the same way, Greeks, observe the same unshakable and unchanging friendship towards our bright Russian princes and to everyone who is under the hand of our bright prince always and in all years.
And about the chapters concerning possible atrocities, we will agree as follows: those atrocities that will be clearly certified, let them be considered indisputably committed; and by whom they will not believe, let the side that strives not to believe this atrocity swear; and when that party swears, let there be such a punishment as the crime will be.
About this: if anyone kills - a Russian Christian or a Russian Christian - let him die at the scene of the murder. If the murderer runs away, but turns out to be a property owner, then let the relative of the murdered person take that part of his property that is due by law, but let the murderer's wife keep what is due to her by law. But if the fugitive murderer turns out to be indigent, then let him remain on trial until he is found, and then let him die.
If someone strikes with a sword or beats with some other weapon, then for that blow or beating let him give 5 liters of silver according to Russian law; if the one who committed this offense is poor, then let him give as much as he can, so that he takes off the very clothes in which he walks, and on the remaining unpaid amount, let him swear by his faith that no one can help him, and let him not this balance is collected from him.
About this: if a Russian steals from a Christian or, on the contrary, a Christian from a Russian, and the thief is caught by the victim at the very time when he commits the theft, or if the thief prepares to steal and is killed, then his death will not be exacted either from Christians or from Russians; but let the afflicted take what is his that he has lost. But if the thief voluntarily surrenders himself, then let him be taken by the one from whom he stole, and let him be bound, and give back what he stole in threefold.
About this: if any of the Christians or of the Russians, through beatings, attempts [on robbery] and obviously by force takes something that belongs to another, then let him return it in a triple amount.
If a boat is thrown by a strong wind onto a foreign land and one of us Russians is there and helps to save the boat with its cargo and send it back to the Greek land, then we will lead it through every dangerous place until it comes to a safe place; if this boat is delayed by a storm or stranded and cannot return to its places, then we, Russians, will help the rowers of that boat, and see them off with their goods in good health. If, however, the same trouble happens with the Russian boat near the Greek land, then we will lead it to the Russian land and let them sell the goods of that boat, so that if it is possible to sell anything from that boat, then let us, Russians, take [to the Greek coast]. And when [we, Russians] come to the Greek land for trade or as an embassy to your king, then [we, Greeks] let the sold goods of their boat pass with honor. If it happens to any of us, the Russians, who arrived with the boat, be killed or something is taken from the boat, then let the culprits be sentenced to the above punishment.
About these: if a prisoner of one side or another is forcibly held by Russians or Greeks, being sold into their country, and if, in fact, it turns out to be Russian or Greek, then let them redeem and return the ransomed person to his country and take the price of his buyers, or let him be a price was offered for him, which is due for a servant. Also, if he is taken by those Greeks in the war, let him return to his own country anyway and his usual price will be given for him, as already mentioned above.
If there is a recruitment into the army and these [Russians] want to honor your king, and no matter how many of them come at what time, and want to stay with your king of their own free will, then so be it.
More about the Russians, about the prisoners. Those [captive Christians] who came from any country to Russia and are sold [by Russians] back to Greece, or captive Christians brought to Russia from any country, all these should be sold for 20 gold coins and return to the Greek land.
About this: if a Russian servant is stolen, either he runs away, or he is forcibly sold and the Russians begin to complain, let them prove this about their servant and take him to Russia, but also the merchants, if they lose the servant and appeal, let them demand a court and, when they find - will take it. If someone does not allow an inquiry to be made, then he will not be recognized as right.
And about the Russians serving in the Greek land with the Greek king. If someone dies without disposing of his property, and he does not have his own [in Greece], then let his property be returned to Russia to the closest younger relatives. If he makes a will, then the one to whom he wrote to inherit his property will take what was bequeathed to him, and let him inherit it.
About Russian traders.
About various people who go to the Greek land and remain in debt. If the villain does not return to Russia, then let the Russians complain to the Greek kingdom, and he will be captured and forcibly returned to Russia. Let the Russians do the same to the Greeks if the same happens.
As a sign of the strength and immutability that should be between you, Christians, and Russians, we created this peace treaty by writing Ivan on two charters - your Tsar and with our own hand - we sealed it with an oath by the presenting honest cross and the holy consubstantial Trinity of your one true God and given to our ambassadors. We swore to your king, appointed from God, as a divine creation, according to our faith and custom, not to violate us and anyone from our country any of the established chapters of the peace treaty and friendship. And this writing was given to your kings for approval, so that this agreement would become the basis for establishing and certifying the peace that exists between us. September 2, indict 15, in the year from the creation of the world 6420.
Tsar Leon, on the other hand, honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts - gold, and silks, and precious fabrics - and assigned his husbands to them to show them the beauty of the church, the golden chambers and the riches stored in them: a lot of gold, curtains, precious stones and the passion of the Lord - a crown, nails , scarlet and the relics of the saints, teaching them their faith and showing them the true faith. And so he let them go to his land with great honor. The envoys sent by Oleg returned to him and told him all the speeches of both kings, how they made peace and put an agreement between the Greek land and the Russians and established not to break the oath - neither to the Greeks, nor to Russia.
(translated by D.S. Likhachev).
© Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Bibikov M.V. Russia in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Russia and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies. 2005. No. 1 (19).
Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, Dr. Russia (IX - early XII century). SPb., 2000.
Nazarenko A.V. Ancient Russia on international routes. M., 2001.
Novoseltsev A.P. Formation of the Old Russian state and its first ruler // Ancient States of Eastern Europe. 1998 M., 2000.
The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianov-Peretz. M.; L, 1950.
Which articles of the treaty relate to the economic sphere, and which to the political?
What was the ethnic composition of the Russian ambassadors mentioned in the treaty?
What specifically Greek realities appear in the text of the treaty?
Why are Russians and Christians opposed in the treaty?
Is it possible, on the basis of the treaty, to speak of a military alliance between Russia and Byzantium?
The next year after Igor's campaign, Emperor Roman sent envoys to Igor to restore peace. The Tale of Bygone Years dates the peace treaty to 945, but the mention of Roman's name in the treaty points to 944.
In December 944 Roman was overthrown by his sons, Stefan and Constantine, who were immediately removed from power by the new emperor Konstantin Porphyrogenitus.
The text of the Russian-Byzantine treaty, which is of a military-trade nature, is quoted in full in the Tale of Bygone Years. First of all, he regulates the conditions for the stay and trade of Russian merchants in Byzantium, determines the exact amount of fines for various misconduct, and establishes the amount of ransom for captives. It also formulated a provision on mutual military assistance between the Russian Grand Duke and the Byzantine tsars.
