Alexander Gorbachov © IA REGNUM
ALEXANDER ZHURAVEL, 1 April 2018, 09:20 — REGNUM
The theme of betrayal in the Russian history covered in the article “Heroes in the realm of the bad guys”, multi-faceted and complicated. And — again — poorly known to the General public, but even to professional historians. Do not talk about teachers in school, it rarely focus students high school teachers. This is not written in the book: to educate the younger generation better by the example of heroes, “correcting” and thereby inadvertently concealing the acts of traitors.
Meanwhile, to get accustomed to such anti-heroes particularly important now, when has grown not one generation of those who almost from the cradle, heard the suffering and the curse of the elders about “this country” — “scoop” cursed “Raska”, in which they managed to be born. Not in the coveted civilized, prosperous Europe or America, and in a terrible, poverty-stricken, dirty free country, where it is necessary not to breathe and survive.
Peter the Great as the victim chuzhebesiya
This opposition of the enlightened West, wild, dark, Asian — there is such a dirty word! Russia appeared not yesterday and not thirty years ago. It is a refrain sounded from the lips of the enlightened Russian for centuries.
Most brightly it was showed in the nineteenth century, finding expression in the numerous literary and publicistic writings, which praise or condemnation stated or implied the name of Peter the Great. It was he, “open a window to Europe” and thus brought progressive European culture in a backward country, deepened the social contradictions in Russia: his efforts educated, living in cities of the bars even look — clothes and no beards — differed from farmers.
Jean-Marc Nattier. Portrait Of Peter I 1717
But this created a sharp dissonance in the hearts of the then eurorussian: Russia continued to be — despite the European entourage — the country is uneducated. In fact, Russia was not a country but a state: it is confined to the person of the sovereign, so that the territory of the state together with his subjects was an appendage to the Emperor: with the death of another monarch’s subjects were obliged to swear allegiance to the new sovereign that it would be unnecessary if the state was self-sufficient force.
Autocracy as the only source of power left everyone, from the serfs to the rich and the great dignitaries — the role of loyalists that turned the freedom of the individual in fiction: the Emperor and the state as its embodiment should only obey, there is no equal dialogue with them was impossible. Was impossible and independence of private life: the government thought it possible to punish citizens for thoughtcrime, that is, reckless statements in the letters or conversations.
But the liberal mindset the farther, the more I penetrated into the heads of the educated classes, forcing the censor to withdraw gradually. And the press began to appear seditious thoughts of the people as the source of power, and there was the intelligentsia as a bearer of those ideas.
Of course, not all of the educated felt compelled to free the people from the existing belittled the situation and give him the same right to self-determination. Liberals, unlike socialists thought only of personal freedom and equality of the peasantry with them, liberals didn’t want to think.
The words of Fyodor Tyutchev about them as servile wishing to gain freedom only for myself, I noticed a very significant part of their psychology:
“Wasted effort — no, they did not repent —
The liberal, so they went,
Civilization — fetish for them,
But it is not available her idea.
How to it or rot, ladies and gentlemen,
You do not win recognition from Europe:
In her eyes you will always
Not servants of enlightenment, and slaves”.
It is because of their environment usually sounded voices, full of hatred for the country itself. And they are very similar to those that often — too often! — sound now. Here is what he said, for example, Pavel Smerdyakov, character in “the Brothers Karamazov”. Fyodor Dostoevsky is hardly accidental that turned your character into a footman and the illegitimate son of the head of the family. And it is hardly a coincidence that dissatisfaction with his humiliated position once splashed out on “this country”:
“I hate the whole Russian… In the twelfth year Russia was on the great invasion of the French Emperor Napoleon the first, and well, if only we then conquered those same Frenchmen, the clever nation would have conquered a very stupid one and annexed. Most would have been even more orders”.
Isn’t this very similar to the familiar, the thousands of lips repeated the curse “Raska” and “scoop”?
And here is another “visionary” (or without quotation marks) the statement of Smerdyakov. The novel’s characters argue about the heroism of the soldier, who was captured by the Muslims, endured terrible torments, but did not renounce Christianity, and Smerdyakov remains true to itself:
“If that laudable soldier’s feat was very large-with, no again, I think it would not be wrong if I want to give up this chance from around the name of Christ and his own christening, to save thereby her life to good works, which over the years, and atone for the cowardice.”
