Chapter 1. The beginning of the history of the Smolensk, Turov and Polotsk principalities The Krivichi and Dregovichi tribes played, especially the first, a prominent role already in that distant time when Rus' was being formed. But news about them is extremely confusing, incomplete and uncertain. This nature of the news

During the period under review, the population of the territory of Belarus was not homogeneous. The class structure of society in the 9th-12th centuries was characterized by the presence of 2 main classes: feudal lords and feudal-dependent people. Along with the main classes, there were tributary peasants and free city dwellers, as well as slaves (slaves, involuntary servants). The class of feudal lords and boyars: formed from slave owners, wealthy townspeople, and former free peasants. At the top of the feudal hierarchy stood Grand Duke, then came the princes-owners of individual large lands-principalities. Behind them came the feudal lords - owners of large and small estates (boyars). Some of the small feudal lords subsequently entered the service of the richest and became their vassals. The class of feudal-dependent people included tributary peasants or, as they are mentioned in other sources, free community members - a category of the population that is not dependent on individual feudal lords, but performs certain duties and contributes feudal rent directly to the state. They ran their own households and were required to pay a certain tribute to the central and local governments. The forms and sizes of peasant duties were varied. The payment of tribute was associated with such duties as polyudye, carriage and others. Most often, cases of mixed duties were known. Tribute was collected from the population through periodic tours of the prince and his retinue of the lands under his control. Servants is a general term that in the 11th-13th centuries denoted the feudal-dependent population. Sources of formation of the class of feudal-dependent people:

As a result of the stratification of property, the peasants, who became impoverished, found themselves in debt bondage.

As a result of forcible coercion of former free community members to perform duties in favor of the feudal lord or sovereign.

As a result of the settled state of serfs and other unfree people on earth.

The source of the formation of the involuntary population is captivity, self-sale into captivity, descent from involuntary people, punishment for a crime, unpaid debts.

Free city residents were merchants and artisans who owned their own workshops and owned land estates, the work on which was carried out by christenings and involuntary servants dependent on them.

Not only peasants, but also city residents fell into feudal dependence and performed many duties in favor of the state. So, on the territory of Belarus in the 9th-12th centuries, a society took shape where the feudal structure gradually began to prevail over the other.

As for the political system of the established states, it also went through a process of formation. Governance in the principalities was carried out according to the principle of the feudal hierarchy known from the history of the Middle Ages: the Grand Duke - appanage princes - boyars. They created a local administration - thousanders, virniks and tiuns, dependent on the princes, were appointed to the volosts or churchyards. The peasants and townspeople were kept in obedience with the help of the military force of the princely squads. The boyars and warriors formed a duma under the prince. The most important body of self-government in the city of Polotsk was the veche. A feature of the socio-political system of the Principality of Turov was the presence in the city of both a prince and a mayor. Each ancient state had its own political center, capital, or oldest city. The highest authorities were the prince, the princely council and the veche. The functions of central government bodies were performed by certain officials: posadnik, tysyatsky, podvoisky, key keeper, tiun and others, as well as senior representatives Orthodox Church- bishop and abbot (abbot).

At the beginning of this period, the term "state" did not exist and was not used. In the 9th-12th centuries, the most often used terms were “land”, “city”, “principality”. Each “land” had its own political center - a glorious city. The highest bodies were the prince, the council (rada), and the veche (sejm). The functions of the palace-patrimonial bodies were performed by tiuns, key holders, thousanders, troops, and local bodies were represented by governors, volostels and elders.

The form of government of the principalities was a monarchy. The prince was the head of state and palace administration. Having the right to resolve all issues, the most important of them (collection of tribute, militia, organization of a military campaign, etc.) he decided only after discussion in the council or at the assembly, i.e. The monarch's power was limited. In addition, the prince had to take into account the opinion of representatives of the Orthodox Church: the bishop, the abbot. The ideological basis of the existing government was Orthodoxy. The church and clergy actively participated in political life state and society, concentrating in their hands issues of education, marriage, family, guardianship and morality.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus

Educational institution

"Belorussian state university transport"

Department: philosophy of history and political science

Self-guided student work

Polotsk and Turov principalities

Completed

mechanical engineering student

Group MV-11 Struk A.V.

I checked

Senior Lecturer

Ryabtseva N.A.

