Medieval Russia is a series of cycles. A strong personality can forge an identity from more or less coherent raw materials. The forging of identity is tantamount to the control of rapacious noble lords in the provinces. After the death of St. Yaroslav (or Iaroslav), the dominance of anarchy, or the rule of local lordship, became paramount. Russia is them divided into several major areas, the number of which differs depending on who one reads. There are at least six of these major areas.

• Smolensk. A major northern area, heavily forested. The destiny of this important city will continually change over the next few hundred years, as it becomes a part of Poland, Lithuania and Sweden. Its significance lies in its being close to the Dvina river in the north.

• Kiev. Little needs to be said here. It is best described as the unofficial capital of Russia in the Middle Ages. It strength derives from three things: the excellent soil, closeness to the Greeks and its easy access to the Dniper river.

• Novgorod. This is the center of northern Russia, and it is the East Slavic window to the west. It is rightly describes as the major commercial republic of northeast Europe, and one of the largest parts of the Hanseatic League. It is however, an oligarchy controlled by rich merchants. We will soon deal with this important area in an upcoming lecture.

• Riazan. It is largely Finnish, with substantial Slavic elements. This region spends much of its time fighting the southern nomads.

• Suzdal/Vladimir. This region is the future of Russia, and its specific ideology will soon battle its mirror image in Novgorod. It is in the extreme north, and is heavily forested. In terms of trade, it specializes in furs, honey and wax, and finds its income in its closeness to the Volga and Oka rivers.

• Volhynia/Gallicia. This is another important region, found in the extreme southwest. It represents the “western face” of Old Russia, and is heavily influenced by Hungary and Poland while remaining Orthodox in faith.

The commonalities of all these areas, and thence Russia as a whole, is that they are all dependent on the Dniper River for trade with the south. The Dniper is the bloodline of Russia, and her importance cannot be overestimated. Keep in mind that these ruling princes are all related to each other through Ruirik, their common ancestor. They all have ties to Greece, and all speak the same language. Their Orthodoxy is also an important commonality, and medieval Russia is typified, in terms of subjective community, as an Orthodox nation. Politically, anarchy reigns, culturally, they are one people.

Now, here is the main issue–the succession to Yaroslav in Kiev, and is unfortunately a very complicated story, reflecting the anarchy after the death of such an important figure. Medieval Russia in its early phases, which we are presently dealing, lacks any formal institutions outside the Church. Bureaucracy is reducible to the retinues of the princes, and acts in no manner recognizable to modern minds. The importance of a professional bureaucracy is that they can take control once a strong, unifying personality has left the political scene. Without such regularity and the ethnic tradition which vivifies it, strong personalities, once dead or rendered irrelevant, leave a void in their wake, a void quickly filled by perpetually feuding and short sighted local warlords, whose title of “prince,” it should be added, is a far later development. Here is the outline:

Iziaslav, a name coming from the prophet Isaiah, is the first rightful heir of St. Yaroslav. However, he is quickly dispossessed by the personally more dominant Svatislav in 1073, who is universally considered an usurper. The three brothers of Yaroslav had attempted to rule Russian lands as a sort of committee, but this quickly broke up. Regardless of the legitimacy of his succession, he had no difficulty in going to Poland, Germany and the pope for military and financial assistance in his chequered reign.

Svatislav dies a short time later in 1076, and Iziaslav, the real heir, is able to take power, though he enjoys it only for a short time, as he dies in 1078. He is generally considered a proper and just ruler. The heir now is his brother, Vsevelod, who takes over quickly that same year, hoping to forestall any further irregularity in the line. He rules until 1093. From 1093 until 1113, the son of Iziaslav, Sviatopolk, rules.

The significance here is that a specific form of regular succession a form of older brother leading to the son of the brother, is established. As always with royal societies, the length of rule of always proportionate to the establishment of a line and the general stability of a society. As we will see, once a series of princes rule for a short time, this is universally seen as a green light for the elements of division, the oligarchy in the provinces, to do whatever will secure their powers. It is also worthy of note that these elements seem to show no forms of patriotism whatsoever, and will quickly ally with enemies of Russia to secure their authority, as will be seen later. Therefore, the length of the reigns of Russian princes is extremely important, and remains a powerful variable in predicting the extent to which a royal house will become established and rule with the consent of the common people.

The anarchy of the post-Yaroslav world is typified in two civil wars, both of which take place in extremely important areas of Russian life:

The first concerns the battle between the true heir of Yaroslav, Iziaslav, and the usurper. Iziaslav and Vsevelod attempt to dispossess the sons of Svatislav. The purpose os this is to secure the proper form of succession. They irritate his most powerful son, Oleg Sviatislavic, who is able to create a coalition against the rightful heirs of Yaroslav. Oleg calls in the barbarian Turks of the steppe to help him, but is eventually defeated.

A council of local princes try and work this all out in 1097 (even they thought it was way too chaotic). They put a stop to the war, and all vow a united Russia, though it does not become a reality. The significance of this 1097 council is that the wars in the post Yaroslav Russia are considered “civil” as a matter of course, and that Russia is a unified Orthodox and ethnic entity despite the political divisions.