A year after the conclusion of the treaty, Grand Duke Igor was killed by the Drevlyans.
 Svyatoslav Igorevich Prince of Novgorod in 945-969, Grand Duke of Kyiv from 945 to 972, became famous as a commander. Formally, Svyatoslav became the Grand Duke at the age of 3 after the death of his father, Grand Duke Igor, in 945, but independent rule began around 964. Under Svyatoslav, the Old Russian state was largely ruled by his mother, Princess Olga, first because of Svyatoslav's infancy, then because of his constant presence in military campaigns. When returning from a campaign against Bulgaria, Svyatoslav was killed by the Pechenegs in 972 on the Dnieper rapids. | Boris II Tsar of Bulgaria from 969 to 977, since 971 he was in Byzantine captivity, but at home he continued to be considered the Bulgarian king. The eldest son of Tsar Peter I and Tsarina Irina. |
The Russian-Byzantine war of 970-971 is the campaign of Prince Svyatoslav, first in alliance with the Greeks against Bulgaria, and then in alliance with the Bulgarian Tsar Boris II against Byzantium. The war ended with the expulsion of the Rus from Bulgaria.
Russian-Byzantine war of 941-944 - campaigns against Prince Igor's Constantinople. During the first campaign, the Rus army failed at sea, the second campaign ended with the signing of a peace treaty and tribute with the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Fok (he sent the noble Chersonesus patrician Kalokir to Kiev with huge gifts - 15 centinaries (about 450 kilograms) of gold )), from Byzantium.
The purpose of the diplomatic mission of Kalokir was to redirect the direction of the Russian army to the Danube banks, to the Bulgarian kingdom. Its king Simeon, a former prisoner of the emperor, successfully fought with Byzantium. However, sudden death did not allow him to complete the defeat of the hated empire. Although the new Bulgarian Tsar Peter the Short did not pose a serious threat to Constantinople, they nevertheless decided to get rid of a possible enemy with the forces of the Russians.
In 966, Nicephorus Foka decided to stop paying tribute to the Bulgarians under the agreement of 927, and began to demand that the Bulgarians not allow the Hungarians to pass through the Danube to plunder the Byzantine provinces. The Bulgarian Tsar Peter said that he had peace with the Magyars, he could not break it. This led to a war against Bulgaria.
However, Prince Svyatoslav had his own plans. He decided to expand the borders of Russia, make Bulgaria an ally in the upcoming war with Byzantium, and even planned to move his capital from Kyiv to the banks of the Danube, following the example of Prince Oleg, who moved to Kyiv from Novgorod.
The Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas triumphed when he learned that the Russian prince had agreed to go on a campaign against the Bulgarian kingdom. Tsar Peter soon died of grief. One of the most famous rulers of Byzantium in history, the most skilful diplomat of his time played a triple game with Svyatoslav:
1. Firstly, the military threat of the invasion of the Russians into the Chersonesus theme, the granary of the Byzantine Empire, was averted;
2. Secondly, in a military confrontation, he pushed the two most dangerous countries for Byzantium - Kievan Rus and the Bulgarian kingdom;
3. thirdly, he set the nomadic Pechenegs against Russia, exhausted in the war, in order to take over Bulgaria, exhausted in the war with Russia, in the meantime.
In 967, Svyatoslav approached the Danube and was preparing to land, the Bulgarian king, who still continues to demand tribute from Byzantium as usual, hastily collected thirty thousand and threw them against the Russians.
The Russian army led by Svyatoslav lined up in a kind of multi-row monolith and rushed at the Bulgarians like an iron wave. Those were broken. And so much that they did not think about further resistance: all the survivors fled and locked themselves in the strong fortress of Dorostol. Tsar Peter soon died of grief.
The next 968 year gave into the hands of Svyatoslav Pereyaslavets, Dorostol and eighty other fortress cities. In fact, all the towns along the Danube were in the hands of the people of Kiev. The prince took the place of the Bulgarian kings and began to rule his new state. Kalokir was by his side. And only now Nikifor Foka realized what kind of care he had amassed for himself - instead of the Bulgarian state that began to gradually grow old, he received a great warrior as a neighbor, considering no less great plans in which Byzantium was assigned an important, but by no means a carefree role.
However, Svyatoslav, having occupied part of Bulgaria, opposed Byzantium. As soon as Foka found out about this, he immediately ordered throwing machines to be installed on the fortress walls of the capital, to block the entrance to the harbor with a chain. In the army of Svyatoslav there were Hungarians and right-bank Pechenegs, so the emperor restored the left-bank Pechenegs to attack Kyiv and this forced Svyatoslav and his Kyiv squad to return to the Dnieper region.
The nomads besieged Kyiv, but as soon as a small squad of Russians approached the city and introduced themselves as the advanced detachment of the prince's troops, the Pecheneg Khan faltered and lifted the siege of the city. The Kievans, taking advantage of this, managed to send a messenger to the prince, who, without observing diplomatic politeness, conveyed the voice of the earth to his sovereign and prince: he, the prince, is looking for a foreign land and watches over it, but he renounced his own, and Kyiv, along with his mother and children, almost took the Pechenegs. Doesn't he feel sorry for his homeland, or for his aging mother, or for his children?
Having entrusted power to his grown sons, the prince made it clear that he would most likely leave Kyiv forever and would henceforth reign in Bulgaria, making it the center of his new vast state.
At the same time, the Greeks offered the Bulgarian princesses marriage with the sons of the late emperor. Romana. The Greek ambassadors promised the Bulgarian nobles help in expelling Svyatoslav.
But the Bulgarians - at least some of them - thought differently. New king Boris made peace with Byzantium against Svyatoslav. But the Russian prince also had many allies among the Bulgarians from now on - it seemed to them easier to endure the prince-warrior than their tsar, who was friends with the Greeks and learned from them how to oppress his subjects. When, in August 969, the Russians landed on the Danube with mighty force, their supporters among the Bulgarians became much larger. Svyatoslav easily passed to the capital of Boris Preslav, encountering no resistance anywhere, and just as easily took it, given by the king, who recognized himself as a vassal of the Kyiv prince. Realizing that Byzantium would not leave him alone, the prince decided not to wait for the first blow, and as soon as the passes of the Rhodope Mountains cleared of snow, he struck himself.