Gomel 2014

Principality of Turov

Christianity and Enlightenment

References

Polotsk principality of Turov Christianity

1. Political structure of the Principality of Polotsk: authorities and administration

The first chronicle information about Polotsk dates back to 862. Under this date in the “Tale of Bygone Years” there is information that the Scandinavian prince Rurik, the Novgorod prince, began to distribute cities “to his husbands”, along with other cities, Polotsk is also mentioned. The name of this prince was not preserved in the Tale, but it can be assumed that he, like Rurik, was a Varangian.

The fact that Polotsk fell under the influence of Rurik, who sought to subjugate the northern part of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” could not but cause opposition from Kyiv. The Kyiv princes Askold and Dir in 865 (according to some sources in 867) carried out a campaign against the Krivichi. The Ipatiev Chronicle does not provide information about the consequences of the campaign, but notes that the Kyiv princes “fought the Polotsk people, and caused them a lot of trouble.”

At the end of the 9th century. Polotsk was conquered by Prince Oleg and annexed to Kievan Rus. This is evidenced by the mention in the chronicles of the campaign of Prince Oleg of Kyiv to Smolensk, after which tribute was established for the Krivichi. The significant influence of Kyiv on the development of the Principality of Polotsk at that time is confirmed by chronicle information about Oleg’s campaign in 907 against Constantinople, in which Polotsk residents also took part. This is evidenced by the list of cities that received a reward. Polotsk, in addition to the allotted 12 hryvnia for each participant in the campaign, also received an additional reward due to the fact that Oleg’s vassal was the prince there.

The annals have not preserved any mention of the exit of the Principality of Polotsk from the rule of Kyiv as a military-political event, but the fact that this happened in one way or another from 907 to 947 is confirmed by the following: in 947, Princess Olga began to occupy the lands dependent on Kyiv, establish a regulated amount of tribute. Among the lands for which new tribute values ​​were established, there is no Polotsk, therefore, it did not pay tribute to Kyiv.

By 980, one can definitely talk about the independence of Polotsk from both Kyiv and Novgorod. At this time, Prince Rogvolod reigned, about whom in Tatishchev’s “Russian History” it is said: “Rogvolod was from the princes who came from the Varangians.” In historical literature there is no single approach to Rogvolod’s ethnicity: whether he was a Slav or a Varangian, but the main thing is that it was under him that Polotsk turned into a strong independent state. The definition that the chroniclers gave to the first Polotsk prince Rogvolod: “He held, owned and reigned over the Polotsk land” - indicates the completion of the first stage of the formation of the state. Borders were defined and established political system, internal economic relations. The process of creating statehood during the time of Rogvolod coincided with similar processes among other European peoples: Czechs, Moravians, Croats, Slovenes, Poles, as well as with the creation of the first centralized states in Scandinavia - Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

Principality of Polotsk under Vseslav Brachislavovich

By the middle of the 11th century. within the Polotsk state, large internal resources had accumulated that made it possible further development, protection and defense of their interests, independence. All this was very clearly manifested in the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. during the life and activity of Prince Vseslav Brachislavich of Polotsk. The Tale of Bygone Years reports: “In the same year, Brachislav, the son of Izyaslav, the grandson of Vladimirov, the father of Vseslav, died, and his son Vseslav sat on the princely table in Polotsk.”

The activities of this prince have always caused mixed assessments by both contemporaries and historians. He was born around 1029. The very birth of the prince was shrouded in mystery and legends. According to the chronicle, his mother gave birth to him “from witchcraft,” and at birth the baby had a certain “ulcer” on his head. The Magi (servants of the pagan cult in Polotsk) advised his mother to tie this “ulcer” around his neck in the form of an amulet, so that he would wear it until his death. Which is what was done. “For this reason he was unmerciful to bloodshed,” summed up the unknown chronicler. From the moment the prince ascended the Polotsk throne in 1044 after the death of his father until 1060, he did not show himself in any way in the Eastern European space. Vseslav maintained peaceful relations with Yaroslav the Wise, who maintained stability in the Kyiv lands by suppressing civil strife. After his death in 1054, his father's policy of preventing civil strife was pursued by his son Izyaslav, in alliance with the brothers Vsevolod and Svyatoslav. It can be assumed that until the 60s of the 11th century. Vseslav strengthened the state he inherited. Of the 35 cities that existed on the territory of Belarus at that time, the largest ones belonged to the Polotsk land: Vitebsk, Zaslavl, Drutsk, Braslav, Minsk, Orsha, Logoisk. The cities themselves are growing. Actually, Polotsk at this time occupies an area of ​​more than 20 hectares with a population of about 10-15 thousand people. It was at this time that the first and largest Christian cathedral was built in the city - in honor of Hagia Sophia - the Wisdom of God, similar to the Constantinople, Ohrid and as opposed to the Kyiv and Novgorod Sophias.