Again, this is, in fact, identical to the many voices present the freedom of the public not so long ago have recognized that it is preferable to pass the besieged Leningrad, and thus supposedly to save starve the inhabitants.
You might say, “the Brothers Karamazov” — it’s just literature! But the fate of Vladimir Pecherina, submitting the big hopes of the young Professor of the Moscow University, confirms that the words were sometimes followed by actions.
“How sweet — homeland hate
And eagerly await its annihilation!
And the destruction of the homeland to see
World Renaissance Lucifer!” —
he once wrote, in his own words, in a fit of byronism, and in 1836, left home. These striking words have branded his name in the eyes of posterity: Peacherine now usually remembered in connection with these fatal words to. But at first it was only words, nothing prevented him from abroad after travel back to Moscow to continue the teaching of ancient languages. But short-term burst hatred had for Perinatologists consequences. Deprived of rights, he lost the right to return Home. In the future, he continued a lively interest in what was happening in Russia, and in the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, inspired by the beginning of the transformations, even once again began to write poetry in Russian.
Whether Pecherin and people like him traitors? For the state — certain: they broke their oath of allegiance to the Emperor! But they themselves are traitors not believed: first, they above all valued freedom of self (so that the oath imposed on them!); second, they believed that it was wrong to identify the Fatherland with the state.
And this contradiction between traditional Russian statehood and European culture, brought into the country by Peter the great, was eating deep into the fabric of Russian society, and, apparently, the final products of this decay we see now…
But whether Peter’s innovations so unique? Is he the first in Russia began to attract foreigners in the service and give them many benefits?
Let’s listen to Yuri Krizhanich, Croatian scientist, a Catholic monk, founder of pan-Slavism! He’s in the middle of the XVII century arrived in Russia and for his Unitarian beliefs were sent into exile to Tobolsk, where he spent 15 years. There, he among other things wrote a great work called “Politics.”
And one of its chapters is called “On the chuzhebesie“:
“1. Xenomania in Greek, [a] in our opinion- chuzhebesie is mad love for strange things and peoples, the excessive, frenzied trust to strangers. This deadly plague (or the plague) has infected our entire nation. Don’t count the losses and disgrace that our people (to the Danube and beyond the Danube) has suffered and is still suffering due to chuzhebesiya…
2. Foreign eloquence, beauty, agility, spoiled, courtesy, luxury life and luxury goods, like some pimps, deprive us of the mind. His sharp wit, learning, cunning, consummate flattery, brutality and depravity they turn us into fools, and lure, and direct wherever you want.
3. No people under the sun for centuries has not been so offended and disgraced by foreigners, as we, the Slavs, the Germans. So no people shouldn’t be wary of communicating with strangers, as we are Slavs. What, however, happens as we are saved? Nowhere in the world strangers do not have half of the honors and revenues which have here, in Russia, in Poland… All the tears and sweat all squeezed out of the Russian people forced fasts, terrible oppression and extortion, all of it is squandered to the German merchants and colonels, Greek merchants, ambassadors of different peoples and the Crimean robbers. All that is forcibly taken from Russian, devour strangers…
5. We are one of the all peoples had a strange and unhappy fate, for we alone are the laughingstock of the world because of the fact that voluntarily asking for surewest.
And what is even more surprising: none of the people in the world suffered such a shame from strangers, what we suffered, what we gave to win only speeches without any weapons and let the Germans and the Greeks, who had over us no power to establish us in the Kingdom and to put the kings”.
In the Chapter with the characteristic title “On hotovosti” Yuri krizhanich lists in detail the measures with which it is possible to reverse the current in the Slavic lands, including in Russia, the catastrophic situation. Their essence is in establishing the isolation.
