The next case that may interest us in the framework of this study is the capture and blindness of Prince Vasilko Rostislavich Terebovlsky. Vasilko Terebovlsky was the younger brother of the aforementioned Rurik Peremyshl and Volodar Zvenigorodsky. All three princes, due to dynastic reasons (their grandfather, Vladimir Yaroslavich died before his father Yaroslav the Wise, as a result of which their father was deprived of his inheritance) became outcasts, but nevertheless, through active political and military struggle, they managed to defend their right to a part of the common inheritance of the Rurikites, having received in 1085 from the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich in the inheritance, respectively, Przemysl, Zvenigorod and Terebovl.
In 1097 Vasilko took part in the famous Lyubech congress, after which, upon returning home, he was deceived by the people of Prince Davyd Igorevich with the support of Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, and was blinded.
Blinding Vasilko Terebovlsky. Radziwill Chronicle
The capture and blindness of Vasilko became the reason for the beginning of a new strife, which ended in 1100 with the Vitichevsky Congress of Princes (otherwise, the Congress in Uvetichi), convened by Vladimir Monomakh to condemn Davyd. The congress was preceded by quite active hostilities, during which a coalition was formed against Davyd, his possessions were devastated, the city of Vladimir-Volynsky, the prince's patrimony, was repeatedly sieged. Almost immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, the Vasilka brothers Rurik and Volodar forced Davyd to return their crippled brother to them, as well as hand over for execution those involved in the blinding, who were immediately executed (hanged and shot from bows).
It is noteworthy that for the congress with the aim of condemning Davyd, the worst enemies in the past were specially reconciled: the cousins Svyatopolk Izyaslavich Kievsky, the brothers Oleg and Davyd Svyatoslavich and Vladimir Monomakh, who acted as the main prosecutor at the congress. After listening to the explanations of Davyd Igorevich,. No one supported Davyd Igorevich, the princes defiantly moved away from him and even refused to talk to him personally, sending trusted persons to him. According to the decision of the congress, Davyd Igorevich was deprived of hereditary possession - the city of Vladimir-Volynsky, however, several insignificant cities and a fairly decent amount of money (400 hryvnia in silver) were transferred to him from the volosts and funds of the Grand Duke, since he also took an indirect part in the blinding Cornflower. Davyd Igorevich himself, after the Vitichevsky Congress, lived for another 12 years - in 1112 he died in the city of Dorogobuzh.
As can be seen from the example of this case, in determining the punishment for crimes, the principle was observed with precision.
The blindness of Vasilko Terebovlsky was not the only case of this kind in pre-Mongol Russia. In 1177, after the defeat in the Battle of Koloksha, which marked the beginning of the reign of Vsevolod the Big Nest in Vladimir, his nephews and main rivals in the struggle for the reign of Vladimir, the brothers Yaropolk and Mstislav Rostislavichi, according to some sources, were also blinded, and Mstislav later even received nickname "Bezoky". However, later the blinded princes miraculously regained their sight after praying in the church dedicated to Saints Boris and Gleb, which may indicate the originally ritual nature of the "blinding". One way or another, the blinding of Yaropolk and Mstislav did not have any legal, political or other consequences in the princely environment of the Rurikovichs.
Now let's go back a while and consider another method that was practiced in the princely family of Rurik to settle political scores - expulsion from the borders of Russia. Often, the princes who were defeated in the internecine struggle themselves went into exile, in the hope of enlisting the support of the rulers of neighboring states or recruiting additional military contingents to continue the struggle. But there were cases when the princes left the borders of Russia not of their own free will. The first such case was noted in 1079, when the Khazars forcibly took Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich from Tmutarakan to Constantinople. Most likely, this did not happen without the knowledge of Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich, who then occupied the Kiev table, whose first wife was the daughter of Constantinople Emperor Constantin Monomakh. If Vsevolod was indeed the organizer of Oleg's forced expulsion, then we are dealing with the first forcible deportation in the history of Russia for political reasons. It is noteworthy that the Khazars, who captured Oleg, did not kill him, but simply brought him to Constantinople, where Oleg was under some semblance of house arrest, and was subsequently exiled to the island of Rhodes. In Rhodes, Oleg enjoyed a certain freedom and even married a representative of the patrician family of the Byzantine Empire, Theophania Muzalon, in 1083 he returned to Russia in the same Tmutarakan, from which he began his forced "voyage to Constantinople".
In 1130, Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great, the grandson of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, resorted to a similar method of removing political opponents, albeit somewhat differently. He summoned the Polotsk princes to Kiev for the trial - all the offspring of Vseslav the Sorcerer: his sons David, Rostislav and Svyatoslav, as well as the grandchildren of Rogvolod and Ivan, charged them (non-participation in the all-Russian campaigns against the Polovtsy, disobedience),. In this case, we are not dealing with intrigues and abductions, as in the case of Oleg Svyatoslavich, but with direct expulsion, formalized in accordance with all the rules of ancient Russian princely proceedings - a summons to trial, accusation, and sentence.