The alliance of Vseslav with the southern Russian princes is confirmed by the campaign of 1060, when the southern Russian prince-brothers Yaroslavich invited Vseslav of Polotsk to take part in a united campaign against the nomads - the Torks. The campaign was successful, because as the chronicler reports, the Torci fled as soon as they saw the huge united army of the Slavic princes.

The alliance was broken by Vseslav himself, with an attack in 1065 on Pskov and in 1066 on Novgorod. The main reason, as researchers note, was the clash of the economic interests of these cities with the interests of the Principality of Polotsk.

Vseslav chose an opportune moment to attack Pskov. At this time, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod were drawn into a war for power in Tmutarakan. The siege of Pskov did not bring results. Despite the fact that the Polotsk prince, for the first time in the history of East Slavic military affairs, used battering machines during the siege of the city - “vices”. The walls of Pskov did not give in, and the Polotsk residents were forced to retreat to Polotsk.

In 1097, on the initiative of the grandson of Yaroslav, Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh of Pereyaslavl (after maternal line Vladimir was the grandson of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh) a congress of princes gathered in the city of Lyubech. The princes appreciated the disastrous consequences of the strife and, in order to avoid them, established a new principle of organizing power: “let each one maintain his fatherland.” The possessions of each princely family became its hereditary property. This decision consolidated feudal fragmentation.

Prince Vseslav of Polotsk did not participate in the congress of princes in Lyubech. This is explained by the fact that he was an independent ruler in his lands. The Polotsk princes were the overlords of the territory where their power was exercised, as well as in other medieval states. The formation between the possessions of the Polotsk prince as the overlord of the country occurs in the 10th-11th centuries.

But Vseslav Brachislavovich was the last prince who owned the entire Polotsk land. After his death, appanages-regions began to be separated from the Polotsk land, in which representatives of the Polotsk princely dynasty had the right to reign. After the death of Vseslav, the Principality of Polotsk was divided into fiefs between his sons.

The process of decentralization of the Principality of Polotsk began at the end of the 11th century, when, along with the regions subordinate to Polotsk, there already existed appanage regions led by the eldest sons of Vseslav. In “Russian History” 7 names of “Vseslavichs” are mentioned: Davyd, Gleb, Rogvolod, Boris, Roman, Rostislav, Svyatoslav. Historical sources do not confirm the information that each of them received their own inheritance, but according to the “Russian History” we can conclude that the sons of Vseslav were established in all regions of the Principality of Polotsk.

The eldest sons of the famous prince were, apparently, Davyd, Boris and Gleb. Polotsk prince Davyd was overthrown by Polotsk residents in 1128 and Rogvolod was installed in his place, but in 1128 the death of Boris, not Rogvolod, was reported. It can be assumed that Rogvolod had the godname Boris. This is also confirmed by the late Gustyn Chronicle, which, according to sources unknown to us, directly indicates: “Rogvolod or Boris”; Boris was obviously the second son of Vseslav, the third was Gleb.

Social life And economic development Polotsk land

First historical information Chronicles about Polotsk date back to 862. Prince Rogvolod “held, owned and reigned over the Polotsk land,” which indicates the completion of the first stage of the formation of the state. The boundaries of this land were determined, the political system and internal economic relations were established. The process of creating statehood during the time of Rogvolod coincided with similar processes among the Czechs, Moravians, Croats, Slavs, Poles, as well as with the creation of the first centralized states in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The cities of the Polotsk land were not only centers of residence of the princely administration (regional capitals), they also performed sacred, defensive, trade and craft functions. In the XII-XIII centuries. The chronicler monks knew about the existence of 36 cities on the territory of modern Belarus.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years" the term "Polotsk" appears simultaneously with the endoethnonym of the inhabitants of Polochina - "Krivichi". Thus, the chronicle states the tribal territorial self-determination of part of the Krivichi (in contrast to the Pskov-Izborsk and Smolensk) based on the creation of a separate principality with its capital in Polotsk. Most modern researchers agree that the name "Polotsk" "is territorial" and not ethnic.

The economic basis of the Polotsk land, in addition to traditional agriculture, was crafts, trade and the favorable geopolitical position of the principality. The central place in the trade relations of Polotsk with Europe, Byzantium, the countries of the Arab East, and Persia was given to the famous route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” One of the largest branches of this route ran along the Dvina through Polotsk.

