Russian Institutions And Culture Up To Peter The Great 0902089803, 9780902089808

Citation preview

Amongst other Variorum Reprints: BJARNE N0RRETRANDERS

The Shaping of Czardom under Ivan Groznyj Copenhagen 1964 edition A.

N. POPOV

Istoriko-literatumyj obzor drevne-russkich polemiceskich socinenij protiv latinjan (XI-XV v.) Moscow 1875 edition NIKOLAJ TIXONRAVOV

Pamjatniki otrepennoj russkoj literatury I & II St. Petersburg & Moscow 1863 editions К.

I. DIKSON, A. V. MEZ ER & D. A. BRAGINSKIJ

Bibliograficeskie ukazateli perevodnoj belletristiki St. Petersburg 1897 & 1902 editions P. A. SYRKU

K istorii ispravlenija knig v Bolgarii v XIV veke St. Petersburg 1898 & 1890 editions A. SOLOVJEV & V. A. MOSIN, Eds.

Grcke povelje Srpskih vladara (Greek Charters of Serbian Rulers) Belgrade 1936 edition T. FLORINSKIJ

Juznye Slavjane i Vizantija vo vtoroj cetverti XIV veka St. Petersburg 1882 edition G. A. ILYINSKIY

Gramoty bolgarskikh carey Moscow 1911 edition Polnyj pravoslavnyj bogoslovskij enciklopediceskij slovar’

(1913) Russian edition Bdinski Zbomik. Old Slavonic Menologium A.D. 1360

Facsimile edition Codex Gandavensis 408 In the Collected Studies Series: NIKOLAY ANDREEV

Studies in Muscovy: Western influence and Byzantine inheritance DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

Byzantium and the Slavs P. N. BERKOV

Literary Contacts between Russia and the West since the Fourteenth Century

Russian Institutions and Culture up to Peter the Great

Professor Marc Szeftel

Marc Szeftel

Russian Institutions and Culture up to Peter the Great

Preface by Donald W Treadgold

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1975

ISBN 0 902089 80 3 Published in Great Britain by

Variorum Reprints 21a Pembhdge Mews London W ll 3EQ

Printed in Great Britain by

Kingprint Limited Richmond Surrey VARIORUM REPRINT CS39

CONTENTS

Preface I

i-iii The Vseslav Epos

13-86

In: Memoirs o f the American Folklore Society, 42 (1947). In collaboration with Roman Jakobson (Philadelphia, 1949)

II

Review: The RussianPrimaryChronicle: Laurentian Text (S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor)

257-267

In: Speculum, 30 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)

III

Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History In: Feudalism in History, ed. by Rushton Coulbom (Princeton University Press, 1956)

IV

La condition légale des étrangers dans la Russie novgorodo-kievienne

167-182 413-419

375-430

In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 10 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1958)

V

Pamiati A. A. Ekka

255-263

In: NovyiZhum al, The New Review, 52 (New York, 1958) VI

'

Some Reflections on the Particular Character­ istics of the Russian Historical Process 223-237 In: The Russian Review, 23 (Stanford, 1964)

VII

Joseph Volotsky’s Political Ideas In: Jahrbücher fu r Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge 13 (München,1965)

19-29

VIII

La participation des assemblées populaires dans le gouvernement central de la Russie depuis l’époque kiévienne jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle

339-365

In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 25 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1965)

IX

Les principautés russes avant l’ascension de Moscou (IXe-XVe siècles)

613—636

In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 22 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1969)

X

La monarchie absolue dans l’Etat moscovite et l’Empire russe (fin XVe siècle — 1905) 727—757 In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 22 (Editions de la Librairie Encylopédique, Bruxelles, 1969)

XI

The History of Suretyship in Old Russian Law 841—866 In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 29 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1971)

XII

La formation et l’évolution de l’Empire russe jusqu’en 1918

422—432

In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 31 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1973)

XIII

The Legal Condition of the Foreign Merchants in Muscovy 335—358 In: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 33 (Editions de la Librairie Encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1972)

Index

i-vii

This volume contains a total of 374 pages

PREFACE Marc Szeftel is doubtless the leading scholar alive in the field of medieval Russian history outside the USSR. His schooling took place in Russia, Poland, and Belgium; his scholarly training began at the University of Warsaw. ' At first his studies had nothing in particular to do with Eastern Europe. At Warsaw he attended Ignacy Koschembahr-Lyskowski’s seminar on Roman law and Eugeniusz Jarra’s seminar on the history of the philo­ sophy of law. At the Université Libre de Bruxelles he enrolled in the seminar in Roman and civil law of Maximilien Philonenko and the seminars on Russian history of Alexandre Eck, on the history of law of Jacques Pirenne, and on early modern history of Michel Huisman; thus he studied in both the Faculté de Droit and the Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. His research began with an investigation of the legal history of the French nobility and in particular with the dérogeance à la noblesse. The result was an article in the Revue de VInstitut de Sociologie (Solvay, Bruxelles, 1936) entitled “ La notion de vie exemplaire de la noblesse et l’évolution sociale de la France de l’ancien régime,” which earned the praise of Marc Bloch in the Annales. In 1935 Eck and Jacques Pirenne took the initiative in organizing the Société Jean Bodin pour l’étude de l’histoire comparative des institutions, of which Szeftel was a charter member. The purpose of the Society was to subject different institutions of public and private law, one by one, to related studies made by specialists in different periods and countries; that is to say, detailed and systematic comparative study was to be devoted to the institutions in question. Szeftel made the aims of the Society his own in significant respects, but he chose to take as his own province of scholarly inquiry the institutional and legal history of Russia, using his Slavic background and experience. He did so with the help and encouragement of both Eck and Pirenne, and from 1936 made Russia his exclusive scholarly concern. A prerequisite to what he wished to do was making accessible to the Western scholarly world a series of major Russian legal sources, through translation

ii

and thorough interpretation based on close study of the texts concerned. The culmination of this aspect of Szeftel’s work came in 1963 with the publication of Documents de droit public relatifs à la Russie médiévale by the Librairie Encyclopédique in Brussels. The book consists of translations, with extensive commentary, of Russian medieval codes - both recensions of the Russkaia Pravda and the Pskovskaia Sudebnaia Gramota — and of princely ecclesiastical charters. The comparative motive incorporated in the activities of the Société Jean Bodin inspired many of Szeftel’s studies on medieval Russia. A major example was the essay on “Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History” which grew out of the 1950 Princeton conference on uniformities in history and was included in Rushton Coulbom, ed., Feudalism in History, published by Princeton University Press in 1956. Another was the volume on “Russia (Before 1917)” which he contributed to the multi-volume series edited by John Gilissen entitled Bibliographical Introduction to Legal History and Ethnology. In 1942 Szeftel came to the United States, where he became professor of Russian history at the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes of New York City, and from 1944 also professor of French constitutional history there. There he was closely associated with Roman Jakobson. A notable instance of their collaboration was the work of the Faculty Seminar of the Ecole Libre concerning the authenticity of the Slovo о polku Igoreve. It resulted in a volume under the direction of Henri Grégoire, Roman Jakobson, and Marc Szeftel published in New York, 1948, as volume VIII of the Annuaire de VInstitut de Philologie et dHistoire Orientales et Slaves. Szeftel contributed to it a detailed “Commentaire historique au texte du Slovo. ” His interest in the Slovo о polku Igoreve developed subsequently and ex­ panded into a firm interest in the history of Russian culture. In 1945 Szeftel accepted a position at Cornell University. There he trained several Ph.D.’s in Russian history and continued his research in all the fields mentioned above. In 1961 he came to the University of Washington as professor of medieval Russian history, where he worked until his retirement in June 1972. He produced three or four Ph.D.’s specializing on medieval Russia, all of whom have already published in that field and will doubt­ less continue to do so. Several of his studies in medieval Russian legal and institutional history have appeared during the period of slightly more than a decade in question, as well as essays and

iii

encyclopedia articles of broader scope and a good many book reviews - of which he has published a total of forty-three in fourteen different periodicals published in several different countries. A notable milestone in his career will be his book on the establishment of the political institutions of the Russian constitutional monarchy (1905-07), on which he has been work­ ing for many years and on which he is just putting the finishing touches. Another major study on the style and symbols of Russian monarchy, ranging throughout the entire imperial period, is well advanced. The thirteen articles which follow, in French, Russian, and English, illustrate rather than exhaust the many facets of Marc Szeftel’s scholarly career — which is still far from being ended over a period of 34 years, from 1938 to 1972. They indicate both his insistence on the necessity of thorough and painstaking textual analysis of sources — from those on law to those on literature — before broader generalizations can be defensibly made and his readiness to attempt such generalizations, carefully indicating the basis of evidence on which they rest. Those qualities have served for many years to make him an effective teacher and a deeply valued colleague, and I would like to end these observations by paying tribute to the manner in which his mastery of sources and his penetrating critical judgment have inspired me and furnished a model for anyone who desires to approach the study of Russia through the avenue of serious scholarship. DONALD W. TREADGOLD

U niversity o f W ashington S e a ttle

THE

VSESLAV

EPOS

I — THE BYLINA ABOUT THE PRINCE-WEREWOLF — SURVEY OF VARIANTS The bylina about the victorious prince-werewolf is one of the rarest subjects in Russian oral epic tradition. Only eight variants of the whole bylina have been published up to the present time; and of these, two are by the same narrator. Be­ sides these eight texts, two records of the beginning of this bylina, setting forth the infancy of the miraculous prince, have appeared in print. During the past century three narrators of the Olonec province have provided variants of this bylina: the first was an old blind man, Kuz’ma Romanov, from the village of Longasy on the southern end of the Zaoneèskij peninsula, who recited his narrative twice, first in I860 to Rybnikov (= R I ) 1 and then in 1871 to Hilferding — this version differs slightly from the earlier one and is somewhat longer (= H П) ;12 the second was a boatman on the river Sala (or Vodla) whose nar­ ration was taken down in 1860 by Rybnikov (= R II)3; and the third was Aksin’ja Fomina, “a skillful singer of byliny,” a peasant woman from the village of Rim on the hill PudoSskaja Gora — recorded in 1871 by Hilferding ( = H I).4* Two additional variants of the bylina are noted in the family of the famous narrators Krjukovy from the village of Niinjaja Zolotica on the shore of the White Sea: one was recorded by Markov from Agrafena Krjukova who, as she stat­ ed, learned this bylina from the fishermen of the Mezen’ bank 1 Pesni sobrannye P. N. Rybnikovym (2nd ed., Moscow, 1909), I, No. 38. 2 Oneèskie byliny, zapisannye A. F. HUferdingom (2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1896), П, No. 91. e Pesni. . . (Moscow, 1910), П, No. 146. * Oneèskie byliny . . . (St. Petersburg, 1894), I, No. 1».

14

(= M) ;* the other was taken down in 1938 by Borodina and Lipec from Marfa Krjukova, Agrafena’s daughter, who had learned the bylina not from her mother, but from her grand­ uncle, Gavrila Krjukov (= В L).e Onöukov recorded only the beginning of the bylina from the aged Pavel Markov, an OldBeliever of the village Bedovaja of the Pustozerskaja volost’ on the Lower Ребога (= 0 ).T But the oldest record of the bylina in complete form has come down to us in Kir§a Danilov’s collection of byliny and songs, compiled in the ’80s of the 18th century in West Siberia (= D).*8*The beginning of this latter version has a close variant in a fragment about the birth and infancy of our hero which, however, omits his name. It was recorded in the middle of the last century in the Altai Mountain district of the Tomsk Gov­ ernment by an amateur folklorist, S. Guljaev, and was pub­ lished first in 1854 under the title, “Bylina pro Zmeja Gorynica,” without any indication of the place or date of the record. Later it was republished more fully and accurately by V. Mil­ ler on the basis of Guljaev’s manuscript (= G).° Finally, there is one more record of the bylina made in 1928 by the expedition of B. Sokolov in the region of Pudoga in the Olonec Government, but as far as we know it is still unpublished.10 The number of verses in the bylina varies: BL — 468 lines, M — 211, HII — 206, D — 204, RI — 187, RII — 158, frag­ ment О — 49, HI — 45, and fragment G — 29. II — PERSONALIA OF THE BYLINA'S HERO 1. Voix Vseslav’eviö and the magician Vseslav. The hero of the bylina about the prince-werewolf is called in the oldest record (D) Volx (or Vol’x) Vseslav’eviö, and in its title, Seslav’eviö. The form volx originates in the common e A. Markov, Belomorskie byliny (Moscow, 1901), No. 51. 8 Byliny M. S. Krjukovoj, I = Letopisi Gos. literaturnogo muzeja (Moscow, 1939), VI, No. 39. 7 N. Onôukov, Peàorskie byliny (St. Petersburg, 1904), No. 84. 8 Sbornik KirSi Danilova, pod redakcieju P. N. fieffera (St. Peters­ burg, 1901), 18-22. e V. Miller, “Dve sibirskie byliny iz zapisej S. I. Guljaeva,” Zivaja Starina, XX (1911), 452. 10 Revue des Etudes Slaves, ХП (1932), 214.

The Vseslav Epos

15

noun volxv meaning magician. In popular Russian' the cluster lxv (or lxf) usually loses the final labial spirant. This loss took place first a t the end of a word, and then was generalized for those grammatical cases which followed the consonant cluster by a suffixal vowel; cf. KirSa Danilov’s song about Terent’iäöe (p. 6) : volxita spraâivati — “to ask for magicians,” and in Hilferding’s records (No. 79, 221) : ES6e vsi volxi by vse volSebniki! Sometimes the loss of the final labial in the root of the common noun volxv occurs only if no vowel follows. Traces of such an alternation appear also in the name of the bylina-heio: in BL the nominative is Volx, but in the genitive, besides the form Volxa (426), we find as well the older form Volxva (416).1 The final labial of this epic name appears like­ wise in the song of Sfielkan’s death (H, No. 254) which becomes coupled with the birth of Vol’vuâen’ka. The song apostrophizes our hero as Vol’vu syna Sôeslav’evièa (the initial Söe- is due to the association with ööelkan). The name Vseslav is rare in Russian tradition. The combi­ nation of the nouns Volx and Vseslav to make the full name Volx Vseslav’evic clearly reveals its origin. We find both these nouns linked in the Primary Chronicle (Povest’ Vremennyx Let) in the biography of Vseslav of Polock who ruled there from 6552/1044 and died in 6609/1101. This Chronicle mentions Vseslav for the first time under 655212 and states on th at oc­ casion that his mother had born him by enchantment, and that the magicians bade her bind the caul, in which Vseslav was born, upon him for his whole life.3 The paronomasia here is worthy of note: v'lsvi — V’seslav4*. Throughout the biography of the Polock prince the norms V’seslav and v'lxv* are per1 A. Pogodin in Izvestija Otdelenija Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Akademii Nauk, XVI, No. 4, 37, supposes an Old Russian form v‘lx‘ (besides v*lx-v‘>,- attested by the Finnish loan-word velho ‘magician', by the derivatives v'lsiti, v'IS’ba and by the river name V*lxov* which he inter­ prets as a possessive form. 2 When quoting the Primary Chronicle in English, we use (and a t times amend) the translation by S. H. Cross in Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, ХП (1930), 75 ff. In quoting the original text, we follow, with few deviations, A. Saxmatov, Povest9 vremennyx let (Petrograd, 1916). 8 Сего же роди мати отъ вълхвования; матери бо родивъши его, бысть ему язвьно на главЪ его; рекоша же вълови матери его: «се язвьно навяжи на нь, да носить е до живота своего», еже носить Вьсе-славъ и до сего дьне ка соб*Ь. . .

16

sistently associated. Thus under 6579/1071 the news of the defeat of Vseslav is followed by a long discourse on magicians: Въ сеже л*Ьто победи Яропълкъ Вьсеслава у Голотичьска. Въ сиже времена приде вълхвъ . . .

A hypothesis concerning the link of the epic Volx Vseslaveviè with the historical reminiscences cited has already been set forth by S. Sevyrev: “His first name is an allusion to his eminence in magic; the patronymic indicates Vseslav the Polock prince who is presented as a sorcerer in the Slovo.'4 The great Russian historian S. Solov’ev connected the bylina's story about Volx’s miraculous coming into the world with the legend in the Chronicle about Vseslav’s magical birth.5*The similarity in name and image of the bylina hero and of Vseslav of Polock was also noticed in passing by several other special­ ists of the Russian epos: e.g., by Orest Miller,® E. Barsov,7 M. Xalanskij,8 *1. Zdanov,® A. Veselovskij.101“In our bylina about Volx there is preserved an obscure reminiscence, however, of the miraculous Vseslav of the letopis' and of the Slovo,” they state. But as early as in the first edition of the songs col­ lected by Rybnikov, the commentator Bessonov, masking “the scientific groundlessness” of his explanations by the raw char­ acter of his polemic attacks,11 bluntly stated th at “it is a bit shameful for a philologist” to identify the name of Volx with the common noun “volxv,” and th at there are no reasons for relating the Vseslaviè of the bylina with Vseslav of Polock; 4 Istorija russkoj slovesnosti (St. Petersburg, 1846), I, 229. 6 Istorija Rossii s drevnejSix vremen (4th ed., Moscow, 1866), I, 297. e IVja Muromec i bogatyrstvo kievskoe (St. Petersburg, 1869), p. 194. 7 Slovo о polku Igoreve как xudoèestvennyj pamjatnik Kievskoj druèinnoj Rusi (Moscow, 1887), I, 425. 8 “Juzno-slavjanskie skazanija о kraleviöe Marke v svjazi s proizvedenijami russkogo bylevogo èposa,” Russkij Füologiâeskij Vestnik, XXVII (1892), 138-142. 0 “Vasilij Buslaeviö 1 Volx Vseslav’eviö,” Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveèôenija (1893-1894). 10 “Russkie i vil’tiny y sage о Tidreke Bernskom,” Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ross. Akad. Nauk, XI, No. 3 (1906), 65. 11 A. Gruzinskij, “Predislovie redaktora,” Pesni sobrannye P. N. Rybnikovym (2nd ed., Moscow, 1909), I, p. IV.

The Vseslav Epos

17

any further “dreamings” of such a nature he categorically declared “a priori and absurd.”12* The question of the kinship of the epic Voix Vseslav’eviè with the historic Vseslav was raised with particular insistency by D. Leonardos the author of the most detailed but un­ fortunately unfinished survey of sources about Vseslav of Polock.1* Nevertheless, strange as it may seem, the solution of this problem remained in the stage of sundry marginal re­ marks. A detailed comparison of the bylina plot with the biog­ raphical evidence of the written sources about Prince Vseslav, St. Vladimir’s great-grandson, has not been made — as if Bessonov’s haughty prohibition, though unwarranted, contin­ ued to frighten off all investigators. The evasive attitude taken in this question by Vsevolod Miller — again without founda­ tion — was a contributory factor in ignoring this problem.14* “I will not,” this scholar declared, “examine the bylina from the point of view of its subject matter, because for the time being I consider such a task rather hopeless. . . The supposed correlation between the personality of the epic Vol’ga [Volx] and Vseslav of Polock might appear unconvincing” (Oéerki, I, 166 f.). In his last unfinished work as well, a stimulating attem pt to synthesize and outline the history of the Russian oral epos, Miller again evades this interpretation of our bylina because its “epic history” remained unclear for him. However, he finally did recognize the probability of a tie between the patronymic Seslavic in the bylina and the historical Vseslav, subject of many legends.18 In spite of the fact th at the link between the Volx of the bylina and the Polock prince — who appears from days of old surrounded by a haze of sorcery — is much more tangible and evident than many of the correspondences between the Russian epos and history which have been pointed out by Miller and his disciples, once the head of this historical school of scholar12 Pesni sobrannye P. N. R ybnikovym (1st ed., Moscow, 1861), I, 17-18. is “Polockij knjaz’ Vseslav i ego vremja,” Polocko-Vitebskaja sta rina, П (Vitebsk, 1912), 121-216. 14 « к bylinam о Vol’ge i Mlkvde,” Oöerki russkoj narodnoj slovesnosti (Moscow, 1897), I, 166-186; “Vol’ga Vseslav’evic,” Novyj ènciklopediöeskij slovar', XI (1913), 529-530. is Oöerki russkoj narodnoj slovesnosti (Moscow, 1924), Ш , 56 f, and 170.

18

ship had expressed his doubt, a whole generation of Russian researchers dropped the question from consideration. 2. Volx and Vol’ga. In the bylina about the plowman Mikula, the partner of Mikula is called Vol’ga — and mostly in the Olonec variants of the bylina about the prince-werewolf the same name is also used for the hero. This identity of the name has induced the temptation to look for one common hero in both these byliny. But as a m atter of fact, the two byliny should not be confused with each other. In this connection Veselovskij emphasized that the unification of two plots under one personal name may be accidental.1 V. Miller, as well, expressed the belief th at the bylina about the hunting expedition and campaign of the prince-werewolf is more ancient, and th at the bylina about the miraculous plowman Mikula and his meeting with Vol’ga (or more exactly some of the variants of this bylina) accidentally borrowed from the preceding bylina the motifs of the birth, childhood, and youth of the valiant hero (Oèerki, 1 ,186). Later studies of the bylina about Mikula, which have been summed up by André Mazon,1 23 definitely revealed its late origin (presumably the sixteenth century), although the question of an archaic nucleus in this bylina, as sketched by A. saxmatov,8 still remains an open one. An essential step forward in the study of the bylina about Volx Vseslav’evic was made by S. Sambinago, who showed th at the hero of the story of the victorious prince-werewolf may be called Vorga, but th at the partner of the plowman Mikula never appears under the name of Volx.4*Hence the heroes of both byliny are genetically different, and only later, uniquely in the Olonec epic tradition, did one impose his name on the other. In the Arxangersk tradition, however, the two names are clearly distinguished from one another. Marfa Krjukova, 1 “Juzno-russkie byliny,” Sbornik Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, XXXVI, No. 3 (1884), 250. Cf. F. Kors. “O russkom narodnom stixosloienii,” ibidem, LXVH, No. 8 (1901), 37. 2 “Mikula, le prodigieux laboreur,” Revue des Etudes Slaves, XL (1931), 149-170. 3 “Mstislav Ljutyj v russkoj poèzii,” Sbornik Xar’kovskogo Istoriko-Filologiôeskogo Obàôestva, X V ni (1909), 82 ff. especiaUy 90 f. 4 “K literatum oj istorii bylin о Vol’ge-Volxe Vseslav’eviöe,” Zum al Ministerstva Narodnogo ProsveSöenija (1905), No. 11.

The Vseslav Epos

19

on one hand, tells the bylina about the victorious campaign of Volx, full of werewolf adventures (No. 39) ; and on the other, she tells the bylina about Volga’s meeting with Mikula (Nos. 40, 41). Both epic names — Volx (Old Russian v*lxv-) and Vol’ga (Old Russian Ol’g-) * — telescoped and thus compomised forms arose, such as VoPx (D) and conversely Volga (BL. Nos. 40,41). 3. The patronymics of the hero. The patronymic of the prince-werewolf is Vseslav’evié in D and RII. In Ш the patronymic is missing. In the other vari­ ants the prince takes on the patronymics of other epic heroes whose father-names are similarly compounded, ending with -Slav: the bogatyr Vasilij, son of Boguslav;1 and Prince Vladi­ mir, son of Svjatoslav.*12*Thus in the narrative of Kuz’ma Roma­ nov, our hero is called Vol’ga Buslavleviö (НП) or BuslaeviS (RI) — and vice versa, Vasilij becomes a grandson of Seslav (Rybnikov No. 169). In the Arxangel’sk record of our bylina we meet Volx Svjatoslav’evic (M) or Svetoslaeviô (BL), while Prince Vladimir in his turn, in Russian epic tradition, began to attract from earliest times the patronymic Vseslavié, Vseslav’eviô: “ZadonSöina” in the Undol’skij copy,8 “Skazanie о kievskix bogatyr ex”,4 the bylina about Mixail Danilovic in a man­ uscript of the eighteenth century,5*and the bylina about the marriage of Prince Vladimir in Kiräa Danilov’s collection (p. 41). In general, the confusion of the names Vseslav and Svjatoslav is usual in Old Russian literary tradition; for ex­ ample, in some variants of the “Skazanie о Mamaevom poboiSöe,” Ivan Vseslav figures and in other variants Ivan Svja* There is no doubt about the connection between the epic name Voi'ga and th e Old Russian Ol'g* (gen. Ol’g a ), which from earliest times appears with a prothetic v, but it is still questionable to which one of the historic princes of this name oral epic tradition is linked. 1 A. SdbolevskiJ, Materialy i issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskoj ftlologii i arxeologii (St. Petersburg, 1910), 244. 2 According to A. Grigor'ev, ArxangeVskie byliny i istoriöeskie pesni (Prague, 1939), П, 25 and 33, in the Mezen* River area our hero is known as Volga Vjaôeslaviô. « J. Frôek, Zadonëôina (Prague, 1948), 185, 187. 4 Sbom ik Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, C, No. 1 (1922). б a . Veselovskij, “Juino-russkie byliny,” Sbom ik Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, ХХП, No. 2 (1881), 20.

20

toslav;® and in the “Skazanie о knjazex vladimirskix” the historic Svjatoslav is called Vseslav Igoreviö.* 7 Among all these variants the basic name of the epic prince-werewolf is Volx Vseslav’eviö. It is, as a m atter of fact, volx(v) Vseslav, “the magician Vseslav,” because in Russian epic tradition the pat­ ronymic of the bogatyr often reflects the name of his historic prototype : for example, Suxan Domant’eviô seems to be de­ rived from the Pskovian prince of the thirteenth century — Domant or Dovmont8; and the bogatyr Djuk Stepanoviö from the son of the Hungarian king in the twelfth century, dux Stephanus.9 The name of the hero Vseslav could easily have changed to a patronymic under the influence of such other current epic patronymics as Buslaevi', and Svjatoslav’evié, and the apposition volx changed to a first name without difficulty by analogy with the resemblant epic name Vol’ga. 4. Rank and birthplace of the hero. As V. Miller observes (Oéerki, I, 184), Volx does not a t all resemble a true bogatyr of the byliny, and this title is rarely applied to him; — it is almost exclusively used to depict the supernatural power of the new-born Volx: “a powerful bogatyr is born” (D, 12). In the variant of the narrator Romanov, which Miller considers the best, the hero is consistently called Vol'ga sudar’ Buslaevic — “Vol’ga Sire, son of Buslaj” (RI and НИ). The princely origin of Volx is distinctly recalled in the bylina: his mother is a “young princess” (D, 2) and her hus­ band is a bogatyr’ knjaz’ (BL, 4). Princes as central heroes of byliny are very few in number — Volx is one of them. The bylina defines his home country simply as Rus’ with­ out specification: Sire Vol’ga, the son of Buslaj, was bom in holy mother Rus’ (RI, 5). A generalized process of ascribing the origin of all heroes to Kiev took place in D, 12. In M. Krjukova’s byliny, Cernigor (Cernigov) occupies a significant place, and as a result she placed the birth of Volx in Cernigov (BL, 2). ®A. Saxmatov, “Samblnago, S. K.: Povesti о Mamaevom. poboiSfce,” Otöet о dvenadcatom prisuèdenii I. Akademieju Nauk premij mitropolita Makarija (St. Petersburg, 1910), 201. 7 I. Zdanov, op. cit., 598. » V. Miller, Oéerki..., Ш , 170 ff. e A. LjaScenko, “Bylina о Djuke Stepanoviôe,” Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, XXX (1925), 45-142.

The Vseslav Epos

21

III — THE PLOT OF THE BYLINA AS COMPARED WITH THE WRITTEN SOURCES ON VSESLAV 1. The miraculous birth of the hero. Through the garden, garden green, Walked-meandered th e young princess, The young princess, Marfa Vseslav’evna; She leaped off a stone on a serpent fierce, 5. On the fierce serpent Goryniö. The fierce serpent now winds himself Round the boot — Morocco green, Round the stocking made of silk, With his tail he strikes her white thigh; io. Thereupon the princess conceived. •She conceived and bore a child. (D)i

Only in the oldest record of our bylina and in the frag­ ment G, where the infant is not named, do we find this story of his birth from a serpent. In the bylina about Dobrynja as Serpent Killer, however, the serpent's victim, liberated by this bogatyr, is named “Young Marfida (from Mal‘frid‘ or МаГfrëd’) Vseslav’evna.”12 The patronymic shows that there is a traditional association between the name of Vseslav and the motif of the serpent-violator. This birth-from-a-serpent motif of the Vseslav bylina penetrated into one variant of the bylina about Saul Levanidoviö.3 The fact of Volx’s miraculous birth had often been com­ pared to the Primary Chronicle's laconic allusion to Prince Vseslav’s birth by enchantment. This obscure phrase is the only one of its kind: nowhere else do the chroniclers link the birth or the deeds of Russian Christian princes with sorcery. And even in the history of the pre-Christian period, the princes are never linked with sorcery. Oleg alone was called a “wizard” (vëscii)-, but with the eloquent reservation that the people sumamed him so because they were ignorant pagans (Primary Chronicle under 6415/907). 1 The Russian text of D is reproduced in the appendix; Y. Joffe’s translation, used here, is to appear in the Anthology on the Russian National Character edited by K. Strelsky (we have amended our quota­ tions somewhat to make this translation more literal). 2 A. Markov, “K istorii bylinnogo èposa,” Ètnografièeskoe Obozre~ nie, No. 4 (1905), 12. 2 P. Kireevskij, Pesni (Moscow, 1868), Ш , 113.

22

2. The reaction of nature. The traditional preamble, which frames the epic action with historic or cosmic motifs related to this action through resemblance or contiguity, is present as well in the bylina about the prince-werewolf: In the sky shone forth the radiant moon. And in Kiev there was bom a mighty bogatyr, And he was the youthful Volx Vseslav’eviö. 16. The moist mother earth trembled, The glorious Indian realm shook, And the blue sea billowed, Because of the birth of the bogatyr, Of the youthful Voix Vseslav’evié; 20. Fishes went into the depth of the sea, Birds flew high heavenward, The aurochs and deer went o’er the mountains. Hares and foxes to the dense forests, And wolves and bears to the thickets of fir, 25. Sables and m artins to the groves.

Thus the preamble is compounded of three parts, each more or less autonomous; of these, the last, treating the be­ havior of the animals, is the most stable. The second part speaks either of the reaction of earth and water, as in D; or only about earthquakes, as in НП; or about the water element only, as in BL1, where, contrarily, the sea and the rivers came to standstill — or this part is completely omitted, as in HI for example. The first part dealing with the heavenly phenomena demands some clarification. The appearance of the princewerewolf is connected in the bylina with the disappearance of the sun and with the triumph of the nocturnal element: When the radiant moon was bom in the sky. Then in Russia there was born a powerful bogatyr, The youthful Vol’ga Vseslav’eviö. (CM-J2 ; cf. Ш, 1-2)12 1 Marfa Krjukova omits the whole preamble in her bylina about Volx (No. 39) and transposes it to the bylina about Vol’ga and Mikula (No. 40). 2 Когды на небе родилса светел месец, тогды на Руси родилса могуч богатырь, молодым Вольга Всеславьевичь.

The Vseslav Epos

23

The beautiful sun set Beyond the high mountains, Beyond the vast seas; Beadlike stars scattered on the clear sky, Sire Vorga Buslaeviö was born in holy mother Rus’. (RI, 1-6; ci. НП, 1-5) 34

The crepuscular aura obviously embarrassed one of the nar­ rators by its unusualness, so he replaced it by a more cus­ tomary preamble; When the beautiful sun shone Upon our holy Russian earth, Then the youthful bogatyr was born, The youthful Vol’ga Vseslav’evic. (RII, 1-4)4

And we meet the same preamble in the few cases where the opening of the bylina about the prince-werewolf appears in the Olonec variants of the bylina about VoFga and Mikula, with which it is not tied organically and remains foreign, as Mazon correctly observed (op. cit., 152) : When the beautiful sun shone On th a t clear sky, Then the youthful VoFga was born, The youthful Vol’ga Sfjatoslav’evid. (H No. 156,1 - 4 )

The same is the case in the bylina about VoFga and Mikula recorded by Rybnikov from Rjabinin (No. 3, 1-4), but in Hilferding’s record from the same teller (No. 73) this preamble, so weakly attached to the bylina, is discarded. The disappear­ ance of the sun and the images of the moon and of the many stars can be either a description of an evening sky, or, as the preamble (already mentioned) of Marfa Krjukova to the bylina about VoFga and Mikula suggests, a picture of the sun’s eclipse: 3 Закатилось красное солнышко за горушки за высокие, за моря за широкие, рассаждалися звезды частые по светлу небу, порождался Вольга сударь Буслаевич на матушке на святой Руси. 4 Когда воссияло солнце красное на нашу на землю святорусскую, тогда народился младый богатырь, младый богатырь Вольга Всеславьевич.

24 Красно солнышко у нас да светло светело, как луна гу нас небесна остояласе, часты светлы-ти ведь звездочки показалиое . . . (BL No. 40, 18- 16)

In the second line, to make it syntactically and semantically understandable, we have to restore the neuter of the verbal form (ostojalose) which was replaced by the feminine under the influence of the preceding “luna.” The passage undoubted­ ly means “Our beautiful sun brightly bright became like our celestial moon, and there appeared bright and numerous stars.” The eclipse of the sun is a logical background for the picture of the fright of animals and birds. Moreover, these lines find a strikingly close parallel in the story of the Primary Chronicle about the heavenly omens accompanying Vseslav’s preparations for war in 6573/1065: Somewhat before this moment, the sun also suffered alterations, and instead of being bright, was like th e m oon.. fi

It is noteworthy th a t in the Primary Chronicle chronogically the first mention of an eclipse is made in connection with the appearance of the militant Vseslav. It is true th at in the bylina, astrological omens accompany the birth of Volx Vseslav’eviè, but in the variant M (59-61), with the rise of the bogatyr’s military glory, an association between his appear­ ance and the signs in the heavens is also drawn: There thundered and spread the great glory About th a t Volx Svjatoslav’evic, That when he was bom there arose, ’tis said, the radiant moon.*6

At the dawn of the seventh millenium’s seventh century, in 6599/1091, the same picture of the eclipse is repeated in the Chronicle: In this year there was a portent in the sun which seemed about to disappear and only a bit of it remained and it was like the m oon... 6 Предъ симьже временьмь и сълньце премЪни ся и не бысть свЪтьло, нъ акы мЪсяць бысть. 6 Прогремела-то, прошла слава великая про того ли шьчо про Волха Святославьевича, шьчо родилсэ-то когда, то ведь взошол, скажут, светел месець

The Vseslav Epos

25

At this time thei earth uttered a groan audible to many. In the same year a magician appeared. . . 7

This is the chronicler’s introduction to the subsequent nar­ rative (6600/1092) about vampiric miracles in Polock, Vseslav’s capital: Krjukova’s images repeat the traditional picture of the sun's eclipse as the Old Russian Chronicles used to portray it.8 The partial eclipse of the sun which gives it the shape of a cres­ cent moon can be perceived as the destruction of the sun with the appearance of the moon in its place. Thus the First Novgo­ rod Chronicle states under 6632/1124: The l l t h of August before the vespers, the sun began to shrink and perished completely. . . and there were stars and the moon.

It is characteristic th at for the year of Vseslav’s mobiliza­ tion, given as 6573, the Primary Chronicle adapts “the gigantic star which had rays as if they were bloody and which rose in the evening after the sun set.” As D. Svjatskij showed,9 the reference was probably to Halley’s Comet which in reality appeared only two years later. Here we see again the same tendency to link particularly alarming nocturnal and teneb­ rous phenomena with Vseslav. Likewise the Slovo, in verses 155-159, connects Vseslav with nocturnal motifs. The Chronicle also links the five-day reverse flowing of the Volxov in Novgorod in 6571 with the imminent campaign of Vseslav: This was not a favorable portent, since Vseslav burned the city four years later.

And if, as we have quoted from M. Krjukova’s preamble, “the rapid rivers didn’t move” (17), is it not an echo of the same 7 Въ сеже лЪто бысть знамение въ сълньци, яко погыбнути ему, и мало ся его оста: акы м^сядь б ы сть ... Въ сеже время земля стукну, яко мънози слышаша. Въ сеже л*Ьто вълхвъ яви с я . . . 8 6621/1113 оста ся сълньца мало акы мЪсяць . . . 6623/1115 погыбе сълньце и бысть яко мЪсяць . . . Laur. 6694/1186 бысть знаменье въ солнци, морочно бысть велми, яко и звезды ■вид'Ьти. Cf. also Novg. I 6648, 6695, Hyp. 6695, Laur. 6714, and especially 6738: солнце нача погыбати,.. мало остася его и бысть аки мЪсяць. . . и мнози мняхуть мЪсяць иду т е чресъ небо.. . бызшю соэнцю мЪсяцемъ . . .

» “Astronomiéeskie javlenija у russkix letopisjax s nauôno-кгШéeskoj tocki zrenija,” Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slcv. Ak. Nauk, XX, No. 2 (1915), 203 ff.

26

omen? The prophecy of a magician to the Kievan people th a t in the 5th year the Dnepr will reverse its stream, a prophecy recorded in the Primary Chronicle under 6579, is also probably linked with Vseslav's adventures (see below). 3. The 'prophetic talk of the hero with his mother. And when Volx is an hour and a half old, Volx speaks as the thunder roars: “And hail thou mistress, mother dear, Youthful Marfa Vseslav’evna ! so. Do not swathe me in a cloth of crimson hue, Do not gird me with sashes of silk, Do enswathe me, mistress mother mine, In tough armor plates of oriental steel, On my stormy head lay a golden helm, 85. On my right-hand side a mace, A massive mace, a leaden one, And in weight three hundred poods.” (D)

ArxangeFsk variants of the bylina finish this speech of the new-born hero with the demand for a “sharp spear” (M, 22) or for a bogatyr’s spear (BL, 29). It will be remembered that “leaning on his spear, Vseslav,” according to the Slovo, “leaped to the citadel of Kiev” and that “with the spear shaft” he touched “the golden Kievan throne” (154). Volx’s mother is terrified by this militant speech of her infant son, and her trepidation parallels the cosmic motif of the preamble — the trembling of “moist mother earth.” And here his own mother was terrified. She was terrified and afraid: “W hat miraculous miracle is this? W hat strange wonder is this? In my whole life I have not heard That a little child could speak so! W hat kind of monster will it be? Will it be a condemned wizard? Will he destroy people and devour them? (BL, 80-88) 11 1 Тут ведь и матушка родима ужахнуласе, ужахнуласе и была да й испугаласе: «Ето шьто тако за чудо чудноё? Ето шьто тако за диво дивноё? На веку да я да не слыхала же, шьто малоё дитя так говорило-то!

The Vseslav Epos

27

Here the bylina is clearly in accord with the Chronicle’s story: the mother of the new-born Vseslav listens to the speech of the magicians bidding her to bind his caul upon him, and the conclusion of the talk corresponds to th at of the bylina — “Therefore he is merciless in bloodshed” (year 6552). 4. Teaching the young hero to read and write. And when Volx was seven years old, He was sent by mother to learn to read, 40. And he mastered the reading to good use; Then she set him writing with a pen, And he mastered the writing to good use.

(D) These lines take us out of the fairy world for a moment into the pattern of real life. There are no reasons to suspect a late interpolation, for the learning of Volx reflects a genuine Russian historical situation of the pre-Mongolian epoch. Let us remember th at Vseslav’s granduncle Jaroslav “was very fond of books, often reading day and night,” and th at Jaroslav’s sister, Predislava, corresponded with her brothers. A sample of the writing of Jaroslav’s daughter, Anna, has been preserved. His son Svjatoslav, Vseslav’s grim adversary, “crammed all his rooms full with books.” In the Izbomik compiled for him in 1076, a special motto is inscribed: “The reading of books is good, brethren.”1 Vladimir Monomax, Jaroslav’s nephew and Vseslav’s second cousin was not only an assiduous reader, but also an outstanding writer. Vseslav’s granddaughter, Evfrosin’ja, herself copied books. The addition preserved by records RI and HII possibly originates in the ancient text of the bylina: He learned clevernesses and wisdoms, Various different languages. (RI, 17- 18 ) 2*12 Ето како будет да чудовишшо-то, чародей ли будёт да окоянной-от, погублять народ будет он, пожирать его?»

1 Sbornik Svjatoslava 1076, edited by V. âimanovskij (Warsaw, 1894), И. 2 Обучался хитростям-мудростям, всяким языкам разныим.

28

Vladimir Monomax testifies th at his father, sitting at home, mastered five languages. Also, several languages were known by Jaroslav Osmomysl and by the sons of Jurij Dolgorukij; his grandson, Konstantin Vsevolodovic, translated from Greek.8 The Byzantine epic tradition, too, frequently pays attention to the learning of its royal heroes. Both in ancient Russian and Byzantine tradition learning usually began at the age of seven, as in the case of Volx. 5. Familiarization with occult sciences. And when Volx was already ten years old, Volx was instructed in high wisdoms. 45. And the first wisdom Volx studied — To turn into a bright falcon; And the second wisdom Volx studied — To turn into a gray-haired wolf; And the third wisdom Volx studied — 60. To turn into a bay aurochs, A bap aurochs with horns of gold. (D)

When Volx was born, according to D and other variants, fish, birds, and wild beasts hid away. As Volx grows up, he hunts — transforming himself into a beast for hunting beasts, into a bird to hunt birds, and into a fish to catch fish. D omits the catching of fish, so that the retreat of the fish into the depth of the sea is without any motivation in this variant. The representation of all three domains of the animal king­ dom is traceable in th at part of the narrative of D which con­ cerns Volx’s learning. He learns how to change himself into a falcon and into a wolf and an aurochs. But probably more archaic is the variant recorded on the Peöora: At th at time Vor ja Vseslav’evié Learned to go as a pike in the free sea. He learned to fly as a bird in the heavens. He learned to course as the fierce beast in the plain. (O , 46- 49) 1*1

8 V. Samojlov, “Obrazovannost’ v Kievskoj Rusi i Moskovskom gosudarstve,” Istoriöeskij Zumal (Aug., 1938), 52 f. 1 Да втопоры Вольия Всеславьевич училса-бы в вольнем море щукой ходить, училса-бы по поднебесью птицею летать, училса-бы по полю лютым зверем рыскати.

The Vseslav Epos

29

The same motif is transferred to the bylina about VoFga and Mikula: Vol’ga began to grow and mature, And Vorga longed for much wisdom: To go in the seas as the pike fish, To fly under the clouds as the falcon bird, To course in the vast plains as the gray wolf. (RI No. 3, 6-9 2; cf. HII No. 73, 5-9)

A similar tripartite construction with identical metamor­ phoses early found its way from oral poetry to the literary novel about the kidnapping of Solomon's wife, especially in regard to the supernatural changes of the wise king who is looking for the missing queen: And he flew in the heavens as the bright falcon and he did not find her under the skyey clouds, and he went over the earth as the fierce beast and nowhere did he reach her, and he swam as the pike in the sea and he did not find her.23

The art of metamorphosis was considered in ancient Rus­ sia as an occult and sophisticated science. The old Russian index of prohibited books names among other magical works which “bring about destruction at the hands of devils" the book Carov’nik‘ (“Wizard”), consisting of twelve chapters wherein are presented “all twelve convertible shapes, animal­ like and bird-like.”4 This book described how one “keeps one's body dead and flies as an eagle and hawk and raven and wood­ pecker and owl or how one courses as a fierce beast, as a wild boar and a wolf, how one flies as a dragon and courses as a lynx and a bear.”5The application of these skills, in the further development of the bylina, assures Volx's successes. And when 2 Стал Вольта растеть-матереть, — похотелось Вольте много мудрости: щукой-рыбою ходить ему в глубокиих морях, птицей-соколом летать под оболока, серым волком рыскать во чистых полях. 8 И полетЬ по поднебесью ясным соколом и не нашелъ подъ небеснымъ облакомъ, и поиде по земл-fe лютымъ звЪремъ и нигд^ не обр-Ьте, и поплы щукою въ море и не нашелъ.

4 Letopis' Zanjatij Arxeografiôeçkoj Kommissii, No. 1 (1861), Issledovanija, 42 f. 5 ТЬло свое хранить мертво и летаетъ орломъ и ястребомъ, и ворономъ, и дятлемъ, и совою, — рыщутъ лютымъ звЪремъ и вепремъ дикимъ, и волкомъ, летаютъ змиемъ и рыщутъ рысию и медвЪдемъ.