End of peace period. "Deep" Russian-Byzantine world 907 - 911. lasted until 941 Exactly 30 years later, a new Russian-Byzantine war began.
Of course, it is not at all necessary that after the expiration of the term of the treaty, military confrontation should begin; the agreement could be extended, renegotiated, etc., but this did not happen. Controversy did not escalate immediately. They grew gradually. Back in the mid 30s. Russian soldiers participated in the expedition of the Greek fleet to the Italian and French shores, but then relations went wrong.
By this time, the position of Byzantium had become more stable. Under the new emperor Roman I Lekapenos, a strong army was created. After the death of Tsar Simeon, Bulgaria weakened more and more, it was torn apart by feudal unrest, and pro-Byzantine sentiments prevailed in the Bulgarian leadership. Russia was losing an old and reliable friend in the face of the new Bulgaria. The borders with the Arab Caliphate were stabilized. The Greeks managed to stop the advance of the Arabs in Asia Minor.
Strengthening its military and political power, Byzantium, apparently, sought to expand its spheres of influence in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region, and completely isolate Khazaria. In this area, the interests of Russia and the empire were bound to collide.
Battle of Igor's troops with the Byzantines
A study of the subsequent Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944 shows us the main reasons for the confrontation between the two countries. And the first of them is the most acute contradictions in the Northern Black Sea region. Under this agreement, Russia was obliged to “not have a volost”, that is, not to seize land in this area, not to obstruct the inhabitants of Chersonesos in catching fish at the mouth of the Dnieper, not to spend the winter in the Dnieper mouth on Beloberezhye, but after the onset of autumn, return “to the houses own in Russia. In the middle of the X century. Eastern authors began to call the Black Sea the Russian Sea, in a number of Byzantine sources of the same time, the Cimmerian Bosporus, that is, the Kerch Strait, is also mentioned as a Russian possession.
All this taken together suggests that Russia in the 20-30s. mastered the Northern Black Sea region.
In the context of renewed strife and quarrels, Byzantium stopped paying annual tribute to Russia and, probably unilaterally, abolished the right of Russian merchants to duty-free trade in Byzantium. The main provisions of the thirty-year Russian-Byzantine treaty of 907 collapsed. The fact that the payment of tribute was stopped is evidenced by the fact that after disastrous battles, a long military confrontation, peace negotiations between the parties began precisely with the question of Byzantium resuming the payment of tribute to Russia. When Igor, after the first defeats in 941, organized a second campaign against Constantinople in 944, he was met on the Danube by the imperial embassy and declared on behalf of Roman I: tribute." The Greeks proposed to return to the main clause of the treaty of 907.
Russia entered the military confrontation not alone. If Byzantium enjoyed the support of Bulgaria, and in the North Caucasus its allies were the Alans, then Russia also had allies.
Together with Rus, her old friends, the Hungarians, performed. This is evidenced by their attack on Constantinople in 943, at the height of the Russo-Byzantine war. During his second campaign against Byzantium, Igor led, in addition to the Russian army, also allies - the Varangians and Pechenegs - "Pechenegs naa" (hired. - A. S). In this war, Igor also relied on the benevolent neutrality of the Khazaria, which at that time was in sharp conflict with Byzantium.
Events unfolded rapidly. In 941, the Bulgarians and the Chersonesos strategist, whose military posts always closely followed the movements of Russian troops along the Dnieper and the Black Sea, reported to Constantinople that “Rus is going to Tsargrad, skedia (ships. - A. S.) 10 thousand."
And this time, the Russians, apparently having carried out a thorough reconnaissance, attacked the Byzantine capital at the moment when the Greek fleet left to fight the Arabs in the Mediterranean, and the best armies were in Thrace, Macedonia and Asia Minor. But a sudden blow did not work: the Greeks were warned of the invasion in advance.
The first battle took place near Constantinople near the town of Hieron. It was a naval battle. The Greeks used their "fire", causing horror among the Russians.
A prominent Greek commander and diplomat, Patrician Theophanes, led the Byzantine fleet in this battle. Igor's fleet was defeated, and here the Russian army split: part of the ships withdrew to the East, to the shores of Asia Minor, while others, led by Igor, turned back to their homeland, believing, obviously, that the rest of the ships died in the depths of the sea.
The Russian fleet, which had withdrawn towards Asia Minor, was still a formidable force. Byzantine and Russian sources report that the Russians went to war across the territory of Byzantium from Pontus, that is, the Bosphorus, to Paphlagonia, reminding the Greeks of their invasion of these same places back in the 9th century. The Russians, according to The Tale of Bygone Years, captured huge wealth, many prisoners, burned monasteries, churches, and villages that came across them on the way. The scale and fury of this invasion, even despite the defeat of the Russians in the first battle, is also evidenced by the great efforts of the Greeks to organize a rebuff to the Russians. From the East, the army of the domestic Pamphyra approached, numbering 40 thousand people, the legions of Patrick Phoki and Theodore the strategist, located in Macedonia and Thrace, pulled up. And only by September 941, the Russians were driven out of Asia Minor, but this required several more land battles and one sea battle. In the last battle off the coast of Asia Minor, the Russian fleet was once again attacked by fire-bearing Greek ships and defeated; the remnants of the Russian rati returned to their homeland.
And while the Russians had been terrifying Byzantium for more than three months, Igor was already preparing for a new campaign. He sent his people to the Varangians, asking them for help.
Hiring Varangians overseas
By the spring of 944, a new army was assembled, and Igor, together with his allies, moved to the Danube. The foot army went in boats by water, and the cavalry moved along the shore. News of the approaching danger came to Constantinople from all sides: again, the Chersonesus commander announced the disturbing news; the Bulgarians sent messengers with the news that along with the Russians there was a hired Pecheneg cavalry. And the Greeks decided not to tempt fate a second time. An imperial embassy was sent to meet them, which was supposed to stop Igor and conclude a truce with him.
The Greeks offered to continue to pay tribute to Russia and convene an embassy conference to work out a new Russian-Byzantine treaty.
At the same time, they sent their ambassadors to the Pecheneg camp, presented the Pecheneg khans with gold and expensive fabrics. Their goal was clear - to tear the Pechenegs away from Igor and thereby strengthen their positions in negotiations with the Russian prince.