The ideological foundation of the state on initial stage there was paganism, close to both the Slavs and the Balts, and from 988 - Christianity, but with a tolerant attitude towards previous traditions. The main question foreign policy The Polotsk land was a struggle for geopolitical leadership and the use of benefits from trans-European trade routes. This led to military-political conflicts between Polotsk and Novgorod and Kiev. In the 12th century, despite the actual fragmentation of the Polotsk land, it was still often considered as an integral state. At the same time, great changes began in the socio-political life of the Polotsk land. The veche, a general meeting of townspeople, which was also the highest court, became more active. A diversified economy has developed. Tribal production and slavery gave way to feudal relations. Tribute was replaced by feudal rent, estates and volosts appeared, the patriarchal structure collapsed, and the first guild organizations were created in the cities. Vassal relations were established between the “senior” and “junior” princes.

In 1201, with the permission of Prince Vladimir of Polotsk, German crusading knights and missionaries founded Riga at the mouth of the Dvina. This was the beginning of the end of the independence of the Polotsk land. Resisting external aggression, Polotsk was forced to enter into an alliance with Novgorod and Lithuania. In the late 50s - early 60s. 13th century The first Lithuanian prince Tovtivil appears in the reign of Polotsk. Thus began a new period of existence of the Polotsk lands - as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Principality of Turov

The Principality of Turov was formed on the territory of southern Belarus in the basin of the Pripyat and its tributaries. The capital of the principality, the city of Turov, is mentioned in the chronicle around 980. Until the end of the 10th century. The Principality of Turov developed as an independent one. A dynasty of princes ruled here. From the end of the 10th century. In Turov, the son of the Grand Duke of Kyiv, Svyatopolk, reigns, who led the struggle for the independence of the principality. From 1054 to 1119, the Principality of Turov was owned by Prince Izyaslav (son of Yaroslav the Wise) and his sons. Since 1113, the principality passed to the heirs of V. Monomakh. In the 50s of the XII century. The Principality of Turov was captured by Yuri Yaroslavovich, who returned the principality to the dynasty of Prince Izyaslav. A feature of the socio-political system of the Principality of Turov was the presence in the city of both a prince and a mayor, which was still characteristic only of Novgorod the Great.

At this time, the inhabitants of Belarus showed stubborn resistance to the Mongol-Tatars when they, devastating Rus', moved in 1240-1242. to the West. Batu's flanking detachments passed through the southern part of Belarus, devastated and plundered Mozyr, Turov, Pinsk, and Brest. In the middle and second half of the 13th century. The Mongol-Tatars more than once carried out raids on the Belarusian and Lithuanian lands, but they failed to conquer and subjugate them. At the end of the XII - beginning of the XIV century. The Turov land was completely annexed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Turov events are very indicative of the events that took place around 1013 in Turov. True, for some reason they were not reflected in the Kiev chronicles, and information about them came to us from foreign sources, namely from the “Chronicle” of Dietmar, Bishop of Merseburg. We already know that Svyatopolk, one of the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, was installed as prince in Turov, although, according to some sources, he could also be the son of Yaropolk, whose wife Vladimir married after the victory over the latter. It is believed that Svyatopolk could have been born in 978-980. It is not known exactly when he became the Prince of Turov. Somewhere between 1008-1013. he married the daughter of the Polish king Boleslav. Researchers see in this, on the one hand, Vladimir’s desire to consolidate what he conquered from the Poles (in this case, those who attribute this marriage to 992 are right, for then Vladimir conquered the Cherven cities), and on the other hand, Boleslav’s desire with the help son-in-law to strengthen his influence in the east.