30

the young prince puts his learning in the art of transforma­ tions to the proof, “he first changed into a gray wolf” : serym volkom (M, 37). Undoubtedly ancient is the paronomasia, volx (*v*lxv*) — volk (*v‘lk*). It is particularly distinct in the old­ est record: druèina spit, tak VoVx ne spit: on obvemetsa se­ rym* volkom* (D, 69-70). The wolf and the “fierce beast” are synonymous,6 and in the variant of Aksin’ja Fomina the corresponding passage states: VoPga changed into the fierce beast. (Ш, Sg-33) 7

In another Onega variant, recorded from Kuz’ma Roma­ nov, the archaic term ljutyj zver* became incomprehensible and was replaced by ljovyj zver’ (RI, 37-38; cf. ЫП, 40-42). Precisely as a fierce beast (155), or what is practically the same thing, as a wolf (157, 159), the Vseslav of the Slovo also races about nightly. 6. The military preparations of the hero. And when Volx was twelve years old, He started to pick a retinue for himself; He picked the retinue for three years, 55. He picked a retinue of seven thousand; Volx himself is fifteen years old, And all his retinue is fifteen each. (D )

The recruiting of the retinue is an essential motif of the bylina about Volx, only the number of the recruited warriors differs widely. Vseslav’s preparation for the campaign is a significant fact which finds its expression in the Chronicle as well. Under: 6573/1065, the year of the ominous comet and the sun’s eclipse, the First Novgorod Chronicle, according to the copy of the Archeographic Commission, states: “Vseslav* роба ra t’ kopiti (in the Academy copy, stroiti).” In the Moscow Academy copy of the Laurentian redaction of the Chronicle, 6 D. Zelenin, ‘T abu slov u narodov vost. Evropy i sev. Azii,” Sbornik Muzeja Antropologii i Ètnografii Ak. Nauk, IX (1930), 37; V. Mil­ ler, “O ljutom zvere narodnyx pesen,” Drevnosti — Trudy Mosk. Arxeologiôeskogo Obëcestva, VII (1877), 1-18. 7 Овернулся Вольга да лютыим зверем.

The Vseslav Epos

31

we find here the same verb, ra t’ kopil*. On the basis of this in­ formative coincidence we can accept the given reading of the First Novgorod Chronicle in the Archeographic Commission copy and interpret the substitution of d’räati in the Synodical copy of the First Novgorod Chronicle for the verb kopiti and the omission of the infinitive in the Laurentian and Hypatian copies as innovations. In 6573 Vseslav began to gather up his forces — ra t’ kopiti1. It is impossible to suppose that at that time* he really began military action — ra t’ робаГ, for we read in the Primary Chronicle that only two years later Vseslav started his campaign: zarati sja. Apparently the unusual fact th a t the recruiting of an army by one of the regional princes was noticed in the Old Russian Chronicle puzzled its later compilers. Hence some of them substituted the beginning of military action for the beginning of military preparations. This passage in the Kiev Chronicle can serve as the best proof th at the glory of the Polock Vseslav’s mobilization reached Kiev. The confrontation of the word slava and of the prince’s name is characteristic both of the Slovo (144,149-150, 156) and of the bylina : Прогремела, прошла славушка по всей земли про того-ли про славного могучего богатыря, про того прошла слава про Волха Святославьевича (М ,

84 - 86 )

7. The threat of the enemy and Volx’s hunting expedition T hat great rumor traveled on As far as the capital city Kiev. 60. The Indian tsar starts outfitting, And boasting loud, keeps bragging: Wants to take Kiev-City as booty, And let God’s churches go up in smoke, And to lay waste the venerated monasteries. 65. And* a t th a t time Volx was resourceful: With all his valiant retinue To the far-famed Indian realm Went forth with them to war. The retinue sleeps, but Volx sleeps not: 70. He turned into a grey-haired wolf, Hurried-scurried through the .dark forests, The dark forests and their outskirts. 1 I. Sreznevskij, Materialy dlja slovarja drevne-russkogo jazyka (St. Petersburg, 1893), I, 1280.

32 And he strikes out a t the antlered beasts. And the wolf, the bear, he does not let escape, 75. And the sables, panthers — a favorite morsel, Hares and foxes he did not disdain. Volx regaled his valiant retinue, He shod and clothed his goodly braves: They wore fur coats of sable pelts, so. And for a change — coats of panther fur. The retinue sleeps, but Volx sleeps not: He turns into a bright falcon, He flew afar to the blue sea, And he strikes the geese, the white swans, 85. And he does not let the small grey ducks escape. And he regaled his valiant retinue. And all the fare he had was varied. Varied fare, all with sugar made.

(D) The narrative of this bylina about the successful hunting expedition of the prince-werewolf was compared by V. Miller with the data of Nikitskij’s monograph, “Outline of the Eco­ nomic Life of Great Novgorod.”1 He came to the conclusion that “in the bylina under discussion there is sung the unusual richness of Novgorod domains where the miraculous hunter with his retinue catches animals and fish.” First we learn how “he sets the traps in the dark forests, on their outskirts, and in the fir groves which are plentiful in the northern region, chases in the valuable furbearing animals which made up the most lucrative item in the Novgorod trade with the West: martins, foxes, black sables, and small erm ines. . . The nature of the North and familiarity with the habits of its animals are reflected in the b y l i n a . . . and we find there quite a com­ plete list of furbearing and other animals of the Novgorod domains” (O c e rk i , I, 181 f.). After hunting for animals and birds, the prince, accord­ ing to some variants, goes over to the catching of fish. Sire Vol'ga Buslaeviô said: “My goodly valiant retinue, Listen to your older brother, the Ataman, Do your ordered task: Take wood-axes, Build a boat of oak, Bind silk nets, Sail out upon the blue sea, 1 Istorija èkonomièeskogo byta Velikogo Novgoroda (Moscow, 1893).

The Vseslav Epos

33

Catch fish — salmon and white sturgeon, Pike and dace, And the valuable fish sturgeon." (R I, 66- 76)

However, the retinue returns without a catch and then the prince himself changes into a pike and snags a rich game. “Being an ideal catcher of animals and birds,” Miller com­ ments, “Vol’ga (Volx) turns to the exploitation of another natural wealth of the Northern region. He undertakes fishing again on a grand scale of the Novgorod fishmerchants” (Z. c. 182). Miller’s reference to the Novgorod character of Volx’s hunting remains valid, even though doubt was later expressed as to how far some of these features are typical for the Nov­ gorod region.2 This skillful observer did not overlook two additional items linked with the “great catcher” : first he grasped that in one of the variants of the bylina about the Forty-One Pil­ grims (see Kir§a Danilov’s collection), there is included a picture of Northern hunting, and th at “Prince Vladimir here assumes the unusual role of a hunter and is similar in this case” to Volx Vseslav’eviö:3 And they came out of the forest fringe, And Vladimir the prince met them. He goes hunting, Shoots geese and white swan, Migratory little ducks, And he chases all the fox and hare. (D, p. 94)

This whole episode was adapted, it must be supposed, by one variant of the bylina about the Forty-One Pilgrims from the bylina about Volx. The second of Miller’s observations is particularly suggestive: preserved in their bylina is the name of the .hunting place which seemingly had been forgotten in the records we possess of the bylina about the prince-werewolf. The prince goes to hunt “sverx toe reki öeregi” (D, p. 94). “The river Cerega, although placed by the narrator in the vicinity of Kiev, is,” as Miller point out, “the well-known Nov2 N. Korobka, “Skazanija ob uroôlâcax Ovruôskogo uezda i byliny о Vol'ge Svjatoslaviöe,” Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, ХЩ, No. 1 (1908), 315 f. s V. Miller, Oöerki russkoj narodnoj slovesnosti (Moscow, 1910), П, 241 f.

34

gorod river. It flows not far from Novgorod and has become famous because of the historic fight which took place on its banks between Mstislav Izjaslaviô and the renowned Vseslav from Polock. After the battle Vseslav seized Novgorod and plundered it” (I. c. 221). The investigator has in mind the testimonies of the First Novgorod Chronicle which mentions in the list of Novgorod princes Vseslav’s victory which was followed by the sacking of the town:4* Izjaslav enthroned his son Mstislav; and the latter was defeated on the öerexa; he fled to Kiev, and after the seizure of the city (Nov­ gorod) the war was over.6

Neither before nor after did this stream appear in the pages of history, and the connection of the epic Cerega with Vseslav’s victory is undoubted. This connection had already been noticed by KvaSnin-Samarin, the author of one of the first really sound inquiries into the historical background of the Russian byliny.« But Miller, having rejected any considera­ tion of historical roots in the bylina about Volx Vseslav’eviö, was unable to draw the obvious conclusion suggested by his keen observation. The bylina about the prince-werewolf, in its images of hunting after Novgorod game on the Cerega, sang of Vseslav’s victory over the Novgorodians on this river and of the subsequent seizure of Novgorod, rich in booty. The picture of war in terms of the hunt, especially of falcon hunting, is unmistakingly delineated in the poetic imagery of the Slovo (e. g. 16, 79, 190, 208) and in the similar symbols of lines 81-84 in our bylina (see above). It is curious th at just in con­ nection with the seizure of Novgorod by Vseslav there appears in the Slovo the formula, “he snatched a streak (kus‘) of good luck (vazn’) .” The metaphorical expression kus‘ finds an echo in the bylina's description of the lucky princely hunt: a i soboli, barsy — ljubimoj kus (75) ; and the terms vazn’, vazniv* in Old Russian, used to be linked specifically with the hunt.7 4 A. Saxmatov, Razyskanija о drevnejèix russkix letopisnyx svodax (St. Petersburg, 1908), 253. 6 Изяславъ посади сына своего Мьстислава; и побЪдиша и на Черехи; б*Ьжа къ Кыеву, и по взятьи города преста рать. в Besedat No. 4 (1871), 83. 7 БЪ же Василко... на ловехъ вазнивъ (Новгородск. IV летопись, 6746); Артемид-fe гл(агол)ють Елени на ловЪхъ стр'Ьлбою быти вазнивЪ (16 слов Григория Назианзина по списку XIV в.); Бяшеть бо и самъ ловець добръ, хороборъ . . . гЬмже и прослылъ бяшеть во всей земл-Ь, понеже

The Vssslav Epos

35

The bylina glorifies the solicitous attitude of the sovereign towards his retinue whom he supplied with rich and varied provisions. This praise for the prince-druèinnik may be com­ pared to the flattering characterization which the EymundrSaga gives to Vseslav’s father, Brjaöislav (Wartilaf), who is generous to his Varangian retinue in contrast to his uncle and adversary, Jaroslav.8 The Novgorod operations of the prince are interpreted in the bylina as preparatory measures, feeding and outfitting the retinue for the real campaign of the hero. They constitute, according to the bylina, the first stage of his main expedition — ko slavnomu carstvu Indejskomu (D, 67). But who is this enemy who menaced Kiev and whose aggressiveness our hero decided to meet by aggression in re­ turn? Before answering this question, let us turn again to V. Miller's observations which are especially significant, since he is unbiased in the consideration of our bylina’s historical background. In his article, “K bylinam о Vol’ge i Mikule,” Miller states that “in all accounts of the campaign of Vol’ga (Volx), Prince Vladimir is absent and only the city Kiev is mentioned as belonging to someone unknown but not to the irreplaceable epic sovereign."9 On the other hand, Volx’s ad­ versary (“soprotivnicik") who threatened Kiev is depicted within his metropolis where, according to Miller, “we would look in vain for actual features, features reflecting any histori­ cal reality, — it is a conventionally painted background." If Kiev is presented as being without a sovereign, and the sover­ eign inimical to Volx as being without a concrete metropolis, then, in reality, was not this sovereign who terrorized Kiev and whom Vseslav attacked simply an unpopular ruler of Kiev? In other words, this could be none other than the Grand Duke Izjaslav Jaroslaviö with his particularly unpopular allies, the Latins — the Catholic Poles (latinjane-ljaxi), the Izjaslav who provoked a rebellion of Kiev’s people against himself in 1068 and who was obliged to give his throne up to Vseslav. If we accept this working hypothesis, the whole development of the bylina’s action, which to Miller seemed devoid of any his­ torical actuality, instantly takes on meaning through a series*IV далъ бяшеть ему Богъ вазнь не токмо и на одиныхъ ловехъ (Инат. летоп. 6795). s s. Н. Cross, “Yaroslav the Wise in Norse Tradition,” Speculum, IV (1929), 177-197. » Vladimir appears only in the newest variant of this bylina (BL).

36

of convincing correspondences in the accounts of the dethrone­ ment of Izjaslav by Vseslav. What, according to the Primary Chronicle, were the his­ toric circumstances of Vseslav’s coup d'état? In the year 6576/1068, “foreigners invaded the Russian land, a multitude of Polovcians.” Izjaslav went forth with his brothers against them. “But since God had let loose the pagans upon us because of our transgressions, the Russian princes fled and the Polov­ cians were victorious.” (Concluding his annual survey, the chronicler attributes the invasion and the victory of the pagans directly to Izjaslav’s transgressions). “When Izjaslav accom­ panied by Vsevolod fled to Kiev, while Svjatoslav took refuge in Cemigov, the men of Kiev escaped to their native city, where they held an assembly (vëèe) in the market place and said to the Prince through delegates: ‘The Polovcians have spread over the country; О Prince, give us arms and horses th at we may offer them combat once more/ Izjaslav, however, paid no heed to this.” In similar lines Marfa Krjukova’s variant of the bylina depicts the danger which menaced the Russian land and which provoked the decisive action of Volx: “These are not two dark clouds which rise, Rise hang over —”

One dark cloud approaches the famous Kiev-city; it is the warring Turkish Tsar, and toward Cemigor goes the warring Zadonskij Tsar. Both armies march on Kiev-city and on Cernigor. “And there came many numberless forces.”

And now Volx, very wise, very quick-witted in learning, and resourceful in all matters, has to find a way out of the precarious situation (BL, 293-335). “The Tsar from beyond the Don,” who is the Polovcian aggressor menacing Russia, and the Kievan prince, who is incapable and unwilling to meet this menace — who, more­ over, in the opinion of the contemporary chronicler brought on this danger, — both fused easily into one image of a foe against whom Volx Vseslav’evic started his epic struggle in order to save the Kievan people. According to the Chronicle, Izjaslav did not wish to arm the city folk of Kiev because he feared that weapons would be raised not only against the

The Vseslav Epos

37

Polovcians, but also against himself, since the remnants of his retinue had been weakened by the defeat on the Al’ta. His relations with the city people were very strained. The Kievans, preparing rebellion against him, knew what they could expect in the event of failure; and as a m atter of fact, the following year Prince Izjaslav brought in the Polish army against the Kievans. His intention “to march with the Poles to destroy” the Kievans raised a storm of protest even from his brothers who were allied to him. They decisively warned him th at “if he intended to nurse his wrath and destroy the city, they would be properly concerned for the ancestral cap­ ital.” Nevertheless, Mstislav, the son and deputy of Izjaslav, terrorized the Kievans — he slew some of them, blinded others, and without any investigations caused many others who were entirely innocent to perish (Primary Chronicle, 6577/1069). And some eighty years later the Kievan people, according to the Hypatian Chronicle (6655/1147), still remembered how dearly the city had paid for this revolt. Hence arises the menace of the despot in the bylina to take the whole city Kiev “beyond the shield” — za sôitom (D, 62). This formula is a distorted reflection of the Old Rus­ sian idiom, “to take on the shield” (v’zjati na §6it‘) , meaning to take as booty. It is curious th a t this is the only example of the preservation of th at archaic formula in Russian epic tradi­ tion. Not less instructive is the fact th at in all of the Primary Chronicle this formula is quoted only once, and this one in­ stance is in connection with Izjaslav and his brothers who, before the Kievan events mentioned above, fought with Vse­ slav, “captured Minsk, put the men to the sword and took the women and children on the shield (v'zjaSa n a S6it‘) ” (6575/ 1067). Historically founded also is the second half of the foe’s threat in the bylina — “to let God’s churches go up in smoke and to lay waste the venerated monasteries” (D, 63-64). When in 6577/1069, as mentioned, Izjaslav led the Poles against Kiev, the Kievan people’s assembly (vëce) declared that if Izjaslav is not definitely stopped by his brothers, then the people “have no alternative but to burn their city and depart to Greece.” In these terms the Primary Chronicle formulates the danger to the Greek faith in Kiev from Izjaslav and his Poles. These fliiipg of Izjaslav’s had little regard for Kievan chinches, as is shown by the carrying off of the pallium from the St. Demet-

38

rius Monastery, founded by Izjaslav, into Gniezno.101 The church conflict between the West and the East became sharply crystallized after the Schism (1054), concerning which the Pope did not delay to inform the Civitatem Russorum.11 As a result, the Caves Monastery in Kiev became the ideological center of reaction to Rome; and on the other hand, Izjaslav’s court adopted a distinctly Western orientation. The close connection of this prince with the Poles played an essential role in the development.12 Izjaslav’s ties with Rome a few years after these events fostered an attempt at an agreement for feudal allegiance by Kievan Russia to the Holy See,13 where­ upon St. Theodosius denounced the prince apostate and mourned that “our country too has been filled with this false faith.”14 Naturally the relations between Izjaslav and the Caves Monastery became more strained, especially when he founded the St. Demetrius Monastery and gave it preference. The Caves Patericon quotes Izjaslav’s threats to the Monastery: “I will uproot your cave.”15 One of the leading men of the Monastery, Nikon, was forced to flee from the prince’s wrath to far Tmutarakan’. The monks, led by St. Anthony, were getting ready to leave their caves and the Kievan land. Only the intervention of Izjaslav’s wife saved the Monastery. Then when Izjaslav was forced out of Kiev by Vseslav, the sympathies of the Monastery were openly on the side of the latter. Just at th at time Nikon returned from Tmutarakan’ to Kiev, and the in­ vestigators suspected him of direct participation in the coup.16 The Primary Chronicle, connected with the Caves Monastery, regards Vseslav’s victory over Izjaslav as a triumph of Chris­ tian justice (6576/1068). This same Chronicle tells of Izjaslav’s anger against St. Anthony for his sympathy towards Vseslav 10 A Sobolevskij, op. cit., 159 f. 11 A. Popov, Istoriko-literatumyj obzor drevne-russkix polemiöeskix soöinenij protiv Latinjan (Moscow, 1875), pp. 40 f. 12 N. NikoTskij, “K voprosu о sledax moravo- öeäskogo vlijanija na literaturnyx pam jatnikax domongol’skoj èpoxi,” Vestnik Ak. Nauk SSSR, No 8-9 (1933), 5-18. 13 M. Hrusevs’kyj Istorija Ukrajiny-Rusy, П (Lwow, 1905), pp. 63 ff. 14 I. Eremin, “LLteraturnoe nasledie Feodosija Peèerskogo,” Trudy Otdela drevne-russkoj literatury Ak. Nauk, V (1947), 171. 16 Paterik Kievo-Pecerskogo monastyrja (St. Petersburg, 1911), 24, 149. 13 M. Priselkov, Oöerki po cerkovno-politiöeskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi (SPB, 1913), 178, 207; Geste, 141.

T h e V sesla v E p es

39

(6582/1074), and the Patericon sharply condemns the cruel wrath of Izjaslav who had been inspired by the devil against Anthony and accused him of having loved and advised Vseslav, “as if he were guilty in the whole mutiny.” Thus rumors cir­ culated about the leading role of the Monastery’s high clergy in the Kiev rebellion. Intimate relations with the Caves Monastery were con­ tinued by Vseslav’s sons. Gleb Vseslaviè, who remained inimic­ al to the Jaroslavièi, was a charitable donor to this monastery and was buried there with his wife “near the head of St. Theodosius.”17 If the bylina then conceives Vseslav as a de­ fender of the city Kiev and of its churches and monasteries against menacing dangers, this conception is fully corroborat­ ed by various historical sources. 8. The quick and sly wizard Volx in the enemy's camp: a talk at the palace window. Then Volx started to do witchery: hail ye goodly braves. Not many nor a few, ye’re seven thousand strong; And among you fellows, is there such a one Who could turn into a bay aurochs, And make a run to the Indian realm, 96. And find out about the Indian realm, About the Tsar Saltyk Stavrul’evié, About his stormy head of Batyj’s brood?” As leaf and grass flatten out, So all his retinue is bowing down — 100. The goodly braves reply to him: “There is among us no such brave, You excepting, Volx Vseslav’eviô!” And lo! the very same Vseslav’eviö, He has turned into a bay aurochs, 106. A bay aurochs — the horns of gold, He scampered to the Indian realm: The initial leap — a whole mile he hopped, On second leap — he could not be found. Then he turned into a bright falcon, 110. He flew to the Indian realm. And lo, he is in the Indian realm. He alit on the whitestone palace, On the royal palace Of th a t Indian Tsar, 90. “N o w

17 Hypatian Chronicle, 6666/1185.

40 US. On th e small window in wooden frame. The stormy winds blow o’er the crusty snow, Tsar and his Tsarina are chatting. Up spoke Tsarina Azdjakovna, The young Elena Aleksandrovna: ito. “And hail thee, glorious Indian Tsar, You are pleased to outfit war on Rus’, You know not, and you suspect not: In the sky shone forth the radiant moon, And in Kiev there was born a mighty bogatyr, Ш. An adversary to you the Tsar.” And a t th a t time Volx, he was resourceful: While perching on the small window in wooden frame, He listened to these very speeches. (D)

The bylina points out the cardinal features of the hero: his magic powers, the startling suddeness of his appearances and deeds, his speed in flight and in military operations, his cleverness and wisdom. Before undertaking his actions against the enemy, Volx started “to practice witchery” (D, 87). And similarly begins the story of Vseslav’s Kievan adventures in the Slovo: “Vseslav cast lots” ( 153). Witchery (vorofcba) is the basic device of the magician (volx). Words of both these roots are closely associated in Old Russian literature (cf. the examples in Sreznevskij, I, 302 and 311).1 In witchery is mani­ fested Vseslav’s “wizardly soul,” of which the Slovo speaks (161). With his wizardry also is connected the miraculous speed of the werewolf. Distances do not exist for him (D, 102 109). There is a striking similarity between the repeated leap (skok) of the werewolf in the bylina and the triple repetition of the aorist skoèi, encircled by various images, in the Slovo ( 154, 155, 157). Then, the lightning-like speed of Vseslav’s flights is indicated by the picturesque narratives of nocturnal journeys from Kiev to Tmutarakan’ (159)12 and by the dizzy -

1 волховаше и ворожю; въ волховы и въ ворожу; къ волхвомъ ходити ворожи ради; волхва или бабу ворожею; вълъхвуяи влъшъбы или вражаи.

2 It is probable th at after Izjaslav’s revenge in 1069 Vseslav made his escape to Tm utarakan' before reappearing in Polock in 1071 (V. Mavrodin, “Slavjanorusskoe naselenie niénego Dona i sev. Kavkaza v X-XIV vekax,” üöenye Zapiski Leningr. Pedagog. Instituta im. A. I. Herzena, XI, 1938, 28; about Vseslav’s previous connections with Tmu­ tarakan’ see Geste 141, and G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, New Haven, 1948, 85). The amplitude of his peregrinations is unusual indeed. Anna Comnena notes Vseslav’s appearance near the Danube (M. Hruàevs’kyj, Istorija Ukrajiny-Rusy, П, Lwow, 1905, 521).

The Vseslav Epos

41

flight from Polock to Kiev within the time of one matin (160). The elusiveness of Vseslav finds expression in the Chronicle, too, and especially in the admonition of Vladimir Monomax Included into the Laurentian manuscript under 6604/1096: “Then we went to Perejaslavr and remained in Obrov. Vseslav at th at juncture fired Smolensk. I set forth with men from Cemigov and with two horses, but we did not catch Vseslav at Smolensk.”3 The bylina constantly emphasizes the superhuman clever­ ness of Volx. If his undertaking succeeds, it is first of all be­ cause “he was resourcefull” — such is the invariable represen­ tation in D (64, 126, 159). You Volx are yourself very sage, And in the sciences and learning you have been very apt, And in all m atters you were resourceful. (BL, 293-295) 4*6 And Vol’ga excelled in wisdom, In wisdom Vol’ga and in clever cleverness. (HI, 11-12)9 He happened to be the most clever in the world, More clever th an all and wiser than all. (M , 3

-

35)9

Likewise, in the bylina about Svjatogor and IPja, recorded by Rybnikov from the old Onega narrator, Leontij Bogdanov, — the pilgrims tell IPja: “. . . and do not march against VoPga Seslav’iö: if he does not take by force, then by cleverness and wisdom” (RI, No. 51). Correspondingly in the Slovo, Vseslav “craftily ...leap ed to the city of Kiev (154)." With Vseslav also is associated the parable about the clever man in the concluding ditty of Bojan (163). Yet the Primary Chronicle tells us th at Vseslav came into Kiev not by his own but by Izjaslav’s craftiness. The Jaroslavißi summoned him to their quarters promising him inviolability. Then they shut 3 S. H. Cross, “The Testament of Vladimir Monomakh,” Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, ХП, (1930), 306. 4 Ты же, Волх-от, сам очунь мудрой есь, а и как в науках, в ученьях да очунь-то понятной был, а во делах во вьсех догадлив был. с А й задался он Вольга да во мудрости, а й во мудрости Вольга да он в хитры хитрости. 6 Он ведь пал-то на свети-то как всех хитрей, он-то всех ведь пал хитре да изо всех мудрей.

42

him up in a Kiev dungeon. Thus Vseslav entered the enemy’s camp as a prisoner, and suddenly from a prisoner he became Kiev’s sovereign. The suddeness and speed of this metamor­ phosis must have baffled and astounded his contemporaries. Such a puzzling combination of fortuitous happenings could have appeared to them cunningly premeditated. This is the at­ titude that is reflected in the Slovo and in the bylina. However, do we know that all was really accidental, or was there some secret underground contact between the prison of Vseslav and the Kievan conspirators who organized, the September overthrow? As mentioned, the Primary Chronicle takes a negative attitude towards Izjaslav during his lifetime. But in the necro­ logy of the Kiev prince under 6586/1078, the Chronicle radical­ ly changes its evaluation. Under 6576 the Primary Chronicle writes in connection with Izjaslav’s perjury: “If anyone sins against the Cross, he shall suffer not only punishment in this world, but also everlasting chastisement in the next.” In an entry ten years later, the Chronicle declares th at Izjaslav was non-malicious in temper, a hater of injustice and a lover of rectitude, and that in him there was no craft or guile, for he was a simple, good-natured man who did not render evil for evil. In defiance of its own narrative under 6577 about Izjaslav’s terror after Vseslav’s flight, the Chronicle writes “how much hardship the people of Kiev had visited upon him. They had expelled him and plundered his house, yet he did not requite these misdeeds with evil; and if any man tells you ‘he slew the fighters who had extricated Vseslav from the dun­ geon,’ it was not Izjaslav who did it but his son.” The words of the internal quote have the pronounced flavor of an epic fragment permeated, as they are, with alliterative sound clust­ ers: sëë’cë (sëc) isëce (isëc), ize (i) vysëkli (v.së) V’seslava (v.se) is (is) poruba. Perhaps also the sentence about Izjas­ lav’s artlessness — kljuk‘ ze v‘ nem’ ne bë — was an argument aimed against the inchoate Vseslav epos because, judging by the Slovo (154) and the bylina, it is the wiles (kljuky) in Vseslav that were prized. When the uprising against Izjaslav started and the prince was looking out of a small window (k‘njazju fce iz‘ ok‘n ’ca z’rjascju), a state conference took place between him and his retinue, according to the Primary Chronicle. The retinue warned him of the danger threatening him from Vseslav and

The Vseslav Epos

43

insisted on the seriousness of the situation: “se z'lo est’.” But Izjaslav remained deaf to all these warnings and the Chronicle repeats twice epically: “Izjaslav* ie sego ne posluâa. . . I ne posluäa sego k‘njaz\” The same “small window” and a similar dispute figure in the bylina. In the Chronicle the dispute is heard by Vseslav’s partisans who arrived before the prince’s palace as Izjaslav was sitting in his hall with his retinue. In this connection the diminutive ok'n’ce is mentioned twice. In the bylina Vseslav himself changed into a bright falcon, alight­ ed on the royal palace “on the small window” (115), and a few lines later (127) the small window (okoâeëko) is mentioned for a second time. Likewise in the variant recorded from the Sala boatman, the prince-scout “perched on the royal small window and listened to the royal speeches” (RI, 99-100). And in Kuz’ma Romanov’s variant the hero appeared “by th at whitestone palace just opposite the small window and he listened to the secret talks” (НП, 118-120). In the Chronicle Izjaslav’s retinue, and particularly Tuky, Cjudin’s brother, warn the sovereign by an epic formula woven through with peculiar alliterations which build a kind of paronomasia and are so typical both of the Slovo and of the epos fragments in the ancient Russian chronicles: vidiM (v), k'njaie, ljudie (ljud) v*zvysili sja (v.zv.s.l.s),7 pos'li (s.l), a t’ V’seslava (v.s.sl.v) bljudut’ (ljud) = “Look, prince, the people are aroused, send men to guard Vseslav,” or in other words, to keep on guard against Vseslav. And in the bylina “the Tsar takes counsel with his Tsarina” (RH, 79-80). She chides her husband who “does not know and suspects not” th at he has an adversary in Kiev (D, 121-124), Prince Vseslav, who at that moment “is sitting on our small windows and listens to our royal talk” (RII, 137-138). However, the Tsarina’s warning glides leaving no trace, as “the stormy winds blow o’er the crusty snow” (D, 116). If in the Chronicle Izjaslav does not fear the incarcerated Vseslav, so too in the bylina the Tsar tries to reassure the Tsari­ na th at “in Russia the grass grows not as in the old days and the flowers blossom not as before. . . and apparently Vol’ga is no longer alive” (НП, 124-127). According to this variant the Tsarina objects by referring to her portentous dream: “a 7 let, 386.

Or v'zvyli sja (v.zvJ.s) — cf. Saxmatov, Povesf vremennyx

44

nodes* spalos’, vo snjax videlos’ ” (138) ; a little bird and a black raven “fought each other, the little bird pecked away and plucked out all his feathers and let them fly away in the wind: this is Sire Vol’ga Buslav’eviö and the black raven is Turec-Santal (144-150)” But the Tsar (Turec-Santal) remains self-confident. Miller supposed that the ominous dream of the Tsarina penetrated into later variants of our bylina under the influence of the historical song about the capture of Kazan which contains the ominous dream of the Tatar Tsarina Elena (Ocerki, III, 215). However, the dream motifs of this bylina are entirely different: thus there is insufficient reason to sup­ pose such a borrowing. An interesting variant of the Tsarina’s dream is preserved in the version of Aksinja Fomina, a version extremely short­ ened but rich in archaic features: “The Tsarina saw a bad dream: a falcon fights with a black raven, the falcon tri­ umphed over the black raven; that bright falcon is the bogatyr VoPga, th at black raven is Santal himself” (HI, 41-45)* Comparing the prince-werewolf with the falcon is understand­ able: “the first wisdom Volx studied — to turn into a bright falcon,” and precisely as a bright falcon he eavesdropped at the little window on the talks of the Tsar with the Tsarina. And after all, the falcon is the traditional designation for a Russian warrior, as has already been attested many times by the Slovo. But why is his foe called the raven? The black raven is a traditional image for the infidel foe; cf. Slovo, 41: “black raven, infidel Polovcian!” Latin bishops, priests and monks fell on St. Constantine as ravens on a falcon (jako vrani na sokol*), as it is written in the Old Church Slavonic Life of the Saint.® This symbol perfectly fitted Izjaslav whom the Orthodox clergy and Kievan folk considered a betrayer of his people and church in plotting with the Poles and with the Latin bishops, priests and monks. As a Russian ruler, Izjaslav should be likened to a falcon, but since his Russian faith and zeal were thought to be feigned, he was a 8 Видла царица нехороший сон: бьется сокол да с черным вороном, перебил сокол да черна ворона: ясный тот сокол — Вольта богатырь, черный тот ворон — то сам Сантал! » Р. Lavrov, Materialy ро istorii vozniknovenija drevnejéej slavjanskoj pis’mennosti (Leningrad, 1930), 29.

The Vseslav Epos

45

raven got up as a falcon. And perhaps this is precisely the meaning of the name which the oldest record of our bylina gives to Volx’s adversary — Saltyk Stavrul’evié (D, 96, 190). Tavrul or Tovrul occurs several times in Old Russian texts as a name of Tatar warriors: for instance, the first Russian prisoner from Batyj’s forces in 1240, or the Batyj’s legendary brother-in-law, and according to the “Skazanie о Mamaevom poboiâàe,” the Tatar fighter defeated by Peresvet at Kulikovo: tovrul is a dialectal form of northwestern Turkish languages arising from togrul and meaning “falcon.” This appellative appears in the Old Russian Tale about Volot Volotovié: a ptica pticam mat* tavrun — ptica neveliôka, s skudnuju galku.101The form sal-t-yq is a Turkish perfect passive participle of the verb sal (“to take for”) and means “taken for.”11 It entered Russian dialects as a substantive, saltyk, meaning “accomodation, adaptation.”12*The sobriquet, saltyq tovrul (“fancied falcon”), strikingly expressed the attitude held by the adherents of the “bright falcon” from Polock toward Izjaslav. Old Russian rhapsodes were bilingual enough for a bantering use of Tur­ kish epithets as fictitious names for the enemies depicted.18 The change of (S) tavrul into (S)tavrurevic is parallel to the forming of the epic patronymic Vseslav’eviô (see above).14*The initial s is obviously due to the name Stavr, popular in Russian epic tradition. The warning role of the Tsar's judicious wife in the bylina may be compared with the role attributed, by the “Life of St. Theodosius,” to Izjaslav’s wife, Gertrude, the daughter of Boleslav of Poland. According to this hagiographie work, when Prince Izjaslav threatened the monks of the Caves Monastery 10 F. Buslaev, Russkaja xrestomatija (7th ed., Moscow, 1898), p. 354. 11 See W. Radloff, WB, IV, 344 ff. 12 V. Dahl, Tolkovyj slovar* zivogo velikorusskogo jazyka (4th ed.), IV. 14: У всякого шлык на свой салтык; переделать одежду на свой салтык; с дурацкого ладу да на свой салтык.

I3 See R. Jakobson (О. Jansen ), “Sobaka Kalin c ar\” Slavia, XVП, No. 1-2 (1939), 82-89. I** The Olonec variants use simply the Turkish title ‘sultan’ (hence Saltan and Santal) to name Volx’s foe. His wife is called in HU ‘carica Pantalovna’. The rhymed words sultan-pultan in Turkish mean de­ risively: the sultan and his surrounding, e. g. his wives; hence pultan is understood as encircling wives and suggests the patronymic Pan­ talovna. Prof. K. Menges gave us his competent help in the interpreta­ tion of Turkish names in the bylina about Volx.

46

with destruction, “his wife told him: “Listen, my lord, and be not angry with me, but a similar thing happened also in our country.” She reminds him how the monastic brothers were expelled from Poland and how, as a consequence, “much evil happened in that country. Be wary, my lord, lest the same happen in your land!”15 Sobolevskij has supposed th a t this expulsion of the monastic brothers from Poland, simultaneous with the first expulsion from the Czech Sâzava Cloister of monks with Chinch Slavonic leanings, was also linked with the Schism and the subsequent fight against the infiltration of the Eastern Church.1617If this hypothesis is correct, then the legendary warning attributed to Gertrude by the bookman of the Caves Monastery finds its natural place in the apologetic literature of the clergy which defended its rights and tradi­ tion against Izjaslav’s encroachments. In the Primary Chronicle Izjaslav, aggressive towards the Kievan people, is located in Kiev itself, whereas the bylina sets the Tsar terrorizing Kiev beyond the city’s limits, in an out­ lying fantastic realm; thereupon his situation becomes paradoxical indeed. The traditional epic features of an aggres­ sor are ascribed to the Tsar who is preparing an invasion of Russia, and at the same time in his own capital he takes, according to Miller’s expression, “a merely defensive position.” (Oéerki, 1П, 204) : Then the Indian Tsar said: We must make ready arms for w elt , We must prepare tempered arrows, So th at the mightiest bogatyr cannot approach us, The mighty and strong Svjatoslav’evic. (M , 8 9 - 9 S ) U

9. The cellar expedition up to the appearance of Volx’s retinue. He turned into an ermine, iso. Ran through basements and cellars, Through the lofty upper chambers, He chewed into the strings of the tau t bows, 16 Paterik Kievo-Peöerskogo monastyrja, 24, 150. ie A. Sobolevskij, op. cit., 108. 17 Говорил-то, ведь, тут да царь Индейския: «Нам, ведь, надеть находить оружья-ти все военныя,, приготовить надоть, ведь, нам все стрелы каленыя, аи не лодошол шьтоб под нас богатырь-от пресильныя, ише сильней-от, могуцей Святославьевич».

The Vseslav Epos

47

He removed tihe iron tips from the tempered arrows, And from the fire-spitting rifles, 1S 5 . He jerked out the flints and ramrods, And he buried all th a t in the deep earth. Volx noiw turned into a bright falcon, Soared high up beneath the heaven’s vault, He flew far away into open plains, 140. To his valiant retinue. The retinue sleeps, Volx sleeps not. He awakened his bold and goodly braves: “Hail to you, my valiant retinue! No time to sleep, ’tis time to rise, 145. Let’s m arch to th e Indian realm.”

(D) From Izjaslav’s dispute at the small window the Primary Chronicle turns to a narrative about Vseslav Brjaëislavic’s partisans who, after deliberating in front of the enigmatic “house of Brjaöislav,” decided to liberate “the retinue from the prison cellar” (vysadim* druéinu is pogreba), and then “came from the prison which they had thrown open” (priâli ot‘ pogreba, ot‘tvoriv*§e pogreb‘) in order to use the liberated retinue for the planned overthrow. “What retinue is meant here?” asks the historian N. Arcybaäev.1 Investigators were side-tracked by the variant “vysadim‘ druzinu svoju,” but such a reading is given only by the Laurentian manuscript, while the other variants of the “Laurentian redaction” (the Radziwill and the Academy’s manu­ scripts) on one hand, and all the manuscripts of the “Hypatian redaction” on the other, do not have the possessive pronoun svoju; and this coincidence evidently goes back to the original text of the Primary Chronicle. By “retinue” (drufcina) can be understood only those of Vseslav’s men who were taken pris­ oner at the rout of the Polock prince on the Nemiga River and thrown into the Kiev cellar — the latter was a less honorable prison than Vseslav’s dungeon which was situated closer to the Prince’s palace and under stricter watch. Thus did the events occur according to the Chronicle, while in the byli­ na, resourceful Volx, after having heard the false talks at the small window, changed at once into an ermine and “ran through basements and cellars” (po pogrebam), “he chewed into the taut bows and strings, he removed the iron tips from the tempered arrows” and afterwards he flew as a falcon “to 1

Povestvovanie о Rossii (Moscow, 1838), I, Book 2, 26.

48

his valiant retinue” (ko druéine) to prompt it into decisive action. Where did he find his retinue? “Far in the open plain,” according to one variant (D, 139) ; “in the city Kiev” (vo grade vo Kieve), according to another (HII, 188). The Chroniclers story about one of the stages of the Vseslav struggle, th at of the liberation of his retinue imprisoned in the cellar by Izjaslav, happens to be divided into two parts in the bylina: first, the expedition to the cellar is reinterpreted by the fairy tale motif of the hero’s metamorphosis into a rodent to spoil the foe’s arms;2 and secondly, the retinue is brought from outside, e.g. from Kiev, because the home of the enemy is transferred in the bylina from Kiev to some fabulous realm. At any rate, there is here the extremely characteristic com­ bination of the same three salient elements (the small window, the cellar, and the retinue) occurring both in the concise nar­ rative of the Chronicle and in the corresponding passages of the bylina. 10. The passing of Volx through the wall. The next stage in the Kievan events concerning Izjaslav and Vseslav is presented by the Primary Chronicle in the fol­ lowing way: The mob gave a shout and went off to the dungeon where for months Vseslav had been imprisoned by Izjaslav. “And on September 15 the people thus extricated Vseslav from his dungeon.” In the bylina, upon Vseslav’s appeal to the retinue, “No time to sleep, ’tis time to rise,” the goodly braves arose and started off. And they reached the white-stone wall — T hat white-stone wall was strong, The city had gates of iron made, The hinges, bars all of copper, 150. Sentinels stand on watch by day and night, The gate has an undersill — costly walrus bone, Ingenious slots cut out, And through the slot only an a n t could pass. All the braves became worried, 165. Became worried and sorrowed. They say this sort of speech: “All the heads in vain will be lost, And how could we pass through th a t wall?0 Youthful Volx, he was resourceful: 2 V. Miller, ОбегЫ, I, 184 f.

The Vseslav Epos 160.

166.

49

Loi he turned himself into an ant, And all his goodly braves into tiny ants. They crawled through the white-stone wall, And the braves stood now on its other side, In the far-fam ed Indian realm: He turned them all into goodly braves, And they stand with their military outfit. (D)

We discern here poetically reshaped the picture of the ap­ parently inaccessible dungeon wherein Vseslav languished; and his liberation is rendered in metaphoric terms adapted to the legend of the were-animal activities of the Prince of Polock. On the whole, “he went through the wall and he led all the others” (M, 180)* 11. The smashing of the foe. And to all the braves he gives the command: “Hail to you, my valiant retinue! Go marching through the Indian realm, 170. Keep hacking old ones, little ones, Leave none in the realm for breeding. Leave only by selection — Not many nor a few, seven thousand — Darling beautiful maidens.” 176 . They go marching through the Indian realm, And they hack the old ones, little ones, And they leave only by selection — Darling beautiful maidens. Volx himself went into the palace, 180. Into the royal palace, To th a t Indian Tsar. The palace had doors of iron, Hasps and hinges made of guilded steel. Thereupon Volx Vseslav’evic says: 185. "Though break a leg, but push in th e door!” With his leg he kicked at the iron door, Broke all the hasps of steel to pieces. And he seized the Tsar by his white hands, The renowned Indian Tsar, 190. T h e T s a r Saltyk Stavrul’eviö. Thereupon Volx makes this kind of speech: "And you, Tsars, one may not slay nor execute.” Having seized, he banged him on th e floor of bricks. He dashed him into crumbs of dung. (D) ♦ Он во сьтену-ту зашол да сам ведь всих провел.

50

The Primary Chronicle in its story about the coup d'état of Sept. 15th clearly sympathizes with Vseslav and tells nothing of the losses suffered by Izjaslav’s clique. An indirect testimony of the upheaval can be seen perhaps in the legislation of the sons of Jaroslav: M. Tixomirov supposes that the Pravda of Jaroslav’s sons (Izjaslav and his brothers) was established presum­ ably in 1068-71 after the tempestuous Kievan events, when many of the prince’s men were killed and it was thus neces­ sary to increase the bloodwite (vira) to be paid for the murder of a prince’s man.1 “Volx himself went into the palace, into th at royal palace” (D, 178-179). He set himself on this spot (na mesto to nastal) and started to rule as Tsar (M, 207), as the bylina narrates, which corresponds to the Chronicle story: 4‘And he was set up (postaviâa i)12 in the midst of the prince’s palace.” Or, as the Slovo (154) formulates it: “He touched with spear shaft the golden Kievan throne.” The fate of the sovereign vanquished by Volx without a struggle is represented differently in the variants of the bylina. Kirsa Danilov’s version simply repeats the punishment ad­ ministered to Kalin Tsar by IPja Muromec3 but in an ab­ breviated and confused form; while in the version of the Sala boatman; “said Voix Vseslav’evié: ‘The city Kiev is not to be ruled by you! Be gone, off to your own land!’ ” And actually the humiliated Tsar “following Vol’ga’s order quickly cleared off to his own country” (R II, 143,146-7,152-3), but the phrase “own country” (svoju zemlju) remains a puzzle since it was precisely in his country and in his own royal palace th at this order was given. The concise text of Aksin’ja Fomina contains an interesting indication. Picturing the flight of all Vol’ga’s prospective victims at the news of his appearance in the world, the narrator says: “From his heroic fame (ot slavy bogatyrskoju) . . . the beasts went off to the dark forests, and Tsar San­ tal fled into Vol’ga (v Vol’gu sbeèal) with his Tsarina Davyd’evna” (HI, 3, 7-9). In a footnote Hilferding observes: “Fomina repeated this line several times, and to our question, ‘What 1 Istoönikovedenie istorii SSSR (Moscow, 1940), I, 62; cf. G. Ver­ nadsky, Medieval Russian Laws (New York, 1947), 14 f. 2 This reading is corroborated both by the Hypatlan redaction and by the Fourth Novgorod Chronicle, while the Laurentian redaction says: proslavisa i — “he was glorified.” 8 See R. Jakobson, op. (At., 95 f.

The Vseslav Epos

51

does it mean — v Vorgu sbezal?’ she only answered, ‘That’s the way it’s sung (tak poetsja).’ ” This place-name agrees in sound with the hero’s name, Vol’ga. However, we know that the latter is substituted for the original, Volx. And it may be supposed th a t the place-name, homophonous with the hero’s name, originally sounded otherwise, closer to the form Volx. In the Primary Chronicle, after the reference to the setting up of Vseslav and to the pillage of the palace, there is noted: “and Izjaslav made his escape to Poland (bëzal* v‘ Ljaxy).” It seems probable th at in this passage of our bylina it was former­ ly sung th at from the heroic fame — “ot slavy” (slav) — of Volx (v.lx) Vseslav’evic (slav) his adversary “v Ljaxi4 (vl.x) sbezal” — “made his escape to Poland.” 12. The happy ending. And now Volx enthroned himself as Tsar, Wedding the Tsarina Azvjakovna, The youthful Elena Aleksandrovna; And the braves of the retinue All took unto them those maidens as wives. 200. And now young Volx enthroned himself as Tsar, And his braves became townfolk: He rolled out many kegs of gold and silver for them, And he apportioned horses and cows by the herd, And a hundred thousand in money for each. (D) 195.