In the southern part of Russia a second war breaks out. David of Volhynia is fighting his nephews for control of the west (now, western Ukraine). His most powerful opponent is his nephew Basil, who apparently is capable of creating some order out of the chaos of the opposition to David. David goes to the above council of princes and accuses his nephews of trying to kill him, and upsetting the order they are trying to create, suggesting that this council is considered the legitimate legislature of Russia. Now, Svatopolk, the aforementioned usurper of Yaroslav’s throne, buys this story, and sets a trap with David to kill Basil and succeeds. This was considered dishonorable by the other princes, and they all gather against David, but, more importantly, they all throw their weight behind Vladimir Monomax (or Monomachus), who is soon to unite the country again (he had married a Greek princess, giving him tremendous weight in Russia). He rules from 1113-1125. The saintly prince left his “testament,” or instructions to his children. They reveal a complex and pious personality, as well as giving us a glimpse of a few social and religious ideas of the era. He writes:

Listen to me, and if you will not accept all, heed at least some. If God should soften your hearts, shed tears over your sins and say: “As Thou hast shown mercy to the harlot, the murderer and the publican, even thus show mercy to us sinners.” Do this in church and when you lie down to sleep. Fail not to do so a single night. If you can, make your prostration to the ground; if your strength gives out, do it thrice; in any case, be not slack in it, for with this nightly prostration and singing man conquers the devil and frees himself from the sins he has committed during the day.

When you are riding and have no engagement with anyone, and you know no other prayer, keep on repeating quietly: “Lord, Jesus, have mercy upon me!” for it is better to say this prayer than to think idle thoughts. Above all, forget not the impoverished, but feed them according to your means, and give to the orphan, and protect the widow, and allow not the strong to oppress the people. Slay neither the righteous, nor the wrongdoer, nor order him to be slain who is guilty of death, and do not destroy a Christian soul.

Whenever you speak, whether it be a bad or a good word, swear not by the Lord, nor make the sign of the cross, for there is no need. If you have occasion to kiss the cross with your brothers or with anyone else, first inquire your heart whether you will keep the promise, then kiss it; and having kissed it, see to it that you do not transgress, and your soul perish. As for the bishops, priests and abbots, receive their blessing in love, and do not keep away from them, but love them with all your might, and provide for them, that you may obtain their prayers to God. Above all, have no pride in your hearts and minds, but say: “We are mortal, alive to-day, and tomorrow in the grave. All that Thou hast given us, is not ours, but Thine, and Thou hast entrusted it to us for but a few days.” Put away no treasure in the earth, for that is a great sin.

Whenever you travel over your lands, permit not the servants, neither your own, nor a stranger's, to do any damage in the villages, or in the fields, that they may not curse you. Wheresoever you go, and wherever you stay, give the destitute to eat and to drink. Above all honour the stranger, whencesoever he may come, whether he be a commoner, a nobleman or an ambassador; if you are not able to honour him with gifts, give him food and drink, for these travellers will proclaim a man to all the lands, whether he be good or bad. Call on the sick, go to funerals, for we are all mortal, and pass not by a man without greeting him with kind words. Love your wives, but let them not rule you.

The chaos of this era has important ramifications for Russian life. As far as one can tell, the common Russians place their weight for unity and central royal rule. Local nobility are considered universally greedy and vaguely cosmopolitan, but the monarchy is considered pan-Russian and an important control over the greed of the locals. This concept of central Russian monarchy is never to leave the consciousness of the Russian peasantry, and the behavior of local nobles will confirm this solid folk-wisdom time and again.

Secondly, a solid form of succession is made clear with the rule(s) of Iziaslav, and is one that will be considered normative until the formation of the tsardom under Ivan I. Having some form of valid sucession is extremely important in the popularization of royal rule, as well as its stability.

And thirdly, it is clear that the “princes” involved really had little by way of a “domestic” policy. In general, “political rule’ at the time meant the mobilization of one’s retinue to fight one another, the southern hordes, or foreign foes. In general, the local communes were self-governing, and only occasionally paid tribute to lords for military purposes. It should be kept in mind that all levels of political rule, such as it was, were democratic and meritocractic. The commune was democratic, as was the town council (with some stipulations). The church remained a popular, pan-Russian institution that provided some sense of cohesion when the princes began their feuds. Oppression was physically impossible at the time, and Russia, while maintaining its cohesion, was a group of autonomous associations ruled by ancient democratic principles. Later events will force Russia to adopt more centralized structures.

I find this whole thing very confusing. What is the “order” here?

This is a very common problem. Under the chaos, there is order. These are the birth pangs of a nation. There are two principles at work here: that of the local nobility, and that of a centralized form of rule. The latter were triumphant more often than not during mediaeval times, and, as successful as many of these cities and regions were, they were unstable. On the other hand, a more central rule was backed by the church, the Byzantine influence and the common population, that, given the chance, always agitated for a force to control the nobility. This is the order.

Another way to consider this is that of a dialectical movement. The thesis is noble rule: decentralized structures based on an absolute claim of noble families to land. The antithesis is a strong ruler, and a nobility that has a conditional tie to the land. The synthesis is the tsardom: a strong ruler, backed by rational institutions, but retaining the local structures of decentralization, whether the local council, commune or the later zemstvo. This synthesis is one of the great political achievements of the tsardom.

How were the poor and destitute dealt with prior to institutions?

Monasteries. The monastic establishments saved thousands of Russians during times of famine or war. They were the centers of education and literacy, and, in that capacity, were the bearers of Greek civilization to Russia. In fact, the church, which, institutionally speaking, were the monasteries, parishes and episcopal chancelleries, were the sole form of stable institutionalism in Russia during this period. When monarchs like St. Yaroslav endowed these institutions, he did not merely do it for pious reasons (though that was relevant), he also realized that this was the cultural/educational center of the nation.