According to Ditmar, along with Svyatopolk’s wife, her confessor, the Calabran bishop Rheinberg, came to Turov, whose task most likely was to facilitate the penetration and promotion of Boleslav’s interests. He allegedly became close to Svyatopolk and, with the knowledge of Boleslav, began to incite the Prince of Turov to adopt Latinism and act against his father. But the latter found out about this and put Svyatopolk in prison along with his wife and Reinberg. Boleslav, in response to this, was going to go against Vladimir, but due to discord with the Pechenegs, the campaign stopped, perhaps the reason for this was Vladimir’s agreement to Boleslav’s demand to release Svyatopolk. Old historiography viewed these events only in the light of the Kiev-Polish struggle. But we must not forget about Turov’s interests. If Polotsk played a decisive role in the struggle between Kyiv and Novgorod, then Turov occupied the same place in the struggle between Kyiv and Poland. But, just as Polotsk had its own interests and pursued its own policy, using the contradictions of Kyiv and Novgorod, so Turov, despite its dependence on Kyiv, also never forgot about its interests and, in order to satisfy them, could play on the contradictions of Kyiv and Poland had previously influenced the political behavior of Svyatopolk. This can be confirmed by the fact that Svyatopolk, even after he was removed from Turov, still remained its prince, and, most importantly, he maintained communication with his fans here. During the fight with Yaroslav, he gathered, according to the Suzdal Chronicle, “warriors” in the Turov land (“in Pinsk”). In Ditmar there is a message that Yaroslav, fighting with Svyatopolk, occupied a certain city, under which, as some researchers believe, Turov should be seen, which seems to prove this city’s support for Svyatopolk. Although all this does not have solid ground, the possibility of this also cannot be completely denied.

In the conditions of the forcible annexation of certain historical lands under the rule of Kyiv, the sons of the Grand Duke assigned there could easily become imbued with local interests and become their guides. Even Yaroslav, having become the Grand Duke of Kyiv (he severely punished for separatism), sitting in Novgorod, prepared the latter’s separation from Kyiv. What then can we say about Svyatopolk, who, although sitting in a land close to Kyiv, was very isolated from its natural conditions, which could not help but feel the full burden of dependence. But no matter how unclear and controversial the events of 1013 were for us, very important moments in our history were revealed for the first time: Turov’s desire to separate from Kyiv, which would be confirmed by its further history; This is the first fact of rivalry between Rus' and Poland for one of the Belarusian lands recorded by sources.

In the future, it will become one of the unfavorable factors in our history, which is in close connection with the previous one - the beginning of the struggle of Latinism and Orthodoxy for supremacy among the Belarusian population. The first mention of the city of Brest (modern Brest) is directly connected with the struggle of Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. The Ipatiev Chronicle reports that in 1019 Svyatopolk, having suffered defeat in the struggle for the grand-ducal position, fled outside the state and stopped for some time in Brest. Based on this, researchers express the opinion that this city was the last point before the “Lyatskaya land” and that it, built on land “skalanized” by the Dregovichi, was originally part of the Turov principality. Archaeological materials make it possible to date the pre-continental layers of the ancient settlement to the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. The emergence of a city on the cape at the confluence of Mukhavets and Vost. The Bug was due to its significance as a border fortress and a stronghold for the Slavic development of the surrounding territory. At the same time, it also had important commercial significance. The border position of Brest led to the fact that the city from the very beginning of its history became the object of aggressive attacks from different sides. Thus, the first mention of the city of Brest is directly connected with the struggle of Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. The Ipatiev Chronicle reports that in 1019 Svyatopolk, having suffered defeat in the struggle for the grand ducal position, fled outside the state and stopped for some time in Brest. Based on this, researchers express the opinion that this city was the last point before the “Lyatskaya land” and that it, built on land “skalanized” by the Dregovichi, was originally part of the Turov principality. Archaeological materials allow us to date the pre-continental layers of the ancient settlement to the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. The emergence of the city on the cape at the confluence of Mukhavets with the Eastern Bug was due to its significance as a border fortress and a stronghold for the Slavic development of the surrounding territory. At the same time, it also had important commercial significance. The border position of Brest led to the fact that the city from the very beginning of its history became the object of aggressive attacks from different sides. So, already in 1022 Yaroslav made a campaign near this city. The chronicle does not report either the goals or the results of this campaign, which gave rise to some researchers to believe that Yaroslav made this campaign to return Brest, captured in 1020 by Boleslav, and that he achieved this only in 1044.

Christianity and enlightenment

As you know, in 988, Prince Vladimir of Kiev proclaimed Christianity the official religion of his state. It was a small matter. Bring this idea to all corners of Rus'. But there were many ends, and not all of them joyfully accepted the prince’s initiative. Therefore, violence often had to be used. As they said in those days, Rus' was baptized “with fire and sword.”

Christianity came to the lands of modern Belarus in different ways. In Polesie, the patrimony of the Dregovichi, the new religion was brought peacefully. There is a legend about stone crosses that sailed down the Dnieper and Pripyat straight from Kyiv, and stained the waters in the areas of Turov and Pinsk with blood. Struck by such a spectacle, the Poleschuki accepted new faith. Those who did not accept were convinced by military formations from Kyiv.