Twice the bylina repeats th at Volx enthroned himself as Tsar (carem nasel) (D, 195, 200), as does also the variant of M. Krjukova: “and the young prince Volx, the bright son of Svetoslavië, started to sit as prince” (Voix èe svet da Svetoslaeviö stal side’t on knjazjom-to) . .. “well did he sit and reign” (xoroSo-to on knezil sidel (BL, 447-448, 451); and twice the Primary Chronicle repeats: and Vseslav sat in Kiev (V’seslav‘ èe sëdë-Kyevë). His comilitants “became townfolk” (stali ljudi posackija — D, 201) : in fact, it was rather the Kievan townfolk who became his comilitants, for we know th at the reaction against Vseslav meant first and foremost a struggle against the town (posad). Under 6577/1069 the Primary Chronicle notes th at Izjaslav, after being reinstated on the Kievan throne, “transferred the 4 Or rather “vo Ljaxi”: cf. the examples of the formula “vo Ljaxove” pointed out in the byliny by V. Miller, Oöerki, П, 355, and by A. Florovskij, öexi i vostoénye Slavjane, I (Prague, 1935), 95.

52

market place to the hills.” He put the commercial and political center of the townfolk under the direct control of the great prince’s court which was located on the Kievan hill, and thus he deprived this center of its former autonomy. When the townfolk “set” or “glorified” Vseslav in the midst of the prince’s palace, they, according to the Chronicle, pillaged that palace, seizing a huge amount of gold and silver, furs and martin skins. The bylina accurately reproduces this information (see above: D, 202-4). A more detailed account of Volx’s booty is given in the variant of Marfa Krjukova: And all the property and possessions of the Zadonskij Tsar He divided among his valiant retinue. Forty thousand in money for every bogatyr, He divided among them much bright gold, He gave them bright gold and pure silver, He gave much pure silver and precious pearls, He gave them many precious stones, And he gave them many sable coats, He gave them many downy hats, He gave them many Moroccan shoes. And of course horned cattle Were driven in droves . . .

(BL, S97-408) •

In Kuz’ma Romanov’s variant Vol’ga calls to the retinue: “Let us now divide the spoils!” HII, 194). And his story finishes with verses on how cheaply the female prisoners were valued: Krasnye devuâki po deneéke “the beautiful girls a farthing apiece” (204). This motto closely repeats the equivalent for­ mula of the Slovo (125) — byla by ôaga po nogatë, “a girl would go for a pittance” — and in both cases there occurs the same pun based on the homophony of the stressed syllables (dé-dé, in the bylina; gâ-gâ, in the Slovo).* * А и вьсе ьгмушшесьво-именъицо царя Задоньского

вьсе делил на свою дружиноцьку хоробрую, — и как на каждого богатыря денег по сороку тысецей, делил ведь много на йих да красна золота, дарил красна он золота да чиста серебра, дарил много чиста серебра да драга жемчугу, дарил на них же много драгих камешков, дарил ведь много шуб да соболиных-то, дарил много да шляпочок пуховых-то, дарил много сапожок сафьянных-то, а скота-та ведь рогатого табунами гнали . . .

The Vseslav Epos

53

VI—THE ARCHETYPE OF THE VSESLAV EPOS 1. The genetic connection of the Vseslav stories in the bylina, in the Chronicle and in the Slovo. We noted many striking concordances in the three nar­ ratives about Vseslav of Polock: the story of the Primary Chronicle, the digression of the Igor* Tale, and the bylina about the prince-werewolf. What sort of genetic relation links these three sources? There are correspondences between the bylina and the Slovo which are lacking in the Chronicle. On the other hand, there are coincidences between the bylina and the Chronicle which remain foreign to the Slovo. Finally, some motifs tie the Vseslav story of the Slovo with the Chronicle without being reflected in the bylina. The most plausible sup­ position would be th at all three narratives go back directly to one common source, presumably to an oral Vseslav epos which arose from the immediate impression his adventurous deeds obviously made on the imagination of his contemporaries. It is worthy of note that the bylina about Voix Vseslav’evifi in comparison with all other examples of the Russian oral epos is much more markedly related to the imagery of the Slovo. (We mean the Slovo as a whole, and not only in its Vseslav passage). For instance, V. Peretc, who had no inkling of the thematic ties between the Vseslav reminiscence in the Slovo and the bylina about Volx, nevertheless repeatedly brings the latter into comparison with various passages of the Slovo, particularly with verses 3, 23,157,159,188,190.1 We mentioned the striking similarity of such poetic devices of both the Slovo and our bylina as, for example, the punlike expression for the cheapness of female prisoners. The bylina about Volx is “remarkable for the archaic character of its form and the depth of its poetic sense,” remarked N. Kostomarov, an histo­ rian of-rare intuition.12 This bylina preserves the poetic tradi­ tion of pre-Mongolian Russia with exceptional accuracy. Besides the special position of the Volx bylina in the Rus­ sian heroic epos, we have to deal with the peculiar presence of the Vseslav digression in the Slovo. And again it was V. Miller who distinctly sensed th at “here the historical reminiscences and allusions to various events in the tempestuous career of 1 Slovo о polku Ihorevim (Kiev, 1926), pp. 137, 156, 294, 297, 315, 316. 2 Sobranie soöinenij (St. Petersburg, 1881), XIII. 329.

54

the turbulent Prince Vseslav are whimsically interlaced with fantastic features. It may be th at at this point the author of the Slovo merely interpolates some of the content of the old Vseslav song, even reproducing certain of its expressions. And perhaps this fragment of the Slovo. . . enables us to judge about the character of the epic historical songs of the 11th century” (Ocerki, III, 29). Just this passage of the Slovo finds particularly many correspondences in Russian oral tradition. Thus, for instance, the rapid flight of Vseslav from Polock to Kiev (160) and the picturesque, description of the Nemiga battle (157) were repeatedly compared with similar folklore imagery. Moreover, not only the bylina and the Slovo, but also the Primary Chronicle in its references to Vseslav, are all obviously influenced by legendary epic stories. It is by no means the only case where the oral epos penetrates into the Primary Chronicle: its investigators have pointed out many examples of such in­ filtration.3 A touch of lore in the Chronicle’s tale about Vseslav is revealed by the presence of typical epic formulas which have been mentioned and quoted above, and also by the fact, un­ usual for the Chronicle, that Vseslav and his Polock are en­ veloped in an aura of magical acts and astrological portents. In the bylina Volx Vseslav’evic, a professional sorcerer and werewolf, conceived from a serpent, saves “God's churches” and the “venerated monasteries” from the enemy’s encroach­ ment. In the Slovo the wizardly Vseslav, nightly coursing as a wolf over the Russian land, listens to the matin bells of St. Sophia’s both in Polock and in Kiev (159, 160). And final­ ly in the Chronicle, Vseslav, born by enchantment, bearer of a talisman for life, and “merciless in bloodshed,” declares after his liberation from the dungeon and his victory over Izjaslav: “O, true Cross, because I have believed in Thee, Thou hast delivered me from this abyss.” And the chronicler adds th at by Vseslav’s victory “God demonstrated the power of the Cross as an admonition to the Russian land” (6576). If Vseslav’s triumph is connected with the elevation of the Life-Giving Cross, then his death also seems to have evoked in the chronicler a Christological association. The communica3 Cf. e. g., D. Lixaôev, Russkie letopisi i ix kuVturno-istoriàeskoe znaèenie (Leningrad, 1947), Chap. 7; I. Eremin, Povest' vremennyx let (Leningrad, 1947), 58 ff.

The Vseslav Epos

55

tion under 6609/1101 begins with the following item: “Vseslav, the Prince of Polock, passed away on Wednesday, April 14, at the ninth hour of the day.” The comparison of the Laurentian version of the Chronicle text “v‘ 9 éas‘ ” and of the Hypatian “u 9 den* ” clearly favors the reconstruction “v‘ 9 cas4 d’ne,” or without change in meaning, “v‘ 9 d’ne.” The careful inves­ tigator of calendary data in Old Russian chronicles, N. Stepa­ nov, points out that the counting of hours in pre-Mongolian Russia was unusual and referred only to particularly impor­ tant events, and furthermore even in such cases it was rather prompted by association with the Gospel and church books. If, for instance, the Hypatian redaction links the earthquake of 6703/1195 with the ninth hour, Stepanov indicates that it is an unquestionable association with the Evangelical tale about the earthquake which lasted until nine o’clock when Christ gave up the ghost, and especially with the prayers “of the ninth hour,” which refer tragically to the last moments of the Savior’s earthly life.4 It is very probable that the ninth hour in the communication about Vseslav’s death was also suggested by these same Evangelical events. As saxmatov rightly points out, “they couldn’t know in Kiev at what hour Vseslav died in Polock, and furthermore it wouldn’t interest a Kievan.”56In the whole Primary Chronicle no other reference to the death of a Russian prince indicates the hour. The ninth hour itself is mentioned one other time, under 6494/986: “and darkness was o’er all the earth from the sixth hour until the ninth and at the ninth hour Jesus gave up the ghost.” This association is so much more likely because an error must be supposed in the dating of Vseslav’s death. April 14th of the year 1101 was a Sunday, not a Wednesday. However, April 24th v/as a Wednesday; probably the chronicler by mistake sub­ stituted a 1 for a 2 in the dates. The night of April 24, 1101 was the .eve of Holy Thursday and the beginning of the Passion of Christ. The wizardly nature of Vseslav does not meet the least condemnation in either the bylina, the Slovo, or even the Pri­ mary Chronicle which is inclined to denounce sorcery. And likewise Vseslav’s active and initiatory participation in the 4 “Kalendamo-xronologiéeskie faktory Ip at’evskoj letopisi do X III y .” Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov. Ak. Nauk, XX, No. 2 (1915), 22 f. 6 PovesV vremennyx let, 309.

56

internecine wars is not censured. The Primary Chronicle, on the contrary, conceals any evidence of violence or brigandage in Vseslav’s campaigns, whereas the Novgorod Chronicle of the late eleventh century narrates under 6574/1066 how he burned all of Great Novgorod and plundered even the Cathe­ dral of St. Sophia, removing its bells and chandeliers: “Oh, great was the misery at th at time!”6 The Slovo goes so far as to contrast the glorious and gallant Vseslav to the princes “forging discord against themselves” (cf. 149-151). 2. The werewolf myth. Under 6552/1044 the Primary Chronicle says about Vses­ lav: For when his mother bore him, there was a caul over his head, thus the magician bade his mother: “bind this caul upon him, th at he might carry it for his whole life’'; and Vseslav bears it on him to this day. For this reason he is merciless in bloodshed.

The ancient Russian name for the caul (a little membrane sometimes encompassing the head of a child when born, form­ ing part of the amnion)1 was jaz’no or jazno, Old Church Slavonic az’no or azno, which properly meant ‘skin*; cf. jaz’nën‘ ‘leathern’, jaz’nar’ ‘currier’. The form corresponding to az’no in Old-Indic is ajinam ‘skin’ derived from ajâh ‘he-goat’, ajâ ‘she-goat’; cf. also the Lithuanian ozinis ‘goatish’, ozys ‘goat’. The same Indo-European root occurs in Slavic koza ‘she-goat’, and koza ‘skin’ with a supplementary initial к of unclear, perhaps taboo, origin.*12 The Russian term still existed as late as the eighteenth century in the form jajnô meaning ‘caul’3 with the change of z to a palatal semivowel either by progressive assimilation or rather by folk etymology (cf. Church Slavonic jain‘, adj. from jaice, ‘egg’), if not by taboo substitution. For the most part, though, this name for the 6 A. Saxmatov, Razyskanija, 627 f. (cf. 235). — And more th an a century later the Novgorod Prince still wants to avenge this robbery (Hypatian Chronicle 6686/1178). 1 Webster’s New International Dictionary, sub voce Caul. 2 Cf. A. Meillet, “Les origines du vocabulaire slave,” Revue des Etudes Slaves, V (1925), 8 f. 3 V. Dahl, Tolkovyj slovar* èivogo velikorusskogo jazyka (4th ed.), IV, 1569.

The Vseslav Epos

57

caul was replaced in Russian by sorocka, Ukrainian soroéica, literally ‘shirty synonymous terms are used in other Slavic languages: Slovenian srajéica, Bulgarian riza, Serbocroatian koSuljica or koâulja, Czech koäilka; cf. Polish czepek, literally ‘cap'. In ancient Russian the word jaz'no appears also as jazv'no or jazveno, folk etymology having identified it with jazv’n* or jazven', adj. from jazva 'ulcer, wound': this form appears in both the Laurentian and Hypatian redactions of the Pri­ mary Chronicle (and seems to date back to it) : se jazveno navjazi na n \ The manuscripts of the Laurentian redaction and Xlebnikov's variant of the Hypatian use the same word in the preceding sentence also (byst’ emu jazveno na glave ego), whereas in this instance the other manuscript of the Hypatian redaction, the Hypatian Codex proper, rashly sub­ stitutes jazva for jazveno. In the more recent chronicle redac­ tions we find drastic alterations due to the incomprehension of the vocable jazveno. For example, the sixteenth-century manuscript of the so-called Perejaslavl' Chronicle probably identifies jazveno with jazvina 'hole, ravine' and states: "there was a pit (jama) on his head, and the magicians said to his mother, 'bind the scab of this wound (korosty jazvy toja) upon his head for his whole life so th at he should be merciless in shedding blood.’ ”45 Tatiâcev accurately understood this passage of the Primary Chronicle (bylo jajno na glave ego),6 but Karamzin surmised "some magic headband worn by th at prince to cover a con­ genital ulcer.''6 And essentially following this renowned his­ torian, some later interpreters7 speak of Vseslav's ulcer, tetter, or birthmark hidden by a headband. Even âaxmatov accepts the erroneous version of the Hypatian Codex: byst' emu jaz­ va;8 and R. Trautmann translates it as: eine Wunde9, while 4 Letopisec Perejaslavlja-SuzdaVskogo, edited by M. OboJenskij (Moscow, 1851), 44. 5 Istorija rossiskaja, II (1773), 109. 6 Istorija Gosudarstva rossijskogo, П (2nd. ed., SPB, 1818), 74. 7 E.g., M. Kojalovic, Lekcii po istorii Zap. Rossii (Moskow, 1864), 75; M. Dovnar-Zapol’skij, Ocerk istorii krivicskoj i dregovicskoj zemeV do konca X II stoletija (Kiev, 1891) , 76; JA. Taranovskij, “Soobraèenija о suffiksax, vxodjascix v sostav zap. rus. faniiiij i nazvanij sei i dereven’ v Belorussn/’ Filologièeskie Zapiski (1892), 2. s Povest’ vremennyx let, 196. » Die Nesterchronik (Leipzig, 1931), III.

58

S. H. Cross restores the correct reading: a caul.101 The belief in the magic power of the caul is widespread in the world and is especially strong in Slavic countries. As the Stoglav testifies, in the sixteenth century the high Russian clergy felt obliged to fight against the cult of the caul in­ grained in the common folk11. Records from different extremes of the Slavic domain indicate that the caul serves as an amulet, usually rolled up into a small bundle and then suspended from the neck12 or sewed into the clothes, in the belief th at a charm tied to the bearer will protect him forever. The admonition of the magicians to bind the caul upon Vseslav is a striking sample of amulet sorcery, ardently practiced in Old Russian magic art (vlxvovanie nauzy, according to the terminology of Cyril from Turov).13 What does the caul betoken and what is intended by its use as phylactery? The most simplified form of this belief takes the caul for a pledge of good fortune. M. Culkov, the eighteenthcentury collector of Russian folklore, writes in his “ABC of Russian Superstitions” : “A baby which came from its mother’s womb with a caul is considered very lucky by the common people; hence arose the byword: born with a caul (v sorocke rodilsja). This caul is taken off, put into a small purse or pouch and attached to the cord on which the baby wears the cross,. .. in belief that in the presence of the caul luck will never forsake the child.”14 Arnaudov notes the same belief in Bulgaria;15 it seems to be common to all Slavic peoples and is widespread elsewhere. Conforming to this concept, a late chronicle (Gustynskaja letopis’) adds an explanation to the magicians’ precept: Vseslav should wear the caul for his whole life, “and he will be fortunate in everything.”16 However, the Primary Chronicle, without mentioning the good luck, in10 The Prussian Primary Chronicle, 288. Cf. also Xalanskij, op. cit.; Zdanov, Russkij bylevoj èpos, 284; Leonardov, op. cit.; M. Hrusevs’kyj, Istorija ukrajins’koji literatury (Lwow, 1923), H, 161. 11 Chapter XLI, Question 2; cf. E. Duchesne, Le Stoglav (Paris, 1 9 2 0 ), 107 f.

12 Cf., e g., A. Afanas’ev, Poètiôeskie vozzrenija slavjan na prirodu (Moscow, 1869), III, 360. 13 Kalajdovié, Pamjatniki rossijskoj slovesnosti X II veka (Moscow, 1821), 95. 14 Abevega russkix sueverij (Moscow, 1786;, 295. 15 Ocerki po b'lgarskija folklor (Sophia, 1934), 605. 18 Polnoe Sobranie Russkix Letopisej, II (1843), 268.

The Vseslav Epos

59

dicates a quite different implication for Vseslav’s birth with a caul: “for this reason he is merciless in bloodshed.” This con­ nection puzzled 2danov: “the circumstance th at Vseslav was born with a caul does not explain his bloodthirstiness” (op. cit., 284). As a m atter of fact, in Slavic popular tradition, good luck is only a part of the lot th a t befalls anyone born with a caul. In two extremities of the Slavic world — in Serbocroatian and Slovenian lore on one hand, and in Polish and especially Kashubian on the other — such a child is predestined to be­ come a supernatural being. He is a successful and glorious wizard gifted with miraculous power, second sight, and supreme magical ability: he can change his bodily shape at will, transform himself into an animal, course at night as a wolf — v'lk'm’ riskati (Slovo, 159), löpa varg, l0p verg, l0ypa varg, gà ulv (as the corresponding formula of Swedish and Norwegian folk tradition puts it)17 — acquiring a wolfish bloodthirsty disposition. In brief, he becomes, like Vseslav, “merciless in bloodshed,” for bloodthirstiness is the salient feature of the wolf and of the werewolf18 — the latter in Slavic tradition tends to merge with the vampire (*çpir’),19 either during the lifetime of the werewolf (*v’lkodlak‘) or after its death. As E. Schneeweis states in his summary of Serbian be­ liefs, one who comes into the world with a caul grows up a vukodlak “werewolf” (Church Slavonic vl’kodlak*, literally “wolf-haired”) ;20 his spirit can abandon the sleeping body and i* E. Odstedt, Varulven i Svensk Folktradition (Upsala, 1943), 43; Reichbom-Kjennerud, “Vàr garnie trolldomsmedisin”, V = Skrifter av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist. Fil. Kl. (1947), No. 1, 120.

is Cf. W. H. Roscher, “Das von der ‘Kynanthropie* handelnde Frag­ ment des Marcellus von Side,” Abhandlungen der Philol.-Hist. Klasse der K. Sachs. Ges. d. Wissenschaften (Leipzig, 1897), XVII, 51 f.; K. Müller* Die Werwolfsage (Karlsruhe, 1937). i» Cf. particularly F. Wollman, “Vampyrické povësti v oblasti stredoevropské,” Nârodopisnÿ Vèstnik Öeskoslovansky, XIV-XVm (19211925) ; J. Hasting. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, IV, 624. 20 . . . bil n a videè éloveSke podqbe in lepega obraza, ali rastla mu je po vsem truplu volöja dlaka (J. Trdina, “Bajke in povesti о Gorjancih: 9. Volkodlak,” Ljubljanski Zvon, П (1882), 411. — Cf. in Norse tradition such names for the werewolf as ulfhamr or ulfheSinn, ‘wolfskin*.

60

accomplish deeds demanding superhuman strength.21 Among the demonic beings bom with a caul and appearing in the shape of beasts, certain are benevolent to mankind and fight against evil spirits.22 Besides the gifts of clairvoyance and transformation, the Kashubs and the folk of the surrounding Germanized area ascribe to caul-born boys a vampiric exist­ ence after their death.23 Connections between an amulet on a necklace (nauz) and lycanthropy are also believed among West­ ern and Eastern Slavs.2425In the Kievan Poles’e a magician is believed to be able to change into a wolf with the help of such a “nauz”.26 And the Old Russian “Azbukovnik” from Buslaev’s collection chides people who go to magicians, accept from them and wear devilish charms-nauzy, thus unwisely bringing upon themselves “wolfish names.”26 The werewolf theme in Russian folklore is so intimately linked with the similar range of beliefs in other Slavic coun­ tries that a common Slavic werewolf tradition may be sup­ posed and, in general outline, even reconstructed in as much as a common Slavic patrimony in demonology emerges ever more distinctly. However, this does not exclude the possibility of close interrelations between ancient Russian and Scandin­ avian beliefs27 or the influence of the Turkic wolf cult on the 21 Grundriss des Volksglaubens und Volksbrauches der Serbokroaten (Celje, 1935), 29. 22 Schneeweis, op. cit., 21 f.; Zbomik za Narodni iiv o t i Obiöaje Juznih Slavena, I, 225. 23 Baechtold-Stäubli, Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, HI, 891 f.; Wollman, . .. Nârodopisny Vèstnik öeskoslovansky, XVI, 91; O. Knopp, Volkssagen, Erzählungen, Aberglauben, Gebräuche und Märchen aus dem östlichen Hinterpommern (Posen, 1885), 85. 24 F. Gawronski, Wilkolaki i wilkolactwo (Warsaw, 1914), 17 f. 25 A. Marcinkowski (A. Nowosielski), Lud Ukrainski, П (Wilno, 1857), 96. 26 F. Buslaev, “Dopolnenija i pribavlenija ko Il-omu tomu Skazanij Russkogo Naroda, sobrannyx I. Saxarovym,” Arxiv istoriko-juridiceskix svedenij, otnosjaëôixsja do Rossii, izdan. N. Kalaèevym, I (1850), part 4, p. 2. 27 Also the special question of possible interrelations between the Vseslav epos and Norse sagas deserves attentive inquiry as a partial problem of the still controversial Scandinavian-Russian epic inter­ change: cf. particularly A. Stender-Petersen, La théorie de l'origine varègue de la byline russe, Classica et Mediaevalia УП (1945), 201-214, and VIII (1946), 121-138. According to F. R. Schröder, the beginning of

The Vseslav Epos

61

Eastern and Southern Slavic tradition, as Gordievskij main­ tains.28 Without intending to deal here with questions of genetic filiation, we would like to point out the internal rela­ tion between birth with a caul and the gift of transformation (oborotniôestvo) in the way it was expressed both in Slavic and in Norse tradition. As J. G. Fraser sums it up,29 the Icelanders “hold that a child born with a caul will afterwards possess the gift of second sight, th at he will never be harmed by sorcery, and will be victorious in every contest he undertakes, provided he has the caul dried and carries it on h im . . . Further, it is an ancient belief in Iceland that the child’s guardian spirit or a part of its soul has its seat in the chorion of fetal membrane, which usually forms part of the afterbirth, but is known as the caul when the child happens to be born in it. Hence the chorion was itself known as the fylgja or guardian spirit.” A person who comes into the world with a second shape beside his natural skin30 is consequently endowed with the the Volx bylina seems to recall the birth of the hero in Helgakvida Hundingsbana I, who, let us add, also happens to be “a friend of wolves” — “Skandinavien und der Orient in Mittelalter” (П), Germa­ nisch-Rumänishe Monatsschrift, VIII (1920), 287 f. 28 “cto takoe ‘bosyj volk’?,” Izvestija Ak. Nauk SSSR, Otd. Lit. i Jaz., VI, No. 4 (1947), 317 ff. 29 The Golden Bough, I, 187, 199 f.; cf. M. Bartels, “Isländischer Brauch und Volksglaube in Bezug auf die Nachkommenschaft,” Zeit­ schrift für Ethnologie, XXXII (1900), 70 f. 30 Cf. Old Russian jaz’no ‘skin’ and ‘caul’, and the Germanic stem ham having both of these meanings (H. S. Falk and A. Torp, Norwe­ gisch-Dänisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg, 1910, 376). An amulet from some kind of’ second human skin is an important device for the change into a werewolf : if it is not a caul, there are for this purpose belts from human skin or from the skin of an unborn chiid, as attested in German folk tradition (K. Müller, Die Werwolf sage, Karlsruhe 1937, 71). Finally, the caul is not the only form of amniomancy: if some animals’ afterbirth is applied to the head of a newborn'boy, then — according to Scandinavian beliefs — he will “l0ypa varg” (I. Reichhorn-Kjennerud, op. cit., 121). And a pregnant woman, if she creeps through a foal placenta (folhamn, literally ‘foalskin’) , avoids the labor pangs, but becoming enveloped in two skins she bears a werewolf (C. W. von Sydow, “Overnaturliga väsen,” Folketru, edited by N. hid —Nordisk Kultur, XIX, 1935, 120; N. Lid, “Til varulvens historia,” Saga och Sed,- 1937; E. Odsted, op. cit., 115 ff.; I. Reichborn-Kjennerud, op. cit., 119). Thus the experience of a mother about to give birth is fused with th a t of a child about to be born. Thé werewolf is said to be relieved of this enchantm ent and to regain a thoroughly human life, if he succeeds in drinking the heart blood of an

62

magic power of varying his corporeal frame a t will, and thus of dominating space and time. In brief, he is second-sighted and “not single-shaped” : eigi ein-hamr, according to the scaldic designation of the werewolf.31 The concise definition of the prince-werewolf in the Slovo (161) neatly states: vëàëa duSa v‘ druzé tëlë, “a weird (second-sighted) soul in a second (or more than one) body” (cf. Geste, 381). Wieszcz in Polish (vjescy in Kashubian) designates a male child bom in a caul, and the caul itself is called wiezba, vjeëëba.32 Among Serbs such a child is said to be a wizard (vidovito) .33 In Slovenien, vampires and werewolves fuse under various names of the same root — vedomci, vedunci, vedarci, when males; veëëe, when females.34 In West-Ukrainian folklore the noun visöun is re­ corded with the connotation “werewolf.”35 Thus the use of the adjective vëàô’ in the Slovo, for a werewolf born with a caul is far from an isolated instance in Slavic demonological vocabu­ lary. The same epithet is applied in the Slovo to Bojan (3, 17, 162) whom the Tale characterizes by were-animal images (3) and whose name is connected with magic transformations in Bulgarian and Turkic tradition (Geste, 340). When we compare the Vseslav legend as reflected in the Primary Chronicle, in the Slovo, and in the bylina, it appears that each of these three sources presents only fragments of the entire legend and — this is particularly instructive — each source presents a different and distinct selection of these fragments. Only the Primary Chronicle offers the caul story, unborn child (C. W. Sydow, loc. cit.) Dr. Valentina P. Wasson brought to our attention the use of pre-natal hartblood in the “elixir of life” re­ cently attempted by the late Bogomolec. An astonishing association of fetus and d e liv e r y with the “werewolf fantasy” appears not only in traditional beliefs but likewise in mental disorders and in lycanthropic dreams (cf. Nandor Fodor, “Lycanthropy as a Psychic Mechanism,” Journal of American Folklore, LVIII, 1945, 310 ff.). 31 C. W. von Sydow, op. cit., 121. The expression “var kallaSr eigi einhamr” means ‘was thought to be a werewolf' (G. Wigfusson, An Icelandic-English Dictionary, Oxford, 1874, 121). 32 J. Karlowicz, Slownik jçzyka polskiego, П, 593; F. Lorentz,SZovinzisches Wörterbuch, П, 1303; S. Ramult, Slownik jçzyka pomorskiego czyli kaszubskiego, 254. 33 Vuk Karadzié, Srpski rjecnik, I, 307. 34 F. Wiesthaler “Volkodlak in vampir s posebnim ozirom na slovansko bajeslovje,” Ljubljanski Zvon, m (1883). 35 J. Klawe, Totemizm a pierwotne zjawiska religijne w Polsce (Warsaw, 1920), 130.

The Vseslav Epos

63

yet omits its cardinal implication, the werewolf motif, and mentions merely a characteristic feature of the werewolf, his bloodthirstiness. A man is bV)m with a caul (thus becoming a werewolf) and “for this reason he is merciless in bloodshed.” The omission of the connective motif (in parentheses above) creates in this record of the Chronicle a brachylogy quite ob­ scure for a modem reader (we call to mind 2danov’s quanda­ ry), but in Kievan Russia the allusion was perfectly clear for anyone acquainted with contemporary popular beliefs. On the other hand, the Slovo, as mentioned, characterizes Vseslav ex­ pressly as werewolf (161) ; both in the Slovo and in the bylina, particular attention is paid to his changes into a wolf (Slovo 155, 157, 159; D 48, 70), and in the bylina moreover, to the other animal-metamorphoses of this prince (D 46, 50, 82, 104, 109,129, 137, 160). But the bloodthirstiness of the werewolf is tempered in most variants of the bylina, in order not to make the glorified hero repulsive; the Slovo, furthermore, merely hints at this trait in the bloody picture of the Nemiga battle (157 f.). In short, these two versions of the Vseslav legend render his ability “to change his shape” (the Old Norse hamast, in the primary meaning of this verb), while the Chronicle notes only his ferocious propensity (the same verb hamast in its figurative meaning). Both the Siovo and the bylina rather stress other werewolf properties — his marvelous lucki­ ness (vazn’),3e sorcery (vraèba), craftiness (kljuky), swift­ ness: “travelling in the assumed shape of an anim al. . . with magical speed” (the so-called “ham-farir” in the sagas’ ter­ minology)*37 inspires both the Slovo (155, 157, 159, 160) and the bylina (D 106-108,138-139). Animal-like speed is conceived as a characteristic trait of a “magician and sorcerer” in Old Russian literature: borz‘ ie bë jako i zvër’ (“he was swift as a beast”), the Hypatian Chronicle remarks (6756/1248). The Vseslav digression of the Slovo is a condensed, allusive extract from the legend of the prince-werewolf, while in the bylina the whole account of the rise of the werewolf is told with a great many typical details conforming to Slavic mytho­ logical survivals. The fright of the mother at the sight of the new-born, superhuman Volx (see III, 3 above) agrees with folk narratives about a mother horrified at the birth of a se siovo 166 (see Geste, 242). 37 Vigfusson, op. cit., 236.

64

werewolf (see, e.g., Trdina, loc. cit.). The one-and-a-half-hourold Volx asks his mother to place a weapon in his right hand (see III, 3 above) : Serbian mothers put an ax in the hand of their infants as a magical means to assure their future valor. (Schneeweis, op. cit., 61). The infant Volx asks not to be swaddled and rapidly grows up to be a cunning hunter and warrior: as the Slovenian Trdina records (loc. cit.), “there was no need to dandle and nurse the werewolf as other chil­ dren; he grew rapidly as a wolf. . . And before his second year was over, he started to go hunting.” Volx’s ruses — listening at the window (see III, 8 above), shrewdly blunting his foe’s weapons (III, 9), passing through slots — all this finds close parallels in Slavic folk beliefs: in the evenings, the werewolf, Trdina (412) records, goes listening under windows to what is being plotted and prepared against him; he is widely be­ lieved to charm or to blunt the weapon intended against him; he is able to shrink and to penetrate chinks and keyholes (Schneeweis, 20). Contrary to the Primary Chronicle, our bylina does not relate what was peculiar at the birth of the prince but it does deal with his fabulous conception: the hero is alleged to issue from an encounter of a princess with a serpent. Although this motif occurs only in the archaic Siberian variants D and G, it is very probable th at it belongs to the original framework, for we also detect an allusion to fabulous pre-conditions of the hero’s birth in the Primary Chronicle: as HruSevs’kyj points out,38 there are two epic themes interwoven — 1) the supernatural origin of Vseslav (“him his mother engendered from an enchantment”) which is echoed by the bylina, and 2) the caul. Moreover, a serpent paternity entirely fits in with the caul and werewolf motifs: the serpent able to shed its skin brings into the world a son provided at his birth with a second skin, and afterwards enriched with a werewolf power to change his skin. It is worthy of note that in Serbian koâulja ‘shirt’ means both ‘caul’ and ‘serpent skin’.39 And in Slavic popular tradition the human offspring of a serpent (zmeeviôi), like boys born with a caul, enjoy singular strength.40 The feral adventures of werewolves belong to the time of 38 istorija ukrajins’koji literatury (Lwow, 1924), П, 161. 39 Budmani, Rjecnik hrvatkoga Ui srpskoga jezika, V, 391. 40 Xalanskij, op. cit., 121.

The Vseslav Epos

66

night, and this is distinctly expressed in the Slovo: Vseslav courses as a wolf at night, before cock-crow (159, cf. 155):41 “The retinue sleeps, but Volx sleeps not: He turned into a grey-haired wolf,” the bylina echoes (D, 69 I.; cf. 81 f., 141) and associates the hero’s birth with the appearance of the moon in the sky (D, 11-13). In Serbia the midwife asks the mother of a newborn babe, “Do you like the sun or the moon,” and the answer is, “The sun,” in order to protect the child from a demonic destiny (Schneeweis, 62). With the moon is associated the demonic werewolf, and moonlit nights are the favorite time for his raid. In the Primary Chronicle under 6573/1065, an ominous night aura frames Vseslav’s prepara­ tion for war: an exceedingly large star “appeared as if it were made of blood, and therefore portended bloodshed,” which the “merciless” prince actually hurried to start. As we have noted before, there is, besides the moon and stars, another particularly startling celestial association with our hero — the daylight suddenly changed to darkness, the sun was transformed into the moon or was replaced by the moon and stars — in brief, the eclipse of the sun. The quoted report about ominous portents in the Primary Chronicle con­ tinues: “the sun also suffered alterations and instead of being bright was like the moon: the ignorant (nevëglasi) say it has been eaten up (s'nëdaemu suâcju).” “Is not this chronicler’s note about the eclipse,” Svjatskij (op. cit., 104) ingeniously conjectures, “merely an echo of peoples’ rumors th a t this eclipse was caused by Vseslav, the prince-werewolf?” The Primary Chronicle does not name the devourer of the sun, just as in the tale of Vseslav’s birth it prefers not to designate the werewolf; but the Krmëaja Iloviëka, a Church Slavonic manuscript of Serbian recension written in 1262 and published in excerpt by Jagié, gives a revealing answer. A gloss on leaf 156642 states, referring to the peasants: “when the moon or the sun perishes, they assert th at were­ wolves have eaten up the moon or the sun, however this is nothing but fables and falsehood.’43 And in the later popular 4i “The cock-crowing before daybreak compels the werewolf to dis­ appear a t once” (A. Afanas’ev, lit, 557). Cf. I. Reichbom-Kjennerud, op. cit., 125. « Starine Jugosl. Akad., VI (1874), 83. 43 еГда убо попибнеть луна или сл(ь)н(ь)це, гл(агол)ють, влькодлаци луну изЪдоше или сл(ь)н(ь)це. Си же вса басни и льжа суть.

66

tradition of the Southern Slavs, the eclipse of the sun and moon is usually attributed to the cosmic appetite of the were­ wolf. Menôetié, a Dubrovnik poet of the sixteenth century, mentions in one of his verses “the moon when eaten by a werewolf,”4445as V. Jagié points out.46 And Slovenians still use the expression “solnce jedeno” (the sun is eaten) for the eclipse which superstition imputes to some magic wolves.46 According to the Czech Alexandreis of the early fourteenth century,47 the old people (stari dëdi) used to say at the eclipse of the moon that it was eaten up by the “védi,” the female partners of werewolves; and other reputed works of th at time, the sd-called DalimiPs Chronicle and the Easter play “Mastièkâf”, reflect the same belief.48 To prevent the dead werewolf from assuming a vampiric existence (da se ne povampiri), his mouth must be stopped up with a coin or a stone, otherwise he would gore living people and even “devour the sun and the moon.”49 A v‘lxv‘ in the Rus­ sia of Vseslav’s time was supposed to be a virtual vampire; therefore precisely in the narrative of the Primary Chronicle under 6577/1071 about Vseslav and other “v‘lsvi” the chronicler does not fail to mention the rubles put into magicians’ mouths before their execution.50 The Chronicle of Vseslav’s years and particularly of Vses­ lav’s Polock is permeated with vampiric images; and it enters the ominous seventh century of the seventh millenium with the story of the “miraculous miracle” happening in Polock where, during the day, as the Slovo says, Vseslav the Prince was judging and ruling (159) : At night there was heard a clatter and a groaning in the streets, and demons ran about like men. If anyone went forth from his house to look upon it, some invisible demon h u rt him with the plague, and people perished from that, and nobody dared leave the house. Then during the day there began to appear riders, and they were not visible 44 45 46 47 48

“Mjesec, kad ga ie vukodlak” (Start pisci hrvatski, II, 336). Archiv für Slavische Philologie, V (1881), 91. F. Wiesthaler, op. cit., 504. Alexandreida (Prague, 1947), 113, 95. L. Niederle, Zivot starych Slovanû, Part П, Vol. I (Prague, 1924),

44. 49 See Wollman, XV, 44 f.; Wiesthaler, op. cit.t 638, 701; W. Mannhardt, “über Vampirismus,” Zeitschrift für die Mythologie und Sitten­ kunde, IV 0859), 266; O. Knopp, op. cit., 85.

50 И повел*Ь Янь въложити рубля въ уста има . . .

The Vseslav Epos

67

themselves, but the hoofs of their horses could be seen. And they hurt the people of Polock and its country so th at it was commonly said th a t ghosts (navie) bi were killing the people of Polock.

The Primary Chronicle mentions Vseslav’s failures only in passing; our bylina says nothing of them and concludes the story in the year 6576/1068, with the happy ending of his glorious but short-lived accession to the Kievan throne. In the Slovo, on the contrary, the proper subject of its Vseslav digres­ sion is the constant fluctuation of Vseslav’s “lots” (153) — brilliantly up and shatteringly down: the first “streak of good luck” was that “he opened the gates of Novgorod, and smashed the glory of Jaroslav” (156), only to be put to rout on the Nemiga (157 f.); then suddenly he “touched with spear-shaft the golden Kievan throne” (154), to leap thereupon “at mid­ night out of Belgorod” (155). In short, “though a wizardly soul in a double body, yet he often suffered sorely” (161), as had been wisely predicted by another artist of magic metamor­ phoses, the seer Bojan (162 f.; cf. 3).*62* This ambiguous fate of a double-shaped hero finds its expression also in popular Slavic beliefs. As Schneeweis (60 f.) noted, a child bom with a caul is to have much luck and is to be protected against any thrust and shot if this koSuljica is bound as a shred to the child’s body; but especially Serbian people are frightened at the demonic prospects such a child faces. They would rather resort to preventive magic to circum­ vent the supposed consequences of the caul. Ukrainians of the Kievan area are said to be mistrustful of a happy future for a caul-child: it cannot escape chastisement (bez nakazanija ne obijdet’sja).83 Or, as the Slovo implies, “neither a crafty man, nor a clever m a n . . . can escape God’s doom” (163). This reverse side, too, thoroughly belongs to the core of the 51 Cf. L. Niederle, op. c it, I, 37. 62 Bojan’s magic power “ex homine subito fieri lupum,” a migratory motif of Altaic provenience, was first attached on Slavic soil to Ben­ jamin, the son of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon (cf. Geste, 340), obviously because the Biblical Benjamin is said to “ravin as a wolf: in the morn­ ing he shall devour the prey, and a t night he shall divide the spoil,” (Genesis 49. 27). Accordingly, the Czech Jews in the Middle Ages were accustomed to translate the name Benjamin as Vlk: see Die Juden und Judengemeinden Mährens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Brno, 1929), 2. es Z. Kuzelja, Dytyna v zvyöajax i viruvannjax ukrajins*koho naroda (Lwow, 1906), 169.

68 werewolf myth. In his penetrating study, “Dolon le loup,” L. Gemet brings to light the pristine substance of the were­ wolf notion surviving in Indo-European folk traditions:54 there prevails a perpetual dramatic tension between two opposite, but ever interchangeable, roles of the wolf; it is a kind of antinomy — “ranim ai étant tour à tour poursuivant et pour­ suivi.”55 In the werewolf myth related by Euripides and elucid­ ated by Gernet the hero bears the name Dolon, “the crafty,” and the same epithet is applied to Vseslav in the Slovo and in the bylina. But in spite of all his craftiness and cleverness, fundamentally he appears as an outlaw, like the “izgoj” Vses­ lav, and appropriately for a wolf, for whom the Scandinavian taboo name is vargr “peaceless, outlaw”.55 And thus peaceless, precipitate flight is the distinguishing trait of the wolf, of Dolon, and likewise of the Polock prince-werewolf. The existence of a wolf cult in the pre-Christian Slavic past is very probable.57 The community and similarity of lycanthropic beliefs in the Slavic world and the expansion of the Slavic werewolf name among the adjacent peoples (Greek vrukôlakas, Turkish vurkolak, Albanian vurvolak, Rumanian värkolak) speak for the antiquity and tenacity of these be­ liefs. If the “Neuroi” in Herodotus' report are really ancestors of the Slaves, as many scholars believe,58 the legends about their magic ability to change themselves into wolves and about their struggle with serpents give us a glimpse of the distant Slavic past and of its mythology.59 Slavic, and more broadly, Indo-64*78 64 Annuaire de VInstitut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves, IV (1936), 189 ff. 56 “The strangler and the strangled . . the hunter and the hunted” in lycanthropic dreams (Nandor Fodor, op. cit., 316). 56 L. Gernet, op. cit., 200. According to the old Scandinavian custo­ mary law any wolf or werewolf was actually outlawed (I. ReichbornKjennerud, op. cit., 116). 67 Cf. J. Polivka, “Vlôi pastÿr,” Mélanges V. Tille (Prague, 1927), 519 ff.; R. Cajkanovié, “Sveti Sava i vuci,” Srpski Etnografski Zbornik, XXXI (1924), 157 ff. 68 T. Lehr-Splawinski, O pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Slowian, (Poz­ nan, 1946), 13 f. L. Niederle, Slovanské staroHtnosti, Section I. Part I. Vol. II (Prague, 1926), 270 f. A belief close to Herodotus’ version was still alive in the vicinity of Polock in the early XVII century when the renowned English traveller, Richard James, noted th a t “people of Narva and Livonia become werewolves every year, as incredible as it may seem to me: however, they assert and swear, kissing the cross, th a t it is

The Vseslav Epos European comparative mythology will have to deal here with a rewarding task. For the time being, we may collate our three versions of the Vseslav story with reference to the werewolf in Slavic popular tradition, and we can easily discern the ancient Russian myth in its most general outline: The son af a princess and a serpent is born with a caul which he wears upon him at the insistence of magicians. His supernatural power and his eagerness to shed blood are predes­ tined and make both his mother and Mother Earth tremble. He grows up and speedily acts as a beast; possessing the gift of second sight, he masters the art of magical transformations and leads the double life of a prince and of a werewolf. He is omnipresent, crafty, and wonder-working; the huntsman’s fortune accompanies his predaceous, venturesome chase for power over the animal and human kingdoms. In vain his pros­ pective victims strive to escape. Intimately tied with the forces of the night, he threatens the sun itself. Where he comes run­ ning in wolf-shape, there the earth becomes stained with blood, and vampiric ghosts hover over his abode. Glory and suffering are inseparably intermingled in the course of his life as a werewolf — hunter and beast, persecutor and persecuted at the same time. Each of the three sources abridges and adapts the Vseslav legend in its own way, according to its own literary purposes — the Primary Chronicle reduces the lycanthropic element, the Slovo is not interested in the prince’s infancy, and the bylina suppresses any tragic coloring. The caul occurs uniquely in the Primary Chronicle and the magic transformations only in the two other sources, but in this and similar cases, we are nevertheless in a position to consult folk beliefs and hence to ascertain the internal relation between these disconnected motifs and their mutual concomitance in the original Vseslav legend. Some components of this saga are assuredly better pre­ served in the modern, yet oral bylina than on parchment, and — as comparison with the Primary Chronicle indicates — certain passages are extraordinarily intact in the variant re­ cently recorded from Marfa Krjukova, our contemporary (for actually so.” Sec F. Psalman, “Un Russisant anglais au XVI-e-XVII-e siècle, Richard James (1572-1638),” Bulletin de Géographie Historique et Descriptive (1911), 372.

70 instance, the “eclipse” motif and the prediction of bloodthirsti­ ness) . In the history of the Greek Digenis epos H. Grégoire has uncovered similar examples concerning the relation between oral and written tradition and between older and newer song variants. 3. Interrelations of the mythical, historical and literary elements in the Vseslav epos. The werewolf myth is obviously much older than the reign of Vseslav, but the ascribing of this myth to the Polock prince is easily understandable. The unusual, one would even say fantastic, life of the militant Vseslav, his unexpected appear­ ances and vanishings, the lightning-like seizure of powerful Novgorod, the sudden change of the prisoner of the day before into the ruling prince of Kiev, and in general his miraculous good luck and supernatural transitions from utter ruin to glory, from nothingness to triumph, and vice versa, this all asked for an explanation, and in the eyes of his contemporaries the only explanation of his charmed career lay in his secret powers. That this Vseslav legend was in the process of being creat­ ed by his contemporaries follows from the story of the Pri­ mary Chronicle about the magical circumstances of his birth, related under 6552/1044: this story finishes with the remark that the talisman was put on Vseslav by his mother in accord­ ance with instructions from magicians, he bears it (nosit*) “to the present day” (i do sego d’ne), and “hence he is (est’) merciless in bloodshed.”1 This means that for the legend about Vseslav’s magical birth the terminus ante quern was his death in 6609/1101 and the terminus post quern the first campaigns of the Polock prince — assaults on Pskov in 6573/10651 2 and on Novgorod in 6574/1066 — which gave him a bloody reputa­ tion. In other words, the legend about the magical origin of Vseslav and about the caul’s having a demoniac influence on 1 Only the Laurentian Codex preserves this passage intact, while the other variants tend to replace the present nosit* by the past nosi (RadziwiH copy) or nosil‘ (Hypatian redaction), sego by smertnogo (ibidem) and similarly est’ by byst’ (Xlebnikov copy). 2 Князь Всеславъ Полотьскыи, събравъ силы своя многыя пршде ко Пскову и много тружався съ многыми замысленш и пороками шибавъ, отъиде ничтоже успЪвъ (Second Pskov Chronicle).