Byzantine ambassadors ask for peace
Igor called his team. The warriors told the prince: it’s much better to receive tribute without a fight. The chronicler in such poetic words conveys the thoughts of the combatants: “Whenever someone knows; who will overcome, are we, are they? Whether with the sea who is bright? Behold, we do not walk on the earth, but on the depths of the seas: ordinarily death to all. It was decided to go to the world. But at the same time, the Russians were negotiating with the Pechenegs. Igor offered the Pechenegs to strike at the hostile Russia of Bulgaria, and the Pechenegs went on a campaign: Byzantium failed to split the Russian-Pecheneg alliance; apparently, the raid on Bulgaria was worth Byzantine gold.
And another small diplomatic victory was won by the Russians on the Danube: it was here, apparently, that it was agreed that the first embassy meeting on the development of a new peace treaty would take place not as usual in Constantinople, but in the Russian capital. This is evident from the fact that shortly after the return of the Russian rati to their homeland, the ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor Roman I Lekapen arrived in Kyiv to “build the first world”, that is, to restore the basic norms of the agreement of 907. This was a new step of Russian diplomacy, bringing Russia closer to completely equal relations with the great empire.
Igor received the Byzantine ambassadors and, as the chronicle testifies, “verbs” (he said. - A. S.) with them about the world. It was here that the development of the fundamental provisions of the new treaty took place. The Kyiv meeting became that preliminary conference where his project was developed. Then the Russian embassy moved to Constantinople to work out the final text of the treaty. Looking ahead, let's say that after its approval by the Byzantine emperor, a new Byzantine embassy appeared in Kyiv in order to be present at the approval of the treaty by the Grand Duke and to swear Igor on allegiance to the treaty. All this was unheard of: twice the imperial ambassadors appeared in the Russian capital; in Byzantium, Roman I Lecapenus swore allegiance to the treaty in the presence of Russian ambassadors. This was already an equal level of international diplomatic procedures of the highest rank.
The Russian embassy arrived in Constantinople with 51 people, not counting the guards, rowers, and servants. It was a larger mission than any before. This fact alone indicates that important tasks were assigned to the embassy, emphasizes the increased power and international prestige of the ancient Russian state, the deepening and development of relations between the two countries.
At the head of the embassy, as before, was the chief, the first ambassador. He is presented in the treaty as the ambassador of the "Grand Duke of Russia." The rest are "obchii spruce", that is, ordinary, ordinary ambassadors. But they each have a high-profile title that connects them with the great people of the Russian state. The second is Vuefast, the ambassador of Svyatoslav, son of Igor, heir to the Russian throne, the third is Iskusevi, the ambassador of Igor's wife, Grand Duchess Olga, etc. In addition to the ambassadors, the mission included 26 merchants, which emphasizes the increased role of the Russian merchants in the international affairs of their state and indicates the economic nature of the forthcoming negotiations.
Conclusion of a peace treaty
The representation of the mission sounds in a new way in the document. She calls herself messengers "from Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from every prince and from all the people of the Russian land." And more than once in the contract the concepts "Rus", "Russian land", "country of Ruskia" are used. The Embassy, therefore, acts on behalf of the state of Russia and, moreover, on behalf of the entire Russian people. This already shows the desire of the feudal elite to identify their interests with the interests of the whole earth.
The title of the Russian ruler also sounds in a new way: in the contract he is called the “Grand Duke of Russia”, that is, as he was called in Russia. Gone is the low title of "lordship".
In terms of its content, the treaty of 944 stands out sharply not only from among the Russian-Byzantine agreements, but from everything that the early medieval diplomatic world gave. The scale of the treaty, its coverage of various political, economic, legal, military-allied subjects is unique for the 10th century. In its creation, one can see the persistent, sophisticated thought of the Byzantines, their knowledge of the subject and wisdom, state outlook, and the political scope of young Russian diplomacy.
The treaty of 944 combines practically the ideas and the specific part of the two previous agreements - 907 and 911, however, in addition, they are developed, deepened, and supplemented with new important provisions.
The new agreement is a typical interstate agreement of "peace and love", which restored the former peaceful relations between countries. The agreement returned both states to the “old world” of the past, by which the authors of the agreement meant, of course, the agreement of 907. The agreement confirmed “peace and love”, reproduced all those ideas of friendship and good neighborly relations that were present in agreements 907-911 gg. And again it was declared that peace is established "for the whole summer", that is, forever.
The agreement confirmed the order of embassy and trade contacts, established back in 907: “And let the Grand Duke of Russia and his boyars send the Greeks to the great king to the Greek ships, if they want, from the word (with ambassadors. - A. S.) and guests (merchants. - A. C), as if they were ordained to eat. And as you know, this was “established” in detail in 907. Almost without change, the new contract included from the previous text on the procedure for the arrival of Russian ambassadors and merchants in Byzantium, their receipt of ambassadorial and merchant support, accommodation near the monastery of St. city. It is also said here that, going on the way back, the Russians have the right to receive food and equipment, "as if it was ordered to eat before."
The duties of Byzantine officials were also confirmed to rewrite the composition of Russian guests in order to obtain maintenance and verify their identity and the purpose of appearing in Byzantium, to bring the Russians into the city without weapons, through one gate, to guard them, to sort out the misunderstandings that arise between the Russians and the Greeks: “Yes, if anyone is from Russia or from the Greek to create crookedly, but straighten (sorts out. - A. S.) then". They also had to control the nature and extent of trade operations, certify with their seal on the goods the legality of the transactions. As you can see, this part of the treaty of 907 is significantly expanded, detailed, the duties of the imperial "husbands" are indicated here in more detail, their functions are expanded.
But innovations appeared in this part of the treaty, and the first among them was the establishment of a procedure for certifying the identity of ambassadors and merchants coming from Russia. Now they must present to Byzantine officials special letters issued to them by the great Russian prince, or rather his office, and addressed directly to the name of the Byzantine emperor. These letters should indicate who and for what purposes came to Byzantium. In the event that the Russians appear without such “certificates” and begin to impersonate ambassadors and merchants, they were to be taken into custody and reported to Kyiv: hra-nim, donde (“not yet.” - A. S.) let us inform your prince." In case of resistance, the Greeks were even allowed to kill the Russian, and the Russian Grand Duke did not have to exact from them for this.
Meal in Kyiv with the participation of ambassadors from the steppes
These new clauses of the treaty clearly indicate the strengthening of state tendencies in Russia, that the Kyiv prince practically takes control of all contacts between the Russian people and Byzantium, no matter where they come from - from Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Novgorod, other Russian cities. Of course, to a large extent, these articles protect the class interests of the Russian feudal lords, because now any fugitive from Russia - a serf or a feudal dependent peasant, a debtor or an impoverished artisan - had to be immediately detained by the Greeks and sent back to Russia.