The process of Christianization proceeded somewhat differently in the lands of the Krivichi. The Krivichi were never absolutely subordinate to Kyiv. And their capital, Polotsk, tried to pursue a separate policy. Kyiv did not have enough military forces to resolve the issue by force.

However, in Polotsk they understood that the adoption of Christianity was inevitable. In addition, it brings certain benefits. Development of culture and writing, maintaining relations with neighboring, already Christian countries. After all, at that time all the neighbors of the Krivichi, except Lithuania, had already been baptized.

The first famous Christians of Polotsk were Princess Rogneda (baptized Anastasia) and her son Izyaslav. Izyaslav was a pious man and did a lot for the development of writing and science in Polotsk.

In 992, the Polotsk diocese was created on the lands of the Krivichi. Somewhat later, a diocese for the Dregovichi was created in Turov. The Radimichi resisted the Christianization process the longest. In their land, the Principality of Smolensk, the diocese was organized only in the 12th century.

Through Christian culture, Belarus entered European civilization. Gradually, such remnants of paganism as polygamy, blood feud, and pagan sacrifices were eradicated.

Stone architectural structures began to appear on the lands of Belarus, the most majestic of which, undoubtedly, is the Church of St. Sophia in Polotsk above the Dvina.

There were schools at churches and monasteries. Books were copied there. Educated monks were advisers to princes in state affairs.

References

1. The Tale of Bygone Years // Stories Ancient Rus' XI-XII centuries;

. #"justify">. #"justify">. V. Ignatovsky Brief essay history of Belarus. Mn. 1991

History of Belarus. Ed. A. Kokhanovsky. Mn. 1997

M. Ermolovich Ancient Belarus: Polotsk and Novgorod periods. Mn. 1990

Kyiv and western lands of Rus'. Collection of articles. Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, Mn. 1982

Old Russian principalities. Collection of articles. Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Mn. 1975

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

First of appanage principalities, separated from the composition of the Old Russian state, later gaining independence. In the period from the 14th to the 18th centuries it was part of.

The Principality of Polotsk has its history of existence even before. It is known that back in the early 870s, the prince obliged Polotsk residents to pay tribute, and later the Kiev prince did the same. In the period from 972 to 980. The Norman Rogvolod reigned on the Polotsk land; the principality was considered dependent on the prince then ruling in Kyiv. The Polotsk land was included in the Old Russian state already in 980 after the prince killed Rogvolod, captured Polotsk and married the daughter of the murdered man, Rogneda. In 988 - 989 Vladimir appointed his son Izyaslav to the throne, who later became the founder of the princely dynasty. In 992 the Polotsk diocese was formed.

Despite the fact that the lands of the principality were almost infertile, it was located at the intersection of significant trade routes along the Dvina, Neman and Berezina; Difficult forests protected them from enemy attacks. This contributed to the resettlement of foreign peoples here. Cities developed rapidly, becoming trade and craft centers (Polotsk, Izyaslav, Minsk, etc.). Such prosperity in the economy gave the Izyaslavichs some resources, relying on which they fought against the Kyiv authorities for independence.

From 1001 to 1044 Bryachislav, the heir of Izyaslav, pursued an independent policy, trying to expand his possessions, taking advantage of the weakening of Rus' due to. In 1021 he managed to capture Veliky Novgorod, but then the prince repulsed him on the river. Sudome. Yaroslav, out of courtesy to Bryachislav, allocated him the Usvyatsky and Vitebsk volosts.

The pinnacle of the power of the Principality of Polotsk is considered to be the reign of Vseslav (1044 - 1101), the son of Bryachislav. He began expanding the lands to the north and north-west, imposing tribute on the neighboring tribes of the Livs and Latgalians. In 1067, after unsuccessful campaigns against, the prince struck back at Vseslav, capturing Minsk, defeating his squad, and taking him and his two sons prisoner. The Principality of Polotsk passed into the possession of Izyaslav. On September 14, 1068, the Kyiv residents who rebelled against Izyaslav overthrew him and Vseslav regained Polotsk. In 1069 - 1072 despite the brutal war with Izyaslav, Mstislav, Svyatopolk and Yaropolk (sons of Izyaslav), Vseslav retained the Principality of Polotsk.