The Vseslav Epos

71

his life was already circulating in the last third of the eleventh century. The ascribing of an ancient myth to the popular wonder­ working warrior was no doubt made easier by the fact that the most glorified conqueror of medieval literature, Alexander of Macedonia, was also portrayed as a supernatural being. Ac­ cording to the Russian “Hellenic Chronograph,”8 very ancient in a great part of its content, Alexander, “manifesting a magicianly power, conquered all peoples in a magical way.”34 It is characteristic that he, like some other illustrious heroes, is pictured here as “beast-like,” and the words about a panther’s speed, which the Primary Chronicle uses for Svjatoslav, are also applied to Alexander.5 The Chronograph states as well th at Alexander “became like a lynx for he was sharp-witted, very tricky in his designs, and ferocious in his heart to drink human blood.”6 In this presentation Alexander is very closely related to the epic Vseslav by his wizardly wisdom and slyness, superhuman swiftness, vampiric passion and beastlike habits. From this it is only one step to a lycanthropic image. We know how eagerly Old Russian literature used the legendary traits of Alexander for portraying the most re­ nowned Russian princes, as, for instance, Roman of Galiö (see Hypatian Chronicle, 6709/1201). It is not surprising that the legendary image of this great hero of antiquity should serve as the link for the myth and the historical appearance of Vses­ lav, and th at precisely the literary legend about Alexander should make its impress noticeable on the bylina about Volx. This element of our bylina was brought out by V. Miller in one of his earliest folklore studies7 and then, in more detail, by Rudolph Abicht.8 Of the motifs noted by these authors, the closest to the bylina are: the liaison of Alexander’s mother with a magician in the guise of a dragon, the early training in 3 Cf. V. Istrin, Oôerk istorii drevnerusskoj liieratury domoskcvskogo perioda (Petrograd, 1922), 91 f. 4 A. Popov, Obzor xronografov russkoj redakcii (Moscow, 1866), I, 36. 6 Op. cit., 41.

3 Izvestija Otd. Rus. Jaz. i Slov: Ak. Nauk, XXXI (1926), 104. 7 “Otgoloski ‘Aleksandrii’ v bolgaro-russkix bylinax,” Zurnal Mi­ nister stva Narodnogo Prosveèôenija (Oct., 1877), 115-132. s “Ein Alexanderlied unter den russischen Bylinen," Festschrift für Alfred Hillebrandt (Halle, 1913), 1-11.

72

esoteric and occult sciences, the youth of Alexander at the time of his first deeds, his formation of a retinue from coeval youths, the campaign against the Indian sovereign, and final­ ly the matrimonial epilogue of the Persian campaign of Alex­ ander and his warriors. Without doubt, one should not ignore these literary de­ posits in our bylina, but it would be erroneous to try to reduce the whole Volx plot to a Russification of the Alexander story, as A. Brückner does.® His efforts to prove th at history “hat nie etwas zu tun gehabt” with either this bylina in particular or with the bylina in general (loc. cit, 342) are likewise fruitless in their one-sided doctrinairism, as are the opposite attempts to find in the Russian oral epos nothing but mere reproduc­ tions of historic reality. In spite of Brückner’s bias,9101the his­ torical method enables the folklorist to elucidate not “only the insignificant names,” but also the “m atter” itself, or at least some striking features of this matter. However, the recognition of the multiple ties between epos and history does not authorize the student to deny all myth­ ological reminiscences in Russian epic tradition. On the con­ trary, “Slavic folklore has an inestimable value for the study of ancient pagan religion,” as the great master of Slavic pre­ history states.11 If it was a dangerous fallacy for the romantic­ ists to envisage everything in the Russian epos as a petrified myth, it is just as much a delusion for hypercritics of the romantic tradition to declare, for example, th at “neither Volx in the bylina nor Vseslav in the Slovo have features of lycanthropy or sorcery.”12 According to Sambinago, in both of these instances there was originally a simple figure of comparison: Volx courses about not as a human being transformed into an animal, but in an animal-like manner; only later the literal misinterpretation of the comparison figure actually trans­ formed the hero of the bylina into a werewolf, Sambinago’s conception means an arbitrary and artificial separation of the image “vl'kom' ryskaâe” (Î59) from all other constituent parts 9 “Michajlo Potyk und der wahre Sinn der Bylinen,” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, IV (1927), 332. 10 See Archiv für Slavische Philologie, ХЫ, 471 ff. 11 L. Niederle, Manuel de Vantiquité slave, U (Paris 1926), 128. 12 Sambinago, op. cit., 142; cf. Slovo о polku Igoreve, ed. by V. Rziga and S. Sambinago (Moscow, 1934), 291, and V. Miller, Vzgljad na Slovo о polku Igoreve (Moscow, 1877), 103.

The Vseslav Epos

73

of the Vseslav (and the Volx) epos: the magical birth, the caul and the magicians, the “wizardly soul” (161), and the whole saga from beginning to end crumbles into unmotivated and senseless membra disjecta. As Potebnja pointed out, the dis­ tinction between the instrumental of metamorphosis and th a t of comparison is not grammatical, but material, and can be determined in any particular case only with reference to the ideological background.18 In the case of the prince’s coursing “vl'kom’,” the appeal is to the views of Vseslav’s contempora­ ries and to those of the Slovo's author. Thus the whole context of the Vseslav epos plainly indicates th a t it is a werewolf story and th at both the Slovo and the bylina share this conception. How early this tradition changes from a belief to a fiction is a special question. The ancient Slavic myth, the international literary model and the domestic historical actuality are intimately fused in the Vseslav epos. And all three classical approaches to the study of the Russian epos — inquiry into the mythological substratum, into the literary borrowings, and into the reflec­ tions of history — happen to be equally justified in this case. They supplement each other fruitfully if we envisage these threefold ingredients not as totally disparate layers mechan­ ically brought together, but as components of a poetic whole which are mutually co-ordinated and adapted to an artistic intent. In his stimulating book about the poetic art and genesis of byliny, A. Skaftymov14 establishes that the bylina is usually concerned with only one hero and his foe: all other dramatis personae are merely a “resonant background.” Hence, since the bylina about Volx, like other princely byliny, presents the prince as the only active person in contrast to his passive re­ tinue, it would be incautious to follow A. Markov15 in ascribing this treatment to the ideology of court singers who were indif­ ferent to the temper and interests of the retinue. Equally hazardous is the parallel attem pt of Markov to interpret byliny with a hero from the retinue (druzinnik) as having been created undoubtedly in the retinue milieu, and to conceive the 18 Is zaplsok po russkoj grammatike (Kharkov, 1874), П, 488 f. к Poètika i genesis bylin (Saratov, 1924). l* “Bytovye éerty russkix bylin,” Ètnografiôeskoe Obosrenle, L V iu U X (1904).

74

idleness and mediocrity of the prince in such byliny as the negative attitude of the court’s democratic retainers. As a matter of fact, the poetic pattern of a bylina reduces the sig­ nificance and importance of the hero’s environment, and this device implies setting the retinue in the background, if the hero is a prince, and vice versa. It is obvious th at only the specific features of a given fable, and not the stereotyped constituents of any bylina, can serve as a key to the historic kernel sought for. If Volx’s ad­ versary is grim, haughty, opinionated, these are simply the usual traits of any foe in Russian epic tradition. We do not know whether the actual Izjaslav possessed them. Certainly we find here salient coincidences between the bylina and the chronicler’s narrative; and in both of these sources, the enemy manifests the same obstinate will to underestimate our hero; but perhaps the Chronicle is in this case, as in so many others, already influenced by the epic pattern. Surely epic poetry is attracted to such historic events which fit its conventional scheme, and the lightning speed of Vseslav’s irresistible triumphs offered a most rewarding sub­ ject. But th at which did not suit the usual pattern was re­ touched and adapted. Thus, since the foe in byliny is supposed to be a foreigner, the Grand Duke of Kiev becomes the Indian Tsar; and since there is no place in the plot of byliny for more than one victory, then .Vseslav’s Novgorod raid, preceding his Kievan fortune, is depicted in terms of a hunt. V. — THE PLACE OF THE VSESLAV EPOS IN RUSSIAN EPIC TRADITION 1. Old Russian princes in the byliny and traces of polemics against the Vseslav epos. In his unfinished “Outline of the Russian Byliny Epos,” V. Miller points out the poverty of images of Russian princes in oral epic tradition. (Oôerki, П1, 56 f.). This is one of the striking differences from the Serbian epos where national rul­ ers used to appear as héros. The colorless image of the Kievan Prince Vladimir figuring in most of the byliny1 seems, as Mil-1 1 “If we visualize the epic Vladimir, we will find a complete color­ lessness in all his cardinal traits” (V. Miller, “Èkskursy v oblast* russkogo èposa,” Russkaja MysV, No. 1, 1891, 72).

The Vseslav Epos

75

1er hints, to have incorporated not only St. Vladimir but also Vladimir Monomax and Vladimir, son of Vasil’ko. However, neither Vladimir appears as a central hero, for princes assume such a role rarely and, surprisingly enough, Kievan rulers never. Among the princes of the pre-Mongolian epoch only two are immortalized as heroes of byliny: first, as we have tried to show, Vseslav; and secondly, Gleb, son of Svjatoslav, identi­ fied by A. Markov2*and V. Miller (op. cit., 57 f.) in the bylina about Gleb Volod’eviö which is known only in a few White Sea variants.8 The most popular fact in the historic being of this prince was, as Miller reminds us, the glorious victory which he, together with Novgorod forces, won in October 6577/1069 against Vseslav. This victory, recorded in the Novgorod Chron­ icle, is omitted in the Primary Chronicle. The only detailed passage about Gleb in the latter savors of oral legend. Under 6579 the Primary Chronicle, among other stories about magi­ cians, brings out the following without mentioning the date: A similar magician (v'lxv*) had appeared a t Novgorod during Gleb's rule. He harangued the people by representing himself as a god, and he deceived many of them — almost the entire city — for he claimed to know all things and he blasphemed against the Christian faith announcing th a t he would walk across the Volxov (V‘lxov‘) in the presence of all. And there was an uprising in the city and all be­ lieved in him and desired to murder the Bishop. However, the Bishop, after having taken the cross and clad himself in his vestments, stood forth saying: “Whosoever wants to place trust in a magician, let him follow him; but whoever believes in the Cross, let him come to it.” So the people were divided into two factions: Prince Gleb and his retainers took their stand beside the Bishop, while the common people all followed th e magician. Thus there was great strife between them. But Gleb hid an axe under his garments, approached the magician and told him: “Do you know w hat is to happen on the morrow, or may occur even before evening?” The latter said: “I know everything.” The Gleb said, “Do you know what is about to occur this very day?” The other said: “I will perform great miracles.” But Gleb drew forth the axe and smote him so th a t he fell dead and the people dispersed. Thus the man who had sold himself to the devil perished, body and soul.

We will not examine here the question of whether the Khersonese raid of Vladimir Monomax is really reflected in the bylina about Gleb Volod’eviö, as Markov, and subsequent2 lz istorii russkogo bylevogo èposa (Moscow, 1905), I, 30-66. » M, No. 50, 80; BL. П (Moscow, 1941), No. 79; A. Astaxova, Byliny severa (Leningrad, 1938), I, No. 15.

76

ly Miller and HruSevs’kyj,*34 supposed. In the opinion of these scholars Prince Gleb, too, participated in this raid. Be th at as it may, the White Sea bylina, especially its motif of Gleb’s struggle with the heretic Marinka, is related to the tale of the Primary Chronicle quoted above. Under the influence of the historic Marina, wife of the false Dmitrij, renowned among the Russian people as a heretic and sorceress, this name enter­ ed into the Russian folk epos as a symbol of evil witchery.5* In the bylina, as well as in the Chronicle, Gleb hacked the magician after a dialogue of riddles and answers (a motif quite typical of Russian oral tradition of the 10-11th centuries, as Lixacev, op. cit., 132 ff., stressed). Only, in the Chronicle, Gleb asks the riddles, and in the bylina, he answers them. Both in this Chronicle and in the bylina Gleb triumphs over the enemy magician. Meanwhile, it is especially as the victor over the reputed magician Vseslav, th at Gleb entered Novgorodian history. Does not the epic subject of Gleb’s successful struggle against witchcraft reflect the salvation of Novgorod from the repeated pressure of Vseslav? If this is so, then the epic glorifi­ cation of Gleb was a kind of polemic answer to the epos which exalted the magician Vseslav. In Old Russian literary heritage it is perhaps possible to detect other traces of epic polemics against the eulogy of the prince-magician. In the Chronograph of the seventeenth cen­ tury is preserved a story which scholars, beginning with F. Bus­ laev,8 collated with the bylina about Volx. It remains to be determined what the nature of this connection is. According to the Chronograph’s story, Volxov, son of Prince Sloven (cf. Volx Vseslav’eviö), “a fierce sorcerer, created by diabolical tricks many delusions;7 he changed himself into a wild beastcrocodile8 in the river Volxov; he blocked the path of the river, and those who did not submit he either devoured or snatched * Istorija ukrajins’koji literatury (Lwow, 1925), IV, 168-171.

3 V. Miller, Oèerki, I, 153 ff. e istoriceskie oôerki russkoj narodnoj slovesnosti i iskusstva, П (SPB, 1861) 8; Narodnaja poèzija (St. Petersburg, 1887), 34 f. and 268. 7 басовскими ухищренга мечты творя миога (cf. Primary Chronicle 6600/1092: Предивьно бысть чюдо ПолотьсцЪ, въ мьчгЬ: . . . рищюще бЪси). 8 преобразуйся во образ лютаго звЪря-коркодила (cf. Slovo 166: скочи . . . лютымъ звЪремъ; Нуpat. Chronicle 6709/1201: губяще яко и коокодилъ).

The Vseslav Epos

77

up and drowned*. . . and the fable of the ignorant about this magician (volxv) transformed this damned one into a god. But our true Christian word based on much verified and tru th ­ ful information about this damned sorcerer-magician is that he was wrongly shattered and choked by devils in the Volxov, and by diabolical delusions his damned body was carried up this river Volxov.. .”*10 This tale openly opposes itself to the fables exalting “volxv.” It is curious that the motif of the Volxov’s flowing backstream had already appeared in the Primary Chronicle, also in connection with Vseslav, under 6571/1063. There it is related th at “the Volxov at Novgorod flowed backward for five days,” and that this was not a favor­ able portent since Vseslav burned the city four years later. The backward flowing of a river as a theme of wizardry later occurs in the Primary Chronicle under 6579/1071 in the story about the prophecy of a “volxv” in Kiev, and again in direct contiguity with Vseslav’s adventures. This “magician inspired by the devil declared: ‘There appeared to me five gods saying — tell the people th at in five years the Dnepr is to flow back­ ward.’ ” Coming back to the question of the pre-Mongolian epoch’s princes as heroes in byliny, we must conclude th at there are only two: the magician Vseslav and Gleb, the adversary of the magician. Thus there is merely one theme for princely byliny originating in pre-Mongolian Russia — the fortunes and mis­ fortunes of Vseslav of Polock. 2. The Polock princes in epic tradition. The struggle of Vseslav with Jaroslav’s sons, which is reflected in the bylina about Volx and perhaps in the one about Gleb Volod’eviô, should not be considered as an isolated sub­ ject in epic tradition. It may be supposed th at there existed in the past a whole epic cycle dealing with the proud resist­ ance of the Polock princes. At least the Primary Chronicle under 6488/980, and es* чародей лютъ. . . непокаряющихся ему овыхъ пожирая (cf BL 36-38: Ето како будет да чудовиппно-то, чародей ли будет да окоянной-от, погублять народ будёт он, пожирать его?) io a . Popov, Izbom ik slavjanskix I russkix soôinenij t statej, vnesennyx v xronografy russkoj redakcii (Moscow, 1869), 443 f.

78

pecially the Laurentian Chronicle under 6636/1128, preserved picturesque and distinctly epic fragments of a legend about Vladimir’s marriage with the shrewish Rogneda (Ragnetör)— Gorislava, the daughter of Rogvolod (Rçgnvaldr) who “had come from beyond the seas and ruled over Polock.” Both in this tale and in the bylina about Dobrynja as matchmaker, V. Miller rightly perceives echoes of a saga which persisted among the kin of Vseslav (Oéerki, III, 24). It is not by accident that the Laurentian Chronicle suddenly quotes this saga in detail shortly after the decisive rout of Vseslav’s sons by Jaroslav’s offspring. In summing up this legend the chronicler links the fight between Vseslav’s and Jaroslav’s descendants with the rebuff of Rogvolod, Rogneda and her heir Izjaslav against Vladimir: “and thenceforward the grandsons of Rog­ volod draw the sword against the grandsons of Jaroslav.” Although Jaroslav was Izjaslav’s younger brother by the same Rogneda, only the descendants of the disgraced Izjaslav are presented as Rogvolod’s progeny. So, too, in the Slovo the “izgoj” Oleg solely is surnamed Gorislavié — after his great grandmother Rogneda — the only one of all her posterity. Her cult persisted among the offspring of Vseslav, and her name Gorislava was given to his granddaughter. The saga about Ragnhetör, the daughter of Rçgnvaldr from Palteskja, also penetrated to the Scandinavian North.1 In general, Polock has an outstanding place among Russian motifs of Old Norse sagas. Chiefly, the Scandinavian heritage preserved epic tales about the second stage of the Polock princes’ resistance: the fight of Brjaôislav Izjaslaviè with his uncle Jaroslav. The Eymundar Saga narrates the deeds of the konung Eymundar]?âttr Hringssonar who helped Jaroslav (Jarisleifr) in his fight against Svjatopolk and then supported Brjaöislav (Vartilaf) of Polock in his struggle with Jaroslav.12 These events are also told by the Novgorod Chronicle of the late eleventh century which, under 6529/1021, mentions Jaroslav’s attempt to finish the quarrel by conceding the towns of 1 A. Stender-Petersen, Die Varägersage als Quelle der altrussischen Chronik (Aarhus, 1934), 210 ff. 2 “Saga Olafs Konungs hins Helga,” Fornmanna Sögur, V (1830), 267-298; Antiquités russes d'après les monuments historiques des Islandais et des anciens Scandinaves, éd. de la Société Royale des Anti­ quaires du Nord, П (Copenhagen, 1852).

The Vseslav Epos

79

Usvjaè’ (V'svjaé’) and Vitebsk (Vit’b’sk*) to Brjaèislav and asserts th a t this attempt was not successful. After Jaroslav’s words of appeasement to Brjaèislav, “thus be one with me," the Novgorodian chronicler imexpectedly adds: “and Brjaèislav fought against Jaroslav all the days of his life.”3 Meanwhile, according to the Saga, peace was settled and, as a result of this peace, Brjaèislav ruled over Kiev three years until his death, after which Kiev reverted to Jaroslav. But Brjaèislav’s death occurred, according to the Chronicle, in 6552/1044, whereas the events depicted by the Saga refer to 1016-1021. This contradiction between the Russian and Norse sources supported S. H. Cross’s denial of the historical value of this Saga’s testimony.4*On the other hand, the Chronicle’s narrative about the struggle between Jaroslav and Brjaèislav is so frag­ mentary and confused that A. von Reutz suspected a gap or a suppression here.6 There is no possibility of checking the testimony of the Saga, but if the silence of the Chronicle cannot be considered a decisive argument against Brjaèislav’s being in Kiev, per­ haps the mysterious court of Brjaèislav (dvor‘ Brjaèislavl*) mentioned in the Primary Chronicle corroborates the data of the Eymundr Saga. The Chronicle mentions under 6576/1068 that the Kievan people, rising against Izjaslav, “halted before the court of Brjaèislav” and decided there to go and liberate Vseslav’s druzina from the prison. “Brjaèislav” is a rare prince­ ly name; we know of no Brjaèislav connected with Kiev, yet the court of Brjaèislav is considered by the Chronicle as some­ thing well known. And finally, the association between the court of Brjaèislav and the impulse of the Kievan people to link their movement with Vseslav takes on meaning only if this Brjaèislav is Vseslav’s father. If this guess is right, dvor* Brjaèislavl’ would mean then Brjaèislav’s court at the time he ruled in Kiev, as the Saga quoted above asserts. In this case the Kievan uprising for Vseslav would simply be a further episode in the struggle of two ruling lines for the main city of Russia. The Russian events of the second half of the eleventh » A öaxmatov, Razyskanija, p. 621. 4 S. H. Cross, Yaroslav the W ise..., 190. » “Eymundr Saga,” Dorpater Jahrbücher für Literatur, Statistik und Kunst (1834), pp. 104-106.

80

century no longer found reflection in the Norse sagas,6 but for the Russian epic tradition just the third stage of the Polock princes’ resistance — the stage linked with the wizardly ap­ pearance of Vseslav — was particularly fruitful. It would be difficult to explain such exceptional attention paid by epic tradition to the peripheral Polock, and it would not be easy to understand the popularity of this Polock upstart among the Kievan people if he were only a desperate usurper. The shrewd Karamzin was the very first to grasp the genuine essence of the historic litigation between the Izjaslaviöi on the one hand, and Jaroslav with his progeny on the other: Vseslav “consider­ ed himself a legitimate inheritor of the Grand Duke’s throne since his grandfather Izjaslav was the oldest son of St. Vladi­ mir”7 (after the premature death of Vladimir’s heir VySeslav). Besides the epic allusions in the Rogneda legend, we have no indications how and why Izjaslav happened to be driven out of the contest. The local chronicles kept at the Polock Cathe­ dral of St. Sophia were taken in 1579 by the Poles, when Polock was seized by Batory, and have been lost.8 But the seriousness and stubbornness of the resistance of the Izjaslavici, and like­ wise the vividness of its reflection in folk memory give an insight into the fight that was carried on for the rights of pretenders, who regarded themselves and were regarded by others as having been illegally deprived. “The permanent struggle between the dynasties of Polock and Kiev” does not finish with Vseslav, and HruSevs’kyj9 at­ tempts to catch epic echoes in the story of the Hypatian Chron­ icle 6648/1140 about the retribution sought by Mstislav of Kiev against the sons of Rogvolod Vseslavic.10

6 F. Braun, “Das historische Russland im nordischen Schrifttum des 10 bis 14 Jahrhunderts,” Eugen Mogk Festschrift (Halle, 1924), 150-196. 7 Op. cit., H, 74. « V. Ikonnikov, Opyt russkoj istoriografii, П, p art I (Kiev, 1908). 535. о Istorija ukrajins'lcoji literatury, П (Lwow, 1923), 230. io r . Jakobson’s and G. Ruzicié’s study comparing the Vseslav epos with the cognate Serbian heroic songs about Zmaj Ognjeni Vuk is to appear.

The Vseslav Epos

81

APPENDIX V O L X V S E S L A V ’E V IC W e reprodu ce (here te x t D of th e bylina w ith t h e follow in g d iffe r ­ e n c e s from S e ffe r ’s ed ition : 1) we divide th e te x t in to verses, num ber th e m a n d in se r t m o d e m p u n ctu a tio n ; 2) preserve th e sp ellin g o f th e o rig in a l o n ly in so fa r as it ten d s to rend er p h o n etic an d gram m atical fe a tu r e s d e v ia tin g from stan d ard R ussian; 3) tra n sfer to th e fo o tn o te s su c h w ords w h ic h ob viou sly d o n o t en ter in to th e verse sc h e m e an d w ere ev id e n tly in serted b y th e scribe to co m p lete th e m ean in g; 4) p la ce in b rack ets [] w ords w h ich are required by th e verse an d are e v id e n tly o m itte d b y th e scrib e, p a rticu la rly th e rep eated h em istich es, m issin g p a rtly or co m p letely (th e in itia l lin es are com p leted w ith th e h e lp o f v a r ia n t G) ; 5) p u t in w ord a cc en ts w h en th e y are u sed a s b ea ts in th e verse.

5.

10.

15.

20.

25.

П о са д у , са д у п о зел ён о м у , х о д й л а -г у л я л а м о л о д а к н я ж н ё, [м о л о д а к няж на] М ар ф а В сеслёвьевна. О н а с к ё м е н ю с к о ч й л а [н а л ю т а з м е я ] , н а л ю т о г о н а з м ё я [н а Г о р ы н и ч а ] : л ю той зм ёй о бв и в ается о к о л о ч ёб о т а — зел ён саф ьян, о к о л о ч ул бч и к а ш ёлк ова, х о б о т о м б ь ё т п о б е л у с т ег н у . А в т ё п о р ы к н я гй н я п о н о с п о н е с л а , а п о н о с п он есла и ди тя р оди л а. А и н а н е б е п р о с в е т я св е т ё л м е с я ц , а в К йеве р о д й л ся м огуч богаты р ь , как б ы м о л о д ы В б л ь х В с е с л ё в ь е в и ч . П о д р о ж ё л а [м ё т ь ] с ы р ё з е м л я — с т р я с л б с я сл а в н о ц ё р с т в о И н д ё й с к о е , а и сй н ее м ор е ск ол ы бёл ося для р ёди р ож дён ья богаты р ск ого, м о л о д ё В о л ь х ё В сеслёвьевич а; ры ба п о ш л ё в м орск ую глубину, п тй ц а п ол етёл а вы сок о в н еб есё, туры д а олён и з ё горы п ош лй , зёй ц ы , ли сй ц ы п о ч ёщ и ц ам , а в о л к и , м е д в ё д и п о ёд ь н и к а м , с о б о л и , кунйцы п о о стр ов ам . А и б у д е т В б л ь х в п о л т о р а часа, В б л ь х г о в о р й т , к ак г р о м г р е м й т : «А и г о й еси , су д ёр ы н я м ётуш к а,

82 м о л о д а М й рф а В сесл4вьевн а!

30. А н е п ел ен й й в о п е л е н у ч е р ч а т у ю

35.

40.

45.

50.

55.

60.

65.

а не п оя сы п о ёсь я ш елк овы я, п е л е н а й м ен я , [с у д й р ы н я м а т у ш к а ], в крепки латы булатн ы я а на буй н у го л о в у к лади зл ат ш ел ом , п о праву руку палицу, а и тяж к у п али ц у сви н ц овую , а в ё с о м т а п а л и ц а в т р и с т а п у д .» А и б у д е т В о л ь х сем и го д о в , о т д а в а л а е г о м а т у ш к а г р ё м о т е у ч и т ь ,1 а гр ам ота В о л х у в наук пош л а; п о с а д и л а е г о у ж п е р о м п и сй ть , пи сьм о ем у в наук п ош л а. А и б у д ет В ол х десяти годов , 2 поучился В ол ьх ко п рем удр остя м : а и п ёр в ой м у д р о сти учился [В о л х ] — о б в ё р т о в а т ь с я ясн ы м с о к о л о м ; ко д р у г о й -т о м у д р о сти учился он, В о л ь х — обв ёр тов ат ь ся серы м волк ом ; к о т р ё т е й -т о м у д р о с т и у ч и л с я В о л х — о б в ё р т о в а т ь с я гн е д ы м т у р о м , [г н е д ы м т у р о м ] — з о л о т ы я р о г а . А и б у д е т В ол ь х во д в ен й дц ать лёт, ст а л с е б е В о л ь х о н д р у ж и н у п р и б и р а т ь : д р у ж и н у п р и би р ал в три го д ы он, н а б р а л с е б е д р у ж и н у 123 — с е м ь т ы с я ч е й ; сам о н , В о л ь х , в п я т н а д ц а т ь л ё т , и вся е г о д р у ж и н а п о п я т н а д ц а т и л ё т . П р о ш л а т а сл а в а в ел й к а я к о с т о л ь н о м у г о р о д у К и ев у . И н дёй ск ой царь н аряж ёется, а х в а л и т с я -п о х в а л я е т с я : х о ч е т К и ев г р а д з а щ и т о м в е с ь в зя т ь , а б о ж ь и ц ёркви н а ды м сп усти ть и п оч ёстн ы м он асты р и р о зо р и т ь . А в тапоры В ол ь х он д о га д л и в бы л: с о всёю д р у ж й н о ю х о р а б р о ю ,

1 D учиться 2 D втапоры 8 D дружину себе

The Vseslav Epos

70.

75.

80.

85.

90.

95.

100.

105.

к о сл й вн ом у ц ар ств у И н д ёй ск о м у тут ж е с ними во п о х о д пош ёл. Д р у ж и н а с п и т , т а к В о л ь х н е сп и т : 6н обв ер н ётся сер й м волком , б ё г а л -с к а к й л п о т ем н ы м п о л е с а м , [ п о т ем н ы м п о л е с й м ] и п о р а м е н ь ю . А б ь ёт он зв ёр и сохаты я , а и в б л к у , м е д в ё д ю с п у с к у н ёт, а и с о б о л и , б й р с ы — л ю б и м о й к ус, он за й ц а м , л и сй ц ам не б р ёзги в а л . В о л х п о й л -к о р м и л д р у ж й н у х о р о б р а ю , о б у в а л -о д ев а л д о б р ы х м о л о д ц о в : н осй л и о н е ш убы собол й н ы я , п е р е м ё н н ы я ш у б ы -т о б а р с о в ы я . Д р у ж й н а сп й т, так В бл ь х не сп й т 0 н о б в е р н ё т с я ясн ы м с о к о л о м , п ол етёл он д а л ёч е на синё м ор е, а б ь ёт он гусёй , бел ы х л ё б ед е й , а и сё р ы м , м ал ы м у т к а м с п у с к у н ёт. А п о й л -к о р м и л д р у ж й н у ш к у х о р а б р о ю : а в с ё у н е г о б ы л и ёс т в а п ер ем ё н н ы я , п е р е м ё н н ы я ё с т в а , са х а р н ы я . А с т ё л о н В о л х в р а ж б у ч и н й ть : «А и г о й е с и вы , у д а л ы д о б р ы м о л о д ц ы ! н е м н о г о , н е м а л о в ас, с е м ь т ы с я ч ей , — а и ё с т ь л и у в ас, б р а т ц ы , т а к о в ч е л о в ё к , х т о бы о б в е р н у л с я гн е д ы м т у р о м , а сб ёга л бы ко ц арству И н дёй ск ом у, п р ов ёдал бы п р о ц арство И н дёй ск ое, п р о ц а р я С ал т ы к а С т а в р у л ь ев и ч а , п р о ег о б у й н у го л о в у Б ы ты ичеву?»4 К ак б ы л й с т с о т р а в о ю п р и с ы л а е т с я , а в ся е г о д р у ж й н а п р и к л о н я е т с я , — отвечаю т ем у удалы д о б р ы м ол одц ы : « Н ё т у у нйс т а к о г о м о л о д ц а , о п р й ч ь т еб я , В о л х ё В сеславьеви ч а». А т ут т а к о в о й В сеславьеви ч , 0 н о б в е р н у л с я гн е д ы м т у р о м , [г н е д ы м т у р о м ] — з о л о т ы я p o r â , — п о б е ж а л о н к о ц а р с тв у И н д ё й ск о м у :*

* D Батыевичу

83

84

110.

он п ёр вую ск ок з а д е л у в ер ст у ск очйл, а д р у г о й ск ок — не м огл й найтй. 0 н о б в е р н ё т с я ясн ы м с о к о л о м , — п ол етёл он ко ц арству И н дёй ск ом у. И б у д е т о н в о ц а р с т в е И н д ё й с к о [ е ] м ,5 и сёл он на палёты бел ок ём ен н ы , на т ё н а п а л ё т ы ц ё р с к и я , ко т о м у ц арю И н дёй ск ом у,

115. и н а т о о к о ш е ч к о к о с я щ а т о е . А и б у й н ы е в ёт р ы п о н а с т у т я н у т , царь со ц ар и ц ею в р а зго в о р ы гов ор й т. Г ов ор й л а ц ар и ц а А здя к ов н а, м о л о д а Е л ён а А л е к с а н д р о в н а :

120. «А и г о й е с и ты , с л ё в н о й И н д ё й с к о й ц ё р ь ! И з в о л и ш ь ты н а р я ж ё т ь с я н а Р у с ь в о е в ё т ь , п р о то не зн ёеш ь, не в ёдаеш ь: а и н ё н ебе п р осв ет я светёл м есяц , а в К иеве р од и л ся м огуч богаты р ь ,

125. т е б ё ц а р ю с о п р о т й в н и ч и к .» А в т ё п о р ы В о л х , о н д о г ё д л и в бьгл: сй дю ч и на ок ош к е к ося щ атом , он т ё-т о д е рёчи п овы слуш ал, он обв ер н улся горн осталем ,

130. б ё г а л п о п о д в ё л а м , п о п о г р е б а м , п о т ё м п о в ы со к и м т ё р е м а м , у т у г й х л у к о в т е т й в к и н а к у сы в а л , у к а л ё н ы х ст р е л ж е л ё з ц ы п о в ы н и м а л , у т о г о р уж ья ведь у о гн ен н ого

135. к р е м ён ь я и ш о м п о л ы п о в ы д е р г а л , а в сё о н в з ё м л ю за к ё п ы в а л . О б в е р н ё т с я В о л ь х я сн ы м с б к о л о м , — зв и л ся он в ы сок о п о п о д н ёб е сь ю , полетёл он дал ёч е во чи сто п ол е 140. 6 к о с в о е й к о д р у ж й н е х о р о б р ы я . Д р у ж й н а сп й т , т а к В о л ь х н е сп й т , р азбудй л он удёл ы х д о б р ы х м ол одц ов : « Г о й е с й вы , д р у ж й н а х о р о б р а я . Н е врём я сп ёть , п о р ё вставёть, —

Индейск[ие]м? (cf. I 64). e D полетел 5 or

The Vseslav Epos 145 . п о й д ё м м ы к о ц а р с т в у И н д ё й с к о м у » . И приш ли он е ко стен ё бел ок ам ен н ой , к р еп к й с т е н а б е л о к ё м е н н а , в о р о т ы у г о р о д а ж ел ёзн ы я , к р ю к и , з а с о в ы в с е м ёд н ы я , с т о я т к а р а у л ы д е н н ы -н о щ н ы , стои т п од в о р о т н я — д о р о г р ы бей зу б , м у д р ё н ы в ы р е зы в ы р е з е н о , а и т о л ь к о в в ы р езу м ур аш у п р ой ти . И в с ё м о л о д ц ы за к р у ч й н и л и с я , за к р у ч й н и л и с я и з а п е ч ё л и л и с я . Г ов ор ят [о н ё] так ов о сл ов о: « П о т е р я т ь б у д е т г о л о в к и н а п р ё сн ы я , а и к ак нам б у д е т с т е н а п р о й т й ? » М ол од ы В ол ьх, он д о га д л и в бы л: са м о б в е р н у л с я м у р ё ш и к о м и в сёх д о б р ы х м о л о д ц о в м ураш кам и. П р ош л й о н е стён у б ел ок ём ен н у, и стал и м о л о д ц ы у ж на д р у г о й ст о р о н ё, в сл а в н о м ц а р с т в е И н д ё й с к и е м : в сёх обер н ул добр ы м и м олодц ам и , — со св о ёю стали сб р у ею со ратною . А в сё м м о л о д ц ё м о н п р и к ё з о т д а ё т : « Г о й е с й вы , д р у ж й н а х о р о б р а я ! Х о д й те п о царству И н дёй ск ом у, р у б й т е с т ёр о г о -м ёл о г о , н е о с т ё в ь т е в ц ё р с т в е н а с ё м ен а . О с т ё в ь т е т о л ь к о вы п о в ы б о р у — не м н ого, не м ёл о, сем ь ты сячей — д у ш е ч к и к р ёсн ы д ё в и ц ы .» А и х о д я т 7 п о цёр ству И н дёй ск ом у, а и р убя т с т ёр о го -м ёл о г о , а .и т о л ь к о о с т а в л я ю т п о в ы б о р у д у ш е ч к и к р ё сн ы д ё в и ц ы . А сём он В о л ь х во палёты п ош ёл , во тё во палёты ц ёр ск и я, ко т о м у ц арю ко И н дёй ск ом у. Д в ер и бы ли у п ал ёт ж ел ёзн ы я , к р ю к и , п р о б о и п о б у л ё т у зл ё ч е н ы . Г о в о р й т т у т В б л ь х В с ес л ё в ь е в и ч :*

150.

155.

160.

165.

170.

175.

180.

*

D adds его дружина

85

86 185. « Х о т я

H o r â и з л о м й т ь , а д в е р и в й с т а в и т ь !» П н ет н о г б й в о д в ё р и ж е л ё з н ы я — и з л о м а л в се п р о б о и б у л а т н ы я . О н б ер ёт царя за бел ы руки, а сл ав н ого царя И н д ёй ск о го , 190. [ц а р я ] С ал ты к а С т а в р у л ь ев и ч а . Г оворит тут В ольх таково сл ово: «А и в ё с -т о ц а р ё й н е б ь ю т , н е к а зн я т .» У хватя ег о , у д а р и л о к и р п й щ а то й п ол, р а с ш й б е г о в к р о х и го в ён н ы я . 195. И т у т В о л ь х сам ц а р ё м н а с ё л , в зя в ш и ц а р й ц у А зв я к о в н у , а и м о л о д у Е л ён у А л ек сан др ов н у; а и та его др уж й н а х ор обр ы я и на т ё х н а д е в й ц а х п е р е ж е н й л и с я . 200. А и м о л о д ы В о л ь х т у т ц а р ё м н а сё л , а т о стали — л ю д и п осад ск и я : о н з л а т а -с ё р е б р а вы кати л, а и к о н ё й -к о р о в т а б у н о м д е л й л , а на в с я к о г о бр й т а п о с т у т ы с я ч ей .

II

R E V IE W S

T H E R U S S IA N

L A U R E N T IA N T E X T

P R IM A R Y

C H R O N IC L E :

(S . H . C R O SS A N D

O . P . S H E R B O W IT Z -W E T Z O R )

S amuel H azzard C ross

and O loerd P. S herbowitz -W etzor , translators and editors. The R ussian P rim a ry Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mediaeval Academy of

America, 1953. Pp. xi, 313. $5 ($4 to members of the Mediaeval Academy and subscribers to Specu ­ lum ).