“4. No foreigners should not be allowed to obtain the privileges of the nobility or to become princes, rulers, nobles, statists in cities or counties and any other chiefs or Fiat…
7. Wandering peoples — Scots, Jews, Armenians, Gypsies should not be allowed to cross our line for no reason. And any ambassadors to keep the people of these Nations. Unless the Scots with the English Ambassador, and the Scottish merchants in Arkhangelsk, and wealthy Armenian merchants — with the Persian ambassadors, or merchants, but not otherwise. And wandering Armenians not to let…
13. Doctors, interpreters, licorice, musicians and all sorts of artisans to take how much will you need. And they all should be required to teach our boys. And when our people learn some trade, not to accept more foreign [masters] of this craft.
14. Simple warriors and military chiefs to hire only during the war, and after the war and conclusion of peace all to dissolve, as is customary in other countries. And even if someone wanted to stay, not to take it.
15. It is clear that hostagent should be given more concern. For strangers are patients, members of state and national body, it is contagious and deadly plagues. And especially those that remain with us and provide the house. All that our people produce and store in the sweat of his brow, the locusts, drinking, eating. Therefore, you should make sure that strangers don’t skopeliti and not stuck in the country, and to send them smaller and they went quickly.
16. Nowhere in the world does not take so many embassies and never spend so much money on different strangers as here. But all that goes to foreigners, wasted. For hitherto it was not from this great sovereigns and people, no thanks, no glory, no honor. But, on the contrary, it causes a lot of difficulties, and takes carts, and ambassadors comes a whole bunch of useless people (adhering to him in the hope of gifts), and finally manifested ingratitude. For these guests requite evil for good and write a scathing book in which criticized and ridiculed our customs and gifts and treats…
18. About the unfortunate and created to shame the world Slavic people! We, the fools who say: well, if [our] natives had the right privilege, and strangers had we any privileges. But the opposite is happening.
The natives live in complete bondage and unable to freely use produced in the sweat of his brow, and strangers enjoy all sorts of privileges. For example:
The natives go into state service before dawn and often eat only once a day, and strangers sleeping until noon and eating two or three times a day.
The natives get a small fee, which you can’t live and work for the Emperor day and night, the whole year without rest, and the aliens get a huge salary, and [all] them that sit around, eat and drink, and only on great holidays to come in colored dress.
Our merchants the power to impose the goods that they traded them to the Emperor in Arkhangelsk, and foreign merchants flooded and filled [our] country has got a monopoly and killed the local traders all the best income from Arkhangelsk bargaining. And these revenues rightfully belong to [great] Emperor, and then (if it be his mercy) and to local merchants…
19. Two huge and the greatest misfortunes or resentment suffers at the present time this glorious Kingdom from the two peoples: Crimean Tatars and the Germans. Those and others like subdued Russia and imposed a tribute to her: Crimeans — power, the Germans were cunning. And presernova and glorious king, the Emperor of our brought up the fact that he became a collector of their tribute.
After all, the best that this land gives birth, takes part in Crimea, part of the Germans. But the greed of these people there is no limit, and that this Kingdom was forced to turn into a cruel tyranny, and to enter merciless, inhuman extortion.
Which of these two evils brings the king is sovereign and the people more harm, I can’t judge. Let me just say that from the Germans we suffer more disgrace and shame than from the Crimeans. And over time, the harm from them can be more. For to utter [our] shame the Germans tied the hands of the king-Emperor, in his Archangel the market place sovereign is not entitled to trade as he pleases”.
Such extensive extracts from this curious, but little known to the General public of the monument social thought of the XVII century, I think, justified from the point of view of education. But not only: they clearly show that the “revolution from above”, made by Peter I, was quite prepared by the whole previous development of Russia.
Peter king, amazed, from the point of view Krizanic, “reservoir of trust to strangers”, made my conversion quite strongly, but in fact only continued begun by his predecessors. And chuzhebesie-that leads to tugevust! To ensure that the “smart nation” ruled “stupid”! And that is exactly what happened: in the XVIII century in Russia under the name of Romanov established a foreign dynasty!
What about the predecessors of Peter for allowing foreigners into the country, should it? I’m afraid very far.