In 1078 he captured the Smolensk principality and part in the north. However, in 1078 - 1079. the prince attacked the Principality of Polotsk and destroyed some of the cities. In 1084 he captured Minsk and destroyed the Polotsk land. Vseslav exhausted all his resources and stopped expanding his possessions. After the death of Vseslav in 1101, the Principality of Polotsk broke up into fiefs. In 1119, the aggression of the Izyaslavichs against their neighbors ceased after unsuccessful attempts to gain Novgorod and the Smolensk principality. The Principality is weakening, Kyiv takes advantage of the moment: in 1119, Vladimir Monomakh seizes the estate of Gleb Vseslavich, and throws him into prison; in 1127 he ravaged the Polotsk land in the southwest region; in 1129, thanks to the refusal of the Izyaslavichs to march with the Russians against the Polovtsians, Mstislav seized the principality and at the Kiev Congress asked for the imprisonment and deportation of the Polotsk princes to Byzantium; Then he gives the Polotsk land to his son Izyaslav, and installs governors in the cities.

In 1132, one of the Izyaslavichs, Vasilko Svyatoslavich, managed to return the Principality of Polotsk, but not its former power and strength. In the 12th century, a fierce struggle for the princely throne flared up between Rogvolod Borisovich and Rostislav Glebovich. In 1150 - 1160 Rogvolod fails in his attempt to reunite the principality due to disagreements with other Izyaslavichs and outside interference (prince and others). By the 13th century, German knights conquered the tributaries of Polotsk; by 1252, Polotsk and other cities were taken by the Lithuanian princes; at the end of the 13th century, in the struggle between the Teutonic Order, Lithuania and the Smolensk princes for the Polotsk lands, Lithuania gained the upper hand.

In 1307, the Lithuanian prince Viten conquered Polotsk from the Swordsmen, and Gedemin, who ruled after, took possession of the Minsk and Vitebsk principalities. By 1385, the Principality of Polotsk became part of the Lithuanian state.

IX. SMOLENSK AND POLOTSK. LITHUANIA AND THE LIVONIAN ORDER

(continuation)

Polotsk Krivichi. – Rogvolod Polotsky and Rostislav Minsky. - Obstinacy of Polotsk residents. - Dvina stones. – Intervention of Smolensk and Chernigov residents in the Polotsk unrest. – Capital Polotsk. – St. Euphrosyne. – Cities and borders of Polotsk land.

Spasskaya Church of the Euphrosyne Monastery in Polotsk. Built in the 1150s.
Image credit: Szeder László

The history of the Polotsk land after the return of the princes from Greek imprisonment is extremely dark and confusing. We only see that the unrest of Southern Rus', the struggle of the Monomakhovichs with the Olgovichs and uncles with nephews helped the Polotsk land to finally free itself from Kyiv dependence. Rivalry different generations in the descendants of Yaroslav I gave the Polotsk Vseslavichs the opportunity to always find allies. Since they were pressed from the east by the Monomakhovichs of Smolensk, and from the south by the Kyiv and Volyn, the Vseslavichs became natural allies of the Chernigov Olgovichs and with their help defended their independence.

However, the reign of Polotsk did not achieve significant strength and strength. It offered too little resistance when it had to defend itself from foreign enemies advancing from the west, namely from Lithuania and the Livonian Order. The main reasons for his weakness lay both in the lack of internal unity between the Vseslavichs, and also in the restless, obstinate attitude of the population towards their princes. The coups carried out in the Polotsk land by Monomakh and his son Mstislav I, the repeated captivity, displacement and then expulsion of the Polotsk princes, of course, mixed up the family accounts between the descendants of Vseslav’s numerous sons. We do not find here the rather strict order that was observed in relation to seniority, for example, in the family of the princes of Chernigov-Seversk or Smolensk. The main Polotsk table becomes the subject of strife between the grandchildren of Vseslav; but the one who managed to take possession of it usually does not enjoy great importance among his other relatives, the appanage princes of Polotsk. The latter often strive for independence and follow their own policies in relation to neighboring lands. This can especially be said about the princes of Minsk. During the entire century that elapsed from the return of the Vseslavichs to Polotsk until the time of the Tatar and Lithuanian conquest, we do not meet on the Polotsk table a single person marked with the stamp of energy or clever politics.