These articles also had one more goal: now those Russian merchants who went to Byzantium at their own peril and risk, without the prince's permission, were threatened with severe punishment. These strictness minimized the emergence of new conflicts between the Russians and the Greeks.
Other restrictions appeared in the 944 treaty for the Russian people in the empire: the Russians did not have the right to spend the winter in their farmstead in Byzantium. And this meant that both embassy and merchant caravans had to turn around and return to their homeland during one navigation period. There is no longer a word about the stay of the embassy in Byzantium, "eliko hothe", or merchants for six months. Now the deadlines have become more stringent, and this reflected not only the interests of Byzantium, which by the autumn was getting rid of its very significant material costs and the restless Russian neighborhood, but also the interests of the Russian state, which sought to streamline diplomatic and trade contacts with Byzantium, to make them clearer, professional. It is curious that in the Greco-Persian treaty of 562, on this occasion, it was also said that the ambassadors and messengers of both countries "are obliged to stay for a short time in the land where they come." But Persia, together with Byzantium, is one of the most ancient states where the diplomatic service was well developed.
In the new treaty of 944, it is noticeable that Russia made some economic concessions. Russian merchants were forbidden to buy expensive silk fabrics in Byzantine markets for more than 50 spools. One could imagine how many such fabrics the Russians exported before, then selling at exorbitant prices in all their cities, and possibly to the northern countries.
But, of course, the most significant economic loss for Russia was the abolition of duty-free trade for Russian merchants in Byzantium. There is simply no word on this in the contract. Wrested at one time from Byzantium by force, it became a burdensome business for the Byzantine merchants: Russian merchants were placed in the empire in a privileged position, which could not but harm both Greek trade and the trade of other countries. Now this privilege has been abolished, and this may well be seen as a consequence of the military defeat of the Russian army in 941.
The idea of joint protection by both states of the rights to the person and property of serfs and slaves was formulated anew in the treaty of 944. In the event that a serf flees from Russia to Byzantium or a slave flees from Byzantium to Russia, both states must provide each other with every assistance in capturing him and returning him to their masters. Articles on this topic have a clearly defined class character.
Changed penalties for property crimes. Previously, murder was allowed for theft if the thief was caught on the spot. Now a more moderate punishment has been established, in accordance with the "laws" of Greek and Russian, which reflects the development of legal norms both in Byzantium and in Russia.
The issues of liability for property crimes, beatings, and other violations are elaborated in detail in the new agreement. They are solved differently in many respects, in accordance with the evolution of legislation in both countries, and reflect the level of social development in both countries.
But the idea of a new Byzantine-Russian military alliance is substantiated in particular detail.
In essence, Russia is here for the first time as an equal ally of Byzantium, and the military-allied articles themselves are all-encompassing, large-scale in nature. In the second half of the 1st millennium, the Byzantine Empire repeatedly concluded treaties of alliance and mutual assistance with other states, but none of them was preserved in writing, and even elaborated in such detail. In this sense, the treaty of 944 was also unique.
"Vacation" of Russian ambassadors from Tsargrad
Russia and Byzantium assumed equal obligations to send troops to help each other. Russia is against those opponents of Byzantium whom the empire points out to her: “Do you really want to start our kingdom (empire. - A. S.) howling from you against us, let us write to your great prince, and send to us, as much as we want. Byzantium, as already noted above, undertook to send its troops to the aid of Russia in the event that the Russian prince asked for help, fighting in the Northern Black Sea region, in the Korsun country, as Chersonese and adjacent possessions were called in Russia. The enemy is not named, but he is easily guessed - these are Khazaria and its satellites in the Northern Black Sea region, the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and the Volga region.
The military alliance of the two states was based not only on the commonality of political and economic interests, but also on the fact that the most acute contradictions between them, including those of a territorial nature, were resolved.
Byzantines bring gifts to Igor
Two areas aroused especially acute interest of Russia and Byzantium: the Taman Peninsula and the mouth of the Dnieper. The Russians needed Taman to secure strongholds here on the eastern routes - to the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, to the Volga, and the North Caucasus. But the Cimmerian Bosporus has long been the sphere of possession, and then the influence of Byzantium. Now the Russians are firmly established here. The Greeks, speaking in an agreement on common actions together with the Russians against the nearby "black Bulgarians", nomads, vassals of Khazaria, pointed out that the Bulgarians attacked not only the "country of Korsun", i.e., causing damage to Chersonese and its possessions, but also “They are doing harm to his country,” i.e., to the Russian prince. Thus, the Greeks recognized this area as a sphere of influence of Russia, inviting the Russian prince to protect, along with his possessions, the Byzantine ones.
The mouth of the Dnieper, Beloberezhye, the island of St. Elferius were an important military-strategic region: from here the Russians entered the Black Sea during their swift sea voyages, Byzantine, Chersonese outposts were located here. And when the Chersonese strategist sent the news about the beginning of the campaign of the Russian army against Constantinople, the first information was brought to him by scouts whose posts were in the Dnieper delta. The Russians sought to remove the Greeks from here, to create their own settlements here, but the Greeks also stubbornly fought to retain this area.
In the new agreement, the parties got along with each other. Byzantium achieved that the Russians were forbidden to "do evil" to the Chersonese fishermen, to expel them from these places. And this meant that the Greeks retained the possibility of their intelligence to continue to be present in the area. But this also meant that the Greeks recognized the mouth of the Dnieper as a sphere of influence of Russia. This becomes especially evident from the words of the treaty banning the Russians from wintering in the Dnieper mouth. The rest of the time, their appearance in these places is recognized as legitimate. Moreover, no punishments are provided for the fact that the Russians will stay here for the winter or prevent the Chersonesians from fishing in the Dnieper waters. This article is just wishful thinking.
So the dispute was resolved, but ... only for a while. It is quite obvious that the contradictions between Russia and Byzantium in the disputed areas were not eliminated, and it is obvious that their decision was postponed to the future; meanwhile, peace and a military alliance were needed.
And soon the Russian army launched a new campaign to the East, to the city of Berdaa. Like the treaty of 911, the new agreement was drawn up according to all the highest standards of international diplomacy. The agreement was drawn up in two copies - in Greek and Russian. Each party took an oath of allegiance to the treaty on its own text. The Russian ambassadors, as follows from the chronicle record, “led the essence of the king ... company”, that is, they took an oath of allegiance to the treaty of 944 by Roman I Lekapin and his sons. Then a huge caravan, consisting of the Russian and Byzantine embassies, headed for Russia. The Russians returned to their homeland, and the Greeks went to Kyiv in order to take the oath of Igor, his boyars and warriors on the agreement.