T his publication represents the second edition of the late Professor Cross’s

English version of the Prim ary Chronicle published in 1930 (Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, x ii ). As Professor Sherbowitz-Wetzor points out in his Preface, the two editions are not identical. The second edition is more extensive than the first one; while the latter had notes to the Introduction b ut not to the translated text itself, the present edition contains numerous notes commenting upon the Russian Prim ary Chronicle and its two Appendices (420 notes, pp. 231-287). These new notes are due in their fundamentals, as the Pref­ ace states, to Professor Cross but they, as well as the notes to the Introduction, have been brought up-to-date by Professor Sherbowitz-Wetzor. His contribution has been self-effacingly fitted into the late master’s shape of ideas, but it is consistently felt all through the notes. An up-to-date selected bibliography of sources and scholarly works has been added in the present edition; a Table of Princes listing in a chronological order the “occupants of the chief Rurikid thrones during the period covered by the Primary Chronicle” (pp. 297-298) fol-

II

258

Review

lows the bibliography, and itself is followed by a genealogy for the same period. Two small, but clearly designed, maps precede the Introduction, replacing the former not too happy adaptation from L. Niederle by S. H. Cross; one of the maps gives the cities and rivers (not the boundaries of the principalities!) of Kievan Russia (tenth-twelfth centuries), the other being th a t of E ast Slavic tribes and their neighbors in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. An Index of Names (pp. 299-313) concludes the volume as a final addition. While a transla­ tion of “events of 1110-1113 from Hypatian Text” as Appendix I II concluded the first edition, this translation has not been included in the present publication. The second edition considerably improved the transliteration of Russian terms as compared to the edition of 1930. A doctrine has been set in the “Note on Transliteration” in the beginning of the volume, and, on the whole, consistently adhered to. Terms incompletely transliterated in the first edition, such as “Nachalnaya Letopis” (ed. 1930, p. 77) or “Sofiski Vremennik” (ib., p. 79) have been transliterated completely in the second edition: “N achal’naya Letopis' ” (p. 3), “Sofiyskiy Vremennik” (p. 6). On the other hand, in the second edition all quotations from Russian have been given in Latin letters, contrarily to the first edition, which, especially in the notes, regularly used the Russian alphabet for titles and quotations of texts. This does not constitute an improvement, add­ ing a difficulty for the reader which did not exist formerly (I obviously have in mind the specialist-reader, for the scholarly apparatus would not interest the non-specialist); one guesses th a t this exclusive use of Latin alphabet resulted from technical difficulties of printing. Professor Sherbowitz-Wetzor also corrected Professor Cross's anachronistic approach to the name of Leningrad, which in the first edition was substituted for Saint Petersburg even as early as 1768 (ed. 1930, p. 81, note 1); however, the new editor did not go far enough in this correction, using the term “Leningrad” for 1920, 1922, 1923 (pp. 288, 290 and others), although this name was given to Peter's city only in 1924 (after Lenin’s death) and between 1914 and 1924 it was called “Petrograd” (the name the editor himself correctly uses for a publication of 1923 on p. 250). The text of the first edition has been treated with reverence by Professor Sherbowitz-Wetzor. The scholarly Introduction which precedes the translation in the edition of 1930 has been left, on the whole, unchanged, with the exception of transliteration and such corrections as substituting “Jeremy” for “Ephraim ” (ed. 1930, p. 81) for one of the four biographies by Nestor (p. 6), “Boris, Prince of Bulgaria” (p. 25) for “Michael, Tsar of Bulgaria” (ed. 1930, p. 102) and th a t of “M agyar” (p. 33) and “Hungarian” (p. 35) for “Hun, Hunnish” (ed. 1930, pp. 113 and 115). Even the reference to the revision of the Czech translation of the Primary Chronicle by K. Erben, which Professor MiloS Weingart was preparing in 1930 (ed. 1930, p. 80) is not changed in the edition of 1953 (“is now in prepara­ tion,” p. 6). This means th a t the Introduction was not brought up-to-date in the new edition, although as the Selected Bibliography shows, important publica­ tions on problems treated in the Introduction appeared in the meantime. One must especially regret th a t no consideration was given to A. A. Shakhmatov's second volume of his Povest’ Vremennykk Let, the major p art of which was post-

II

Review

259

humously published in 1940 (Povest* Vremennykh Let г ее istochniki in Trudy Otdela Drevne-russkoy Literatury, rv, 9-150; cf. Selected Bibliography). This is the more regrettable as in his Introduction Professor Cross did mention a t the time the promise of this second volume by Shakhmatov, looking forward to its publication (p. 13-14). Also, N. K. Nikol’sky’s theory on the Moravian sources of the Prim ary Chronicle expounded in 1930 (Povest* Vremennykh Let как Istochnik Russkoy Pis*mennosti i KvVtury) remained outside of the scope of th u Introduction (although again mentioned in the Selected Bibliography). The Introduction, after a brief review of “Manuscripts and Editions” (pp. 3-6) deals successively with the following topics: Authorship; Composition; Sources; Chronology and The Traditional Origin of Rus’. The latter topic is treated extensively, with about one third of the Introduction (pp. 35-50) de­ voted to it, although the scope of this topic, certainly connected with the Chron­ icle, nevertheless transcends it considerably. I t is a clear, pertinent and solidly documented presentation of the Scandinavian thesis. To this reviewer, together with the pages devoted to Chronology (pp. 30-35), it appears to be the best part of the Introduction. The section on Authorship is an equally solid presentation of the anti-Nestorian thesis. I t is a strong thesis, as is shown by Professor Cross, and still it does not solve the problem, for, whatever is the contention, the tradition which since the thirteenth century has connected the Povest* Vremennykh Let with the name of Nestor cannot be disregarded. The closer one examines the evidence the more convincing it becomes (cf. its analysis by L. V. Cherepnin, “Povest* Vremennykh L et,” Istoricheskie Zapiski, xxv [1948], 305). As to the discrepancies between the Prim ary Chronicle and Nestor’s biographies, they remain a problem, not yet solved. Recently, a hint has been formulated th a t Nestor-the-Chronicler and Nestor-the-hagiographer could have been two different persons (D. S. Likhachev, chapter on “Literature” in Istoriya KvVtury Drevney Rusi, П , (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951), 187, note). This hypothesis would not be contrary to Professor Cross’s assumption th a t “it is not intrinsically impossible th at the entire Povest* was written or compiled by one monk of the Crypt Monastery in the course of the second half of the eleventh century” (p. 12). W ritten or compiled? This brings us to A. Shakhmatov’s theory on the com­ position of the Code related (as well as th a t of V. M. Istrin) in the sub-chapter on Composition, by Professor Cross. He rejects both of these hypotheses based on the assumption of several stages in the formation of the Primary Chronicle. For Professor Cross, “the Povest* should for the present be viewed as a homogen­ eous work, the product of one author, preserved with minor variants in one generally prevalent redaction, and dating from about 1113” (p. 21). This re­ viewer m ust emphasize that, while refusing to accept A. Shakhmatov’s (or V. Istrin’s) thesis, Professor Cross did not oppose to either of them his own elaborate demonstration. The rejection is somewhat sweeping, and whatever scepticism may be valid regarding certain aspects of the rejected theories, to offer adequate replacement they must be matched by an equally thorough performance. I have in mind especially A. Shakhmatov’s lifelong effort based on a most meticu-

260

Review

tous study of the whole legacy of Russian chronicles, the linguistical, philological, and historical data jointly adduced for their careful analysis. This inquiry led A. Shakhmatov to the uncovering in the Russian chronicles of successive layers of compilations as far in the past as analysis allowed to go, layers he attem pted to reproduce in a series of reconstructions; some of his hypotheses have been confinned by new manuscripts actually discovered afterwards, such as the Muscovite compilation of 1479 and the Novgorod compilation of 1589 (cf. D. S. Likhachev, Russkie Letopisi [Moscow-Leningrad, 1947], p. 19). This vindication lends to Shakhmatov’s method a great assumption of correctness, and it is not surprising th at also with regard to the Prim ary Chronicle it proves to be more conclusive than the hypothesis formulated by Professor Cross. There are numerous in­ consistencies and contradictions in the Prim ary Chronicle which hardly could have existed in a story written a t once by the same author, whatever the sources used by him, and which can be explained only by the existence of several redac­ tions replacing each other in successive compilations. Then, there is the problem of chronology: as A. Shakhmatov pointed it out (op. cit., p. 37), there is evidence th at parts of the Chronicle were written prior to 1044, such as the notation anno 977 “so they buried Oleg in the city of Vruchiy, and his tomb is there to this day” (for 1044 there is a notation on the transfer of Oleg Svyatoslavich’s body to the Church of the Holy Virgin). Whatever are the weak points of Shakhmatov’s analysis (and the author himself referred to his findings as to mere hypotheses), to lay them bare more than a summary dismissal is required. We m ust point out th a t Professor Cross himself concludes his section on Chronology with the as­ sumption “that from the conversion of Vladimir sufficient chronological material was preserved in ecclesiastical records to serve as a satisfactory basis for the compiler’s work as far as the point where his own notes and reminiscences pro­ vided his chronological outline” (p. 35). Why not adm it th a t this chronological material took the form of annual notations, i.e., of Annals, compiled into a chronicle on several major occasions? This point of view would not be too re­ moved from th a t of Shakhmatov. The sources of the Primary Chronicle are examined on pp. 23-30 in a brief b u t comprehensive account. We must regret th a t Professor Cross could not avail himself of A. Shakhmatov’s posthumous study; a few sources not considered by Cross are analyzed in it, such as Khronograph osobago sostava (op. cit., pp. 72-80) and Skazanie о prelozhenii hnig na slovenskiy yazyk (tb., pp. 80-92) reconstructed by Shakhmatov. I t might have also influenced Professor Cross’s ideas on Paleya as source of the Povest’ (taken from M. Sukhomlinov “O Drevney Russkoy Letopisi как Pamyatnike Literatumom ,” Saint Petersburg, 1856) : in his analysis of Rech Philosopha as a source of the Povest’ (pp. 122-149) A. Shakhmatov stud­ ies side by side this text and the corresponding text of the Paleya to conclude th a t both the Povest’ and the Paleya used for it the same source, which was a Khronograph. As to the reciprocal influence of the Povest* and the Paleya already V. M. Istrin’s analysis of the content of the latter reduced the problem to a one­ way influence, th a t of the Povest’ on the Paleya, and by no means vice-versa, among other considerations, for chronological reasons, all copies of the Paleya

Review

261

being more recent than the Povest' (Redakdi Tolkovoy Palely i-v, Izvestiya Otdela Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, t. x, kn. 4 [1905]; t. xi, kn. 1, %y 3, [1906]; see also A. Shakhmatov, Tolkovaya Paleya i Russkaya Letojpis*, Sbomik statey po slavyanovedeniyu, i, (Saint Petersburg, 1904). The translation of the Russian Prim ary Chronicle has been amended only ex­ ceptionally in this edition as compared with th at of 1930. As there were no quotations in Russian, no additional transliteration was necessary; th a t of the former edition underwent, however, the corrections made mandatory by Profes­ sor Sherbowitz-Wetzor’s initially established doctrine (which this reviewer fol­ lows in the present review). These corrections provided the new editor with an opportunity to rectify certain quotations of terms; thus, e.g., “Liv* ” (p. 52) has been substituted for “Lyub” (ed. 1930* p. 137) and “Suteysk” (p. 211) for “Suteiska” (ed. 1930, p. 306). Also other corrections have been made here and there: on p. 63, Ps., lxxi, 17 and Acts, ii, 4, have been substituted as sources of quotations from the Bible for Luke, xxiii, 38, and John, xix, 20, on p. 148 of ed. 1930, which was an obvious mistake; also, on p. 148 we read correctly “Tukÿ, the brother of Chudin” instead of “brother of Chud” (ed. 1930, p. 237). Among other corrections, one may mention the correct translation of “v pyatok” (Povest’ Vremennykh Let, anno 1096) by “on Friday” (p. 183) as against “on Thursday” (ed. 1930, p. 274), th a t of “uspenie” (anno 1074) by “dormition” (p. 156) in­ stead of “assumption” (ed. 1930, p. 245), th a t of “Spas svyatÿy” (anno 1096) by “Redeemer” (p. 185) instead of “Holy Savior” (ed. 1930, p. 277) and other similar variations. Passages on pp. 51-52 and on pp. 70-71 have been italicized in the new edition, to m ark their derivation from Hamartolus, as notes 1 and 41 ex­ plain; italics have been used also, most of the time in both editions, to mark references to the books of the Holy Scripture such as mentioned above, the very few explanatory sentences added to the translated text (pp. 64, 74 and 77), and the very few terms, exceptionally kept in Russian (grima; oplatki, p. 98; кипу, p. 132) or in the Norse equivalent of the term used by the Chronicle (vira, anno 996, rendered by wergild and italicized in the new edition, p. 122). One must empha­ size, however, th a t in certain cases, italics marking in the first edition words not existing in the original have been suppressed in the second edition: thus, anno 1050, there is in the Chronicle mention of the death of “the Princess, wife of Yaroslav” (without the date) ; Professor Cross added in italics “on February 10” (ed. 1930, p . 228) without explaining it in a note. The second edition has sup­ pressed the italics, making out of this addition a part of the text (again without justifying it, if possible, in a note) ; it is an example of the few cases, where the second edition did not improve upon the first one. W hat certainly represents an improvement, is the mention of the date running a t the top of the page to the right of the volume, which greatly facilitates using the translation. I t m ust be regretted th a t no further modifications have been undertaken in the new edition with regard to Professor Cross’s translation of 1930, open to criticism in many regards. I t is unquestionably a very fluent and readable trans­ lation, much more readable than the original, couched as it is in a clear, simple, one would say epical style. Much of the clarity is obtained by the division of the

II

262

Review

text of the Chronicle into smaller paragraphs which follow the development and rhythm of the longer annual story. All this is an asset, the more praiseworthy th a t Professor Cross’s work is a pioneer’s enterprise inasmuch as translation in English is concerned. And it is, on the whole, a faithful translation. There are, nevertheless, serious deficiencies. No variant readings to the Laurentian text have been given, although the Prim ary Chronicle has been preserved, completely or partially, in numerous codices (cf. A. Shakhmatov, op. cit.y pp. 12-21; also Povest’ Vremennykh Let [1950], n , 149-181, edition quoting variant readings from thirteen chronicles). The translation also ignores controversies concerning readings, or a t least keeps the reader non-informed of their existence. This means th a t translation is offered without justification and alternative. W ith the very few exceptions mentioned above which concern Russian terms taken over without translation, the original terms are never indicated by the translator (this is consistent with the lack of justification for their translation). In the translation of several passages, direct speech has been replaced by a restatement not exceptionally, but recurrently, with a consistency of method. Abo, on some occasions, the breaking down (for the purpose of clarity?) of a longer paragraph into shorter sentences resulted in changing the sense of the original. To these major deficiencies must be added minor ones: lack of consistency in the transla­ tion of the same formula, lack of precision in the translation of certain terms, occasional anachronistic treatm ent of geographical terms. To illustrate his criticism, the reviewer will mainly concentrate on three pass­ ages: th a t of 1068 (especially, the story of the rising against Izyaslav), th a t of 1097 (the blinding of Vasil’ko) and the narrative part of the Testam ent of Vladimir Monomakh (pp. 148, 187-192 and 211-215). The first of these passages contains in the original four direct quotations: the translator kept only the first of them. The danger of the translator’s procedure has been proven in the last of the restated quotations: carried by it, he interpolated an explanation — “remark­ ing th at the situation had become serious” — which is absent from the text of the Chronicle. The tale of Vasil’ko’s blinding is a dramatic tale, and this reviewer counted in it thirty-seven quotations of direct speech; the translator reduced them to twenty. The phrase “celovasha krest” has been correctly translated “they took oath” (p. 188), while “i celovavshesya poidosha vo svoyasi” has been ren­ dered as “and having taken oath, returned each to his domain” (ib.; “returned home” would be more precise) ; however, “celovasta krest mezhdu soboyu” has been translated “they had exchanged pledges” on p. 195 (anno 1097) and “razidoshasya vo svoyasi” “departed to their several districts” on p. 155 (anno 1072). This different translation slightly irks the philologist, but it does not change the understanding of the text; th a t of Vladimir Monomakh’s testament, however, includes variations which change this understanding. This translation is uneven: in th a t of the verbs “khoditi” and “idti,” both used to describe as well military expeditions as peaceful journeys, Professor Crosss happily avoided monotony by varying the English verb, although in strict conformity with the sense of the original. He also rightly translated “posadniki” as “lieutenants” (p. 215), which makes wonder why on p. 197 the same term has been translated as “regent.”

II

Review

263

The translation of “lyudi” as “retainers” is, on the other hand, rather unex­ pected: on p. 211, in the same document, this term has been correctly translated “the people” as different from “retainers,” both terms occurring one after an­ other. The translation of “v konyusekh,” in the context of a sentence describing Vladimir Monomakh's personal care of the problems of the hunt, as “I looked after the stables” (p. 215) is not happily chosen; the whole sentence should be translated: “And I personally directed the arrangement of the hunt, as to the huntsmen and the equerries fv konyusekh] and the falcons and the hawks.” In another sentence regarding Vladimir Monomakh’s hunts the words “i do sego leta po stu uganival” have been translated “even up to the present time, I have made a practice of hunting a hundred times a year” (p. 214), whereas a simpler and more adequate translation would be “ . . . I have been bringing to bay as many as a hundred (beasts) a t a time.” The parchment of the Laurentian text is broken after “i do” (see Povest’ Vremennykh Let, ed. 1950, t. n, p. 199 note xvi/6) which creates a difficulty of reading, and consequently of translation, and one must regret th a t it has not been mentioned in the translator’s note. The Testament of Vladimir Monomakh contains several problematic readings. T h at of “semtsyu” (p. 212) has been pointed out by the translator (or editor?) in a note (13a, p. 286), but this is the only one mentioned by him. Thus, the plausible conjectures formulated by I. Ivakin have been paid no attention a t all (Knyaz* Vladimir Monomakh i Ego Pouchenie [Moscow, 1901]). Amoug them we will mention two: th a t correcting “i potom’ khodikhom v voinu s Svyatopolkom” (Professor Cross’s translation is: “In company with Svyatopolk, I set out once more upon a campaign,” p. 214) to be read “i potom khodikhom к Voinyu . . . ” (quoted from “Povest* Vremennykh Let” ed. 1950, t. i, p. 161, and t. n , p. 199, not xv i/1 ), a much more plausible reading, for it is parallel to “i potom’ раку na Don idokhom s Svyatopolkom . . . ” (translation: “With Svyatopolk . . . I later went as far as the Don,” ib.) which follows immediately. The translation of the corrected phrase would be: “And then, with Svyatopolk, we marched to Voin’, and then again to the Don with Svyatopolk . . . ,” which would be more consistent with the rest of the Chronicle (cf. anno 1110: “In the spring, Svyato­ polk, Vladimir, and David marched forth to attack the Polovcians, but returned after reaching Voin*, ” Cross, p. 204, and anno 1111, the expedition to the Don, translated from the Hypatian text, Cross, ed. 1930, pp. 315-316). Also I. Ivakin’s conjecture substituting “v Salnyu” (river where the great victory of 1111 took place according to the Chronicle, in which the form “Salnica” is used, lx.) for “v Slavliy,” geographically and historically not identifiable (Povest* Vremennykh Let, ed. 1950, t. i, p. 163, and t. n, p. 199, note xvi/5) has been disregarded by Professor Cross (who transliterates “Slavliy” as “Slavlya,” p. 214). In the translation of the Testament we also find, as elsewhere, examples of Professor Cross’s anachronistic treatm ent of geographical terms. He constantly refers to “Berest’e” as “Brest” (p. 211), a Great Russian term given to this town after its annexation by Russia in 1796; he also renders “do Glogovy” as “beyond Glogau” (p. 211) which is a Germanized form of this Silesian city (the Polish

II

264

Review

term “Glog6w” would be more correct, althought it would be best to follow the chronicle in rendering “Glogova” to avoid anachronism). On the other hand, although the form “PeremyshT ” in the Chronicle has been rendered w ithout change by the translator, the modem Polish form “Przemyél” appears in the Introduction (p. 27) and in the notes (“Vasil’ko and Volodar’ were guaranteed the possession of Terebovl* and Przemyâl respectively,” p. 280, note 324; also p. 275, n. 280: “Rurik . . . Prince of Przemyél, in Galicia.”). One wonders also why the German form “Lemberg” has been chosen to define the modem city of Lw6w (Ukr. L ’viv, L ’vov in the Chronicle), without qualifying the term (p. 274, n. 267). An example of a translation, where the sense has been modified by a fragmenta­ tion of the original sentence may be drawn from the notation anno 1102 on p. 199 (there is also substitution of restatement for direct quotation in the same text as well as a major slip in the translation). The original is: “I pride Mstislav Kievu, i sedosha v-yzbe, i resha muzhi Volodimeri: “Se prislal Volodimer syna svoego, da se sedyat* novgorodtsi, da poimshe syna tvoego i idut* Novugorodu, a M ’stislav da idet’ Volodimeryu . . . ” (Povest’ Vremennykh Let, ed. 1950, t. i,p . 182). Before translating this original sentence as we understand it, we will quote for the context Professor Cross’s correct translation of the preceding sen­ tence: “On December 20 of the same year, Mstislav, the son of Vladimir, arrived (at Kiev) with (a suite of) Novgorodians, since Svyatopolk had made an agree­ ment with Vladimir whereby Svyatopolk should take over Novgorod and appoint his (own) son as prince there, while Vladimir was to appoint his (own) son prince in (the domain of) Vladimir” (p. 199; the parentheses have been inserted by the reviewer to indicate words of the translation which are absent from the original: the reviewer also has doubts on the adequacy of translating “posaditi” not as “to place as lieutenant” but as “to appoint prince”). The reviewer would have continued with the following translation of the quoted sentence of the original: “And Mstislav arrived a t Kiev, and they sat down in a chamber [i.e., Mstislav with the Novgorodians, Svyatopolk, and Vladimir Monomakh’s men — the re­ viewer’s note] and Vladimir’s men said: “Lo! Vladimir sent his son (to you), and here sit the Novgorodians; let them take your son and go to Novgorod, and let Mstislav go to Vladimir.” Then the Novgorodians said to Svyatopolk . . . .” Professor Cross’s translation is different: “Mstislav thus arrived a t Kiev, and settled [singular!] in a house. The men of the city of Vladimir [this translation is erroneous; it would be correct, if the original were not “muzhi Volodimeri,” but “volodimertsi,” parallel to “novgorodtsi,” which it is not] then called to Svyatopolk’s attention th a t Vladimir had sent forward his son, and th a t the Novgorodians had already arrived [a free translation, and a restatement of direct quotation of speech]. They therefore urged [this is an interpolation by the trans­ lator] th at the latter should take Svyatopolk’s son with them and return to Novgorod, while Mstislav should depart for Vladimir [again restatem ent of direct speech]. The men from Novgorod then spoke up and declared to Svyato­ polk . . . ” (p. 199; the remarks in brackets belong to the reviewer). The Notes to Introduction (pp. 220-230, 88 notes mostly reproducing the

II

Review

265

material of the first edition, but containing here and there additions bringing it up-to-date) represent first rate scholarly information. Issue will be taken here only with the note on Slavic paganism (note 55, pp. 226-227) : Perun is a Slavic divinity of Indo-European origin, only identified with Thor by the Varangians (and not imported by the Varangians as Professor Cross has advanced) ; Khors (XurSid in Persan) is a borrowing from the Iranian name of the sun; Simargl is not a copyist’s combination of Sim and Rogl, but the Iranian winged demon Simorg, and Volos (or Veles) as “god of flocks” (there is no evidence of Volos being the god of the dead) is anterior to Christianization and consequently to the cult of St Blasius (see p. 65, the treaty of 907 with the Greeks; cf. on Slavic mythology Roman Jakobson's article in Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, и [New York, 1950], 1025-1028). The Notes to the Russian Prim ary Chronicle did not figure in the edition of 1930. They are numerous (388 notes and an additional note, on pp. 231-284) and supply the student of the Prim ary Chronicle with a wealth of scholarly material. Especially, the data on Christianization of Russia have been studied in the notes in great detail; also the churches mentioned in the Primary Chronicle have been minutely described. Next in line of importance is the geographical ma­ terial, and then the genealogical information. Less attention has been devoted to domestic historical events, and least of all, to institutions. One also misses a more extensive comment of the etymology of terms, but this gap naturally re­ sults from the omission of Russian terms in the translation itself. The scholarly material thus offered is rich, but it m ust be pointed out, its value is uneven. The most reliable part is th a t dealing with ecclesiastical m at­ ters, and it contains much useful information. As to geographical comments, for the city of Kiev they are both detailed and pertinent. One only regrets th a t the editor took over from his sources not only the names of the streets, but the Russian abbreviation “Ul.” (of “ulica,” i.e. “street”), which very conveniently could have been translated (see note 168— “Ul. Korolenko” and note 111— “Ul. Revolyutsii;” also note 166; to identify the parts of Kiev described in the notes, it also would be helpful to have their pre-Revolutionary names). Generally, however, there is laxity of geographical terminology: thus, note 9 mentions the N orthern Bug (for the Volhynian tribe of the Dulebians) and note 145 describes Polotsk as situated “a t the headwaters of the southern D vina.” Obviously, the Western Bug (term correctly used in note 337) and the Western Dvina are meant, while Polotsk is removed more than 200 miles from the beginning of the latter: it certainly controlled the movement up the river, but “the portage from the latter to the Dnieper” was situated much nearer Smolensk. The Zimegola did not live “on the east bank of the Dvina between Polotsk and Pskov and the Finnish Esthonians,” as stated in note 372, but on the west bank of th a t river, between approximately the locality of future Dunaburg and th a t of future Riga. The habitat of the nomadic Torks could not be on the upper Don (note 90), for their horses could not have advanced farther N orth than the line of the forests: it was on both banks of the loop of the Dnieper, extending to the middle course of the Donets. The reviewer attributes to deficient proofreading such statements as

266

Review

“Vom’ was eight miles south of Pereyaslavl’ ” (note 196; is it not eighty miles?) and “the principality of Murom-Ryazan’ . . . bordered a t its northwestern extremity on the seats of the Finnish tribes along the Volga, of which the Mordva were one” (note 364; probably, northeastern extremity). Is not also the division of grima into 26 кипу (note 25) a misprint? No such division has been reported in the sources: we only know a grima кип containing 25 кипу, or, in the twelfth century, 50 кипу. One really is sorry th a t this volume has not been followed by a list of errata in conformity with a custom existing of old, but somehow dis­ carded in our times. The Notes to the Russian Primary Chronicle contain a number of statements which did not impress this reviewer as particularly convincing. I t would be pre­ posterous to attem pt rectification of all of them in the narrow frame of a review. Issue must be taken, however, with some of them a t least, and it will be done as briefly as possible. In one of the rare notes devoted to the justification of a translation, the phrase “umÿkivakhu u vodÿ devitsya” (Povest* Vremennykh Let, ed. 1950, t. i, p. 15) is given the form “umÿkivakhu uvodÿ” to justify Professor Cross’s translation “they seized upon maidens by capture” (p. 5*6; note 12: following Brückner, “uvodÿ” is understood as instrum, plur., and precision is given to the translation by a more literal rendering “carried off by capture”). This tautological interpreta­ tion is not convincing: much more plausible is A. Klevanov’s translation “kogda te prikhodili za vodoyu” (when they used to come for water); cf. LeUrpisnyy Razskaz Sobytiy Kievskoy, Volynskoy i Galitskoy Rusi ot Eya Nachala do Poloviny X I V Veka (Moscow, 1871), p. 6. In note 167, we read th a t “St. Sophia was not consecrated until 4 November, 1061 or 1067.” The date is precise, but no evidence is given, and there is none in the Primary Chronicle, which, however, mentions th a t in 1051 “Yaroslav, after assembling the bishops, appointed Hilarion Metropolitan of Rus* in St. Sophia;” (p. 139) obviously by 1051 St Sophia was already consecrated. The comments contained in notes 284 and 292 are misleading in their inter­ pretation of the rule of seniority as a basis for princely succession in Kievan Russia. In yielding the throne of Kiev to his cousin Svyatopolk, Vladimir Monomakh complied with the rule of princely seniority; however, the latter was not physical, but dynastical seniority, expressed in the system of “lestvichnoe voskhozhdenie,” i.e., “ascent by grades” followed since Yaroslav’s death in 1054. As the Chronicle relates it (pp. 142-143), Yaroslav distributed the cities of Rus* to his sons, the importance of the city matching the status of the son in terms of age : Kiev went to the oldest son, Izyaslav, Chernigov (the second in importance) to Svyatoslav, Pereyaslavl’ to the third son Vsevolod, and so forth. W ith the death of Izyaslav, Svyatoslav had to become prince of Kiev, Vsevolod had to move to Chernigov, and also the other brothers were moving up closer to the city of Kiev. With the death of the last of the surviving brothers, Vsevolod, as a prince of Kiev, in 1093, the oldest son of Izyaslav Svyatopolk had to become prince of th at city, and Vladimir Monomakh did comply with the custom. As to Vladimir Monomakh’s surrender of Chernigov to Oleg Svyatoslavich,

Review

267

it followed a different principle, th a t of patrimoniality, in contradiction with the former, but gradually asserting itself among the grandsons of Yaroslav. Oleg’s father, Svyatoslav, between 1073 and his death in 1076, was prince of Kiev by usurpation, having had routed from Kiev his older brother Izyaslav. From the point of view of the custom, he never was the legal prince of Kiev, and, according to custom again, his sons lost their family rights of succession; they became izgoi, i.e., déclassés. This explains Vladimir Monomakh’s holding Cherni­ gov in 1094 as it does Oleg’s tragic biography. At th at time, the multiplicity of princes, on one hand, and, on the other hand, the preference shown by local populations for the progeny of their local princes, greatly weakened the principle of “ascent by grades.” Vladimir Monomakh’s surrender of Chernigov to Oleg is the first recognition of the new principle: in 1096, a t Lyubech, this prin­ ciple became universal, as it is shown so clearly in note 324. To sum up, the reviewer underscores the enormous amount of scholarly work which is a t the basis of The Russian Primary Chronicle, as translated and an­ notated by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. This work appeals for gratitude on the p art of all those who cherish the study of Russian history in English-speaking countries. I t is a pioneering work, and as such it could not attain perfection a t once. M ay we hope th at further editions will remove the weaknesses pointed out in this review? Also, if another translation were contemplated by a Slavist, th a t of the Hypatian Codex would be most welcome as a parallel and new endeavor. I t would compensate for the exclusive attention which so far has been given to the Laurentian text by translators of different nations.

Ill ASPECTS OF FEUDALISM IN RUSSIAN HISTORY

I. A

Definitions

se a rc h for the feudal aspects of Russian institutions must

/ \

begin with a definition of feudalism and a delimitation of the historical and geographical area to study. As to / \ the latter, it will cover European Great Russia. It is Great •*- Russia which has supplied the unity and continuity of Russian history since the thirteenth century, and the history of Great Russia can be carried back further than that. Asiatic Russia is excluded, for Great Russian feudal institutions (truly feudal or not) did not spread there.1 Although Great Russian in population, the city-domi­ nated republics of Novgorod and Pskov are not relevant to our subject prior to their annexation by Muscovy.2 Thus delimited, the area of our study is a historically composite unit consisting roughly of three main regions, each with a different background: the lands on the upper and middle course of the .Volga and on its tributary, the Oka, which formed the Grand Principality of Moscow as of 1 4 6 2 ; lands to the west, north, and northeast of the Grand Principality, forming the territories formerly belonging to the Republic of Novgorod and the tiny Republic of Pskov, which the Grand Principality absorbed respectively in 1478 and 1 5 1 0 ; and, lands in the southeast, originally non-Russian, which became a part of the Grand Principality after 1552 under Ivan the Terrible and were shortly settled by Great Russians.3 1 There are excluded the “feudal states of central Asia and Transcaucasia” (a term customary among Soviet historians), and the Tartar khanates of the Volga, Crimea, and Siberia. If any of these were feudal, they are not in the historic Great Russian descent. * Kievan-Novgorodian Russia will be considered only as historical background. Feudal institutions developed in the western territories of that part of Russia which fell under the Lithuanian or Polish rule for a part or all of the period from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Those institutions, for the most part in the Polish tradition, are, however, distinct from Great Russian institutions. * The frontiers of the Great Russian area under our study run about as follows: the European coast of the Arctic Ocean as far west as the border of Finland; from there southward to Leningrad, and frôm there irregularly southward and a little eastward to the mouth of the River Don; then to the mouth of the River Terek on the Caspian Sea, and thence to the Ural Mountains which separate Europe from Asia; finally along the line of the Urals to the Arctic Ocean.

Ill

As to the meaning of feudalism, it happens that we arc excused here from the task of making a definition since one has been provided al­ ready in the Introductory Essay.4 Thac definition, with its emphasis upon the primacy of the political facet of feudalism, will serve as criterion, when we come to determine finally the extent and character of feudalism in Russia. Meanwhile, since it is not an inflexible defini­ tion, it will not inhibit the use of the term quite freely in analytical! inquiry. The inquiry falls naturally into two parts both on chronological and on substantive grounds: from origins until the rise of Moscow, and under Muscovite and modern Russian regimes. The change from the one to the other is not, of course, momentary; it is a gradual transi­ tion, occurring as Muscovy spreads over Great Russia and the character of the Muscovite regime unfolds itself. ii. Historical Background: Feudal Aspects in Central Russian Principalities Before the invasion of the Tartars the region around Moscow formed a part of one state with the Novgorodian regions and the territories of the basin of the Dnieper. It had been founded by a Scandinavian dynasty in the middle of the ninth century, but subsequently had suffered many strains upon its unity; the Tartar invasion was the final blow. In this Kievo-Novgorodian Russia trade with Byzantium and the Middle East was very important, and this gave political predominance to the big cities and the merchant population within diose cities. The country as a whole offered the picture of a federation of regions with a common dynasty as a link, every region being ruled by the sovereign assembly of its biggest city. No prince could maintain his power against the will of this assembly in which all chiefs of families of the city participated. Institutions were influenced very strongly by this pre­ eminence of urban life, and the documents of this period, such as “Russian Justice,” a code of laws whose most ancient provisions go back to the beginning of the eleventh century, are witnesses thereof. Agriculture, certainly, was important, but until the middle of the twelfth century there were no big landed properties outside of those of the church, and one can assume that the rural population did not yet come into a relation of dependence on landlords, lay or ecclesiastical. Slaves were numerous, but they chiefly represented an item of inter­ national trade, if they did not belong to the church. In the latter case, they were employed as manpower on ecclesiastical estates. 4 Above,

pp. 168

III RUSSIA

The situation changed altogether by the middle of the twelfth century. An economic crisis connected with a basic change of the com­ mercial relationships between Western and Eastern Europe made ex­ ternal trade little profitable in the aforesaid territory. An evolution began which toward the second quarter of the thirteenth century re­ sulted in a transformation of Russian economic and social life. With the deterioration of external trade, and finally of the cities, the urban factor ceased to play its former role. The cities lost much of their economic power and lost population. Those of the merchants—or of the military class associated with merchant activity—who had great numbers of slaves found it more profitable to employ them as man­ power on the estates which appear in ever greater number beginning with the middle of the twelfth century. The agricultural population living around these estates, facing an ever greater economic plight, aggravated by constant invasions of the nomads, fell into a dependence on ecclesiastical and lay landlords which did not exist formerly. The former political unity of the Russian Federation, conditioned by com­ mon interest in the same external trade, gave way to ever more cen­ trifugal tendencies, and the princes of the dynasty of Riurik localized their interests, centering them upon their growing landed possessions first of all. Their military men followed their example. These con­ siderations do not apply to the Novgorodian part of pre-Tartar Russia, farther north and nearer to the Baltic. Novgorod still remained a merchant republic, and even after the Tartar invasion did not lose this basic character. The rest of the territory underwent changes both in its political and its agrarian life which have been thought feudal apd were certainly of a character in several ways analogous to feudalism. At the time of the invasion, both in the basin of the Dnieper and in Central Russia this evolution was pretty much advanced. There was, however, a growing difference between the two regions in the form of a major demographic change: the population was moving from the now dangerous area on the Dnieper to the more secure Central Russian area. In the latter territory this settlers* movement, on the one hand, acted as a stimulus to political feudalization, or at any rate to fragmenta­ tion of political authority, but, on the other hand, slowed down the evolution toward greater dependence of the rural population on the owners of the big estates. Thus, in Central Russia there had been little population in the first half of the twelfth century and few important cities. Then, around the middle of the century, suddenly population began to flow into this 169

region in great numbers. The princes took advantage of this situation. They organized the movement of the settlers, and a relationship be­ came established from the beginning in which the settler accepted the condition that the land on which he lived was the local prince’s land, on which the prince had a dominium eminens. In this region far from the main water-lanes of Russia, commercial interests never loomed as large as agricultural ones, and cities were not very powerful. It was not difficult for the prince to assert his pre-eminence over the cities in this region, while at the same time local agricultural interests tended rather to separate than to unite the numerous princes. Each prince, settling population in his territory, faced the task of administering it and providing for its defense. For these functions he needed a special personnel. But money was scarce and trade was poor so that he could not, as in the past of Kievan Russia, attract administrative and fighting men by offering money or a share in commercial profit; the only thing he could offer them was possession of land—land was indeed inex­ haustible. Hence land became the counterpart for service. Yet the great quantity of the land and the shortage of military and administra­ tive servants (plur. bdtare, vol’nye slugi) 5 constituted two very special conditions whose effect upon institutional development was profound. It soon became evident that the relation of the prince with his servant and also of the landlord with the settler could not lead under the circumstances to a very strict dependence of the servant on the prince or of the settler on the landlord (prince himself, military servant, or ecclesiastical institution). The country was enormous in territory and •These are very usual terms in Russian historiography, and in fact they are actually historic terms. The need for them marks one of the conspicuous dif­ ferences between Russian history and the history of the West. At a later period, under Muscovy, “military and administrative servants” were often endowed with a status in some respects not greatly diflerent from that of the feudal vassals of the West, as will appear in the text below. But in earlier times, including the time here under discussion, the sharp separation between land tenure and personal service necessitated words to denote the “servants.” Because of the continuity of the character of the service from the time it was unconnected with land tenure into the time when it became so connected, the same words continue to be used with varying epithets up till Peter the Great’s reorganization both of the service to the state and of the regime of landed property. It is necessary to translate literally into Western terminology since the term “vassal” would be incorrect more often than it would be correct. A strict etymological equivalence might, however, be misleading: the term serjeant in Western languages, serviens in medieval Latin, is a fairly near translation of slugat but it fails to convey the high status of the voVnye slugi or, in Muscovite times, sluzhilye liudi (plur.), and it refers to a comparatively small class in Western feudal society.—Ed. 170

RUSSIA

hardly cultivated as yet; the number of princes was great, and their power more or less equal (an average principality was actually not bigger than the valley of a small river). Competition was great among the princes for military servants and among landlords for settlers at a time when work mattered more than land itself. The result was that freedom both for military servants and for settlers to change their masters became the rule. With regard to the military servant, the rela­ tion amounted to a unilateral commitment binding the prince only; at any time, the military servant could change his allegiance without losing his landed property situated in the principality of his former prince.* This right of “departure” of the prince’s “free servant” (voVnyi sluga) implies for his landed possession (votchina, patrimony) a non­ conditional character. It was an allod, not a fief, whatever its origin— whether the outright grant of the prince or the acknowledged fact of first occupancy. It is true that a parallelism existed as a rule between the personnel in the prince’s service and that holding big landed property in his principality, but there was no legal connection between the two functions; a “free servant” might also be a big landlord and, if so, he was not only servant (sluga), but also was called boyar (boiarin). With regard to the rural settler, there is no trace of serfdom in Central Russia before the middle of the fifteenth century; the settler had complete freedom to relinquish his tenure and to change his master. There were two other important features of this evolution. First, the master of an estate with settlers on it, ecclesiastical or lay, came to enjoy a privilege to judge the population of his estate and to collect taxes from it in certain cases. These immunities7 can be explained as a •According to Pavlov-Sil’vansky ( G osudarevy slu zh ilye liu d i [The Sovereign’s Serving People! St. Petersburg, 1 8 9 8 , pp. 2 4 -2 5 ), in the beginning, as long as the prince’s power was weak and the boyar’s independence very great, the “departure” to another prince meant also in most cases a territorial expansion for the latter, his d o m in iu m e m in en s extending to his new servant’s landed property in the principality of the former master. There is no direct evidence, however, for this assumption of “free commendation” in the 13 th and 14 th centuries. From the end of the 14 th century on sources are available, but they stress a different rule: The boyar may serve whomever he wants, but his landed property not only remains in the d o m in iu m e m in en s of the local prince; it is also submitted to his justice and owes him the princely tribute. TThe oldest known lay charter of immunity (given by the Grand Prince Tvan Danilovich Kalita of Moscow, 1 3 2 5 -4 0 , but preserved only as a confirmation to Ivan Petelin bv Basil II in 1 4 5 0 ; cf. trans. into French, A. Eck, M oyen âçe russe, Brussels and Paris, 1 9 3 3 , pp. 4 9 2 -4 9 3 ) contains cases reserved to the prince’s jurisdiction: " . . . and my volosteVs [district chiefs] and their t i u n s [judges] . . . do not judge them [i.e., Ivan and all his people] for anything excepting murder, brigand777

I ll

result of the necessity to organize police and justice in the only feasible manner under existing conditions, namely that, on the one hand, mili­ tary servants were scarce, and, on the other, territories were little ac­ cessible. Second, with every generation the number of princes grew and their principalities decreased in area, while their interests were being widely concentrated on local, economic, non-political problems. This means that gradually many a principality approached the type of a princely estate.*8 Thus two important tendencies toward feudalism or some analogous political structure mark the condition of Central Russia at the time of the Tartar invasion: the pulverization of public authority, age, and theft with material evidence.” We have no earlier charters, but many ele­ ments in the charters of immunity available indicate that they did not create a new state of things; on the contrary, they confirmed an ancient and well-established custom. It was only with the growth of power of the Prince of Moscow that the old, very extensive immunities received limitations, such as reservation for the prince’s judges of the three cases mentioned in the quoted charter. It seems that in earlier times the v o tc h in n if(s prerogatives in his votchina did not have such limitations, and practically his administrative and judiciary power rooted in custom was largely the same as the prince’s in his principality. This theory is advanced by K. Nevolin in his Istoriia R o ssu skjk ß g r a z h d a n s \i\h z a \o n o v [History of Russian Civil Law] (St. Petersburg, 1 8 5 1 ), и, par. 2 7 2 , and accepted by several Russian historians, e.g., Pavlov-Sil’vansky (G o sudarevy slu zh ilye liu d i, pp. 18 -2 0 ), Eck ( M oyen âge russe , pp. 2 3 5 -2 5 4 ), and V. Storozhev ( “V otchina" in Brockhaus-Efron, E n ts i\lo p c d ic h e s\ii Slovar [Encyclopedic Dic­ tionary], xiii [ 1 8 9 2 ], 3 2 1 ). There is strong evidence in its support. Another theory interprets the regime of immunities restrictively, considering it not as an expression of an old custom but as privileges established for the grantees by the prince in order to create for them an exceptional situation. Such was S. Solov’ev’s opinion ( Istoriia R ossii s d re v n ê ish i\h vrem en [History of Russia from Most Ancient Timesl, and edn., St. Petersburg, 1 8 9 7 , Book I, p. 1 2 T3 ) followed by V. Klluchevsky (K u r s ru s s \o i istorii [Lectures on Russian History], Moscow, J937» h 375'377) and others. Recently, V. B. El*Tashevich has emphasized this interpretation very strongly in the chapter of his book, Istoriia prava pozem cY not so b stven n o ^i v Rossii ГLegal History of Land Ownership in Russia], 1 (Paris, 1 9 4 8 ), on the boyars* lands (pp. 2 4 9 -2 6 6 ). 8 The term udcl which in the Kievan period meant only “share” in the common property of the princely family of RTurik now evolves in the sense of patrimony, thus covering the dual quality of “principality” and "estate.” Some writers use this term adjectivally to characterize this period of political fragmentation. Eck (M o yen âçe russet p. 5 6 0 ) rightly translates it as principauté patrim oniale. Cf. also p. 4 3 : “U dcl is generally translated as ‘appanage,* u d êlin yj \ n ja z i [Eck’s trans­ literation] as 'appanaged prince* which is completely erroneous, udêl being a hereditary property not reverting at all to the crown after the proprietor’s death while an appanage reverts.?* This objection is valid, but foreign historians have simply followed, anachronistically, the use of the term ud êl as appanage in modern Russian legislation since Paul I’s U chrezh d en ie о lm p e ra to rs\o i fa m ilii [Establish­ ment concerning the Imperial Family] of April 5 , 1 7 9 7 . See Stolêtie U dêlov [Centenary of the Appanages], 1 7 9 7 -1 8 9 7 (St. Petersburg, 1 8 9 7 ). 172

I ll RUS S I A

and its connection with landed property. Above the multitude of princes, entirely independent in their principalities, big or small, theo­ retically there was a higher power, that of the Grand Prince of Vladi­ mir. However, it did not amount to very much at die time of the in­ vasion. When the invasion came and ravaged all of Central Russia and of the Dnieper region (it did not go as far as Novgorod), its results were to promote a final territorial split between Novgorod, remaining prac­ tically independent, Russia of the Dnieper region (soon absorbed by the growing Principality of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland), and, finally, Central Russia. With regard to Central Russia, the Tartars not only organized the material exploitation of this region, since most of all they were interested in material gains, but they also gave substance to the authority of the Grand Prince of Vladimir, who from 1328 be­ came their farmer-general for the over-all collection of the tribute. At the same time, from that moment they normally invested the Prince of Moscow with the dignity of the Grand Prince of Vladimir and the functions it involved; in this way the Prince of Moscow gained authority over the other princes. This is the beginning of the rise of Moscow. Within two and a half centuries its power was to grow like a snowball, aided by the extreme pulverization of Central Russia. The story of this rise represents a chap­ ter of Russian history which cannot be studied merely in a footnote. Here we need only mention a movement resulting from this pulveriza­ tion, namely the general rush of military servants and the patrimonial princes themselves in ever greater numbers into the service of the Prince of Moscow. In doing this, the military servants were exercising their customary right of free departure while the patrimonial princes were voluntarily seeking a dependent position by commending themselves to the Prince of Moscow. The power of the latter could easily be used to make out of the acceptance of a new boyar a pretext for annexation of his landed property in another principality, and thus, by and by, not only a great host of military servants, but more and more territory be­ came concentrated in the hands of the Prince of Moscow. By 1462 , the beginning of Ivan Ill’s reign, this process of concentration had been completed for almost all Central Russian territory. As this concentration proceeded, however, with one Grand Prince'^superseding numerous princes, the old custom of free change of service ceased to be feasible. Old local interests yielding to one major national interest represented by the Grand Prince of Moscow, the service to him became national 173

Ill

service; and free departure, change of national allegiance, or breach of loyalty to the sovereign was punishable by loss of patrimony, whether principality or non-princely landed property. Thus, toward the end of the fifteenth century a connection developed between patrimony and the sovereign’s service, a new customary law replacing the old law of free service, and imparting to hereditary landed property a conditional character, either directly,0 or more often, indirectly by means of a sus­ pended threat of confiscation. At the same time new developments set in as a result of the annexa­ tion of the Novgorodian territory, which was the last step in the rise of Moscow, practically completing the unification under the same power of all then existing territories of Great Russia. New tasks faced Mus­ covy from that moment on, nationally, militarily, and administratively, and to cope with them reforms were necessary which led to the disap­ pearance of old relationships and the creation of new ones; whether the new ones were feudal raises new questions. The basic reform was that of military organization whereby the system of benefices (pomêstnaia sistema) came into existence. For the Russian peasantry this led ta the loss of its medieval freedom. This process began under Ivan III and was accomplished in the middle of the seventeenth century. hi .

Feudal Aspects in Muscovy (and Their Aftermath in Modern Russia) As long as Central Russia was not unified, conflicts between its numerous independent princes did not involve the participation of great military forces. Military servants organized the population of their estates for war, and, whenever necessary, mustered and led it in the service of the prince with whom a link of free service connected them. This service was parallel to the possession of land in practice, but the latter was unconditional in law and did not have the character of military tenure. 0 ". . . And what I have granted to my boyars, Prince Andrei Fedorovich and Prince Peter Mikitich, the patrimony I have given to them to replace their [own] patrimonies [follow the names of the new patrimonies] . . . as long as they and their children serve me and my children; if their children continue to serve my son, this belongs to them, and if they do not serve my son, then their patrimonies [go] to my son. And if God calls to Him my son Fedor, then this grant of mine will be their patrimony to replace their [own] patrimony. . . .” (Will of Prince Boris VasiPevich of Volok, 1 4 7 7 , Du\hovnye i dogovornye gramoty veU\i\h i udeYny\h \niazci [Wills and Treaties of the Grand and Patrimonial Princes], xiv -xvi c., Moscow and Leningrad, 1 9 5 0 , p. 2 5 1 .)

174

Ill R US S I A

When an enormous Muscovite state was built on the whole territory of Great Russia its increased needs led to the creation of a new military system. It did not have to fight its Russian neighbors any more, but foreign powers: Sweden, the Livonian Order, the Grand Principality of Lithuania, and its former masters, the Tartars, still powerful in the southeast even after Muscovy had rejected its centuries old allegiance in 1 4 8 0 . More extensive borders had to be defended, and more skillful military forces had to be faced, numbering tens and even hundreds of thousands of well-trained and well-armed warriors. Л special mobile and numerous military class became an urgent necessity. Muscovy began to organize it in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, utiliz­ ing different social elements for the purpose. Some of them were the heritage of the preceding epoch, such as dêti boïarskjta (junior boyars), i.e., junior members of families of military (and administrative) serv­ ants; dvoriane, people holding offices at the court ( quelques nouvelles dispositions. C’est d’abord un nouveau régime des poids accepté par les Novgoro­ diens pour leurs transactions avec les Allemands à Novgorod;1 ( 1 ) En traduisant / a tjaja na gorody/ par « et le procès ne concerne que les villes » nous avons continué de comprendre /t j a j a / comme « affaire judiciaire, procès », le sens que ce mot a ainsi dans les passages qui pré­ cèdent immédiatement / a tjaja na gorody/ qu’ailleurs dans le corps du traité de 1139-1199. Goetz, H andelsverträge, p. 52, sépare la phrase qui débute par ces mots du reste de l’article, lui donne l’entête « K rieg und Handel » et la traduit : « Ist aber Streit (Novgorods gegen die Städte, so ist der Deutsche frei (in seinem Handel) und die Novgoroder ». Malgré les nombreux parallèles cités par Goetz à la suite de cette traduction, on ne peut pas accepter le tour de force qui fait voir à Goetz dans /tja ja / non plus une affaire criminelle ou commerciale (entre deux personnes ou même deux villes), mais un conflit armé. H U B , I, loc. cit., traduit / a tjaja na gorody/ par « sondern der Handel bleibt auf den Städten », en mettant le point final après « Städten ». Le reste de l'article 11 est considéré par H U B , I , comme faisant corps avec l'article 12. ( 2 ) E n rattachant la fin de l’article 11 au début de l'article 12, H U B , I, loc. cit., obtient une traduction différente de cet article : « Und der Deutsche is frei und der Nowgoroder / a Nêmtchin svobod' i N ovgorod /, wenn er kommt mit seinem S ch iff in den deutschen H of / domov’/ ; wenn er aber selbst nicht wieder in demselben S ch iffe zurück kehrt, so überant­ worte der Mann es einem Steuermann »..