The exiled Polotsk princes were able to return to Russia and restore their ownership rights only after the death of Mstislav in 1132.
Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky did the same with his closest relatives. In 1162, Andrei expelled his stepmother and three half-brothers from Russia to Constantinople - Vasilko, Mstislav and seven-year-old Vsevolod (the future Vsevolod the Big Nest), of which seven years later, in 1169, only Vsevolod was able to return to Russia.
Speaking about such a method of reprisal against political opponents, as expulsion from the borders of Russia, it is necessary to pay attention that, unlike murder, blindness, or, as we will talk about below, forcible monastic tonsure, its use did not cause a negative reaction among the rest of the Rurikites and did not provoke protests in the princely environment. It can be concluded that this method of dealing with political opponents was quite legitimate.
The case with the death in 1171 in Kiev of Prince Gleb Yuryevich, the son of Yuri Dolgoruky, the younger brother of Andrei Bogolyubsky, also deserves a detailed consideration in the context of this study. Gleb began his reign in Kiev in 1169 after the notorious capture of Kiev by the troops of Andrei Bogolyubsky. He finally succeeded in establishing himself in Kiev in 1170, and after a while he suddenly died. Further in the annals we see the following: (Andrey Bogolyubsky - author). In this text, under the name "Rostislavichi" are meant not mentioned above nephews of Andrei Yaropolk and Mstislav Rostislavichi, grandsons of Yuri Dolgoruky, and sons of Prince Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensky, grandsons of Mstislav the Great.
It is noteworthy that Andrei Bogolyubsky, placing the blame for the poisoning of his brother, imaginary or real, on the princes-relatives, demands from them only the extradition of persons, in his opinion, guilty of the crime. Moreover, he motivates his demand by the fact that the murderers of the prince are enemies to all members of the princely family. It should be noted that Grigory Hotvich, accused by Andrei of the murder of Prince Gleb, until 1171 held the post of Kiev tysyatsky, that is, he stood only one step of the social ladder below the prince, nevertheless, he did not have immunity from the princely court and could be executed by princely sentence. Prince Roman Rostislavich, who took the Kiev table in the same 1171, did not give Gregory to Andrey for reprisal, but removed him from the post of the tysyatsky and expelled him from Kiev. Dissatisfied with this decision of Roman, Andrei expelled him from Kiev, where Roman was able to return only after the death of Andrei in 1174. The further fate of Grigory Hotvich is not reflected in the annals, but, unlikely, having such an enemy as Andrei Bogolyubsky and deprived of princely patronage, he lived a long and happy life.
Now let's consider another way of reprisals against political opponents in Russia - forcible tonsure as a monk. In pre-Mongol Rus there was only one such case - in 1204, after a successful campaign in the Polovtsian steppes, Prince Roman Mstislavich Galitsky captured and forcibly tonsured Prince Rurik Rostislavich of Kiev, his wife and daughter. In pre-Mongol Russia, this was the first and last case of the forcible tonsure of a prince into a monastic rank. After the death of Roman himself in 1205 in a small skirmish near the Polish Zavikhvost, Rurik immediately stripped his hair and continued an active political struggle for the Kiev reign with the Chernigov prince Vsevolod Svyatoslavich Chermny. Rurik died in 1212.
Roman's act in relation to Rurik is so unique that research assessments of his motives and significance differ greatly. Without going into deep details, we can state that there are two ways of interpreting this historical fact.
First, the tonsure was due to matrimonial reasons - Rurik's daughter was Roman's divorced wife, whose marriage was contracted in violation of church regulations (the 6th degree of kinship instead of the acceptable 7th) and the tonsure of the former father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife to the monastic rite would contribute to legitimization Roman's second marriage.
The second examines the purely political reasons for the actions of Roman, who had the intention to establish control over Kiev.
Both points of view are very vulnerable to criticism, since both of them are internally contradictory and not fully verified logically.
Within the framework of this study, we are more interested not in the consequences of this event, but in the reaction to it of the other princes, in particular, Vsevolod the Big Nest, who enjoyed the greatest authority in Russia at that time.