In this regard, a short phrase from the Laurentian chronicle, telling about the construction in Suzdal the Church of the Holy virgin in 1193, allows to understand that in many respects similar was the situation in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history: the chronicler is proud of the fact that the Church previously collapsed from old age and Bessarabia, has been restored by local craftsmen, “not looking masters from nemesi” (PSRL. Vol. 1. M., 1998. STB. 411). From this it follows that the search for the German masters was, alas, the norm in that era… But it’s certainly not limited to some masters!
The interesting thing is that all the major political controversies of the modern era — albeit in a slightly different, undeveloped, developed in the times of Ancient Rus. First traitors also appeared just then…
The origins of the betrayal: the Prince against the parish
The history of Ancient Russia the majority of citizens of our country studied only at school, around the age of 13, and because ideas about it are inevitably highly approximate.
First, at least three and a half centuries “from Rurik” to the Mongol invasion usually merge into an amorphous image, consisting of several bright “pictures” drawn rather from literature (“prophetic Oleg”, “the Word about Igor’s regiment”), than historical facts. Meanwhile, it was a very difficult era in which changed several phases of the historical movement.
And the most curious thing is that they have a lot of shit, similar to the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is an amazing discovery I made in the first half of 1990-ies, when we embarked on a systematic study of Russian Chronicles. The spread at the seams before a single political machine — with all the obvious distinction of the time periods was similar: in the pages of Chronicles and in the world outside the window, unfolded the same picture creeping Stripping of power at the bottom of the barrel. And just as Russia after two centuries of almost continuous strife was mentally prepared without much struggle to submit to the conquerors, the Mongols, the authorities and Soviet citizens together to prepare the country and themselves to obey the requirements of their opponent’s civilization — in the latter case, the us.
In other words, the history of the origin of Rus is a kind of genetic code that laid the Foundation for all subsequent development. The challenge is to correctly read this “genome”.
Secondly, when describing the ancient period of Russian history according to the old tradition to carry him the political realities of the later time, So the usual is the use in such cases, the terms “country”, “Principality”, although these words in the ancient sources simply do not: for example, “knyazhestvo” was used — not in the future of Russia, and in Lithuania — only in the XIV century, and “state”, or rather “the economy” — at the end of the XV century.
This means that in Ancient Russia there was absolutely other system of political action that is fundamentally different from what was described in the previous article, that is, from the stage of a developed country. The main political unit of society was the parish, which acted in three persons — as the proper authority, as the territory of the parish and how the people living on this earth. The princes were at least main but not the only element of the first component.
Thirdly, the fact that ongoing in the ancient era of strife does not mean that the then society was totally dominated by chaos and violence. Just the opposite! Life in Ancient Russia was rigidly regulated by system of contracts, and why they could not stop the violence, then this question is somewhat different.
With reference to contracts the reader of the chronicle can be found from the very beginning, with the legendary part of the Chronicles of the narrative: whether there was in fact Prince Rurik — the big question, however, his vocation is described as a result of attire quarreling among themselves Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi. It contracts (Russia and the Greeks) are the first authentic historical documents of the X century. And in the course of further historical narration constantly referred to the Treaty — not only making peace or truce during the war, but also concerning the internal life of people.
Theme contracts directly leads us to the theme of betrayal: violators of treaties it is natural to admit and traitors.
However, it is not so simple: the wars of neighboring tribes for political predominance in the sources are usually not described at all or described poorly, suggested that the winners will sign with the defeated Treaty which will define the size of the tribute and the number of soldiers who are defeated are required to provide to the winners in the case of the other wars, with other foes. But the Treaty with the enemy is almost always an attempt to win the time needed to recuperate and continue the fight. To violate such a Treaty, from this point of view, is not a crime and not a betrayal. For the other side, of course, the situation is exactly the opposite way.
Tribal princes subordinate to the Russian Prince, mentioned in the contracts of Russia with Greeks, and is mentioned in different ways: if the first contract is in the name of “Olga, Grand Duke of Rusko and all of them under his hand of light and the Grand Duke and his great boyars”, in the Treaty of Igor is bright and great princes commemorated are faceless, “every Prince” — along with “all people of the Russian land”. This means that the status of the princes, which was under the arm of a Russian Prince, for the period between the two campaigns against the Greeks (over forty years) fell substantially.