IV

392

ce régime consiste dans le remplacement des balances russes par des balances allemandes : « Nous avons mis de côté le pud, et nous avons installés des plateaux de balance de notre propre gré et par amitié » (1). D'autre part, cette concession aux mar­ chands étrangers est liée à la perception renforcée des redevan­ ces ; ces redevances sont dues de tout usage quelconque de la balance, lors de la vente aussi bien que de l'achat par un mar­ chand étranger : Et les Allemands, et les Gotlandais et tous ceux du peuple latin paieront deux martres de chaque kap’ et de toute marchandise à peser qu'ils mettront sur les plateaux, aussi bien en vendant qu'en achetant » ( 2 ).*19 (1) Le pud novgorodien était plus lourd que le poud moderne russe. Ce dernier contient 40 livres russes, une livre étant égale à 409 1 /2 gram­ m es; le pud novgorodien en contient 46 7/8, c'est-à-dire un peu plus de 19 1/5 kilogrammes. Cfr G œ tz , H andelsverträge, p. 77. Le traité semble, cependant, avoir en vue non les poids russes, mais la balance en usage à Novgorod qui, selon Berejkov, p. 158, était un genre de grande romaine à courroie mobile que les Allemands ne trouvaient pas assez sensibles, en lui préférant la balance à deux plateaux (/sk a lv i/ de schalen, bas allemand). Les deux balances sont mentionnées dans le règlement de pesée, établi entre la ville de Polotsk et Riga, c. 1330; le traité stipule que la cire sera pesée sur skalvy, et le sel sur « la courroie de pud » / pudnyj rem en’/ ; le texte bas-allemand du traité l'appelle « punder > (terme que l’éditeur du traité annote : lat. pondarium, die grosse Schnellwage). Le traité contient la des­ cription de la pesée sur les skalvy que voici : « Et la marchandise qu’on pèsera sur la balance à plateaux, on laissera la languette suivre (le poids de) la marchandise; et quand la marchandise arrivera à l’état de balance, tu reculeras loin d’elle, et tu ne la recevras pas avec ta main > (A c te s russolivoniens, réunis par K. E. N afxersky, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1868, p. 54; à citer : Napdsrsky. (2) K a p' est une unité de poids calculée à 166 7/8 livres russes mo­ dernes (6 8 1/3 kg environ) ; cfr Goetz, H andelsverträge, p. 77. Sa men­ tion dans le traité prouve que la suppression de la balance, et non des poids russes, a été l’objet de la clause précédente. Le contre-projet russe de 1269, définit kap* comme une unité de poids égale à huit livres de Livonie : « Dhat cap sal behalden an dhere wichte 8 punt Livisch » ( Chartes, 1949, p. 61) ; voir Goœttz, loc. cit., note 4, sur le système de poids livonien. Nous n’avons pas d’information sur le régime de redevances existant à l’égard des marchands étrangers à Novgorod avant le traité de 1262-1263, mais, si le régime de Novgorod était égal à celui de Smolensk, les mar­ chands allemands n’y payaient pour la pesée qu’un martre pour deux kap’s,

IV

I.ES ÉTRANGERS DANS I*A RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

393

La liberté réciproque de commerce est formulée par le nou­ veau traité non seulement comme un principe, mais aussi d'une façon concrète. En ce qui concerne les marchands allemands venant à Novgorod, ГПе de Kotlin (dans le golfe de Finlande, à l'embouchure de la Neva) est mentionnée par le traité comme la limite géographique, à partir de laquelle la ville de Novgorod assume la responsabilité légale pour la sécurité du trajet des mar­ chands jusqu'à Novgorod, en amont et en aval; cette responsa­ bilité est conditionnée par le pilotage du bateau sur lequel l'étranger voyage par un Novgorodien, et, si l'étranger préfère voyager sans pilote, par ce fait même il dégage la ville de Novgo­ rod de toute responsabilité pour le dommage qui puisse lui arriver en cours de route. A citer le texte du traité : « Et si le marchand étranger venant en hiver ne se fait pas accompagner par notre envoyé, ni par l’un des marchands novgorodiens, ceux de la ville de Novgorod ou ceux de la rive de Gotland, et que quelque chose arrive au marchand allemand en route de Kotlin à Novgo­ rod, ou de Novgorod à Kotlin, en ce cas, le voyage se faisant sans envoyé, il n'y a pas lieu de mettre Novgorod en cause selon l'an­ cienne paix » ( 1 ).*1 et lors de Tâchât seulement dans une série de cas (articles 24 à 28 du traité de Smolensk avec Riga et la rive de Gotland, 1229, M onum ents, II, p. 6 6 ). ( 1 ) Comme le traité lui-même l’indique, au moment de sa conclusion il y avait une colonie novgorodienne à Gotland. Le passage que nous venons de traduire est précédé par la phrase suivante : « E t selon l’ancienne paix les Novgorodiens (demeureront) sans vexation dans leur campement sur la rive de Gotland ». Le projet de traité de 1371 (entre Novgorod et Lübeck, la rive de Gotland et les marchands d’outre-mer) contient une clause que Goetz, H andelsverträge, p. 182 a interprété comme une garantie à la pro­ priété immobilière des Russes à Gotland : « Unde juwe ghast sal weldich wesen sines dinges to Godlande... » (Chartes, 1949, p. 76). La traduction en russe moderne de cette phrase (loc. cit.), est plus circonspecte : « E t votre marchand est libre dans ses affaires / v svoem d êlê/ sur la rive de Gotland »; le traité ajoute : « selon l’ancienne prestation de serment ». Il se peut que cette référence aux anciens traités, partant à celui de 1262-1263, a suggéré à Goetz son interprétation. Il est, en tout cas, incontestable que les marchands novgorodiens avaient en 1371 sur la rive de Gotland des intérêts matériels considérables, que le traité ne définit que vaguement.

IV

394

Le traité de 1262-1263 accorde aux marchands allemands trois cours à Novgorod : « Et les trois cours que vos frères les ambassadeurs ont sollicitées, nous les avons cédées (à vous) de notre propre gré ». Selon Berejkov, p. 137, cette clause signifie que les Allemands ont pu ajouter trois immeubles nouveaux à ceux que leur factorerie avait auparavant. G o e t z , Handelsver­ träge, pp. 84-86, veut voir dans le mot (dvor) de ce passage non une cour au sens étroit, scil. immeuble, mais une factorerie. Comme au moment de la conclusion du traité il y avait à Novgo­ rod une factorerie gotlandaise avec l’église de Saint-Olaf, et une factorerie allemande avec l’église de Saint-Pierre, il comprend cette clause comme confirmation d’une situation préexistante. Le traité de 1262-1236 ne parle que du « marchand d’hiver » /zim nij gost’/ , qui venait en Russie en automne pour y rester tout l'hiver jusqu’à l’ouverture de la navigation au printemps. Comme le « marchand d’été » /lêtnij gost’/ n’est pas mentionné dans les traités avant 1268-1269, GôEfz, Handelsverträge, p. 82, en conclut que la route d’hiver était la seule route pratiquée par les marchands allemands à l'époque du traité de 1262-1263 (datée par lui : 1259, à la suite de H U B , I). Cependant, la plus ancienne rédaction de la Skra, c’est-à-dire du règlement d’ordre intérieur de la colo­ nie marchande allemande de Novgorod, mentionne déjà, à côté de « wintervare », voyage d’hiver, aussi « somervare », voyage d’été (Die N o w g o roder Schra in sieben Fassungen vom X I I I . bis X V I I . Jahrhundert, her­ ausgegeben von W . Schlüter, Dorpat, 1911, p. 50; à citer : Schlüter, Schra). Selon Goetz lui-même, D eutsch-Russissche H andelsgeschichte des M ittelalters, L übeck, 1922, p. 47 (à citer : Goetz, H andelsgeschichte), la première rédaction de la Skra a eu lieu entre 1225 et 1269; il ajoute : « vermutlich ziemlich nahe an das Jahr 1269 », mais sans prouver cette date plus tardive. Les marchands d’été remplaçaient au printemps les mar­ chands d'hiver pour rester à Novgorod jusqu’à la dernière navigation; cfr I. M. K uuscher, A perçu de l'histoire du commerce russe, Petersbourg, 1923, p. 55; à citer : Kuuscher, H ist, du commerce). Le traité de 1262-1263, en proclamant le principe que la responsabilité de Novgorod à l'égard des marchands allemands ne débute qu’à Kotlin ( «et l’ancienne paix est jusqu’à Kotling») contient une réserve spéciale, soulignant l’application particulière de ce principe au territoire au nord de la Neva : « Et qui vient pour faire commerce en Carélie, que ce soit les Allemands ou les Gotlandais, si quelque chose arrive à eux, en ce cas il n’y a pas lieu de mettre Novgorod en cause ». Voir à ce sujet H U B , I, p. 72, N : 230 (message du pape Grégoire IX au clergé de Gotland sur le commerce des Gotlandais avec les païens de Finlande).

les étrangers dans la

Russie novgorodo- kievienne

395

Cette interprétation crée le problème de la troisième factorerie. I. S r E z n e v s k i j , Bulletin de VAcadémie Impériale des Sciences, Section des langue et littérature russes, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1867, VI, p. 162, y a vu la factorerie de la ville de Riga, mais Riga n’apparaît dans les relations germano-novgorodiennes qu’à partir de 1282 (Н и в , I, p. 311, N. 906 : alliance de Riga avec Lübeck et les Allemands de Wisby); G o e t z , loc. cit., rejette cette hypo­ thèse, en lui préférant celle de la seconde factorerie gotlandaise, suivant, probablement, la théorie de Karl Koppmann selon laquelle la curia Gotensium du projet de traité (allemand) de 1268 et la curia gilde quam Odern Gotenses vendiderunt men­ tionnée dans le même traité (art. XXVI) représentaient à l’ori­ gine deux factoreries différentes (et non deux immeubles diffé­ rents de la même factorerie !) : la curia gilde, plus anciennement fondée, aurait été la factorerie gotlandaise sensu proprio, et la curia Gotensium — la factorerie de la communauté marchande allemande de Wisby ( Die Recesse und andere Akten der Hanse­ tage von 1256-1430, Band I, Leipzig, 1870, Einleitung, pp. XXIX-XXX, à citer : Hanserecesse, I ; nous tirons le texte latin du projet de 1268 de S. B a h r u c h i n , éd. Monuments de rhistoire de Novgorod-le-Grand, Moscou, 1909, p. 6 8 , à citer : B a h r u c h i n ) . E n réfutation de cette théorie cfr B e r e j k o v , p p . 58(1)* Finalement, il y a dans le traité de 1262-1263 une formule générale qui reprend le principe qui est à la base des règles stipu­ lées par l’article 11 du traité de 1189-1199 : « Et où l’affaire prend naissance, là même on la réglera ». Cette formule réappa­ raît dans les traités qui suivent celui de 1262-1263 pendant plus d’un siècle, notamment dans les deux projets de traité de 1268 et 1269 Csi fuerit discordia inter hospites et Nogardienses, sedari debet in loco, ubi orta est ; « so war so dhe twist geschut, dhar sal men endegen », cfr pour le texte latin B a h r u c h i n , p. 67 et1 63

(1) La curia Gotensium elle-même a passé dans les mains des mar­ chands allemands vers le milieu du X I V e siècle; cfr R er EJKOV, pp. 136-137, qui cite N apiersky, N. L X X V (1331) et N. C L X X X V (1414).

396

pour le texte bas-allemand Chartes, 1949, p. 60), le traité avec la Suède de 1323 (idib., p. 6 8 ), le traité de Novgorod avec les marchands allemands de 1338 (« war ein sake upsteit, dar seal man se richten », ibid., p. 72) et le traité de 1392 entre Novgorod et les villes hanséatiques, dit la paix de Niebur ( «und ein kif, dat dar sik beginnende wert, dar sal men dat endigen », N a p i e r s k y , N. CXV, p. 87). La source la plus détaillée concernant le statut des mar­ chands allemands à Novgorod est le contre-projet russe du traité de Novgorod avec Lübeck et la rive de Gotland de 1269. Ce contre-projet émane du prince Iaroslav Iaroslavitch de Tver et de Novgorod et des autorités urbaines de Novgorod, et, comme le texte même l’indique, a été rédigé suite à un projet allemand (« tiegen juwe breve »). Le contre-projet russe nous a été conservé dans une traduction basse-allemande, tandis que le pro­ jet allemand, conservé également, a été rédigé en latin. Comme, de toute probabilité, c’est le contre-projet russe qui est devenu traité, nous nous baserons premièrement sur ce contre-projet; d’autre part, nous nous référerons au projet allemand toutes les fois, où l'écart entre le projet et le contre-projet semble être considérable ( 1 ).1 (1) Le traité lui-même ne nous est pas parvenu. Selon Goetz, H a n ­ delsverträge, p. 163, « der eigentliche Handelsvertrag des Jahres 1269 zwischen Novgorod und den Deutschen » nous a été transmis dans l’écrit du prince Iaroslav Iaroslavitch aux gens de Riga sur l’ordre du khan Mengu Ternir, son suzerain tartare. En voici le texte : « L’ordre de Mengu Ternir au Prince Iaroslav : ouvre la route vers ta région au marchand allemand. (M ot) du prince Iaroslav aux gens de Riga, aux grands et aux petits, A к bolchim i к molodym/, et à ceux qui font le commerce, et à tout le monde : la route vous est libre dans ma région; et celui qui m’oppose, je l’entreprendrai moi-même; mais le marchand aura route libre dans ma région » ( Chartes, 1949, p. 57). Le quatrième traité de la ville de N ovgo­ rod avec le prince Michel Iaroslavitch de Tver, en tout cas, indique l’exis­ tence d’un accord assermenté entre Novgorod et toutes les villes alleman­ des en 1305-1308 que le prince promet de respecter « en sauvegardant la conscience (littéralement « l’âme ») novgorodienne » (B aheuchin, p. 2 0 ). Quant au rapport réciproque des deux projets, Berejkov, pp. 189-198, regarde le projet allemand de 1268 comme une version plus élaborée du

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

397

Le contre-projet confirme les dispositions de « l’ancienne paix » sur la protection donnée aux marchands allemands en route de Kotlin (Ketlingen) à Novgorod et de retour, sur la Neva, avec la même réserve, que toute responsabilité cesse, si le marchand n’est pas accompagné par un Novgorodien; le contreprojet répète également la disposition dégageant Novgorod de la responsabilité à l'égard du commerce en Carélie. Cependant, le contre-projet en dehors des marchands d’hiver, parle aussi des marchands d’été à qui la même protection est donnée (1). D’au­ tre part, le contre-projet prévoit le cas où le marchand allemand ne peut pas se procurer un pilote (bode) novgorodien, parce que1 contre-projet russe de 1269, mais pas comme des propositions rejetées par les Novgorodiens à cause de leur caractère exorbitant (opinion exprimée par K a ra m z in e , H istoire de l'E tat russe, t. III, note 244). En effet, cer­ taines clauses du projet allemand qui ne figurent pas dans le contre-projet, sont favorables aux Russes, et il est difficile de voir en quoi offenseraientelles les Novgorodiens. Comme G o e tz , op. cit., p. 164, le constate, les clauses des deux projets forment le droit coutumier novgorodien à l’égard des marchands étrangers dans les années qui suivent 1269, qu’elles aient été formulées dans le projet allemand ou dans le contre-projet russe. Voir l’édition parallèle des deux textes dans G o e tz , op. cit., pp. 90-161, avec un commentaire étendu; le contre-projet russe a été traduit du bas allemand en russe moderne par I. A n d re e v s k ij, D u traité de N ovgorod avec les villes allemandes et Gotland, conclu en 1270, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1855, pp. 19-35. Cette traduction, avec les corrections de I. E n g e lm a n n , a été reproduite dans B a h k u s in , pp. 68-71, à la suite du projet allemand; une traduction russe plus récente a paru dans Chartes, 1949, pp. 58-61 (au-dessus du texte allemand). (1) Le projet allemand (art. 1), demande que la sécurité des mar­ chands soit garantie à partir de l’île de Björkö qui, selon le projet, est in regno regis N ogardensium ; le contre-projet, plus prudemment, n’ac­ corde la protection qu’à partir de Tile de Kotlin qui est plus rapprochée de l’embouchure de la Neva que l’île de Björkö, située au Sud-Ouest de Vyborg, en Finlande. En 1269, l’emprise novgorodienne sur cette île a déjà faibli considérablement à cause de l’expansion suédoise. Le projet allemand (art. V III) insiste également sur la liberté du commerce cum Car élis et E ngeris pour les marchands dont les bateaux sont sur la Neva (« s tint in Nu »). Comme « antiqua justicia » est invoquée par le projet, il ne peut pas s'agir ici de la garantie novgorodienne de la sécurité de ce commerce que le traité de 1262-1263 refuse de promettre en termes exprès, mais du commerce lui-même, avec les Caréliens et les Ingriens des bords de la Neva.

398

la ville de Novgorod ne lui en donne pas et qu’il n’y ait pas de voyageurs novgorodiens à destination de Kotlin. Si telle est la situation, le marchand allemand garde son droit à la protection, bien qu’il voyage sans un Novgorodien (1). Le contre-projet sti­ pule également qu’une indemnité est due au marchand allemand de la part des marchands novgorodiens qui, arrivés de Gotland sur son bateau, décident de ne pas y retourner sur le même bateau; cette indemnité est d’un demi-mark d’argent par voyage (« van jewelikeme vare ») et peut être expliquée comme compen­ sation à payer au maître du bateau pour la perte du fret de retour (2). Une série de dispositions règle en détail les problèmes du voyage depuis le moment où le marchand étranger entre l’em­ bouchure de la Neva jusqu’au débarquement de ses marchandi­ ses dans les factoreries à Novgorod. C’est d’abord le droit pour le marchand étranger de couper arbres sur les deux rives de la Neva pour se procurer du bois de chauffage ou de construction pour les mâts de leurs bateaux (« holtes odher mast »). Etant arrivés aux rapides de Volhov (in den Volkov vore dhen vorsch), les voyageurs demanderont sans délai des pilotes spéciaux (vorschkerle), qui les conduiront contre le paiement d’une rede­ vance coutumière dont le montant n’est pas spécifié. Par contre, (1 ) L a Chronique cite à la date de 1188 une situation pareille : « La même année les Varègues ont molesté les Novgorodiens sur Gotland, et (ces derniers ont molesté) les Allemands à HorujTc et à Novotorjec; et au printemps (les Novgorodiens) n’ont laissé partir de Novgorod au delà de la mer pas un seul de leurs gens, et n'ont pas donné un pilote aux varè­ gues, mais ils les ont laissé partir sans paix » (Copie Synodale, L a pre­ mière chronique novgorodienne, rédactions ancienne et plus récente, M os­ cou-Leningrad, 1950, p. 39). Nous n’avons pas pu identifer la ville de H oruj’k. (2) A. N u o t s k ij , H istoire de la vie économique de N ovgorod-leGrand, Moscou, 1893, p. 31, et à sa suite Go e t z , H andelsverträge, p. 96, voient dans cette clause la preuve que les marchands novgorodiens devaient se servir des bateaux allemands dans leurs voyages à Gotland et qu’il n’y avait pas de flotte marchande à Novgorod. Cette conclusion nous semble exagérée; le texte en question indique seulement la possibilité d’un voyage sur un bateau allemand de Gotland à Novgorod.

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVCORODO-KIEVIENNE

399

le paiement au patron du navire russe (dhe lodienmann) est pré­ cisé; c'est trois marks de martres, ou un demi-jambon pour le voyage de Novgorod à Ladoga (Aldagen) i.e. tout le long de Volkov aller et retour. Si le navire est loué à partir de l'embou­ chure de la Neva, le patron reçoit cinq marks de martres, ou un jambon entier. Le voyageur doit payer le louage du bateau russe en cas de naufrage soit qu'il périt, chargé de marchandises, ou même si le bateau envoyé de Novgorod pour chercher les mar­ chandises fait naufrage en cours de route; le marchand ne rem­ bourse pas, cependant, le prix du bateau naufragé (1). Lors du1 (1) Les bateaux allemands, de K oggen, étaient trop grands pour la navigation sur le Volhov ; c’est pourquoi un transbordement sur des bateaux novgorodiens, lod’i, avait lieu, dès l’entrée dans la Neva, ou, en tous cas, sur le Volhov inférieur, près de Ladoga ou Wolcoveminne (embouchure de Volhov, H U B , I, p. 230, note 2) ; cfr. G œ tz , Handelsgeschichte, p. 196 et H andelsverträge, p. 103. En amont du Volhov, les voyageurs allant à Novgorod traversaient les stations suivantes : Wolcoveminne, Ladoga, Veritin-Ritsagen, taberna piscatorum, Gestevelt et Dhrelleborch. T els sont les termes géographiques mentionnés dans le projet allemand (articles IV -V I et V III) ; H U B , I, loc. cit., notes, 2, 3 et 4, identifie Veritin-Ritsagen comme « Veretia-Rutschei », Gestevelt comme « Gostinopole » et Dhrelle­ borch comme « Cholopij gorodok ». A partir de Gestevelt, les rapides com­ mencent ; ils continuent sur un parcours de 10 kilomètres ; pour la descrip­ tion de la route sur le Volhov et des rapides cfr Ph. K kug , Forschungen in der älteren Geschichte R usslands, Saint-Péterbourg, 1848, pp. 629-632. Le projet allemand, dans l’art. IV , donne plus de détails que le contreprojet russe sur la redevance à payer aux « vorschkerle »; cette redevance est en nature et en argent. Elle comprend unum caldarium et non plus servi au début du voyage; en arrivant à taberna piscatorum, ces bate­ leurs reçoivent leur salaire qui consiste en 8 capita martarorum et unum par m aparum par tête (la paire de toiles peut être remplacée par 3 capita m artarorum ). Le projet allemand insiste également sur le voyage sans délai decoct о et expedite ( caldario)\ le même désir d’être expédié absque ulla m ora est exprimé dans le passage concernant le paiement des bate­ leurs à taberna piscatorum. Cette insistance s'explique par la peur de bri­ gan d age;-cfr H U B , II, N. 219, vers 1312, qui relate une attaque d’un bateau allemand par les Suédois sur la Neva, eo quod Nogardenses noluerunt ducere bona versus N ogardiam . Aussi en ce qui concerne le louage du bateau lui-même, le projet alle­ mand est plus précis que le contre-projet. Tandis que le contre-projet ne parle que de paiement en nature, le projet mentionne également le prix de louage, sans en donner le chiffre, cependant. La même proportion est

IV

400

voyage en amont, l'étranger, en arrivant au premier rapide, à Gostinopol’skaja (Gesteveld), qui se trouve à distance de plus de 25.6 kilomètres du lac de Ladoga, paie une coutume ancienne­ ment établie (1). Le contre-projet s'occupe également des diffé-*Il maintenue dans les deux projets, entre le paiement pour le voyage à partir de la Neva et pour celui à partir de Ladoga (ou Wolcoveminne) seule­ ment; l’évolution de dimidia perna en argent est, cependant, plus stricte dans le projet allemand (« 2 1/2 marcam cunen» et non « 3 marc cunen»). Il faut aussi noter que le projet allemand traite séparément des hospites hiemales et hospites estivales ; ces derniers ne doivent la subsistance aux bateliers qu’à la taberna piscatorum où chaque lodia leur donne 4 panes et unam scutellam butiri, ou 2 martres pour chaque pain et 3 têtes de martre pour le beurre (art. V ). La différence dans la nourriture s’explique par une saison différente; il est difficile d'expliquer le délai dans la sub­ sistance elle-même. Les responsabilités découlant du contrat de louage sont traitées de manière différente par les deux projets. Le contre-projet russe fait courir le contrat à partir du départ du bateau de Novgorod, un point de vue qui mène à l’exigence du paiement du prix de louage pour la route entière en tout état de cause. Le projet allemand, par contre, ne fait courir le contrat qu’à partir du transbordement des bateaux allemands sur des bateaux russes; cette conception apparaît dans la clause du projet (art. V II) qui dit : quaecunque lodia conducta non tarnen onerata in descensu confracta fu erit vel périclitât a,... pretio suo carebit. L’article V I du pro­ jet allemand établit, d’autre part, la responsabilité du patron pour l’arrivée de son bateau en même temps que les autres bateaux du convoi; s’il y a retard, le prix de louage n’est pas dû. Quant à l’avarie, les deux projets concourent dans la même conception qu’il n’y a pas de compensation à payer pour le bateau ou les marchandises avariées; à l’encontre du contreprojet russe, l’article V III du projet allemand ne reconnaît, cependant, l’obligation de payer le prix de louage que pour le secteur de la route par­ couru avant l'avarie. La différence des points de vue des deux parties apparaît dans la plainte allemande de 1335 concernant la demande novgorodienne du paiement total du prix du louage des bateaux avariés {H U B , II, N. 569, 17). Sur l’ancien système monétaire russe voir A. E c k , L e m oyen âge russe, Paris, 1933, p. 19 (à citer : E ck , M oyen âge) et Go e t z , H andels­ verträge, pp. 30 (note 2) et 154 (note 1). Pour l’équivalence des unités alle­ mandes et russes anciennes, d’une part, et leur expression en imités russes modernes, d’autre part, cfr P. T a i /, « La troisième Skra novgorodienne » (env. 1325). T exte et traduction en russe {Lectures de la Société Im périale d*histoire et d'antiquités russes, t. 215, Moscou, 1905), p. V II. (1) W. B u ck , D er deutsche H andel in N ow gorod bis sü r M itte des X I V . Jahrhunderts, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1895, p. 11, émet l’hypothèse que

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

401

rends qui pourraient surgir entre les pilotes et les étrangers en cours de route; l’affaire en reste là, si la querelle est arrangée à l'amiable. Cependant, si la querelle continue au moment de l’ar­ rivée à Novgorod, les parties comparaîtront « par devant le millénarius et les gens de Novgorod à la cour de Saint-Jean » (1). Gestevelt était au début la place où le commerce novgorodo-allemand avait lieu, les Allemands n’ayant pas été admis dans la ville de Novgorod; cette hypothèse semble être confirmée par le fait analogue de l’emplacement de la factorerie allemande à Pskov sur la rive gauche de la rivière Velikaja en dehors de la, ville même de Pskov qui était interdite aux étrangers (cfr A. WmciOiER, D ie deutsche H ansa in Russland, Berlin, 1886, p. 11 sq.), mais les textes ne contiennent pas de preuves à cet égard. Comme aucune autre source ne mentionne les taxes à payer par les marchands allemands à Novgorod, certains auteurs en ont conclu qu’en dehors de la taxe d’en­ trée, payée à Gestevelt, les marchands allemands y étaient exempts de toutes taxes (la taxe de pesage n’était qu’une redevance) ; ce point de vue tire sa force d’un argument d’analogie basé sur la teneur des traités de la ville de Smolensk avec les Allemands où le principe de la liberté fiscale à leur égard est exprimé; cfr N. R ie se n k a m p *1, D er deutsche H o f zu N o v ­ gorod, Dorpat, 1954, pp. 74 et 111, et à sa suite, Goosrz, H andelsverträge, p. 107, Le contre-projet russe ne donne pas le montant de la coutume qui est précisé en détail dans le projet allemand; ce projet (art. V ) prévoit une coutume d’un mark de martres par un bateau chargé des biens noncomestibles, un demi-mark par un bateau avec des comestibles destinés au commerce, et pas de coutume du tout pour un bateau onerata victualibus, i.e. chargé des comestibles pour la colonie allemande (cfr B ekejkov , p. 157). (1) La cour de commerce de Novgorod était établie à l’église de Saint-Jean-le-Précurseur sur Opoki, qui était l’église patronale de la cor­ poration des marchands driers et drapiers; cette corporation, établie par la charte du prince Vsevolod Mstislavitch en 1130-1136 groupait les mar­ chands les plus riches de la ville de Novgorod. Le tribunal se composait du millénarius, des deux doyens des marchands et des trois doyens représentant les propriétaires /jit'i lju d i/ ; le bourgmestre et les boyars de Novgorod n'intervenaient pas, en principe, dans l’exercice de la justice commerciale, mais il paraît que le bourgmestre s’y associait dans toutes les affaires importantes où les Allemands étaient partie. Voir E ck , M oyen âge, pp. 476478 (pour la traduction de la charte) et A. N k i t s k i j , « Le Grand SaintJean sur Opoki » (Journal du M inistère de VEducation Publique, SaintPétersbourg, 1870, fasc. 8). Le projet allemand ne diffère pas du contre-projet russe au sujet des différends surgis en cours de route entre Russes et Allemands, mais il s’arrête aux différends aplanis sur le bateau. Le projet allemand parle de la justice de Saint-Jean plus bas, dans son article X I, d’une façon générale.

402

Le traité règle, finalement, les frais de voiturage au débarque­ ment de Tétranger; c'est quinze martres par bateau pour le trans­ port des marchandises à Novgorod de la rive de Volhov jusqu'à la cour allemande, et dix martres, si le transport se fait jusqu'à la factorerie gotlandaise. Le prix de chargement par bateau est un demi-mark, que ce soit l’une ou l'autre factorerie (1). Le contre-projet, en parlant du voyage, s'occupe également du cas de vol commis sur le bateau. Le voleur doit être livré aux autorités russes les plus proches pour être jugé selon la gravité de son crime : si le voleur est saisi entre Kotlin et Ladoga, on l'amènera à Ladoga; si le voleur est saisi sur le Volhov, il sera jugé à Novgorod (2).12 (1) Comme S artortus -L a ppenh erg , Urkundliche Geschichte des U rsprungs der deutschen H anse, Band II, Hamburg, 1830, p. 99, note 4 (à citer : S artortus -L a pfen b er g ) Га remarqué, ce tarif prouve que la fac­ torerie gotlandaise se trouvait plus près du Volhov que la factorerie alle­ mande. Ceci indiquerait, selon lui, que la factorerie allemande a été fondée plus tard, le premier venu ayant choisi un emplacement plus rapproché et plus commode. — Jusqu’à 1423, Novgorod réservait à ses gens le privilège de transporter les marchandises allemandes quel que soit leur volume; à partir de cette date, les Allemands peuvent transporter avec leurs propres moyens les biens de peu de volume (Hanserecesseß I, 7, N. 568, 40; cfr G o e tz , Handelsverträge, p. 202). Le projet allemand diffère très peu du contre-projet russe dans cette matière; on n’en relèvera que l’exigence d’un délai de quinze jours pour payer le salaire des voituriers. Ce projet contient également une disposition qui peut être comprise comme une demande d’une exception de la règle générale du monopole des voituriers novgorodiens. Cette demande concerne la liberté pour les marchands allemands, ceux d’été et ceux d’hiver, d’avoir des chevaux dans leur factorerie et de les employer au transport des mar­ chandises de la factorerie. (2) Le projet allemand contient une disposition toute différente (art. III). C ’est d’abord un système de peines tout différent des peines en usage à Novgorod : si le montant du vol est en dessous d’un demi-mark de martres, le voleur peut se libérer en payant deux marks de martres; si le montant est entre deux marks de martres et un demi-mark d’argent, le voleur virg is decorietur et ad m axillam cauteriabitur, mais ici encore il pourra se libérer de la peine en payant dix marks d’argent; au delà d’un demi-mark d’argent, c’est la peine capitale sans possibilité de compensation. Comme la loi novgorodienne ne connaissait pas de peines corporelles pour le vol, et que surtout la peine capitale pour le vol sans possibilité de rachat

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

403

Comme le traité de 1189-1199, le contre-projet de 1269 sti­ pule qu’il n’y aura pas de prison pour dettes ni pour un Novgorodien sur la rive de Gotland ni pour un Allemand ou un Gotlandais à Novgorod. Cependant, le contre-projet garantit aux Allemands (ou aux Gotlandais) plus qu’aux Novgorodiens : un débiteur en faute ne peut pas être exécuté sans qu’il y ait procès par devant le millénarius : il est défendu d’envoyer chez lui des agents d’exécution (« schelke ») ou bien de l’appréhender par son vête­ ment, mais le sergent du millénarius (« des hertogen bode ») fera venir les deux parties (1). Tout différend quelconque entre*Il était contraire aux conceptions légales russes, on comprend qu'une propo­ sition pareille n’a pas été reprise par le contre-projet russe. L’article III veut également permettre aux voyageurs allemands eux-mêmes d’appliquer au voleur la peine selon le montant du vol, si le juge russe, averti du crime, n’agit pas endéans les deux jours. Ce juge est le tiun de la ville où le bateau se dirige : si le vol a été commis entre Björkö et Ingra (Engera), c’est « oldermanus de Engeren » ; si le vol a été commis entre l’Ingrie et Ladoga, c’est celui d’ « Aldagen », et ainsi de suite jusqu’à Novgorod. (1) S chelke (sing, skalk, schalk) correspond à precones du projet allemand (art. X ) . S c h lü ter , Schra, traduit ce terme par « Knecht, (rus­ sischer) Büttel », mais ne donne pas de terme russe équivalent ( R egister, p. 52) ; voir également Schra I, II, III, art. 9 {ibid. T exte) et L iv -, B stund Kurländisches Urkundenbuch, éd. F. G. Bunge, Reval-Riga, 1853-1910, t. X I, N. 341, où à la date de 1454 on trouve l'exemple concret de l’action du schalk; à citer : L U B. — Bode correspond à nuncius du projet alle­ mand (ib id .); selon Go e t z , H andelsverträge, pp. 119-120, c’est le même officier dont le terme russe est pristav, et il cite de nombreux exemples de son action à l’égard des Allemands ; nous avons traduit pristav par ser­ gent dans M. S z e ft e l , Codes de la R ussie ancienne (ouvrage à paraître). Il nous semble que les deux projets dans cette provision veulent souli­ gner que les Allemands à Novgorod ne sont soumis qu’à une seule juris­ diction, celle de tysja c kij (millénarius). Le projet allemand emploie une formule plus rigoureuse que le contre-projet à cet égard, car, selon lui, nulli precones... debent intrare curiam Gotensium vel Theutonicorum . Le projet allemand prévoit également une procédure de conciliation préalable au procès;" cette procédure a lieu par devant le même tribunal du milléna­ rius, si c'est le Russe qui est défendeur. Si c’est l'Allemand, le doyen des marchands allemands (oldermannus hospitum ) doit être informé de la demande préalablement à toute action judiciaire; le doyen se portera cau­ tion pour le débiteur délinquant qu’il tâchera d’amener à payer la dette. En ce qui concerne la prison pour dettes, le projet allemand ne la mentionne pas, peut-être, par omission.

IV

404

Allemands et Novgorodiens est, d'ailleurs, de la compétence du millénarius qui, ne juge pas seul, mais avec le bourgmestre et les marchands « à la cour de Saint-Jean ». Même les irruptions a arme tranchante dans la factorerie allemande ou gotlandaise est de la compétence du tribunal novgorodien, si cette irruption est liée à un attentat à la personne d'un étranger ou à la saisie violente de sa marchandise; dans ce cas, le criminel, appréhendé par les gens de la factorerie, sera amené par eux au tribunal, qui jugera selon le crime (1). Le contre-projet n’indique que les pei-1 Le projet allemand (pas le contre-projet) parle également d’un autre officier novgorodien dont le terme russe est cité : c’est « custos, qui dicitur biriz » à qui l'accès de la factorerie est également interdit, même usquam ante curiam ; Go e tz , op. cit., p. 123, traduit biriz par « Büttel », le même terme qui lui a servi pour traduire schalk. Comme les références de Goetz lui-même le prouvent, il n’y a pas cependant d’équivalence entre biritch (dont biriz est une déformation), et schalk. Sur biritch, crieur publique, voir S kezm evskij, M atériaux, I, v. (1) Le projet allemand contient des propositions beaucoup plus am­ ples (art. X II). Il y a, d’abord, l’affirmation de la défense légitime pour les habitants de la factorerie : l'agresseur, dam num quod ibidem acceperit pro suo obtinebit. Il y a aussi la peine qui frappe l’agresseur si autem evaserit* et questio contra eum m ot a fu erit et devictus ruerit ; c'est l’amende double, 20 marks d’argent, pour Yauctor injuriae, et un mark et demi d’argent pour chacun de ses complices. Il y a, en plus, réparation pour tout dommage dans la factorerie par les agresseurs, ou par la ville de Novgorod. Finalement il y a pœna publica pour les agresseurs saisis sur place; selon Go e t z , H andelsverträge, p. 126, c’est la peine capitale, étran­ gère à la législation russe à cette époque. De toute évidence, ces proposi­ tions n'ont pas été acceptées par les novgorodiens. Le projet allemand contient également un paragraphe (art. IX ) sur la vie intérieure de la factorerie que le contre-projet n’a pas repris. Selon cet article, une liberté complète est garantie aux deux factoreries et à leurs habitants, de façon que les Novgorodiens ne règlent en rien leurs relations personnelles et matérielles, y compris les relations commerciales; de plus le projet allemand demande le droit d'asile pour les factoreries, ac si esset in ipsa ecclesia. Ce droit d’asile n’a pas été reconnu par les Novgorodiens, ni dans le contre-projet, qui l’a passé sous silence, ni plus tard. La colonie allemande de Novgorod a joui, cependant, dans sa vie intérieure d’une liberté complète selon le règlement d’ordre intérieur venant des Allemands eux-mêmes, dit Schra, que nous avons mentionné dans la note 1, p. 393). Sept règlements, allant du X I IIe s. à 1603, ont été conservés; leur texte a été publié dans ScheüTER, Schra. Pour l’évolution historique de la Schra cfr

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIKNNE

405

nés pour l’attentat à la personne, meurtre, blessure ou coups sans effusion de sang; cfr à ce sujet A. B r u y è r e , op. cit., pp. 358359 (aussi traduction en français de la partie du contre-projet y relative) (1). Selon le contre-projet, les portes et les palissades des foctoreries sont inviolables; un dommage fait à elles est punissable, et une suppression d’une palissade anciennement établie doit être réparée par l’érection d’une nouvelle palissade n’empiétant pas sur plus de terrain. La propriété immobilière des factoreries leur est garantie également en ce qui concerne les prairies qui resteront dans leur possession là où ils les déclareront (« dhe solen se hebben, war so se se bekennet ») (2).1 W . S ch lü ter , « Die Nowgoroder Schra in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwick­ lung » (Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Esthnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat f ü r das Jahr 1910, Dorpat, 1911). L’autonomie intérieure de la colonie allemande à Novgorod était telle qu’on peut y voir un régime d’extraterritorialité. Le doyen de la factorerie avait l’autorité « to richten an hals unde an ham »; il pouvait condam­ ner à la peine de mort pour homicide, et à la perte d'une main pour blessure préméditée; cfr S c h l ü t e r , Schra, II, III, 20-21, pp. 80-81 et IV, 78, p. 147. (1) En suivant I. A ndreevskij, op. cit., (traduction russe du contreprojet) M. Bruyère a rendu « vor jewelic hovet » par « pour chacune des cours » (scil. chaque cour paiera 20 marcs d’argent : Andreevskij dit « kajdomu dvoru») ; une traduction exacte de cette phrase est « pour chaque tête » , ce qui est plus clair (cfr Chartes, 1949, p. 61 : « za vsjakuju golovu »). Aussi la traduction de « chuppelene » comme « lance » (A n­ dreevskij : « kop’em ») n’est pas exacte; « massue » ( Chartes, 1949, loc. cit. : « dubinoj ») est plus correcte, et forme une meilleure alternative à « arme tranchante ». (2) En dehors des factoreries, les marchands allemands à Novgorod logeaient, s’il n'y avait pas de place, dans « de russchen hove » louées chez des particuliers, mais dans ce cas ils ne jouissaient pas de privilèges liés à la résidence dans les factoreries. C fr N a p ie r s k y , N. L X X V et S c h l ü ­ t e r , Schra, .IV, 77, V. 88, p. 147; V. 127, p. 169; aussi M u lju k in , E ssais sur l'histoire de la condition légale des marchands étrangers dans l'E tat m oscovite, Odessa, 1912, pp. 281-286 (à citer : M u lju k in , Essais). Dans cette matière le projet allemand contient des dispositions absen­ tes du contre-projet. L’article X I de ce projet défend pugna vel percussio cum fu stib u s qui dicuntur velen sur la place qui s’étendait entre les deux factoreries (c’était Iaroslavovo dvorichtche, la place du prince Iaroslav, voir le plan de la partie commerciale de Novgorod, Go e tz , H andelsver -

IV

406

Le contre-projet contient également une série de disposi­ tions qui touchent à la liberté du départ des marchands et leur responsabilité judiciaire. C'est, d'abord, le principe que les deux träge, p. 114); il est difficile d’identifier « velen » que S a rto riu s - L a p t. II, p. 38, note 1, rapproche de « voir » norois (baculus). Comme le texte de l'article l'explique, cette proposition est motivée par le désir de prévenir des conflits possibles avec les Novgorodiens lors de ces jeux. Le projet allemand prévoit, en dehors du cas de la violation des por­ tes et palissades de la factorerie, aussi d’autres violations de sa paix et intégrité, comme l'envoi des flèches ou des pierres du dehors; le projet punit ces attaques par une amende de dix marks d’argent (art. X III). L'insistance du contre-projet sur le rétablissement de la palissade sans empiètement sur plus de terrain est motivée par le désir des Novgorodiens de réduire au minimum le territoire occupé par la factorerie. Nous trouvons dans le projet allemand plus de précisions sur les pro­ priétés immobilières de la colonie allemande que celles contenues dans le contre-projet. L'article X IV identifie les prairies comme celles apparte­ nant à l'église de Saint-Pierre à Novgorod (l’église patronale de la curia Theutonicorum ) et à l’église de Saint-Nicolas à Ladoga (ceci indiquerait l’existence d’une factorerie aussi à Ladoga). Le même article, dans le souci de protéger la propriété de la colonie, parle aussi de l’enceinte à construire autour du cimetière de Saint-Pierre et des factories Theutonicorum et Gotensium. Il contient aussi une clause selon laquelle toute construction est interdite entre l’église Saint-Nicolas (église russe, sur la place de Iaroslav) et la factorerie allemande; cette clause est dictée par le souci de tenir libre la communication de la factorerie allemande avec la factorerie gotlandaise et l’accès du Volhov. Les trois derniers articles du projet allemand (articles X X IV , X X V , X X V I) donnent des détails sur la factorerie gotlandaise que le contreprojet ne possède pas. Il y est question de curia Gotensium cum ecclesia et cim iterium sancti Olavi et prata adjacentia et de leur liberté ancienne. Ici également le désir apparaît de tenir libre de toute construction le pas­ sage entre curia Gotensium et le marché à travers la cour du prince Iaros­ lav, avec mention du prince Constantin (fils de Vsevolod de Suzdal’ et lieutenant-général de son père à Novgorod en 1205-1207) comme le garant de cette liberté. Quant à la factorerie gotlandaise elle-même, le projet alle­ mand veut aussi prohiber dans un rayon de 8 passus autour d’elle toute bâtisse ou dépôt de bois (probablement, pour prévenir un incendie). L’ar­ ticle X X V I parle également de curia gilde quant Odern Gotenses vendiderunt aux Allemands (voir plus haut, pp. 395 et ss.) et stipule que les Gotlandais ne peuvent plus être tenus responsables de l’entretien de la rue ( «pontis ») à côté de l’édifice vendu. L’obligation de cet entretien de la part des factoreries nous est renseignée par le statut du prince Iaroslav p En b e RG,

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

407

grands groupes de marchands, les marchands d’hiver et les mar­ chands d’été, ne sont pas responsables l’un pour l’autre. Il s’en suit indirectement qu’au sein de chaque groupe la caution soli­ daire est de règle : si le différend (« twist ») entre Novgorodiens et Allemands surgit durant le voyage d’été, le train d’hiver n’a rien à y voir et vice versa (1). Un procès entre un marchand étranger, celui d’hiver ou celui d’été, et un Novgorodien, ne crée pas pour l’étranger un empêchement de départ; conformément à la règle que le différend doit être réglé là où il a surgi, le procès continuera à Novgorod par devant le millénarius, les doyens et les Novgorodiens. Le contre-projet ne dit pas, comme le traité de 1189-1199, que le procès sera remis à l’année suivante, mais tel semble être le sens de la disposition, car dans la clause qui suit, la remise à l’année prochaine est stipulée expressis verbis. Cette clause concerne la saisie des biens (« inpanding ») d’un débiteur : on l’annoncera la première année, mais sans y procé­ der; cet avertissement sera répété l’année suivante, et ce n’est1 sur les « pontes > de la ville de Novgorod (o gorodskih mosteh’), M onu­ m ents, I, p. 207 : « au prince jusqu’à l'appontement /v y m o l/ allemand, aux Allemands jusqu’à l’appontement de Saint-Jean, aux Gotlandais jusqu’au fond de l’appontement de Gélard... » Voir le commentaire de ce statut dans M onum ents, I, pp. 213-217, où l’opinion est exprimée que le statut fut rédigé, de toute probabilité, dans les années précédant 1268, sous le prince Iaroslav Iaroslavitch (i.e. l’auteur du contre-projet !). (1) On voit ici le principe de la responsabilité collective limité à un groupe de marchands; le même principe apparaît dans d’autres traités, comme celui du 25 juillet 1448, conclu par Novgorod et Pskov avec l'Ordre livonien (« alze umme der Plesscowere zake zal men der Nougarder geste nicht panden, aise umme der Nougarder zake zall men der Plesscower geste nicht panden » : la responsabilité collective est limitée dans ce cas aux marchands de la même cité), Chartes, 1949, p. 120. Un cas concret de l’application de cette règle nous est attesté par le traité de 1439 entre N ov­ gorod et les marchands allemands, ibid., p. 113. A côté de cette responsabilité les traités soulignent, à partir de 1338, la responsabilité individuelle (à l’exclusion de toute responsabilité collective) par la formule « de sackwolde seal sich beweten mit den sackwolden » (Istcu vedat'sja s istcom : ibid., p. 72), sans s’apercevoir parfois de l’incompatibilité de ces deux principes (cfr le traité de 1448 où la citation précédente est suivie de la formule « de sackwolde... »).