Vsevolod immediately intervened on the side of Rurik's sons, Rostislav and Vladimir, who were captured by Roman together with their father and taken to Galich by him. Roman was forced under pressure from Vsevolod to release them, and the eldest of them, namely Rostislav Rurikovich, was immediately put by Vsevolod on the Kiev table, which had previously been occupied by Rurik himself. Considering that before the episode with the tonsure, the relationship between Vsevolod and Roman was, in general, even, it can be said that by such an act Roman set against himself the most powerful and authoritative prince of Russia. There is a clear negative attitude towards Roman’s act on the part of other princes - the Smolensk Rostislavichi, to whose clan Rurik himself belonged, and the Chernigov Olgovichi, as evidenced by the unanimous approval of the princes of the fact of Rurik’s return to the world after the death of Roman, despite the fact that it was the Olgovichi who became in the future, his most implacable political opponents.
And the last, but perhaps the most egregious case of political murder that took place in pre-Mongol Rus, occurred in the Ryazan principality in 1217, referring to the notorious congress in Isad.
The congress was organized by princes Gleb and Konstantin Vladimirovichi, inviting their relatives to it to resolve issues on the distribution of inheritances in the Ryazan principality. During the feast, armed servants of Gleb and Constantine burst into the tent where the princes were staying and killed all the princes present and the boyars accompanying them. In total, six Rurik princes died: Izyaslav Vladimirovich (brother of Gleb and Konstantin), Mikhail Vsevolodovich, Rostislav Svyatoslavich, Svyatoslav Svyatoslavich, Gleb Igorevich, Roman Igorevich. The genealogies of the deceased princes are reconstructed with difficulty, the patronymics of some of them are hypothetically reproduced, however, their number and belonging to the Rurik clan do not raise doubts among researchers. Of the princes invited to the congress, only one survived - Ingvar Igorevich, who for some unknown reason did not attend the congress.
The consequences for the princes who slaughtered their relatives were extremely negative. Both of them became outcasts of the princely family and had no further inheritance in Russia. Both the one and the other were forced to flee to the steppe, wander for a long time, unable to settle anywhere. Gleb, already in 1219, died in the steppe, losing his mind. Constantine appeared in Russia more than twenty years later, in 1240. He helped Prince Rostislav Mikhailovich, the son of Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov in the fight against Daniel Romanovich Galitsky, and, possibly, ended his days in Lithuania, in the service of Prince Mindovg.
The Ryazan principality passed into the hands of Ingvar Igorevich, who did not come to the notorious congress and thereby saved his own life.
Summing up the results of this short cycle, the following conclusions can be drawn.
In pre-Christian Russia, such a method of settling political scores as murder was considered quite acceptable, since the criteria for good and evil in a pagan environment were determined, as a rule, by the measure of the expediency of a particular act.
With the spread and establishment of Christianity as a state religion, political assassinations began to be sharply condemned both by the church and by the representatives of the princely elite themselves. The princes tried to find and began to use methods of settling scores, not related to the deprivation of a political enemy's life and self-mutilation. Violators of these unwritten rules were punished in the form of deprivation of volosts, and, therefore, income and a decrease in status in the princely hierarchy. The direct perpetrators of crimes against the prince, in the case when we know about their extradition to the injured party, were punished with death.
In total, from the end of the X century. before the Mongol invasion, that is, for more than 250 years, only four cases of political murder were reliably recorded in Russia (the congress in Isadh should be considered one group murder): the murder of Yaropolk Svyatoslavich, the murders of Boris and Gleb Vladimirovich and the congress and Isadi, where six princes. A total of nine victims. Presumably, the deaths of princes Yaropolk Izyaslavich and Gleb Yuryevich mentioned in the article, possibly killed "by order" of other princes, can be considered a political murder. The article does not mention and does not consider the death of Yuri Dolgoruky in Kiev (he may have also been poisoned, but there is no evidence of this) and the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky, who, of course, died a violent death, but there is no evidence thatthat other Ruriks may have been involved in his death. Prince Igor Olgovich, who was killed and torn to pieces by the rebellious Kievites in 1147, is also not mentioned in the article, since such a death can hardly fit the category of political murder, despite the fact that the uprising itself may have been provoked by the political opponents of the Olgovich clan. Thus, with the most "optimistic" calculations, the number of victims of political murders in Russia in the princely environment for 250 (although, if we count from 862, the year of Rurik's vocation, then for almost 400) years, it will not exceed twelve people, with half of them - victims of one massacre. In most cases, conflicts between princes were resolved in other, non-violent ways described in the cycle.
In general, not a very bloody story.
List of used literature:
Tales of bygone years
Laurentian Chronicle
Ipatiev Chronicle
The teachings of Vladimir Monomakh
A. A. Gorsky. Russian Middle Ages.
B. A. Rybakov. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries.
P. P. Tolochko. Ancient Russia.
A. S. Shchavelev. Forms of revenge and punishment in the inter-princely relations of the Rurikovichs.
A. F. Litvin, F. B. Uspensky Forcibly tonsured a princely family in Kiev: from interpretation of circumstances to reconstruction of reasons.