And now a solemn day has come in the Russian capital. In the morning, Igor called the Byzantine ambassadors to him and together with them went to the hill, where the statue of the main god of Russia, Perun, stood; at his feet the Russians laid down their weapons, shields, and gold. This was not only the Russian custom: many pagan peoples of Eastern Europe took an oath on weapons and gold. Russia, in this sense, followed the international tradition.
Here Igor and his people took the oath. Prominent Russian boyars and warriors, who were Christians, went with the ambassadors to the church of St. Elijah and there they swore an oath on the cross.
Then there was a solemn reception of the Byzantine embassy by the great Russian prince: the ambassadors were richly gifted with furs, servants, wax - the traditional items of Russian export to Byzantium.
The Russian original of the treaty went with ambassadors to the empire, and a copy of this text and the Greek original of the agreement went into the grand ducal storage.
The conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Byzantium
Diplomacy of Princess Olga
Renewal of relations with Byzantium. The turbulent 40s of the 10th century passed. After that, great changes took place in Russia: Prince Igor died in the Drevlyansk forests, power passed to his wife, Princess Olga, since the heir to the throne, Prince Svyatoslav, “bebo detesk”, that is, was still small. Changes also took place on the Byzantine throne: one after another after the coup d'état Roman I Lecapinus and his sons went into exile, until finally in 945 the throne was taken by the son of Leo VI, who had previously kept in the shadows, Constantine VII, who, while still a boy, was mentioned among the Byzantine emperors, along with his father and uncle, in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The faces changed, but the policy remained the same; in relations between the two states, an agreement of 944 was in force. In fulfillment of allied obligations, Russian soldiers participated in the second half of the 40s. 10th century in the expedition of the Greek fleet against the Cretan corsairs; Russian garrisons were located in the fortresses bordering the Arab Caliphate, creating a barrier against Arab pressure on Byzantine possessions from the southeast. But new diplomatic initiatives
Russia for a long time did not undertake, its embassies to the empire were not marked, its voice in the East fell silent. And this is understandable: the second half of the 40s. marked in Russia by an acute socio-political crisis. The Drevlyans rose up, opposing the arbitrary, disorderly collection of tribute by the Russian elite. Igor was killed, and the Drevlyane land was deposited from Kyiv. And although Olga brutally suppressed the uprising of the Drevlyans and imposed a “heavy tribute” on them, she was nevertheless forced to carry out the first reform of the taxation of Russian lands in the history of Russia. Throughout the Russian land - along the Dnieper, among the Drevlyans, Novgorod Slovenes - she established fixed dues and tributes.
All this took months, if not years. And only under 955 in the annals is there a record that Princess Olga visited Constantinople. This information is also confirmed in other sources - the work of her contemporary, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who received Olga in the Byzantine capital, Greek and German chronicles. Constantine VII, however, provides information that allows us to talk about a different date for her visit to Byzantium - 957.
By the mid 50s. Russian foreign policy faced new challenges. Russia regularly fulfilled its allied obligations in the east, west, southeast of the Byzantine borders; from the political turmoil of the 1940s. she came out stronger, more powerful, united. Its socio-economic and political development required new foreign policy initiatives, the establishment of new external relations, the expansion and strengthening of trade routes, and the elevation of the international prestige of the ancient Russian state. And for its allied assistance, Russia had the right to demand new political privileges from Byzantium.
Russia, in turn, at that time was needed by Byzantium as a counterweight against Khazaria, as a supplier of allied troops in the fight against the Arabs.
The problem of Christianization arose more and more acutely before Russia. Most of the leading countries of Europe have already been baptized. The new religion significantly strengthened the position of the growing class of feudal lords and raised the international prestige of the Christianized states. Russia has repeatedly tried on Christianity to its state experience, but the pagan opposition each time threw it away. And yet Christianity made its way. Byzantium also strove for the baptism of Russia, thereby trying to neutralize the dangerous neighbor, to tie him to its policy, since the Byzantine patriarch was considered the head of the entire Christian church in the region.
Under these conditions, the parties needed negotiations, filling the treaty of 944 with new concrete content. Therefore, the journey of the Russian Grand Duchess to Byzantium was a timely and fully justified political step.
For the first time in the history of relations between the two countries, a high Russian sovereign was preparing for a visit to Constantinople.
Arrival of the Russian Princess Olga in Tsargrad
In the summer of 957, a huge Russian embassy headed by the Grand Duchess moved to Constantinople. The composition of the embassy, not counting the guards, shipbuilders, servants, exceeded a hundred. The retinue of the princess included her closest relative - Anepsy, as the Greeks called him, who occupied the second place in the embassy after Olga, 8 of her close associates - noble boyars or relatives, 22 noble Russians, members of the embassy, 44 merchant people, people of Svyatoslav, priest Gregory, 8 a man of the retinue of ambassadors, 2 translators, as well as approximate women of the princess. Russia has never sent such a magnificent, such a representative embassy to Byzantium.
The Russian flotilla arrived in the harbor of Constantinople, and then complications began. The emperor first received Olga only on September 9, that is, when Russian caravans usually made their way back. For about two months, the Russians were waiting for an appointment. Later, Olga will remember this in Kyiv, when ambassadors from Byzantium come to her, in anger she will tell them: “... stay with me in Pochaina (in the Kyiv harbor, at the mouth of the Pochaina River, which flows into the Dnieper. - BUT. C), as if in the Court (in the harbor of Constantinople. - A.S.)..." The Russian princess did not forget about the long standing in the “Court” even after several months. What's the matter? Why was such disrespect shown to a welcome guest and ally? The answer lies in the order of the two receptions of the Russian princess in the imperial palace - September 9 and October 18, which were described in detail by Constantine VII in his work "On Ceremonies". This order went far beyond the usual, had no analogies during meetings with other foreign representatives, and in no way corresponded to the Byzantine ceremonial, which the Byzantine Empire and especially Constantine VII, the guardian and guardian of age-old traditions, sacredly held on to. Usually, anyone who approached the throne of the Byzantine emperors performed proskinesis - prostrated at the imperial feet, but nothing like this happened to Olga: on September 9, she approached the throne unaccompanied, only with a slight tilt of her head greeted Constantine VII and stood talking with him. Then she was received by the Empress.