IV

408

qu’après un second délai d'un an qu’on saisira la marchandise du débiteur étranger pour en disposer (1). Le contre-projet assure au marchand étranger en temps de guerre entre Novgorod et ses voisins la même liberté de circu­ lation sur le territoire novgorodien qu’il a en temps de paix. Le texte dit : « bi watere unde b/i/ lande », car une route ter­ restre est venue s’ajouter à la route maritime et fluviale mention­ née dans le traité de 1262-1263. Il n’y a qu’une seule restriction de cette liberté de circulation, et elle semble s’appliquer à tous les voyages, qu’il y ait paix ou guerre dans le pays : le marchand arrivé par la route de la Neva, ne peut pas emprunter la voie terrestre pour son retour, et vice versa (2).1 (1) Le contre-projet russe est conforme en tout au projet allemand en cette matière. (2) Le contre-projet veut dire qu’en cas de guerre avec un pays voisin, autre que le pays du marchand, ce dernier peut continuer son com­ merce à Novgorod. N ik it s k ij , H istoire de la vie économique de N ovgorod, pp. 147-149, a voulu voir dans cette clause non pas la liberté de rester, mais la liberté de départ ; en réfutant le point de vue, M u l ju k in , Essais, pp. 309311, demande avec raison, pourquoi les marchands quitteraient-ils Novgorod, si la guerre n'est pas avec leur pays ? D'autre part, si l’on comprenait cette disposition comme établissant la liberté de départ des étrangers-ennemis, on se demanderait pourquoi le contre-projet n’indique-t-il pas un délai de départ. Cfr. à ce sujet K u u s c h e r , p. 63. En 1301, deux autres voies terrestres garanties par la ville de N ov­ gorod aux marchands allemands sont mentionnés à côté de la voie flu­ viale et de la voie terrestre mentionnées précédemment (traité conclu par Novgorod avec Lübeck, la rive de Gotland et Riga, Chartes, pp. 63-64). A partir de 1323, il n'y a qu’une formule générale « goroju i vodoju » (« beyde tho lande unde tho watere » : traité de 1338) dans les traités de Novgorod avec les étrangers (Chartes, 1949, pp. 68 et 72) : une pro­ tection générale remplace une protection liée aux routes spécifiées. L ’obli­ gation de retourner par la voie d’arrivée peut être expliquée par le désir de Novgorod d’assurer à ses patrons de bateaux, bateleurs, pilotes et voi­ turiers la stabilité de leur revenu; cfr Gœ t z , H andelsverträge, pp. 138-139. La liberté de circulation accordée par Novgorod, aux marchands étrangers en temps de paix et en temps de guerre a été interprétée par M iljuken , Essais, pp. 312-313, comme liberté de commerce dans tout le territoire novgorodien; cfr S chlüter , Schra, III, 37, p. 93 (aussi II L, II К, II R, pp. 92-93). Cette opinion a été exprimée en réfutant celle de N ik it s k ij , op. cit., p. 149, qui tire du même texte la conclusion que les

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVCORODO-KIEVXENNE

409

Le contre-projet s’occupe ensuite du conflit des témoignages entre un Novgorodien et un Allemand, dans le cas où il y a deux témoins; pour résoudre la contradiction, le sort est tiré pour marchands allemands étaient limités dans leur commerce à la seule ville de Novgorod; sans aller dans l’analyse détaillée de ce texte, nous nous limi­ terons à soutenir celle de Muljukin comme beaucoup plus logique. Comme la Chronique et le traité de 1189-1199 l’attestent, il était aussi permis aux marchands étrangers de faire du commerce en dehors de Novgorod, dans d’autres régions russes (voir p. 398, n, 1) ; par contre la ville de Novgorod refusait constamment la demande des marchands allemands de pouvoir faire commerce à Novgorod même avec les marchands russes venant d’au­ tres régions. Cette demande est formulée par le projet allemand de 1268, art. X III, pour la vente (pas l’achat) des marchandises à tout venant à l'intérieur de la factorerie quia modica vel nulla est différencia m er cat oribus inter hospitem et Nogardiensem (comment les distinguer, l’un de l’autre ?) et pour la vente et l’achat en dehors de la factorerie; le contreprojet ne l’a pas reprise et les sources nous parlent des procès intentés aux Allemands pour un tel commerce (cfr HR., I, 7, N. 637, en date de 1424). Voir aussi le traité de Polotsk avec les Livoniens de 1405, N apüersky, N. CLIV, p. 120. L’article X V I du projet allemand contient une clause relative au commerce des Allemands que le contre-projet ne contient pas, bien que sa teneur est favorable aux Novgorodiens. E lle prévoit une redevance d’un mark d’argent au profit de l’église de Saint-Vendredi, à verser par tout marchand venant de superioribus partibus terrae et voulant se rendre à Gotland. L’église de Saint-Vendredi /cerkov’ svjatyja Pjatnice/ était l'église patronale de la corporation des marchands d’outre-mer /zam orskie kupcy/ à Novgorod; elle fut fondée en 1156. Selon B erejkov , pp. 72 et 157, cette redevance était perçue pour le droit de faire commerce en dehors de la ville de Novgorod en compensation de la perte que cette concurrence entraînait à l’égard des exportateurs indigènes. Cfr Go e tz , H andelsge­ schichte, pp. 140-142. D eux questions ont été soulevées concernant l’étendue de la liberté de commerce des Allemands à Novgorod : celle du commerce dans les vil­ lages et celle du commerce de détail. Selon I. A n d fe ev sk ij , l'auteur de la seule étude existante S u r les droits des étrangers en R ussie avant l'avène­ m ent de Jean I I I , Saint-Péterbourg, 1854, le commerce dans les villages était interdit aux étrangers (pp. 35 et 77). Cependant, jusqu’à la fin du X V I e siècle, la législation russe ne connaissait pas de différence entre gorod (ville), posad (suburbium) et selo (village) au point de vue du régime du commerce ; cfr V. S erg EEVTTCH, A n tiquités juridiques russes, t. I, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1909, pp. 339 et 353 sq. D ’autre part, ce n'est que vers la fin du X V e siècle que pour protéger son revenu le fisc, par les chartes de tonlieu, permet le commerce dans certains endroits et le defend dans

410

indiquer celui dont le témoignage est véridique. Il y a ici l’égalité complète des deux témoignages, avec l’ordalie du tirage au sort où la Providence supplée à l’insuffisance de la vérité terrestre (1). les autres; même alors le commerce est permis dans les villes ou villages sans distinction; cfr M u l ju k in , Essais, p. 320. En ce qui concerne le commerce de détail, les traités ne contiennent rien à son égard avant 1474 quand le traité de Novgorod et Pskov permet expressis verbis le commerce de détail aux deux parties ( Chartes, 1949, p. 134). Selon Go e t z , Handelsgeschichte, pp. 353-354, les restrictions du commerce de détail du côté russe apparaissent dans les sources non comme une application d’un principe général, mais comme des mesures passagères dictées par un conflit. Dans leurs négociations avec les Novgorodiens, en 1436, les Allemands, en tout cas, soutiennent que le commerce de détail, à l’extérieur de la factorerie et dans les rues, représente une coutume ancienne, violée à présent; aussi en 1441 il y a référence au commerce de détail en fourrures, en dehors de la factorerie, comme à une chose de cou­ tume Cfr H R, II, 1 N. 586 4,51 et LUB. IX N . 7773. Le règlement d'ordre intérieur de la factorerie allemande à Novgorod s’occupe aussi du commerce de détail ; notamment, S e h r a, IV , 33, établit les minima des marchandises à vendre par les apprentis aux magasins de la factorerie, mais cette règle apparaît beaucoup plus comme une mesure relative aux rapports des apprentis avec les patrons qu’une réflection des coutumes russes (S chlüter , Schra, p. 136). Il faut remarquer que les restrictions du commerce ne venaient pas seulement du côté russe, et que les Schra’s en contiennent un nombre considérable; du côté allemand, ces restrictions pouvaient être dictées par le désir d’éviter les difficultés de paiement, la concurrence déloyale grâce aux rapports plus étroits avec la population indigène, ou, tout simplement, des frictions avec cette popula­ tion. Ainsi, le commerce à crédit avec les Russes est défendu ; voir S chlüter , Schra, II, III, 10, pp. 68-69; ceci comprend tout contrat de commission. Cette défense n’était pas toujours observée en pratique; cfr à ce sujet H. H ild Ebrahdt , « Rapport sur les recherches faites aux archives de Riga et Reval » (Supplément au t. X X IX des M ém oires de VAcadémie Impériale, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1877), N N . 301, 447 et 539. Sur les mar­ chandises dont le commerce est interdit aux étrangers (zapovèdnye tova ry), voir plus haut, pp. 8-9. (1) Le projet allemand est plus précis que le contre-projet en ce qu’il exige, dans l'article X V II, le témoignage conforme des Russes et Allemands. D e plus, le projet demande quatre témoins, deux Russes et deux Allemands, tandis que le contre-projet n’en demande que deux. Sur le tirage au sort dans la Russie novgorodo-kieévienne, cfr M. SzEFTEL, « Le jugement de Dieu dans le droit russe ancien », A rch ives d*Histoire du D roit Oriental, t. IV , Bruxelles, 1949, pp. 293-299.

les étrangers dans la

Russie novgorodo- kievienne

411

Par contre, il n'y a pas d’égalité entre les créanciers novgorodiens et étrangers à l’égard d’un débiteur russe. Le contreprojet établit un privilège pour le créancier étranger, qui n’appa­ raît pas précédemment dans les traités de Novgorod, mais que la Justice Russe a formulé auparavant. Le contre-projet ne cite que le cas d’un débiteur de mauvaise foi : « unde sin gut vorveret ofte vordot » ; on peut en déduire que la priorité des créances étrangères ne s’appliquait pas à Novgorod aux créances gotlandaises et allemandes, si le débiteur était de bonne foi. Le contre-projet suit également la règle de la Justice Russe selon laquelle le débiteur en faute est vendu en esclavage, s’il ne peut pas payer l’argent dû à un créancier étranger. Ce principe n’est pas formulé directement, mais il est à la base de la dispo­ sition du contre-projet qui proclame la liberté de la femme de ce débiteur, si elle ne s’est pas portée caution pour l’obligation de son mari; dans ce dernier cas elle le suit dans l’esclavage, si tous les deux ne peuvent pas payer la dette. Le contexte de cette clause indique qu’en l’occurrence, il ne s’agit, également, que d’un débiteur de mauvaise foi (1). Le monument traite des poids dans ses clauses finales, dont l’une est générale et l’autre spécifique. La clause générale stipule que ces poids (« dhat gewichte unde dhat gelode van silvere unde van anderemme gode ») doivent être égaux et corrects; la clause1

(1) Voir plus haut, pp. 380-381. Le projet allemand est plus sévère pour le débiteur en faute que le contre-projet; non seulement la priorité pour les créances de l’étranger, mais aussi l’esclavage est prévu pour tout débiteur, même celui de bonne foi. D ’autre part, la femme du débiteur et ses fils (« pueri », pas les filles ?) le suivent dans l’esclavage en tout état de cause. Le projet est aussi plus explicite sur la mise en esclavage elle-même qui doit être précédée par une exposition du débi­ teur et de sa famille en public pour rachat moyennant le paiement de la ciéance du marchand étranger. Pour l'obligation commune des mari et femme cfr H . H ild e br a n d , Das Rigische Schuldbuch (1286-1352), SaintPétersbourg, 1872, p. 89, N. 1387 en date de 1286 : Tyrentey Rutenus et

их or sua tenentur eidem Thiderico III tnrc. arg., dimidietatem solvent Penthecostes, reliquum Petri et Pauli..

412

spéciale donne l'équivalence de la kap* novgorodienne enlivres de Livonie (1) (2) (3). (1) Voir ci-dessus, p. 393, n. 1. Le projet allemand, dans les articles X X et X X I, contient les deux clauses du contre-projet (avec plus de précision pour la première clause : libra bis equari debet in anno, si expedite videbitur, sim iliter schala argenti), mais aussi d’autres détails sur la pesée des marchandises, la redevance, et le serment du peseur. Vu la valeur de l’argent, le projet prend des précautions particulièrement rigoureuses quant à sa pesée, le poids après la refonte et sa vente au vérificateur de l’argent. Il n’y a pas de redevance à payer pour la pesée de l’argent, probablement, pour encourager son importation. Le projet parle également de fu n is sancti P etri qui servira d’une mesure pour les marchands allemands. Cfr Gooerz, H andelsverträge, pp. 150-157 sur cette part des deux projets. (2) Le projet allemand contient une série d'autres dispositions absen­ tes du contre-projet. Parmi ces dispositions nous relèverons celle sur le droit des marchands allemands d'envoyer leurs jeunes gens n’importe où dans la région novgorodienne pour leur faire apprendre le russe (art. X I II). Bien que le contre-projet fasse silence sur cette demande, il semble qu’en pratique les Novgorodiens toléraient la présence dans leurs pays de ces disciples; cfr G o e tz , op. cit., pp. 131-133. On relèvera également dans l’ar­ ticle X V du projet la défense de retenir par force un Allemand dans une maison russe; ceci ne peut se faire que dans un seul cas, si, notamment, le Russe a informé le doyen de la factorerie de son grief, et que l'Alle­ mand, malgré l’injonction du doyen, est venu chez le Russe. Sur ceci voir également Go^rz, op. cit., pp. 136-137. Il y a aussi la défense de forcer un Allemand ou un Gotlandais de participer dans une expédition militaire (art. X V I) qui, bien qu’absente du contre-projet, a été toujours observée par les Novgorodiens; également fut observée la clause de l’article X X II, selon laquelle les marchands d’hiver ou d’été sur leur chemin de retour en aval de Volhov n'étaient pas obligés de louer des bateleurs pour les conduire à travers les rapides et, s ’ils décidaient d’en louer, pouvaient se contenter d’un seul vorschkerl (ductor) à qui ils paieraient 8 têtes de mar­ tres et un pain. Googrz, op. cit., p. 157, explique cette clause par le fait qu'il n’y avait pas de halage et par la durée plus courte du voyage en aval. (3) Dans la présente étude nous nous sommes contentés de l’examen des sources novgorodo-pskoviennes, sans aucune préoccupation comparative. On cherchera la documentation comparative dans Go®tz, H andelsverträge et K u u s c h e r , H istoire ; ce dernier ouvrage contient de nombreux parallèles entre les clauses des traités novgorodo-allemands et celles des traités conclus par les villes hanséatiques avec l’Angleterre, la Flandre et les pays Scandinaves. Il trouve dans les traités novgorodiens un régime beaucoup plus restrictif à l’égard des marchands allemands. Pour expli­ quer la différence, il esquisse quelques idées qu’il serait utile de présenter ici-même. Selon lui, des raisons politiques, économiques et géographiques ont rendu l’influence des villes hanséatiques moins forte à Novgorod et

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

413

B. Les traités de Smolensk, Vitebsk et Polotsk. Le plus ancien traité conservé dans ce groupe est celui de 1229. Il a été conclu par le prince Mstislav Davydovitch de Smo­ lensk pour lui-même et pour les princes de Polotsk et de Vitebsk. Ce traité a formulé de façon définitive les principes fondamentaux à la base du statut légal des marchands allemands dans la région de la Dvina et du Dniepr supérieur. Les traités et les accords supplémentaires qui ont suivi celui de 1229 contien­ nent très peu de dispositions nouvelles avant le traité conclu par le grand prince Vitowt de Lithuanie, agissant pour la ville de Polotsk, en 1406, traité qui appartient à un autre contexte que celui de la présente étude. Parmi ces traités et accords, seul Гасcord, conclu par Smolensk avec Riga et la rive de Gotland en 1230-1270 a une valeur générale. Cet accord ne contenant éga­ lement que peu de nouveautés, nous ne l’analyserons pas indé­ pendamment, mais nous nous y référons pour précision et comPskov qu'elle ne l'était en Europe occidentale. Le pouvoir très limité du prince dans les républiques marchandes de la Russie du nord-est a réduit au minimum son contact avec les marchands étrangers; d’autre part, il n’y avait pas à Novgorod et Pskov d’autres notables que les riches marchands. L’endettement du prince et de l’aristocratie locale à l’égard des hanséatiques qui était à la base de leur influence dans l’Occident était absent à Novgorod et Pskov, et c'est la raison la plus importante de la différence dans leur statut légal. A ceci il faut ajouter l’absence du port maritime à Novgorod et à Pskov, pour des raisons géographiques, les deux villes marchandes se trouvant à l’intérieur du continent. Cette absence du port maritime a fait que de nombreux services locaux, existant dans les villes maritimes de l’Occident, avec une population nombreuse desservant les hanséatiques (hôteliers, bailleurs d’entrepôts, courtiers, notaires, traducteurs, constructeurs de bateaux, etc.) faisait défaut en Russie, et il faut voir ici une autre raison de faiblesse relative de la Hanse dans ses demandes. Enfin, l’absence de l’industrie lainière, si importante en Flandre et en Angleterre, à laquelle les hanséatiques offraient des débouchés, peut être citée comme la troisième raison de la différence dans leur degré d’in­ fluence.

414

plément; nous procéderons de la même façon à l’égard des trai­ tés, autres que celui de 1229 (1). Le traité de 1229 débute par des sanctions frappant le meurtre d’un homme libre ou d’un esclave, la mutilation, et les coups et blessures avec effusion de sang ou sans effusion de sang (art. 1 -3 ); les sanctions des crimes et délits continuent aux articles 11 à 13 du traité : adultère, viol d’une femme libre ou d’une esclave, ligotage. Dans l’accord de 1230-1270, les articles 2 à 4, 12 et 21 à 24 traitent de la même matière; un attentat à la1 (1) Le traité de 1229 fut conservé en sept copies plus tardives qui toutes ont été publiées dans N a p ie r s k y , pp. 405-447; les copies A à F ont été imprimées parallèlement, et elles sont suivies de la copie G. Toutes ces copies sont en russe, mais tous les originaux de 1229 se sont perdus (russe, latin et allemand), et nous ne disposons que des traductions en russe des exemplaires originaux latin et allemand. Les copies D, E, F et G remontent à l’original latin préparé à Riga, tandis que les copies A, B et C remontent à l’original allemand préparé sur l’île de Gotland. Selon G o e tz , Handelsverträge , pp. 299-300, c’est la rédaction de Gotland qui fut consi­ dérée comme le texte authentique du traité par les deux parties; elle est aussi représentée par la copie la plus ancienne (copie A ). E n se rangeant du côté de ce raisonnement, nous nous servirons de la copie A dans notre étude, avec des variantes tirées de la copie D. Pour ces deux copies nous nous référerons au texte publié dans Monuments II, pp. 57-71 (édition synoptique des copies A et D, où la numération des articles du traité est conforme à Napiersky). Le traité de 1299 qui forme dans sa copie G la note 248 du tome II de VHistoire de VBtat russe de Karamzine (Moscou, 1818, 2e édition) a été traduit, comme partie de cet ouvrage, en français, italien, allemand, polo­ nais et grec (cité dans l’ordre des traductions). Gcasrz, Handelsverträge, pp. 231-297, contient la traduction en allemand de la copie A (avec quel­ ques variantes de la copie D ). Jusqu'ici, aucune des deux copies n’a été traduite en français, et nous offron s des éléments de cette traduction ici-même. En ce qui concerne l’accord de 1230-1270, conclu pour Smolensk seu­ lement, il est daté de 1250 par G o e tz qui l’a traduit et commenté dans Handelsverträge , pp. 305-320; nous suivons, cependant, la datation de Monuments, II, qui étant moins précise nous parait être plus prudente. L’original russe de cet accord a été publié dans N a p ie r s k y , pp. 451-453; nous nous servons du texte identique de Monuments, II, pp. 72-75, et nous en suivons la division en articles. En dehors de la traduction de Goetz, aucune traduction de cet article n’existe, et ici, également, nous offrons la première traduction en français de cet accord.

U;S ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

415

personne y est ajouté dont le traité de 1229 ne parle pas, notam­ ment le fait d’arracher la barbe à autrui (art. 19). Par contre, l’accord ne parle pas du meurtre d’esclave, en dehors de celui du tiun urbain du prince (qui peut être son esclave), dans l’arti­ cle 21. Grosso modo, les dispositions de ces deux monuments sur les attentats à la personne correspondent à celles des traités novgorodiens ( 1 ). L’article 4 du traité de 1229 défend de mettre en prison un marchand allemand qui est en faute. Ceci correspond aux provi­ sions des traités novgorodiens, mais le traité de Smolensk permet de mettre aux fers le marchand, s’il ne peut pas produire une caution. La contradiction apparente entre la permission de met­ tre aux fers le marchand en faute, et la défense de le mettre en prison est résolue par G o e t z , Handelsverträge, p. 245, par la supposition que le traité parle de la détention du débiteur en faute par son créancier au domicile de ce dernier. Il y a réciprocité rigoureuse entre les droits des deux parties contractantes ici, comme dans les autres dispositions du traité, mais l’accord de 1230-1270, dans une clause parallèle, ne parle que du marchand russe à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland (art. 5). La priorité des créances allemandes sur les créances russes, même sur la créance du prince, est attestée par les articles 5 et 6 du traité (les articles 6 et 7 de l’accord admettent la même priorité). Le traité de Smolensk, à l’encontre des traités novgo­ rodiens, applique cette règle à tout débiteur, de bonne ou de mau­ vaise foi; ces traités ne parlent non plus de l’argent dû au prince, et il faut en conclure que, comme dans la Justice Russe (art. 49), la créance du prince à Novgorod passe devant la créance d’un étranger. Les créances des marchands allemands sont aussi protégées1 (1) C fr A. Bruyère, op. cit., pp. 354-358, où est donnée également la traduction en français de ces clauses. M. Bruyère a négligé les varian­ tes de la rédaction de Riga ; nous en noterons ici celle de l’article 1, où en dehors du meurtre d’un esclave, puni d’une livre d'argent, des coups à un esclave sont mentionnés : ils sont punis d’une livre de martres.

416

par l'article 7 du traité de 1229 : « Si un Latin prête à un esclave du prince ou à un autre homme de confiance, et qu'il meure sans avoir payé, celui qui recueillera sa succession paiera l'Allemand ». G o e t z , Handelsverträge, p. 249, voit dans cette disposition une autre affirmation de la priorité des créances étrangères sur celles des indigènes; il nous semble plutôt que la clause en question veut garantir aux Allemands la sécurité des opérations commer­ ciales faites par un intermédiaire, y compris l'esclave du prince. Cette portée générale de l'article 7 du traité apparaît plus claire­ ment dans l'accord de 1230-1270 (art. 8 ) : « Si un homme de Smolensk donne sa marchandise (à crédit) à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland, et que (le débiteur) meure sans avoir réglé la dette celui qui recueillera sa succession paiera pour la marchandise du marchand ». Contrairement à la situation novgorodienne, les deux parties considèrent comme une chose normale le commerce à cré­ dit; aussi le prince à Smolensk peut avoir des relations commer­ ciales avec les Allemands, relations que la Ville de Novgorod ne tolère pas. Les articles 8 à 10 du traité de 1229 traitent de la procédure judiciaire. L'article 8 est parallèle à la clause du contre-projet novgorodien de 1269 : « Un Russe n'agira pas contre un Latin à l'aide d'un seul cojurateur; il (n'agira contre lui) qu'à l'aide des deux cojurateurs, l'un étant Allemand et l'autre étant Russe, bonnes gens... » Les articles 9 et 10 établissent la dispense réci­ proque des ordalies de fer et du combat judiciaire; les traités novgorodiens font silence sur cette matière. Pour l'analyse de ces dispositions voir M. S z e f t e l , o/>. cit, pp. 265-267 et 269-270 (aussi traduction de ces clauses). En même temps le traité pro­ clame, dans le même article 1 0 , le principe de la non-intervention du prince de Smolensk dans les querelles intérieures de la colo­ nie allemande : « Si les marchands latins se battent entre eux sur le territoire russe, que ce soit à l'épée ou au bois, le prince n'y interviendra pas, ceci ils le jugeront entre eux... » Une lutte à arme tranchante peut conduire au meurtre, et on peut interpré­ ter cette clause comme garantissant aux deux parties l’immunité

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

417

judiciaire absolue à l’intérieur de leurs colonies. Ici, le statut des marchands allemands à Smolensk ne diffère pas de celui de leurs compatriotes à Novgorod. L'accord de 1230-1270 reprend, à peu de procédure près, dans ses articles 9 à 11, les règles de la procédure établies dans les articles 8 à 1 0 du traité de 1229. L'article 13 du traité de 1229 interdisant toute violence arbi­ traire en vue du recouvrement d’une créance ( 1 ) (cfr le traité novgorodien de 1189-1199), l’article 14 établit la procédure régu­ lière à cet égard : « Si un Russe doit payer à un Latin, et qu'il refuse de payer, en ce cas le Latin demandera un bachelier (dêtskij) chez le tiun. Si le Latin, ayant payé ses gages au bache­ lier, ce dernier n’obtient pas chez le Russe le règlement de sa dette (commerciale) endéans les huit jours, en ce cas le Russe produira une caution à l’Allemand. Et si les gens de Smolensk ne donnent pas à l’Allemand la liberté à cet égard, ils devront payer eux-mêmes la dette... » (2). Cependant, ici à Smolensk, les Allemands ont obtenu le privilège qu’ils ont vainement demandé à Novgorod dans le projet de 1268 (art. X), notamment, l’arbitration nécessaire par leur doyen de tout différend entre eux et les Russes. L'article 22 du traité de 1229 dit à ce sujet : « Un Russe ne fera pas appel à un bachelier contre un Latin,1 (1) C fr « Qu’on ne pille pas la marchandise par force, qu’on n'exerce pas la coercition à l'égard d’un homme sans faute », Plainte de Riga au prince Michel Konstantinovitch de Vitebsk (1289-1300), N a p d e rsk y , Х1ЛХ, p. 26. (2) D êtskij était un serviteur militaire du prince, chargé parfois d'exploits judiciaires ou de fonctions administratives; cfr D ’ja k o n o v , op. cit., pp. 83-84 et E c k , Moyen âge, p. 526, note 541. Etymologiquement, ce terme correspond à celui de « bachelier » dans la terminologie médiévale française (cfr Marc B lo c h , h a Société féodale, Paris, 1940, t. II, p. 79). En dehors des documents de Smolensk et des villes de la Dvina, les fonc­ tions judiciaires de dêtskij sont mentionnées dans la Justice russe, rédac­ tion étendue, art. 78 et 97. Le texte de cet article dans la copie D est quel­ que peu différent : « ...E t si le bachelier, après avoir perçu de l’argent, n’obtient pas le règlement endéans la semaine, il lui sera loisible {scil. à l’Allemand ?) de prendre le Russe dans sa maison. Et si quelqu'un s’en saisit par violence, celui-là paiera pour la marchandise ».

IV

418

sinon après avoir déclaré (l’affaire) au doyen des Latins. Si (le Latin) n’obéit pas au doyen, le Russe peut faire appel à un bachelier contre le Latin... » Cette clause n’a pas été reprise par l’accord de 1230-1270, ce qui pourrait indiquer une réaction pas­ sagère contre le régime de l’arbitration; dans son article 13 l’accord reprend bien l’article 14 du traité, avec des modifica­ tions : « Si un Allemand a une dette à l’égard d’un Smolenskien à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland, il en cherchera le règlement ayant requis un bachelier chez le juge. Si ce bachelier n’obtient pas le règlement (de la dette), après avoir perçu les gages, on fera appel à un autre bachelier contre le débiteur, et si (même alors) le débiteur se met à finasser, on le fera comparaître devant le juge pour que le juge le livre. De même un Allemand à Smo­ lensk fera comparaître le débiteur russe devant le prince pour que le prince le livre. Si quelqu’un soustrait le débiteur chez un Smolenskien à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland, en ce cas celui qui l’a soustrait paiera pour lui. On agira de même à l’égard des Allemands à Smolensk (1). Les articles 15 à 18 du traité sont consacrés au voyage des Allemands entre la Dvina occidentale et Smolensk le long de la Kasplja, tributaire de la Dvina en amont de Vitebsk. Pour assu­ rer la sécurité de ce voyage, et surtout du transport des mar­ chandises « dès que le tiun (de Volok, i.e. portage, une colonie des porteurs et voituriers non-identifée) apprend l’arrivée des marchands latins, il enverra des gens avec des chariots pour transporter les marchandises, et il ne les retiendra pas; s’ils les retient, cela peut entraîner une perte (pour eux) » (art. 15) (2 ).1 (1) Cfr le verdict du prince Théodore Rostislavitch de Smolensk, en date de 1284 : « Voici que moi, Théodore, prince de Smolensk, j’ai jugé (l’affaire de) Birel contre Armanovitch concernant le poids allemand. Birel a gain de cause, et Armanovitch est en faute. J’ai livré Armanovitch avec sa cour (scil. avec ses biens) aux Allemands pour le poids » ( N apebrsky , X X X V II, p. 19). Nous suivons Gogtz, op. cit., p. 330 dans l’interprétation de kolokol de ce texte comme « poids (fau x) ». (2) Cet article dans la rédaction de Riga est plus détaillée : « E t aussitôt le tiun de Volok apprend qu’un marchand allemand est arrivé au

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

419

Les gens de Volok sont collectivement responsables pour la mar­ chandise qufils transportent : « Si un homme de Volok prend une marchandise latine pour la mener à travers le portage, et que quelque chose se perde de cette marchandise qui lui a été confiée, en ce cas tous les gens de Volok le paieront... » (art. 1 8 ). Les marchands allemands et les marchands russes des trois princi­ pautés contractantes ont la même priorité de service à Volok sur les marchands russes venant des autres régions; mais, entre eux-mêmes, Tordre de service est décidé par le tirage au sort (art. 1 6 ). Les marchands allemands, en arrivant à Smolensk de Volok, présenteront à la princesse une pièce de toile, et ils don­ neront des gants au tiun de Volok «pour qu’il fasse transporter la marchandise sans délai » (art. 17 ( 1 ) . L’accord de 1230-1270 ne contient pas ces détails; il se contente de Taffirmation géné­ rale : « Et sur le Volok, ce sera comme de coutume » (art. 1 5 ). Les articles 19 à 21 du traité garantissent aux deux parties la liberté de commerce et la sécurité des transactions commer­ ciales. L’article 19 dit : « Si un Latin vient dans la ville, il pourra vendre en toute liberté, et personne n’élèvera pas la parole contre cela... » Il n’y a pas de droit d’entrepôt dans les trois vil­ les : « Si un Latin veut aller de Smolensk dans un autre pays, ni le prince ni une autre personne ne le détiendront à cause de cela. De même un Russe pourra aller de la rive de Gotland à Travna (i.e. à Lübeck, situé sur la rivière Trave) », art. 20 ( 2 ) . 1 portage avec les Smolenskiens, il enverra à toute vitesse son homme chez les gens de Volok pour qu’ils transportent le marchand allemand et les Smolenskiens avec la marchandise, et que personne ne leur cause de vexa­ tions, parce que les Smolenskiens et Allemands souffrent des grandes pertes de la part des païens à cause de cette vexation ». Ces païens, comme la plainte de Riga au prince Michel le prouve, sont des Lithuaniens qui atta­ quent les marchands en route vers Vitebsk et Smolensk; les plaignants demandent au prince une compensation pour la marchandise perdue sur son territoire (N apiêrsky , X L IX , pp. 27-28). (1) La rédaction de Riga dit : « et au tiun de Volok des gants à doigts, de Gotland ». (2) La liberté de commerce embrassait le commerce à Smolensk même avec les marchands russes venant d’autres régions. Cf г la plainte de Riga au prince Michel où les Allemands s’expriment ainsi : « ...Maintenant, tu

IV

420

Au sujet du contrat de vente, le traité dit : « Si un Russe achète de la marchandise chez un homme Latin et qu'il emmène la marchandise à la maison, en ce cas le Latin ne reprendra pas la marchandise de retour, et ce Russe la paiera... » (art. 2 1 ) . L'accord de 1230-1270 traite des mêmes matières dans ses articles 1, 20 et 17. L'article 1er dit : «... Quand les Allemands seront dans mon Smolensk, ils auront le commerce libre dans mon Smolensk »; une clause y est ajoutée que le traité ne contient pas : « Et sur les bateaux les places sont libres pour un Alle­ mand comme pour un Smolenskien ». La liberté de départ est soumise dans l'article 20 aux restrictions que le traité de 1229 ne connaît pas : « Et si des marchands allemands sont à Smolensk, et l'un d'eux se met à demander (de partir) pour un autre pays, en ce cas il en fera la demande, et moi, je le laisserai partir après délibération, comme c’était sous mon père, Mstislav Romanovitch, et sous mon frère Mstislav » ( 1 ) . L'article 17 de l'accord réaf­ firme la règle formulée dans l’article 21 du traité (2 ).*80 établis une nouvelle justice que nous n'avons pas entendue ni de nos pères, ni de nos grands-pères, ni de nos aïeux... Tu a donné l'ordre de proclamer à travers le marché : qu’un marchand ne fasse pas commerce avec un (autre) marchand ! » (N a p b e rsk y , loc. cit., pp. 26-27). — Gouub o v sk y , Histoire de la région de Smolensk , Kiev, 1895, pp. 152 sq. a vu dans l'article 20 une clause supprimant la limitation de la liberté de dépla­ cement, introduite selon lui, par le prince Mstilav Romanovitch de Smo­ lensk {ibid., p. 138) ; cfr note suivante. (1) Selon G o iajb o v sk y , loc. cit., c’était une nouvelle suppression de la liberté de déplacement. Cependant, cette suppression n’était qu'un inter­ mède, car déjà sous le prince Gleb Rotislavitch (1270-1277) la « Justice » (i.e. traité) de 1229 fut de nouveau confirmée pour rester en vigueur plus de 80 ans; cfr Monuments, II, p. 55 (introduction au texte du traité). M stislav Romanovitch était prince de Smolensk entre 1197 et 1214, mais qui était l’autre Mstislav ? Mstislav Romanovitch n’avait pas un fils de ce nom ; si l’on comprend « frère.» comme « cousin » l’accord se réfère, peut-être, au prince Mstislav Davydovitch, l’auteur même du traité de 1299. Dans ce cas, est-ce une référence à l'état de choses qui existait avant la conclusion du traité par ce prince (il a régné de 1223 à 1231). L’accord lui-même a été conclu, selon E. Kunik (son éditeur dans N a p ie r s k y ) , par le Prince Ros­ tislav Mstislavitch (1240-1250), et, selon P. Golubovsky, par le prince Vsevolod Mstislavitch (1230-1270). (2) Le volume de l'achat n'étant pas indiqué dans cet article, on se

IV LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

421

On peut voir dans le privilegium fori établi par le même article 21 une protection de plus de la sécurité des marchés : « Un Russe n'appellera pas un Latin au tribunal d’un autre prince, sauf par devant le prince de Smolensk, mais si le Latin le veut lui-même, en ce cas il (peut) y aller » (1). L'accord ne prévoit pas ce cas, en affirmant la juridiction du prince de Smo-*I, demande, s’il couvre également le commerce de détail. Ce commerce a été opposé par les Novgorodiens, mais avant 1406 il semble avoir été considéré comme normal dans les villes de la Dvina (et à Smolensk). Au moins, les textes font silence à son égard. On pourrait aussi déduire d’un silence analogue qu’il n’y avait pas d’interdiction de la vente de certaines marchan­ dises, comme à Novgorod et Pskov. (1) La rédaction de Riga dit qu’un Russe n’appellera pas un Latin devant une justice mixte /obtchij sud/ contre sa volonté, sinon celle du prince de Smolensk. Cette clause semble prévoir le cas, où l’acheteur russe vient d’une principauté autre que celle de Smolensk et veut saisir du d if­ férend son prince à lui, ou bien la justice « mixte » de son prince et du prince de Smolensk, décidant en commun. Le contexte de cette clause est, probablement, à l’origine de son interprétation par A. Zb UN, M onum ents, II, p. 81, comme justice d’arbitration du prince de Smolensk; ce point de vue ne nous paraît pas conforme à d’autres articles du traité (cfr art. 22 qui suit la clause). Vladimirskij-Budanov, Chrestomatie, I, p. 122, note 36, comprend « autre prince » comme un prince d’une ville mineure /prigorod/ par rapport à Smolensk ; G o e tz , op. cit., p. 272, a remarqué avec raison que Vladimirskij-Budanov n’a pas expliqué s’il a en vue les princes de Vitebsk et de Polotsk, mentionnés à la fin du traité comme co-contractants du prince de Smolensk, ou bien les princes de la région de Smolensk ellemême. Il est peu probable que cette clause a voulu abolir en cette matière la juridiction des princes de Vitebsk et de Polotsk; quant aux princesvassaux du prince de Smolensk, la clause peut bien les avoir en vue. Dans une lettre de l’archevêque de Riga Jean II au grand prince Théodore Rostislavitch de Smolensk, en date de 1217, il y a expression du mécontentement que les gens de Vitebsk avaient saisi de leur différend avec ceux de Riga le prince de Brjansk « lieutenant » du prince de Smolensk (N apiersky, X X X IV , p. 18). MuLjuKm, Essais, p. 314, voit dans cette clause de l’arti­ cle 21 une confirmation de la règle que les étrangers avaient le droit de passer les'contrats partout dans la terre de Smolensk. GoaîTz, loc. cit., sou­ ligne la contradiction du point de vue exprimé dans cette clause avec celui de l’art. 11 du traité novgorodien de 1189-1199, mais, à notre avis, il va trop loin, en voulant appliquer le privilegium fo r i y établi au profit du prince de Smolensk à tous les différends qui pourraient surgir entre A lle­ mands et Russes lors des voyages des Allemands résidant à Smolensk à l’intérieur de la Russie.

IV

422

lensk : « Et s'il y a un procès à Smolensk entre un Allemand et un Smolenskien, le prince de Smolensk le jugera, et le procès en finira là » (art. 18) (1). La teneur de cet article tout en couvrant partiellement la règle formulée dans l'article 21 du traité, reprend brièvement dans sa phrase finale celle que contient l'article 34 du même traité : « On ne recevra pas l'appel d'aucun Russe à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland; de même on ne recevra pas l'appel d'aucun Latin en territoire russe. Et l'affaire qui sera décidée à Smolensk entre Russes et Latins par devant les juges et les bonnes gens, on ne la recommencera plus à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland; et ce qui sera décidé à Riga ou sur la rive de Gotland, par devant les juges et les bonnes gens, on ne le recommencera pas à Smolensk » (2). Les articles 24 et 29 forment le règlement de la pesée : Un Latin paiera au peseur un martre de Smolensk de (chaques) deux kap's de cire » (art. 24); « si un Latin achète une livre d'or, et qu'il la donne à peser, il paiera au peseur une nogata de Smo­ lensk, mais s'il vend (une livre d'or) il ne paiera rien » (art. 25). Pour garantir le poids complet, l’article 29 établit la conformité1 (1) Les deux clauses finales de l’accord parlent des deux cas spé­ ciaux dans lesquels le prince n’intervient pas : « Si l’un de mes frères entre Smolensk et qu’une rixe surgisse entre vous (scil. les Allemands) et leurs hommes, c ’est à vous-mêmes d’avoir affaire avec eux. Ou si un mar­ chand arrive de quelque région de Smolensk, et qu’il y ait rixe entre vous et lui, vous aurez affaire avec eux vous-mêmes ». Il s’agit ici, d’une part, de la truste d’un prince qui vient en visite à Smolensk, et, d’autre part, des différends avec les marchands en visite à Smolensk. On peut voir dans la dernière clause de cet accord une confirmation du droit des marchands allemands de faire commerce avec les marchands non-smolenskiens à Smo­ lensk même, mais aussi l’affirmation d’une règle parallèle à celle formulée dans le traité novgorodien de 1189-1199 que les affaires entre Allemands et Russes ayant leur origine en dehors de Smolensk ne sont pas de la juridiction du prince de Smolensk (ceci réfuterait le point de vue de G o e t z , cfr plus haut, p. 421, note 1). (2) Cfr la lettre de l’archevêque de Riga Jean II au grand prince Théodore Rostislavitch, citée plus haut : « Et entre vous et nous il y a cette justice que là où un procès a son commencement, c’est là qu’on le finit ».

IV

LES ÉTRANGERS DANS LA RUSSIE NOVGORODO-KIEVIENNE

423

des кар's en usage avec le$ étalons : « Si la кар* avec laquelle on pèse, se casse, ou qu’elle devienne plus légère, en ce cas on apportera les deux kap’s au même endroit, celle qui est déposée à l’église de la Sainte-Vierge sur le mont, et l’autre (déposée) à l’église latine, et on les comparera » ( 1 ). Le reste du règlement concerne la pesée de l’or et de l’ar­ gent. En ce qui concerne l’or, « si un Latin achète une livre d’or et qu’il la donne à peser, il paiera au peseur une nogata de Smo­ lensk, (mais) s’il vend (une livre d’or), il ne paiera rien » (art. 25). En ce qui concerne la pesée de l’argent, « si le Latin achète des vaisseaux d’argent, il paiera au peseur une nogata de Smolensk de chaque livre d’argent, (mais) s’il en vend, il ne paiera rien » (art. 26); par contre, « si un Allemand achète une livre d’argent, il paiera au peseur deux écureuils » (donc une redevance moindre, est-ce parce qu’il est plus facile de vérifier le poids d’une unité monétaire que de peser un vaisseau d’argent?) Ici, également, « s’il vend (une livre d’argent), il ne paiera rien » (art. 27). La vente des métaux précieux est exempte de toute redevance, propablement, à cause du désir d’en favoriser l’afflux dans la région de Smolensk. L'article 28 du traité concerne la refonte d’un objet d’argent : « Si un Latin donne à refondre (un objet d’) argent, il paiera un martre de Smolensk de chaque livre d’argent » (le texte ne dit pas à qui cette redevance est payée, mais le contexte semble indiquer qu’elle est payée au peseur) (2 ). L'article 30 du traité fait le pendant à l’article 19 (qui parle de la liberté de la vente) : « Il est loisible à un Latin d’acheter à Smolensk la marchandise qu’il voudra, sans vexation... » Cette clause est suivie d’une disposition établissant pour les marchands allemands venant de Gotland la liberté de parcours jusqu'à Smo­ lensk : « Tout homme latin aura la voie libre de la rive de Got­ land jusqu’à Smolensk, sans tonlieu » (art. 31). L’article 16 de1 (1) Sur kap*, voir plus haut, p. 392, n. 2. (2) Voir p. 399, n. 1.