Here’s how it looks in relation to the Drevlyans, which is slightly more than other princes. They participated in the campaign 904 g. (so correct to date the campaign of Prince Oleg, see: Kuzenkov P. In. Rus Oleg at Constantinople in 904 year // the black sea in the Middle ages. 2011. Vol. 8), but not mentioned by the chronicler under the listing went Hiking in the 944 In the interval between these events, after the death of “prophetic Oleg”, they tried to secede, and the new Prince — Igor — “you derevlyany and beating, and lay on nya tribute. Olga”.
Claudius Lebedev. Prince Igor collects tribute from the Drevlyans in 945. 1903
But Igor was not enough: after an unsuccessful campaign against the Greeks, he went again to the Drevlyans, “although primality a great tribute”. Gathering power arbitrarily increased tribute, Igor decided to “walk more”, for which he paid with his life. Drevlyans, who was holding a Council with the Prince Small, decided to deal with Igor and his small entourage: his, according to the Greek historian Leo the Deacon, was ripped apart, tied to several previously bent trees.
Let us examine the legal side of the issue. The most important that the subjects of contractual relations are the Russian princes (first Oleg and then Igor) and Drevlyans as a separate people. The latter thus find themselves in personal dependence on the particular Prince, and not to Kiev or the Russian land, which he seemingly represents. Therefore, the death of that Prince demanded of dependent people to settle the relations with the new Prince — or to renew the old contract, or not to do and thereby live independently.
Drevlyans went the second way, lost the war and signed the contract for degraded conditions. It is unknown why they went to war with the Greeks — whether high tribute was farmed out from participation in such wars, whether citizens breached the contract by refusing to send soldiers to the aid of Igor. If the latter, then the failure — from the point of view of a Russian Prince, a betrayal, and his new campaign with the imposition of tribute increased the penalties for perjury. If that’s not it, unprovoked campaign of Igor, the Drevlyans there is also perjury and thus a betrayal. However, his third attempt to collect tribute (to”walk more”) in any case, it is illegal, and therefore the massacre of citizens of the Russian Prince legally quite justified. It is no coincidence that Drevlyans — if you believe the legend about the “executions” Olynyk — quietly sent to the widow of Prince Igor, the Embassy not only didn’t think to apologize and make excuses for their actions, and even suggested Olga to marry their Prince Mal.
To call the Governor a traitor seems strange: the betrayal — the normal phenomenon, and the political. Usually betray their own and betray their and their. The relationship of a Russian Prince and a subordinate people (use the word in its original meaning!) in the X century — the phenomenon is rather foreign. But long-term coexistence of these peoples with the power of the princely dynasty of their dependence on Russian Prince gradually turned into a factor of internal policy. In the X and XII centuries, external in relation to all subject to the Russian princes of the peoples (Greeks, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans) in equal measure is their enemies, and this over time has made the Krivichi, Radimichi, Galicia, Vyatichi, turning them into Russian peoples, not only in commanding their title of Prince.
But fundamentally nothing in this regard has not changed for centuries: Russia throughout the pre-Mongolian time was the system of land-counties, living an independent life, though, and were dependent politically from the Russian princes who belonged to the family of Rurik and owned the part in the Russian land. Therefore, in the ancient public consciousness always existed two points of view — not only of the Prince, reflecting a view on Russia as a single country, but also local, “separatist”, which transmits the representation of the “small Motherland”. Their contradictions — one of the sources of ancient betrayal.
You should also note that in the medieval era contract very rarely had unilateral character: his duties were on both sides. And if princes were the violators of treaties, their perjury over the centuries turned into betrayal.
Initially — as in the case of Igor and Drevlyane — it was more an act of foreign policy: influencing the inner life of the dependent peoples of the Russian princes of the X century had no way. But even when such penetration was to occur when the site of the former “princely” took the sons and nephews who were sitting in the Kiev Prince, the inhabitants of the dependent lands still evaluate the actions of the Kiev Prince and those whom he sent to them, from their point of view: they jealously defended their independence and at times was not afraid to show the real “separatism”. And even sent them princes, they were inclined to consider their highest officials of his parish.