Reception by the Kievan princess Olga of the Byzantine ambassadors in Russia
After a short break, the meeting of the Russian princess with the imperial family took place, which was never even claimed by foreign ambassadors and sovereign persons. Here Olga had the main conversation with the emperor on all issues of interest to both sides. At the same time, the Russian princess was sitting, which was also unheard of. At the ceremonial dinner, Olga found herself at the same table with members of the imperial family. The same kind of privileges were given to the Russian princess during the second reception.
Of course, all these deviations from the traditions of the Byzantine diplomatic ceremonial cannot be considered accidental. The Russians, apparently, insisted on an exceptionally high level of reception, and the Greeks persisted, trying to maintain a distance between Russia and the great empire. Now it becomes clear that Olga was waiting for the first reception: there was a tense diplomatic struggle on ceremonial issues, which in relations between countries have always been of a principled nature and showed the level of prestige of a particular state, its place among other powers. Russia demanded, if not equality, then at least great privileges; the empire persisted. But Byzantium needed Russian help, and the Greeks had to give in.
As expected, the question of Christianization took one of the central places in Olga's negotiations with Constantine VII.
The Russian chronicle tells that Olga decided to be baptized in Constantinople, and the emperor supported this idea. To this, the princess answered him: "... if you want to baptize me, then baptize me yourself." That was the whole point of the problem. Using the desire of Byzantium to Christianize Russia, Olga sought to receive baptism directly from the hands of the emperor and the patriarch. Moreover, the emperor was assigned the role of godfather. The chronicle notes: “And baptize yu (her. - BUT. S.) the king with the patriarch. In baptism, the Russian princess took the name Elena in honor of the mother of Emperor Constantine the Great, who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Apparently, all this was discussed in the circle of the imperial family on September 9, 957.
The baptism of the Russian princess took place in the church of St. Sophia, in the main Christian sanctuary of the empire. As a sign of her stay here, Olga presented the temple with a golden dish adorned with precious stones.
Everything about this ceremony is of great political significance.
First, the very fact of the baptism of the Russian princess. In the presence of a strong pagan opposition in Russia, which was led by the young Svyatoslav, who relied on a pagan squad, the question of the baptism of the whole country was still premature, it could cause discontent both in the Russian elites and among the people. But there was already the experience of Western European countries, when the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish kings at one time were baptized with the participation of representatives of the Pope without the conversion of all Franks or Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Shortly before the appearance of Olga in Byzantium, the Hungarian leaders Bulchu and Gyula accepted personal baptism in Constantinople, although all of Hungary adopted Christianity only at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. This path was more painless, gradual. Judging by the treaty between Igor and the Greeks in 944, there were already quite a few Christians in Russia, in Kyiv there was a church of St. Elijah. Now the baptism of the Russian princess, of course, greatly strengthened the position of Russian Christians, made the Christianization of the whole country only a matter of time. Russia in this case used the examples of other large early feudal monarchies in Europe.
Secondly, the act of christening Olga by the highest representatives of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of the empire greatly elevated both her personal prestige and the political prestige of Russia.
Thirdly, the fact that Olga took the Christian name of Elena, a well-known figure in the empire, and also received the title of "daughter" of the emperor, also contributed to the political resonance of baptism.
But not only questions of baptism were discussed during the first conversation with the emperor. It was also about the dynastic marriage of the young Svyatoslav and the young daughter of Constantine VII - Theodora.
It was an honor to be related to the Byzantine imperial house for any state, any dynasty, but Byzantium carefully guarded this privilege, granting it either to very famous and strong European monarchies, say the Frankish Empire, later to the German kingdom, or went to such marriages under the influence of circumstances. So, needing in the VII century. In order to help the Khazars against the onslaught of the Persians and Avars, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius promised the Khazar Khagan to give his daughter Evdokia as a wife if he would send him 40 thousand horsemen. In the 20s. In the 10th century, in an effort to pacify Bulgaria, Roman I Lakapin gave his granddaughter Maria for Tsar Peter. Subsequently, Constantine VII in his writings assessed these facts as a disgrace to the empire.
Undoubtedly, Olga, with her prestigious claims, could have raised the issue of dynastic marriage in Constantinople, especially since the emperor asked her, as the chronicle says, “howl for help.” This is also indicated by the presence in Olga's retinue of a mysterious relative, who could well be the young Svyatoslav.
But if negotiations on the marriage of Svyatoslav with the Byzantine princess took place, they ended in nothing: the Greeks did not yet consider Russia worthy of dynastic ties. This also could not but hurt the Russian princess and her son, who, as is known, later became one of the most stubborn and dangerous opponents of Byzantium.
Olga and Constantine VII, despite certain differences, confirmed the validity of the treaty of 944, in particular with regard to the military alliance. This is evident from the fact that some time later the Byzantine embassy came to Kyiv with a request to send Russian soldiers to Byzantium. The Russian detachment again came to the aid of the empire in its struggle against the Arabs.
Under Olga, the scope of Russia's diplomatic efforts expanded significantly. Thus, for the first time since 839, a Russian embassy was sent to the West, to the lands of the German kingdom. Information about this is available in the German chronicle, written by a certain anonymous successor of the chronicle, Abbot Reginon. Under 959, he reported that in Frankfurt, where the German king celebrated Christmas, "ambassadors of Helen, the queen of the Rugs", who was baptized in Constantinople, came with a request "pretendy, as it turned out later" "to appoint ... a bishop and presbyters to their people" . The request was granted, the monk Adalbert was sent to Russia. Under 962, the same author wrote: “Adalbert, consecrated as a bishop for the Russians, unable to succeed in anything for which he was sent, and seeing his work in vain, returned back. On the way back, some of his companions were killed and he himself, with great difficulty, barely escaped. So the attempt of the German baptizers of Russia ended unsuccessfully.
In this whole story, the purpose of the Russian embassy, as described by the German chronicler, looks implausible. It is difficult to assume that Olga, having a serious pagan opposition in Russia led by her son Svyatoslav, who herself had recently been baptized according to the Constantinople model, asked the German king Otto I, who was closely connected with papal Rome, to baptize all of Russia.
Subsequent events confirmed this. This is also evidenced by the words of the author of the chronicle, that the Russians “feignedly” made this request, i.e., they had no serious intention to baptize Russia by the hands of the German bishop in Kyiv.