IV

424

l’accord de 1230-1270 contient une règle analogue : « Et la voie est claire de Smolensk à Riga, et il n’y a lieu pour eux de payer ni la taxe de la cire /vochtchec/ ni le tonlieu ». Les traités novgorodiens soulignent bien la liberté des routes et organisent leur sécurité, mais ils n’affirment pas l’immunité fiscale ( 1 ). Comme le projet allemand de 1268 (art. XVI), l’article 32 du traité de 1229 permet à un Latin de « ne pas partir en guerre avec le prince ou les Russes; celui qui le veut lui-même, peut par­ tir » (2 ). Le traité de 1229, dans son article 33, fait une concession au point de vue allemand qui, formulé pendant les négociations avec Novgorod dans le projet allemand de 1268 (art. III), a été rejeté par le contre-projet russe. Le traité de 1229 est, certaine­ ment, moins précis à cet égard que le projet allemand de 1268, mais, d’autre part, il est aussi plus général : « Si un Russe ou un Latin saisit un voleur, il agira à son égard selon sa volonté : il le met où il veut ». Cfr B e r EJKOV, p. 191 et G o e t z , Handelsver­ träge, p. 277. La clause finale du traité de 1229 concerne le naufrage : « Si, que Dieu ne le veuille, un bateau ou un canot soit d’un Russe soit d’un Latin se brise dans le territoire de ceux qui ont accordé la liberté présente, la marchandise de cet homme est libre sur l’eau et sur la rive, sans vexation à qui que ce soit; et la marchandise tombée dans l’eau, il la tirera sur place avec ses compagnons de l’eau à la rive. S’il a besoin de plus d’aide, en ce cas, il en louera devant des cojurateurs; celui qui y est pré-1 (1) Kubischer, op. cit., doute de l’existence de l’immunité fiscale pour les marchands allemands à Smolensk. En dehors des redevances pour la pesée, la mention par le traité de 1229 de la taxe à payer à l’entrée de la ville de Smolensk et des coutumes sur le Volok (art. 17 du traité et art. 15 de l’accord) suffisent, selon lui, comme preuve du contraire (pp. 71 et 104). (2) Le traité de 1229 ne dit rien de la liberté de circulation en temps de guerre garantie aux marchands allemands par le contre-projet novgorodien de 1269, mais la rédaction de Riga emploie une expression qui peut la suggérer : « Si le prince de Smolensk part en guerre, les marchands alle­ mands n’y sont pour rien /n e nadobe je Nemec’skomu gost’i.../» .

les étrangers dans la

Russie novgorodo- kievienne

425

sent sera cojurateur; on donnera aux aides ce qu'on leur avait promis, et on ne leur donnera pas plus » (art. 37). GoETZ, Handelsverträge, p. 290, en commentant cet article, fait obser­ ver qu’il ne s’agit pas ici du territoire russe, mais de celui sous l’autorité de l’évêque de Riga et de l’Ordre livonien; son argu­ ment est tiré de l’article 36 qui (dans la rédaction de Riga sur­ tout) ne parle que de la liberté de navigation et de route accordée aux marchands russes et allemands le long de la Dvina par les autorités allemandes de la région de Riga. Bien qu’il n’exprime pas sa pensée avec clarté, Goetz semble croire que la suppression du droit de naufrage dans l’article 37 a été due à l'initiative russe, a été faite dans l’intérêt des Russes premièrement, et cor­ respondait à la tradition légale russe formulée déjà dans le traité d’Oleg avec les Grecs conclu en 911 (voir plus haut, p. 383). Cette hypothèse est plausible, bien que l’interprétation de l’article 37 par Goetz nous semble trop étroite : en effet, il est précédé non seulement de l’article 36, mais aussi de l’article 31 qui parle de la liberté du voyage à travers les principautés russes, ce qui doit nous mener à la conclusion que le droit de naufrage est supprimé dans les territoires des deux parties. D’ailleurs, comme Goetz lui-même l’affirme, cette suppression était conforme aux demandes usuelles des Hanséatiques dans tous les pays où ils faisaient le commerce. La rédaction de Riga contient trois clauses absentes de la rédaction de Gotland. C’est l’article 23 où deux principes sont formulés : celui de la responsabilité personnelle du débiteur, à l’exclusion de toute responsabilité collective, et celui de forum rei : « Si un Russe a à percevoir une marchandise d’un Alle­ mand, soit à Riga, soit sur la rive de Gotland, soit dans une autre ville allemande... mais le demandeur ira chez le défendeur et il lui sera rendu selon la justice de cette ville, et on n’appor­ tera pas d’entrave à d’autres marchands allemands; et la même justice sera rendue à un Allemand en Russie ». Il est difficile d’expliquer l’absence de cette clause de la rédaction de Gotland; il est possible que les principes y énoncés entrèrent en conflit

IV

426

avec d'autres conceptions légales russes. Il faut noter, cependant, qu'à l'encontre des traités novgorodiens, les traités des villes russes de la Dvina et du Dniepr ne mentionnent pas la respon­ sabilité collective limitée à un groupe ( 1 ). L'article 35 de la rédaction de Riga fait pendant à l’arti­ cle 29 (aussi à l’article 18) : « Et les Allemands ont donné un pud aux gens de Volok qui transportent la marchandise pour tout marchand à travers le portage. Si ce pud se déforme par l’usage, un pud correspondant étant déposé à l'église /bojnica/ allemande, on en forgera un nouveau, après avoir comparé l’un avec l’autre ». Ce pud servait, probablement, à la protection de l'intégrité de la marchandise confiée aux gens de Volok, et aussi à calculer leurs gages (2 ). La rédaction de Riga a la suivante clause finale : « Et les maisons et cours allemandes, achetées (par eux) à Smolensk, et le terrain de leur église, personne n'y interviendra. Si les Alle­ mands les donnent à quelqu’un, ou qu’ils y placent quelqu'un,1 (1) D'autres conceptions que celle de fo ru m rei apparaissent dans les traités de Polotsk avec Riga. Le traité de 1263 adhère bien à ce principe : « Et là où un homme est en faute à l’égard d’un autre, on en cherchera le règlement dans la ville où cet homme réside; le demandeur n’agira pas en justice ailleurs, et on lui fera droit ou donnera tort dans le même terri­ toire où le défendeur s’était mis en faute » (L a paix de Gerden’ pour P o ­ lotsk et V itebsk avec l’Ordre et R iga, N apiersky, X X V a, p. 13). Cepen­ dant, le traité suivant, celui de Izjaslav de Polotsk, de 1265, proclame un principe différent; « Et s’il y a un procès entre deux parties, on leur ren­ dra justice sans transfert. Et on ne rejugera pas ce qui a été jugé. Et la partie intente le procès là où elle veut » (ibid., XX V b, p. 13) ; si les deux premières clauses restent fidèles aux principes précédemment énoncés, la dernière clause établit la liberté pour le demandeur de choisir le tribunal. Un troisième principe, celui de la personnalité des lois apparaît dans les traités de Polotsk avec Riga à partir de 1330, mais ces traités appartien­ nent à l’époque qui est en dehors de notre étude; cfr à ce sujet N apiersky, L X X IV , pp. 54-55 et CLX, p. 125. Golubovskij , op. cit., p. 154, voit dans l’article 21 l’expression du principe que le demandeur, Allemand ou Russe, peut se rendre librement dans la ville où le défenseur réside et M u l ju k jn , op. cit., pp. 314-315, y voit la confirmation de la liberté de déplacement, en général. (2) Sur pud, voir plus haut, p. 392, n. 1.

IV

les étrangers dans la

Russie novgorodo- kievienne

427

c’est à leur gré. Et l'hôtellerie, où les Allemands résident, ou un marchand allemand, le prince n'y mettra pas ni un Tatare ni aucun autre ambassadeur » (1). Les marchands allemands, comme ce texte le prouve, pouvaient acquérir des propriétés immobilières à Smolensk; d'autre part, leur nombre était si grand, que leurs maisons ne leur suffisant pas, ils devaient loger dans les hôtelleries; cfr P. G o l u b o v s k i j , op. d t, p. 135. Y avaitil une factorerie allemande à Smolensk, comme il y en avait à Novgorod ? Le traité de 1229 n’en parle pas expressis verb's, ni aucun autre texte. Selon G o e t z , Handelsverträge, p. 271, une référence à la factorerie allemande est contenue dans l’article 21 de la rédaction de la Riga où il est question de l'achat fait chez un Allemand par un Russe qui emmène la marchandise %z dvora (dvor, cependant, n'est que « cour » ce qui peut signifier aussi bien une maison privée qu’une factorerie). On ne peut donc suivre cette interprétation qu'avec beaucoup de réserve. G o e t z , ibid.t p. 214, est sur un terrain plus solide, en tirant de la men­ tion du doyen des Allemands dans l’article 22 la conclusion qu'en 1229 il y avait déjà à Smolensk une ferme organisation des mar­ chands allemands. Selon B e r e j k o v , p. 107, les marchands allemands à Polotsk formaient une colonie nombreuse qui, se trouvant comme celle de Smolensk, sous l'autorité d'un doyen, n’avait pas, cependant, de maison centrale propre à elle, les marchands logeant chez des habitants ( 2 ).1 (1) La clause finale de la copie D est une apostille qui a été ajoutée au traité de 1229 après 1274, époque vers laquelle les envoyés du khan tatare apparaissent à Smolensk; cfr. M onum ents, II, p. 85. (2) . On peut noter que les traités de Smolensk, Vitebsk et Polotsk, à l’époque étudiée par nous, accordent aux marchands allemands des privi­ lèges plus larges que ceux accordés par Novgorod et Pskov. Il n’est pas facile à expliquer cette différence, car les facteurs notés par nous (p. 412, n. 3) qui opéraient contre les hanséatiques à Novgorod et Pskov sont caractéristiques également des trois villes susmentionnées. On serait tenté d’en chercher l’explication dans la situation géographique de ces trois villes par rapport à Riga dont l'emplacement sur l’embouchure de la Dvina lui

IV

428

IV. Nous avons analysé tous les éléments de la condition légale des étrangers dans la Russie novgorodo-kiévienne que les docu­ ments conservés nous ont transmis. Pour en faire une synthèse, beaucoup d’éléments nous manquent. Par exemple, nous n’avons pas de dispositions concernant le droit successoral des étrangers dans la Russie de cette époque. On pourrait en déduire que le droit d’aubaine n’existant pas, les négociateurs étrangers ne voyaient pas de nécessité de s’arrêter à ce problème, mais, faute d’évidence positive, ce ne serait qu’une hypothèse sans preuve. Si une synthèse satisfaisante ne peut pas être faite, il est possi­ ble, cependant, de noter les lieux communs aux sources de droit que nous avons étudiées. La prohibition du droit de naufrage, depuis 911, nous frappe comme un lieu commun très caractéristique du régime des étran­ gers dans la Russie novgorodo-kiévienne. La priorité de la créance d’un étranger sur celle d’un indigène est un autre phéno­ mène qui apparaît constamment dans nos sources, avec une inter­ prétation de cette priorité tantôt large, tantôt plus étroite. Des règles plus strictes sur les preuves contre un étranger, sauf le cas de l’hébergement d’un esclave, constituent également un trait commun à cette législation. La garantie réciproque de la liberté de parcours pour mar­ chands et ambassadeurs, à côté de la liberté de commerce en temps de guerre, sont à la base de la condition légale que les traités russes de cette époque accordent aux marchands étrangers. Ces libertés demandent des garanties, comme celle pour les dom­ mages en cours de route, mais elles sont aussi accompagnées d’une réglementation de la route à suivre par les marchands que ce soit la route maritime et fluviale de la Neva et du Volhov ou le permettait de dominer le commerce le long de ce fleuve. La puissance de l’Ordre livonien pouvait constituer un autre facteur favorisant les mar­ chands allemands dans leurs négociations avec les trois villes.

les étrangers dans la

Russie novgorodo- kievienne

429

portage entre la Dvina et le Dniepr. Le souci de réserver aux indigènes le monopole du pilotage, batelage et voiturage apparaît clans cette réglementation. En principe, le commerce est libre, que ce soit le commer­ ce en gros, celui de détail ou le commerce à l’intérieur du pays. A cette époque, on ne voit pas dans les traités aucune tendance au droit d’entrepôt. Il y a, cependant, le désir d’éliminer le com­ merce des marchands étrangers avec d’autres marchands russes dans les villes contractantes elles-mêmes. A la fin de cette époque, il y a également le souci d’exclure la vente de certaines marchan­ dises du commerce des étrangers, ainsi que de réduire ce com­ merce à des ventes en gros. Les traités frappent les attentats à la personne des peines prévues par les lois et coutumes russes, en refusant d’admettre, même pour les cas extraordinaires, les règles de droit allemand. Les affaires entre étrangers eux-mêmes sont jugées, cependant, par les autorités étrangères jouissant d’un régime d’extraterri­ torialité qui va jusqu’à tolérer les exécutions capitales au sein des factoreries. Toute affaire entre étranger et Russe est sou­ mise à Novgorod à une juridiction spéciale de composition mixte, et à Smolensk à l’arbitration préalable du doyen de la colonie allemande. Il y a tendance manifeste dans les traités de limiter la juridiction de la ville contractante aux causes d’origine locale. Les principes de la personnalité du procès, unité du procès (i.e. le procès finira là où il a été commencé) et forum rei sont communs à ces traités. On y voit aussi la prohibition de l’appel. En ce qui concerne la personnalité du procès, basé sur la respon­ sabilité purement individuelle du débiteur, il y a différence entre les traités novgorodo-pskoviens et ceux des trois villes de la Dvina et du Dniepr. A Novgorod et Pskov, elle apparaît à côté de la responsabilité collective limitée. La poursuite du débiteur étranger en faute est soumise à des garanties qui lui permettent de continuer ses opérations com­ merciales, et même le départ, en attendant que la cause se décide. Cependant, les traités prévoient l’esclavage pour dette; à cet

430

égard, il faut noter à Novgorod, la règle qui exempte la femme du débiteur de l’esclavage, si elle n’est pas une garante de la dette de son mari. Les marchands ont le droit de posséder, acquérir et louer les immeubles, collectivement et individuellement; l’intégrité de ces immeubles, ainsi que la paix de la colonie allemande derrière les murs de la factorerie, est protégée par les traités.

V

П А М Я Т И А. А. Э К К А (К ПЯТИЛЕТИЮ СО ДН Я ЕГО СМ ЕРТИ) Л ичность и деятельность А. А. Экка, скончавш егося в Б р ю ссел е пять лет том у назад, 3 0 марта 1953 г., остались сравнительно мало замеченными широкими кругами русской эмиграции. Ц елью этой небольш ой статьи является напом­ нить читателям «Н ового Ж урнала» о б этом , во м ногих от н о­ ш ениях, интересном и выдающ емся человеке. А лександр А рнольдович Экк родился в П олоцке 16 д е ­ кабря 18 7 6 г. Он был русским п о матери, н о ш ведского п рои схож ден и я п о от ц у, что п одтверж далось и фамилией и скандинавской н аруж ностью А. А. Семья была рабочая: от ец — пекарь, мать — прачка, и этим «пролетарским» п р о и сх о ж д е­ нием А . А . был очень гор д, д а ж е и в носле-марксистский свой п ер и од в Б р ю ссел е. Лишившись отца ребенком , он остался всец ело на попечении матери, но врож денная д а р о ­ витость дала ем у возм ож ность получить ср ед н ее обр азов а­ ние, сначала в первой варш авской гимназии, потом с 1 4 -лет­ н его возраста в Коллегии Павла Галагана в Киеве, которую он окончил в 189 4 г. Вернувш ись в Варш аву, А. А. п о ст у ­ пил на историко-ф илологический ф акультет Варш авского ун и вер си тета, гд е в то время историю читали А. Павинский, Д . П етруш евский и И. Филевич. Р аботая п о д их р ук ов од­ ством, А. А . выработал тот строгий м етод исторического анализа, который п о зд н е е был так характерен для его п е­ дагоги ч еск ой и научной работы . О дновременно он специализи­ ровался и п о славянской ф илологии. В этой области он зар ек о­ м ендовал себя как м ногообещ аю щ ий начинающий учены й у ж е в 1897 г., когда, будуч и студен том 3 -го курса, он был п р ед ­ ставлен ф акультетом к награж дению зол отой медалью за с о ­ чинение н а т ем у: «Ян Коллар. О черк его ж изни и деятел ь­ ности и его поэм а Д оч ь славы» (напечатано в «Варш авских Университетских И звестиях», 1900, № № Ш и V ) . А. А. п о­ лучил кандидатскую степень в 18 9 8 г. и был оставлен при ун и вер си тете для приготовления к п р оф ессор ск ом у званию п о к аф едр е славянской филологии. Н е получив стипендии,

256 А. А . вы нуж ден был заняться преподаванием — сначала в П раж ской гимназии в Варш аве, а п о зд н е е в Ксениевском ин­ ституте в П етер бур ге. В скоре, однако, как его бл естя щ е на­ чавшаяся (научная карьера, так и его педагогическая д е я ­ тельность были прерваны. Начиная с 1 9 0 0 г., А. А. был з а ­ хвачен социал-демократическим движ ением . В 190 3 г. он был арестован и сослан в Архангельск, г д е оставался д о д ек а б ­ ря 1904 года. Связь его с социал-демократами началась в Варш аве, гд е он вступил в ряды еврейского Б унда, хотя сам и не бы л евреем. С 1903 год а, п од псевдоним ом М ухин, он был чле­ ном больш евистской группы РС Д РП . Он бы л человеком р е ­ волю ционного темперамента и п оэтом у он пош ел за тем т е ­ чением, в котором чувствовал больш е «якобинского» р а з­ маха. В 1905 г. он целиком вош ел в револю цию . В б у р н ы е декабрьские дни как член Б оев ого С тачечного Комитета, он, выступавший в то время п од именем А ртема, бы л главным революционным деятелем Екатеринослава. В начале 1 9 0 6 г. о н был арестован le c ler g é e t le c o n s e il d e b oyars sié g ea ien t sép arém en t d es élu s, les p r o p o sitio n s d e la

59 D e telles rémunérations sont mentionnées dans le cas de l ’assemblée de 1648-9. Cfr. L a t k in , M ater inly, pp. 49-74 et G autier , A k t y , N N 16 et 18. L a t k in , Zem skie sobory, p. 268 et Se r g e ev itc h , L e k tsii, 1903, p. 181 affirment que, normalement,

les électeurs eux-mêmes assuraient la subsistance des élus (ceci expliquerait de nom ­ breuses et fréquentes abstentions de vote), mais K abanov , op. cit. pp. 111-118, a constaté que les documents ne parlent des « fournitures » qu’en 1648, alors que l’élec­ tion comportait dès le début un appel à un service prolongé (rédaction d’un code). •° Cfr. T aranovsky , Zemskie sobory, p. 638. Pour plus de détails voir L a t k in , Zemskie sobory, pp. 270-281. Les débats au sein de chaque groupe étaient menés

avec une liberté considérable, et on note même des cas de présentation d'avis séparés des membres isolés de tel groupe ; l’unanimité des opinions ém ises était le plus souvent le fruit du travail des rédacteurs officiels. Cfr. K e e p , op. cit. p. 120.

V III

ASSEMBLÉES POPULAIRES E N RUSSIE

357

« c h a m b r e b a s s e » é ta n t so u m ise s e n fo r m e d e p é titio n s à la « ch a m b re h a u te » e t, g én ér a le m e n t, acc ep tées61. La

c o m p é te n c e

de

l ’assem b lée

n a tio n a le

co m p ren a it,

en

p rem ie r lie u , l ’é le c tio n d u tsar: il y a eu d e telles éle c tio n s en 1 6 1 3 , e t au X V I e siècle e n 1 5 9 8 . D a n s ce s d eu x cas il y a vait

in te r r è g n e , e t m ê m e fin e t d éb u t d es d yn asties régn an tes. D ’autres é le c tio n s d u tsar s o n t m en tio n n é e s e n 1 5 8 4 , 1 6 4 5 e t 1 6 8 2 , m ais elles s o n t s o it p e u sû res, s o it fictiv e s (c o m m e celles d e i 6 8 2 ) 62. O n p e u t e n co n c lu r e q u e la c o m p é te n c e é le c tiv e d es sobors se lim ita it à l ’éta b lisse m e n t d ’u n e n o u v e lle d yn astie: au sein d e la d ern ière la p rim o g é n itu r e était le p rin cip e d e la su c c e ssio n , la fic tio n d e l ’é le c tio n n ’apparaissant q u e dans les cas o ù la su cc essio n n o rm a le p o u v a it être c o n testée . C ette c o m p é te n c e c o u v r e ég a le m e n t le s affaires étran gères, su r to u t c e lle d e g u erre o u d e p aix63. I l serait, cep en d an t, exagéré d e co m p re n d re ce tte c o m p é te n c e d ’u n e fa ç o n rig id e : e n 1 6 1 7 la p aix d e S to lb o v o fu t c o n c lu e a v e c la S u èd e sans la p articip ation d e l’a sse m b lé e , e t e n 1 6 3 2 u n e g u erre e st d éclarée à la P o lo g n e

avant la r é u n io n d u sobor c o n v o q u é au m o is d e n o v e m b r e p o u r 61 Une telle forme de débats donnait plus de liberté aux élus (N . Z agoskin , Istoriia pra va M oskovskago gosudarstva, 1 . 1, p. 287). 89 telles pétitions furent incorpo­

rées dans le Code (N . N ovom bergskii , « K voprosu о vneshnei istorii Sob. U lozheniia 1649 g .» , Istoritcb. Z a p isk i, t. 21, pp. 43-50). Pour la littérature concernant l’assemblée de 1648-9, cfr. K eep , op. cit., p. 114. Le système bicaméral, sous une forme différente, apparaît également à l’assemblée de 1651 convoquée pour débattre les affaires de l ’Ukraine polonaise: le clergé fut reçu par le tsar le 19 février, et ce n ’est qu’après la formulation de l ’opinion du clergé (le 27 février) que les autres députés furent reçus par le tsar, en une seconde chambre (le 28 février); cfr. L a t k in , Zem skie sobory, pp. 231-5.

ea E n 1645 il n ’y a eu, probablement, qu’une réunion de notables pour assister à la coronation d’A lexis: un sobor était à peine possible en juillet 1645, car la noblesse de la capitale était en ce m oment aux armées. Cfr. K eep , op. cit. p. 113, note 68. Pour les « sobors » de 1682 cfr. L a t k in , Zemskie sobory, pp. 251-4. •* Plusieurs instances incontestables de la participation des sobors à ces affaires sont citées par T aranovsky , Zem skie sobory, p. 637 et L a t k in , Zem skie sobory, pp. 282-3.

V III

358 c o n se n tir d es fo n d s n écessa ires64. L e c o n c o u r s d e l ’a sse m b lé e d ép en d ait, ap p arem m en t, d u ju g e m e n t d u g o u v e r n e m e n t su r sa n écessité. D a n s le d o m a in e d ’im p ô ts extraord in aires o u n o u v e a u x , le p rin cip e se u l e n d ép en d d e la d é c isio n d e l ’assem b lée. A in s i la p rem ière c o lle c tio n d e l ’im p ô t d u c in q u iè m e (piataia d e n ’ga ) a e u lie u e n 1 6 1 4 « se lo n l ’u k ase d u tsar e t la d é c isio n d u s o b o r », m ais la d eu x ièm e c o lle c tio n d u m êm e im p ô t fu t o r d o n n é e l ’a n n ée su iv a n te sans la p articip ation d es é lu s65. E n m atière lé g isla tiv e , l ’a ssem b lée e st c o n v o q u é e d ans le s cas m ajeurs se u le m e n t, tels q u e la p rép aration d ’u n c o d e ( 1 6 4 8 - 9 ) o u l ’org a n isa tio n d ’u n cadastre ( 1 6 1 9 ) 66. O n v o it a u ssi l ’a c tio n d e l’a ssem b lée, s’il y a crise in térieu re sérieu se: e n 1 6 5 0 , d es ré v o lte s o n t éclaté à N o v g o r o d e t à P s k o v , e t p o u r calm er les p sk o v ita in s, il a fallu y e n v o y e r u n e d é lé g a tio n d e l ’a sse m b lé e n ation ale, c o n v o q u é e e n ju illet 1 6 5 0 p o u r aid er le g o u v e r n e m e n t q u i s’est se n ti d éb o rd é par les é v è n e m e n ts67. O n p e u t ajouter à ce tte én u m éra tio n to u te s les affaires q u e l­ co n q u e s q u e le g o u v e r n e m e n t ju g e b o n d e so u m e ttr e au sobor. T rès im p o rta n t est é g a le m e n t le d ro it d e rem on tran ces au tsar

64 Cfr. K e ep , op. eit. pp. 108 e t i n . “ Comme la rentrée de l'im pôt du cinquième fut lente en 1615, la réaffirmation du principe en a apparu com me nécessaire, et au début de 1616 c'est de nouveau le sobor qui a ordonné une troisième collection. Comme les difficultés ont continué

le gouvernement a soum is le problème de la quatrième collection aux élus en 1617, mais cette fois-ci la collection n'est ordonnée que par le tsar seul, les élus ne figurant que com me des experts sur les conditions locales. Les ukases concernant la cinquième collection, en 1618, ne parlent pas du tout de la participation des élus. Cfr. S. V e ­ selovsky , Sem ’ sborop %aprosnykb i piatinnykb deneg v pervye gody tsarstvovaniia M ikbasla Fedorovitcha, M oscou, 1909, pp. 36 et 60, et supplém ents N N 62-63; Z a o z er sk ii , K voprosu, pp. 348-350; K eep , op. cif. p. 106. Il s’en suit, en termes modernes, que

les sobors avaient bien une compétence législative financière, mais non pas une com ­ pétence budgétaire, même en matière nouvelle. •• Cfr. L a t k in , Zem skie sobory, pp. 164-168 et 209-229. •7 Ibid. pp. 229-231.

V III

ASSEMBLÉES POPULAIRES E N RUSSIE

359

au su jet d es b e so in s d e la p o p u la tio n e t d u red ressem en t d e ses griefs®8. P o u r d éfin ir le caractère lé g a l d es sobors il fa u t d istin g u er les a sse m b lé es réu n ies p e n d a n t les in terrèg n es d e celle s réu n ies so u s u n so u v e r a in régn an t. E n P ab sen ce d e ce d ern ier les sobors avaien t to u t le p o u v o ir su p rêm e, e t m ê m e co n stitu a n t: ils l ’exerçaien t e n c h o isissa n t u n e n o u v e lle d y n a stie (la d yn astie d es G o d o u n o v s e n 1 5 9 8 , e t ce lle d es R o m a n o v s e n 1 6 1 3 ). D è s le m o m e n t m êm e d e l ’é le c tio n d u tsar, le sobor, s ’il restait e n se ssio n , n ’avait p lu s le p o u v o ir su p rêm e q u i p assait au so u v er a in é lu (ce ci est arrivé e n 1 6 1 3 )®°.•* •* V oir à ce sujet I. D it ia t in , Roi* tchelobitii i zemskikh soborov v upravlenii M oskovskago gosudarstva, R usskaia M ysl* 1880, N 5. A u point de vue de la com ­ pétence il faut placer à part le sobor de 1613 qui a siégé de janvier 1613 jusqu'à la fin m ême de 1615 : vu la désorganisation profonde du pays après les Troubles et le prestige peu assuré de la monarchie renouvelée, le concours de cette assemblée était indispensable pour toute décision majeure, en matière étrangère et intérieure. T elle est l ’opinion de la grande majorité d'historiens. Le premier doute sur une ses­ sion si longue fut formulé par Z aozersky , K voprosu p. 38: il a remarqué que la deuxième collection de l'im pôt du cinquième « fut ordonnée en avril 1615, dans l ’ab­ sence du sobor ». La formule ne nous parait pas heureuse, car si la charte de collection

ne m entionne pas la participation des élus, ceci ne démontre qu'une seule chose, notam m ent que ces derniers n'avaient pas à répéter le principe de l'im pôt, une fois établi: ils pouvaient néanmoins être toujours en session. K e ep , op. cit. p. 106, est allé beaucoup plus loin, en penchant à l'hypothèse que la majorité des élus eût rejoint leurs domiciles ou fonctions habituelles peu après l'élection de M ichel, le gouvernem ent ne retenant tout au plus à M oscou que quelques députés libres d'autres devoirs. N ou s ne p ouvons pas nous joindre à M. K eep sur ce point: les actes du sobor de 1613 se suivent dans une série consécutive le lon g des 3 années m en­ tionnées, et il n'y a pas de m ention de nouvelles élections jusqu'au 12 janvier 1616 (A kty arkheograf. ekspeditsii, t. Ш , N 77, p. n i ) . Pour la description détaillée du sobor de 1613, cfr. L a t k in , Zem skie sobory, pp. 123-155.

•• Il y a eu une certaine hésitation dans ce passage en 1613, dûe aux incertitudes léguées par le Temps de Troubles: la première collection de l'im pôt du cinquième, en 1614, a eu com m e instrument deux chartes à contenu identique, l'une au nom du tsar, et l'autre au nom du sobor. O n peut dire qu'en sorte le pouvoir suprême était partagé jusqu'en 1615 par le tsar avec le sobor. Cfr. S. V eselovsky , op. cit. p. 36 et

V III

360 L es a ssem b lées réu n ies so u s u n so u v e r a in ré g n a n t p a rticip a ien t à l ’ex ercice d u p o u v o ir su p rêm e par le u r p o u v o ir d e d é c isio n , si elles éta ien t c o n v o q u é e s d ans u n b u t lé g isla tif. L e s sobors c o n v o q u é s p o u r e n q u ê te su r le s o p in io n s ex ista n t dans la n a tio n n ’avait, é v id e m m e n t, q u ’u n r ô le co n su lta tif. L a c o n v o c a tio n d e s

sobors, d éciso ir es o u co n su lta tifs, n ’éta it b a sée su r a u cu n te x te fo r m e l, e t e lle n e c o n stitu a it pas u n e o b lig a tio n d u tsar; d ’au tre part, il n ’était pas lim ité d ans sa d é c isio n par l ’o p in io n , e t m ê m e par la d é c isio n , d ’u n sobor. S’il c o n v o q u a it les sobors e t se c o n fo r ­ m a it à leurs d é c isio n s, il n e faisait q u e su iv re la n é c e ssité d e fa it d e s ’ap pu yer, dans le s cas d ’im p o r ta n ce m ajeure, su r l ’a cc o rd d e la p o p u la tio n , /. e. cler g é, b oyars, classe m ilitaire, cla sse u rb ain e, e t, p arfois, paysans lib res. C ette n é c e ssité c o r re sp o n d a it à la c o n sc ie n c e q u ’il y a d es q u e stio n s d o n t le tsar n e p e u t p as d écid e r seu l, o u m êm e a v e c le s b o y a rs, sans le c o n c o u r s d e la n a tio n . E n d ev en a n t

c o u tu m e ,

ce tte

n é c e ssité

c o n stitu a it

une

certain e

lim ita tio n , d e fait s in o n d e d ro it, d e l ’a b so lu tism e m o s c o v ite 70. L e fait q u e l’a p p lica tio n d u p rin cip e é le c tif à l ’o rg a n isa tio n d es sobors c o in c id e a v e c le d éclin d u p o u v o ir m o n a r ch iq u e à cau se d es T r o u b le s n ’éta it q u ’u n a cc id en t h isto riq u e . E n lu i-m ê m e c e p rin cip e n ’était pas d irig é c o n tre l ’a u to r ité d u tsar q u i n ’y v o y a it Z aozersky , K voprosu, pp. 348-9; le dernier auteur souligne, cependant, qu’il n ’y avait, dans ce cas, que soutien m oral du gouvernem ent par l ’assemblée, sur l ’initia­ tive du gouvernem ent lui-même. Sur le caractère constituant des sobors réunis pen­ dant les interrègnes, o n trouvera une analyse pénétrante chez T aranovsky , Zem skie sobory, pp. 638-9; le même auteur refuse de reconnaître un caractère constituant

aux élections des successeurs légaux des tsars légitim es, et les caractérise com m e des actes politiques consolidant un droit déjà existant {ibid. pp. 639-40). Les sources concernant ces élections sont peu sûres, mais le fait même de la continuation de l’idée d’élection en dehors de l’interrègne prouve la ténacité du principe, selon lequel le pouvoir suprême appartenait en dernier lieu au pays. Le. au sobor, en tem ps de crise du pouvoir. 70 Cette limitation fut renforcée, à l ’égard de la bureaucratie m oscovite, par le droit de remontrances des sobors. Cfr. T aranovsky , op. rit. pp. 639-40 et D ’ia k o n o v , Otcberki, pp. 487-8.

VIII

361

ASSEMBLÉES POPULAIRES E N RUSSIE

a u cu n d a n g e r71. D ’autre part, dans l ’esp rit p u b lic d e la n a tio n , l ’a v è n e m e n t d u sobor é le c tif fu t étr o ite m e n t lié à l’ab sen ce d ’u n tsar lé g itim e d u ran t la p ério d e d es T r o u b le s. U n e fo is le p o u v o ir d u tsar éta b li su r d es b ases so lid e s, la d u rée d e cette in stitu tio n n e d ép en d a it, dans l ’esp rit d e la p o p u la tio n , q u e d u b o n ju g e m e n t d es m o n a r q u e s72. L ’éta t

peu

afferm i

du

gouvern em ent

so u s

les

p rem iers

R o m a n o v s , durant les 4 0 ans q u i o n t su iv i l ’éta b lissem en t d e la n o u v e lle d yn astie, a fait n écessaire u n recou rs fréq u en t à l ’in s titu tio n d u sobor. C e d ern ier fu t, dans les m ains d u tsar, u n é lé m e n t p u issa n t d e réo rg a n isa tio n d e l ’É ta t éb ran lé par les T r o u b le s. Q u a n d la c o n so lid a tio n d u p ays fu t co m p lé té e e t q u e, d ’autre part, u n appareil a d m in istra tif b ureau cratiq ue efficace fu t créé e t l’arm ée régu lière co n sid éra b lem en t a u g m e n tée , le g o u v e r n e m e n t s’est m is à év ite r les sobors co m p lets e n leu r p référan t les c o n su lta tio n s séparées d es classes d e p o p u la tio n , u n e à u n e. L es sobors n ’o n t su rv é cu à la fin d u siècle q u e co m m e u n e fo r m u le fic tiv e co u v ra n t d es r e v o lu tio n s d e p alais73. L e p o in t cu lm in a n t dans l ’h isto ire d es sobors fu t l ’assem b lée de 1 6 4 8 - 9 , la p lu s c o m p lè te , la p lu s a ctiv e e t la p lu s in flu en te d e to u tes les a sse m b lé es so u s les R o m a n o v . C e sobor

aurait p u d ev en ir le

d é b u t d ’u n e é v o lu tio n , m ais les circo n sta n ces e n o n t fait p lu tô t le d é b u t d ’u n d é c lin 74*. Q u e lle s fu ren t ces circ o n sta n c es? O n a v o u lu les v o ir dans l ’h o stilité d es classes su p érieu res, b oyars e t cler g é, après le v o te p ar l ’a sse m b lé e d e 1 6 4 8 d u C o d e (U lo z h e n ie ) q u i co n ten a it p lu sieu rs

71 Cfr. D ’iakonov , Otcherki, p. 461. 7a L ’attitude qu’avec le rétablissement de la monarchie héréditaire le retour à l’absolutisme est chose normale apparaît dans l’interprétation des événements par I. T im ofeev dans son V rem em tk . 73 Cfr. T aranovsky , op. cit. pp. 635-6. 74 Z aozersky , K voprosu, pp. 351-2; P latonov , Iç istorii moskovskikb ^emskikb soborov, p. 331.

V III

362 clau ses con traires à leurs in té rê ts75. I l e s t p o ssib le q u e c e t an ta ­ g o n ism e a jou é u n rô le dans le d éclin d u sobor, m ais p lu s im p o r ta n t était la réalisation par le g o u v e r n e m e n t, e n 1 6 4 8 , q u e l ’asse m b lé e p ou rrait d ev en ir u n m o y e n d e p ressio n d a n g e reu x ; ce tte réalisa­ tio n fu t con firm ée e n 1 6 5 1 q u an d le sobor a re co m m a n d é u n e p o litiq u e étran gère différente d e la p o litiq u e o ffic ie lle7®. L e pays a accep té sans o p p o s itio n la fin d es sobors. L e su cc ès m êm e d e l’assem b lée d e 1 6 4 8 - 9 a co n trib u é à c e m a n q u e d e réaction . L e C o d e, e n p arach evan t l ’éta b lisse m e n t d u se r v a g e , a d o n n é sa tisfa ctio n au x désirs d e la cla sse m ilitaire, et, e n p ro tég e a n t les b o u r g e o is co n tre la con cu rr en ce é c o n o m iq u e , à ce u x d e la classe urbaine. E n ce faisan t, le C o d e a e le v é d es barrières en tre les classes so c ia le s, e n les rivan t to u te s au ch ar d e l ’É tat. U n e lib erté p o litiq u e à b ase rep résen ta tiv e n ’a p as p u se d é v e lo p p e r sur ce fo n d d e se rv itu d e g én érale. D ’autre p art, a v e c la fin des T r o u b le s le co n ta c t en tre r é g io n s fu t p e u à p e u réd u it au n éan t, l’a u to n o m ie lo c a le d u X V I e siè cle d éclin a n t ég a lem en t dans le n o u v e a u clim a t d e ce n tr a lisa tio n b u r ea u ­ cratiqu e à o u tran ce. Il est in téressan t à n o te r q u e le s a sse m b lé es é le c tiv e s n ’o n t laissé d ’autres m e n tio n s q u e les m e n tio n s o ffic ie lle s: le p u b lic n ’e n a p resq u e p as la issé d e té m o ig n a g e 77. 76 Cette opinion fut formulée, pour la première fois, par V . I. Se r g e e v it c h en 1875 (Zemskie sobory v M oskovskom gosudarstve, dans Sbornik gosudarstvmnykb Znanii, t. II, pp. 58-59). Elle fut développée par S. P latonov qui attribue au pa­

triarche N ikon la réaction contre les sobors (K voprosu о Tainom Prikaze, pp. 231-3; Iz istorii mosk. zemskikh soborov, pp. 333-4: ces deux articles font partie de S ta t’i, 2® édition, 1912). 76 Voir à ce propos K eep , op. cit. p. 121. 77 Cfr. Z aozersky , K

voprosu,

pp. 338-340 et Zem skie sobory, pp. 160-162.

K abanov , Organi^atsiia yyborov, pp. 109-110, voit la raison du déclin des sobors dans le fait qu’en dehors de celui de 1613 ils n ’étaient, selon lui, que des assemblées pure­ ment consultatives. Les boyars, redevenus puissants au début du règne d ’A lexis, ne les aimaient pas, car ils les gênaient, tandis que la classe m oyenne, impuissante contre les boyars, y voyait de plus en plus un devoir lourd et encombrant. En 1648, le sobor a eu un regain de force, car les révoltes paysannes y ont attiré l ’atten-

V III

363

ASSEMBLÉES POPULAIRES E N RUSSIE

ni L es

c o m m is s io n s

l é g is l a t iv e s

A U X V I I I e S IÈ C L E

de

la

R

u s s ie

im p é r ia l e

(1719- 1768)

O n e n te n d u n é c h o d es %emskii sobor's au X V I I I e siècle d ans la c o n v o c a tio n rép étée d es élu s d e la p o p u la tio n p o u r p articiper à la p rép aration d u C o d e lé g isla tif par le g o u v e r n e m e n t78. O n m e n tio n n e

quatre

in sta n ces

d ’u n e

telle

p articip ation :

so u s

C ath erin e I, so u s P ierre П , so u s E lisa b eth , et, la p lu s sig n ifica tiv e, so u s C ath erin e II. L es trois p rem ières n e c o n tie n n e n t q u ’u n p e tit n o m b r e d e rep résen tan ts, ta n tô t d u cler g é, d e la n o b le sse servan te e t d es m arch an d s, ta n tô t d e la n o b le sse seu le, ta n tô t d e la n o b le sse , d es m archan ds e t d u c le r g é ; les d élé g u é s n ’apparaissent q u e p o u r d o n n e r le u r a v is su r u n p ro jet d éjà p réparé par u n e c o m m issio n d e fo n c tio n n a ir e s. O n n ’a pas b ea u co u p d e détails sur leurs travau x, m ais il paraît q u e ce u x réu n is e n 1 7 6 2 o n t in flu en cé dans u n e certain e m esu re le p rojet d u C o d e 79. S o u s C ath erin e II, les représen tan ts d u p eu p le eu ren t à rem plir u n e tâ ch e p lu s im p o r ta n te: la p rép aration m êm e d u C od e. C ette f o i s - d , les élu s, au lie u d ’être ad join ts e n tant q u ’exp erts à u n e tion de la classe militaire désireuse d ’établir le servage. Plus extrême encore est le point de vue de K eep , op. cit. p. 112. Pour lui, les sobors (en dehors, évidemment, de ceux de 1613 et 1648) n ’étaient même pas des assemblées spécialement élues, mais des consultations a d boc « between the governm ent, the ecclesiastical and secular hierarchy, and men chosen by such provincial gentry as chanced to be in the capital at the time, and by the M oscow tow nspeople»; il ajoute que la classe militaire (the gentry) était nombreuse à M oscou avant les 3 dates annuelles établies pour l ’exa­ m en des affaires judiciaires la concernant par les p r ik a ^ s , et qu’au printemps, il y avait généralement, réunions de cette « gentry» à M oscou ou à Tula préliminaires aux expéditions vers la frontière du Sud. Il est difficile pour nous d ’accepter une telle simplification du problème des sobors. 78 K liutchevsky , Sotchineniia, vol. V , M oscou 1958, p. 84. 78 V ladim irsky -B udanov , Ob^or istorii russkago prava, 1900, 3e éd. pp. 286-7. Pour une information plus détaillée voir V . L a t k in , Zakonodatel'nyia kom issii v R ossii v X V I I I stoletii, t. I, Saint-Pétersbourg 1887.

V III

364 c o m m issio n

ad m in istrative, fo rm a ien t e u x -m ê m e s

la « C o m ­

m issio n p o u r le p rép aration d u p ro jet d ’u n C o d e n o u v e a u » . A u ssi, to u tes les classes d e la p o p u la tio n lib re éta ie n t a p p elées à élire des d ép u tés, au n o m b r e d e 5 6 4 : les co r p s c o n stitu é s e n n o m m èr en t 2 8 , la n o b le sse terrien n e, 1 6 1 (u n par d istrict), le s v ille s, 2 0 8 (u n par v ille q u e lq u e s o it le n o m b re d e ses h ab itan ts), e t la p o p u la tio n rurale lib re (d iv isé e e n tro is ca té g o r ie s), 1 6 7 . O n n o tera les 3 9 p o u r ce n t d e d ép u tés u rb ain s, b ie n q u e la p o p u la tio n u rb aine était e n d e sso u s d e 5 p o u r c e n t d e ce lle d e l ’E m p ir e en 1 7 6 7 . L es serfs n ’étaien t pas rep résen tés d u to u t, e t le cle r g é éta it

c e n sé être rep résen té par le seu l d é lé g u é d u S a in t-S y n o d e . P o u r les co rp s c o n stitu é s e t la n o b le sse , les é le c tio n s éta ie n t d ire ctes; p o u r les citad in s (/. e. to u s les p rop riétaires d e m a iso n s, q u e lle q u e s o it leu r classe, d e la v ille ) elles éta ien t à d eu x d e g r é s, e t p o u r les ruraux elles éta ien t à trois d egrés. L es électeu rs éta ien t in v ité s à réd iger d es cah iers d e d o léa n ce s p o u r les d ép u tés; dans le cas d e d élé g u é s ruraux le n o m b r e d es cahiers d o n t ils fu ren t m u n is éta it s o u v e n t très g ran d (le d ép u té d es paysans d e la p r o v in c e d ’A r c h a n g e l e n a reçu 1 9 5 1). L e n o m b re to ta l d e cahiers éta it 1 4 6 5 (d o n t 1 0 6 6 cah iers p aysan s). D e s p riv ilèg e s lé g a u x to u t sp éciau x fu ren t d o n n é s au x d ép u tés a v ec u n e garan tie d ’im m u n ité , e t ils re ce v a ie n t d es é m o lu m e n ts d e l’É tat. L a C o m m iss io n était c o n stitu é e e n u n co r p s h o m o g è n e , d élib érant par tête sans d istin c tio n d e cla sse e t d é c id a n t par m ajorité d e v o ta n ts. L a C o m m issio n a s ié g é d urant u n an e t d em i e n v ir o n , ayan t eu 2 0 3

séances p lén ières. E lle fu t su sp e n d u e tem p o r a ire m e n t

e n d écem b re 1 7 6 8 so u s p rétex te d e la gu erre a v e c la T u rq u ie p o u r n e p lu s se réun ir; les c o m m issio n s sp éciales q u ’e lle a fo rm ée s o n t, cep en d a n t, c o n tin u é à sié g er ju sq u ’e n 1 7 7 5 . La C o m m issio n n ’a pas m en é à b o n n e fin la ré d a c tio n d u C o d e, m ais ses d éb ats o n t d o n n é à l ’im p ératrice l ’in fo r m a tio n q u ’e lle ch erch ait sur l’état d es c h o se s e n R u ssie, e t le s o p in io n s y existan tes. D e ce p o in t d e v u e , e t m a lg ré s o n caractère lé g isla tif.

V III

ASSEMBLÉES POPULAIRES E N RUSSIE

365

la C o m m iss io n s’ap paren te au x %emskii sobor’s d ’en q u ê te , e t n o n à c e u x d e d é c isio n . D ’autre part, e lle n ’était c o n ç u e q u e c o m m e u n e in stitu tio n c o n su lta tiv e , n e lim ita n t e n rien le p o u v o ir d u m o n a r q u e ; c e c i e st p r o u v é par l ’In str u c tio n q u e C atherine П a r é d ig é e à s o n in te n tio n . Si l ’id é e g én éra le d e la C o m m issio n la rattache au x sobors d u X V I I e siè cle, s o n o r g a n isa tio n e t p ro cé d u re s o n t in sp irées par les id é e s e t u sa g e s o cc id en ta u x 80. I l n ’y aura p lu s d e p a rticip a tio n p o p u la ire dans le g o u v e r n e ­ m e n t cen tral d e R u ssie, so u s q u e lq u e fo r m e q u e c e s o it, av a n t 1906.

80 La meiUeure étude de la Com mission de 1767 fait partie de L a t k in , Zakonodatel’rryia komissii, pp. 185-521. V oir aussi A . F lorovsky , Sostav xakonodaUVmi kom issii 1 7 6 7-1774, Odessa 1915.

IX

LES PRINCIPAUTÉS RUSSES AVANT L'ASCENSION DE MOSCOU (IX* - XV* siècles) ( * )

L 'h is to ir e

du

p o u v o ir

p r in c ie r d a n s

le s

p r in c ip a u té s

r u s s e s d e l'é p o q u e p r é -m o sc o v ite e s t d iv is é e e n d eu x p é r io d e s : 1) la p é r io d e k ié v ie n n e ( I X e s. - fin d u X I I e s.) e t 2) la p é ­ r io d e r é g io n a le ( m ilie u d u X I I e s. - m ilie u d u X V e s .).

1. — LA RUSSIE KIEVIENNE D e p u is le s p r e m ie r s r e n s e ig n e m e n ts h is to r iq u e s , le p a y s c e n tr é s u r le D n ie p r su p é r ie u r e t m o y e n (a v e c s e s tr ib u ta ir e s) e t le s y s tè m e d e s r iv iè r e s to m b a n t d a n s le la c L ad oga é ta it d iv is é e n u n n o m b r e d e s te r r ito ir e s a y a n t à le u r tê te d e s p r in c e s (K n ja z ', a p p e lé p a r le s G recs apx