Here’s how it manifested itself during the first centuries of the history of Novgorod. In Chronicles in 6478 (969), reported: “in this time of pradosha Lyude novgorodskii, poor little Prince soba: “not poidete to us, it will nalezen sobe Prince”. Thus, Novgorod, asking the Russian Prince Svyatoslav to give them a ruler, and threatened otherwise to do it yourself, that is, in fact, secede from Kiev. Svyatoslav sent back to reign of Vladimir, the future Baptist of Russia, and even prevented the rebellion.
Passes almost half a century, and the Novgorodians again behave disrespectful towards the Prince of Kiev, this time to the Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. In 1101 he wished to plant in Novgorod his son, but the people of Novgorod did not want: 1093 in their city reigned Prince Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh, and to let them go they were not meant. Therefore, Sviatopolk was declared literally the following: “ashche Chapter 2 to have your son, then went and; and this gave us Vsevolod, and vyskoril of ESMI sobe Prince”.
The main purpose of Novgorod at the time it was not the desire to secede from Russia, but affirm the independence of their land within Russia. And for this they had to create their own dynasty independent from the changes on the Kiev table, and for this reason they could afford such a tone in communicating with the weak Prince of Kiev: they were sure that Svjatopolk did not dare directly to move troops against the son of Vladimir Monomakh.
However, their plans were never realized. The Mstislav Vladimirovich, who at the Novgorod table nearly 22 years, in March 1117 g. left Novgorod as intended after the death of his father, Vladimir Monomakh inherited the Kiev Principality. Instead of the left Mstislav in Novgorod, the eldest son of Vsevolod.
In 1125 after the death of Mstislav, Vladimir Monomakh became Prince of Kiev, and the interim status of Vsevolod Mstislavich as vicar of his father in Novgorod must have been modified. And it has changed! According to the Novgorod I chronicle, “pasadika on the table Vsevolod Novgorod” — not the Prince of Kiev, his father, namely Novgorod! That is, they, the people of Novgorod are a major source of power in his parish. They, not the Prince of Kiev volodey their land!
However, Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich was acting exactly the same as the father. Apparently, at the conclusion of the Treaty with Novgorod in 1125, he publicly stated: “huoqiu my Imereti” that is promised never to leave Novgorod Principality. But after his father’s death in April 1132 Vsevolod Mstislavich went to the Russian land, since, by agreement between Yaropolk and Mstislav Vladimirovich, was to inherit the throne of Kiev after the death of Yaropolk.
This did not work: against such a deal made all the other Vladimirovichi, as well as the princes of Chernigov, and Prince Vsevolod had not empty-handed to return to Novgorod. But there he was already treated as a traitor, and the next major conflict was the reason for his exile from Novgorod and Novgorod’s famous proclamation of “liberty in princes”. In fact, it is nothing good to Novgorod did not promise: they hope to have a stable princely dynasty and thereby stable management in the Novgorod land crashed into the dust.
What happened? Prince Vsevolod winter 1134/35 was to force Novgorod to March in Suzdal, the offender Yury Vladimirovich (“Dolgoruky”), but the war ended for Novgorod sadly: January 26, 1135, they were routed at the battle of Zhdan-mount. Another year the people of Novgorod have suffered their Prince, but after them came the news that the Prince of Kiev Yaropolk suffering setbacks in the war with the princes of Chernigov, they decided to drive out Vsevolod Mstislavich and to call to his Principality of Chernigov Svyatoslav Olgovich mill…
Here is a list of “wines” Vsevolod Mstislavich in the most detailed presentation of the Nikon chronicle: “almost no dish crymych people; almost vyshata of Cesti in Pereaslavl; almost vyshata iti on suzdali and rostouci and went hard thou and almost all ran in advance; and almost vysluni States and other jurisdictions and wasatiya, and people not upravljati; and almost hawks and dogs, SWAT, and people do not sudachi not upravljati; and why hast commanded us to Vsevolod Olgovich pristupiti, and Paky, otstupite orders from him?”
As you can see, the list includes Novgorod offense as a serious political accusations (essentially treason), and simple misuse of a bad Manager…