The meaning of events lies elsewhere. Russia of that time actively continued to seek international contacts. With all the surrounding countries, it was already connected by diplomatic relations. Only the German Kingdom, a strong European state, has so far been outside the sphere of attention of Russian politicians. The long-standing and unsuccessful embassy of 839 in Ingelheim was already forgotten, and now Russia tried to enter into traditional relations of "peace and friendship" with Germany, which usually involved the exchange of embassies, assistance in the development of trade between the two countries. Under these conditions, the Russian government could agree to the admission of German missionaries to the Russian lands. Adalbert, who considered himself really the head of the Christian Church in Russia and tried to introduce a new religion among the peoples, failed in his intentions. The people of Kiev rebelled against him, and he was expelled in disgrace.
Nevertheless, the friendly relations established by Olga's government with Germany were no longer interrupted.
And he had two versions - one in Greek (not preserved) and one in Old Church Slavonic. Preserved in later lists of ancient Russian chronicles, in particular, in The Tale of Bygone Years. One of the oldest written sources of Russian law; contains the norms of the Russian Law.
General information about the contract
After unsuccessful campaigns in 941 and 944, Prince Igor was forced to conclude a peace treaty with Byzantium. The treaty was concluded in 944 between the two parties and recorded on two charters, which updated the old treaty of 911:
Ambassadors and merchants were required to have princely letters with them so that they could be in the Byzantine lands and in Constantinople. Legal relations between people from Russia and local residents were regulated. Restrictions were introduced for merchants to stay in the capital, to export fabrics, etc. Russia was charged with protecting the borders with Byzantium in the Crimea, and the Old Russian state was not supposed to claim these lands and, if necessary, provide military assistance to Byzantium.
Write a review on the article "Russian-Byzantine Treaty (944)"
Links
- in Wikisource (original and Russian translation)
see also
Notes
Literature
- Bibikov M.V. Russia in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Russia and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Russia. Medieval Questions. - 2005. - No. 1 (19). - S. 5-15.
- Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. - K.-SPb.: Publishing house of N. Ya. Ogloblin, 1900. - 681 p.
- Istrin V. M. Treaties between Russians and Greeks of the 10th century // Proceedings of the Russian Language and Literature Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1924 - L., 1925. - T. XXIX. - S. 383-393.
- Levchenko M.V. Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. - M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956. - 556 p.
- Litavrin G. G. The conditions of the stay of the ancient Rus in Constantinople in the X century. and their legal status // Byzantine Vremennik. - 1993. - T. 54. - S. 81-92.
- Monuments of Russian Law / Ed. S. V. Yushkova. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1952. - Issue. 1. Monuments of law of the Kyiv state X-XII centuries. - 304 p.
- The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianov-Peretz. - M.-L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1950. - Part 1. Texts and translation. - 405 p.; Part 2. Applications. - 559 p.
- Falaleeva I. N. Political and legal system of Ancient Russia in the 9th-11th centuries. - Volgograd: Publishing House of the Volgograd State University, 2003. - 164 p.
- Yushkov S.V. Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1949. - 544 p.
An excerpt characterizing the Russo-Byzantine treaty (944)
- Yes, gentlemen, I was told that there was a rumor spread in Moscow that I was a cheater, so I advise you to be more careful with me.Well, swords! Rostov said.
- Oh, Moscow aunts! - Dolokhov said and took up the cards with a smile.
– Aaah! - Rostov almost shouted, raising both hands to his hair. The seven he needed was already at the top, the first card in the deck. He lost more than he could pay.
- However, do not bury yourself, - said Dolokhov, glancing briefly at Rostov, and continuing to throw.
After an hour and a half, most of the players were already jokingly looking at their own game.
The whole game focused on one Rostov. Instead of sixteen hundred rubles, he had a long column of figures written down, which he counted up to the tenth thousand, but which now, as he vaguely assumed, had already risen to fifteen thousand. In fact, the record already exceeded twenty thousand rubles. Dolokhov no longer listened and did not tell stories; he followed every movement of Rostov's hands and glanced briefly at his note behind him from time to time. He decided to continue the game until this record increased to forty-three thousand. This number was chosen by him because forty-three was the sum of his years combined with Sonya's. Rostov, leaning his head on both hands, sat in front of a table covered with writing, drenched in wine, littered with cards. One painful impression did not leave him: those broad-boned, reddish hands with hair visible from under his shirt, these hands, which he loved and hated, held him in their power.
“Six hundred rubles, an ace, a corner, a nine ... it’s impossible to win back! ... And how fun it would be at home ... Jack on a ne ... it can’t be! ... And why is he doing this to me? ... ”Rostov thought and recalled. Sometimes he played a big card; but Dolokhov refused to beat her, and he appointed the jackpot. Nicholas submitted to him, and then he prayed to God, as he prayed on the battlefield on the Amsteten bridge; now he guessed that the card that first fell into his hand from a pile of curved cards under the table would save him; either he calculated how many laces were on his jacket and with the same number of points he tried to bet the card on the entire loss, then he looked around at the other players for help, then he peered into Dolokhov’s now cold face, and tried to penetrate what was going on in it.
“Because he knows what this loss means to me. He can't want me to die, can he? After all, he was my friend. After all, I loved him ... But he is not to blame either; what should he do when he is lucky? It's not my fault, he told himself. I didn't do anything wrong. Have I killed someone, insulted, wished harm? Why such a terrible misfortune? And when did it start? Not so long ago, I approached this table with the idea of winning a hundred rubles, buying my mother this box for the name day and going home. I was so happy, so free, cheerful! And I did not understand then how happy I was! When did this end, and when did this new, terrible state begin? What marked this change? I still sat in this place, at this table, and also chose and put forward cards, and looked at these broad-boned, dexterous hands. When did this happen, and what happened? I am healthy, strong and still the same, and still in the same place. No, it can't be! Surely this will never end."
He was red-faced and covered in sweat, despite the fact that the room was not hot. And his face was terrifying and pitiful, especially due to the impotent desire to appear calm.
The record reached the fateful number of forty-three thousand. Rostov prepared a card, which was supposed to go at an angle from the three thousand rubles that had just been given to him, when Dolokhov, knocking with a deck, put it aside and, taking the chalk, began quickly with his clear, strong handwriting, breaking the chalk, to sum up Rostov's note.
"Dinner, it's dinner time!" Here come the gypsies! - Indeed, with their gypsy accent, some black men and women were already entering from the cold and saying something. Nikolai understood that everything was over; but he said in an indifferent voice:
"What, you won't?" And I have a nice card prepared. “As if he was most interested in the fun of the game itself.