The Vseslavich feuds, in turn, greatly contributed to the weakening of the princely power and some successes of popular rule, or the beginning of the veche. This beginning, which we noticed among the Smolensk Krivichi, manifested itself to an even greater extent among the Polotsk people, who in this respect come even closer to their fellow tribesmen, the Novgorod Krivichi. It has a particularly strong effect on the residents of the capital city, which, like other oldest cities, strives not only to resolve inter-princely feuds, but also to subordinate the population of younger cities and suburbs to its decisions. It is not for nothing that the chronicler noted that “The Novgorodians, Smolnyans, Kievans and Polochans come together in spirit at the meeting, and whatever the elders decide on, that’s what the suburbs will become.”

The nature of Polotsk history in this era was clearly reflected in the struggle of Vseslav’s two grandchildren, cousins: Rogvolod Borisovich Polotsk and Rostislav Glebovich Minsky.

Married to the daughter of Izyaslav II of Kyiv, Rogvolod was somewhat subordinate to the Monomakhovichs. Perhaps this circumstance served as a source of displeasure against him on the part of Polotsk residents Glebovichi Minsky, i.e. Rostislav with his brothers. In 1151, citizens of Polotsk, secretly conspiring with Rostislav Glebovich, captured Rogvolod and sent him to Minsk, where he was put into custody. Rostislav occupied the Polotsk table, although, in fact, he had no right to do so; since his father Gleb never occupied this table. Fearing the interference of the Monomakhovichs, the Glebovichs surrendered under the patronage of Svyatoslav Olgovich Novgorod-Seversky and swore an oath to “have him as their father and walk in obedience to him.” Rogvolod was later freed from captivity, but did not receive his volosts back, and in 1159 he resorted to the same Svyatoslav Olgovich, now the Prince of Chernigov, with a request for help. The Glebovichs, apparently, had already managed not only to quarrel with him, but also to incite the Polotsk population itself against themselves. At least we see that as soon as Rogvolod received an army from Svyatoslav Olgovich and appeared in the Polotsk land, more than 300 men of Druch and Polotsk came out to meet him and brought him into the city of Drutsk, from where they expelled Rostislav’s son Gleb; Moreover, they plundered his own courtyard and the courtyards of his warriors. When Gleb Rostislavich rode to Polotsk, there was also confusion here; the people were divided into two sides, Rogvolodov and Rostislavov. The latter managed to calm the opposing side with many gifts, and he again brought the citizens to the oath. The citizens kissed the cross on the fact that Rostislav was “their prince” and that God forbid they “live with him without favor.” He went with the brothers Vsevolod and Volodar to Rogvolod to Drutsk; but after an unsuccessful siege, the opponents made peace, and Rogvolod received some more volosts. However, unrest in Polotsk was not slow to resume. The obstinate Polochans, having forgotten their recent oath, began to secretly communicate with Rogvolod. Their envoys spoke the following speeches: “Our prince! we sinned before God and before you in that we stood up against you without guilt, plundered your property and that of your squad, and handed you over to the Glebovichs to suffer great torment. But if you don’t remember that now, what we did out of our madness, kiss the cross for us that you are our prince, and we are your people, we will give Rostislav into your hands, and do with him what you want.”

Rogvolod kissed the cross for oblivion of the past betrayal and released the ambassadors. Then the Polotsk eternalists decided to treacherously seize their prince, who, obviously, surrounded himself with precautions and did not live in the city itself, but was in the prince’s country courtyard beyond the Dvina on the Belchitsa River. The Polotsk residents invited the prince on Peter's Day to the "Holy Mother of God of Old", for a fraternity, which was organized either by the whole city, or by some parish on a temple holiday. But Rostislav had friends who informed him of the malicious intent. They arrived at the feast with armor under their cloaks and a decent number of troops, so that the citizens did not dare to do anything against him that day. The next morning they again sent to invite him to the city under the pretext of some important speeches. “Yesterday I was with you; why didn’t you tell me what your need was?” - the prince said to the messengers; however, he mounted his horse and rode into the city. But on the way he was met by a “childish”, or one of the younger warriors, who secretly left the city to inform the prince about the treason of the Polotsk residents. At that moment they were creating a stormy meeting against the prince; and meanwhile the predatory mob had already rushed to the courtyards of the main warriors, began to rob them and beat the princely officials who fell into their hands, i.e. tiuns, mytniks, etc. Rostislav, in view of the open rebellion, hastened to return to Belchitsa, gathered his squad and went to Minsk to his brother Volodar, fighting Polotsk volosts along the way, taking cattle and servants. Meanwhile, Rogvolod from Drutsk arrived in Polotsk and again sat down on the table of his grandfather and father. But at the same time, his war with the Glebovich Minskys resumed. Rogvolod received help from his wife’s uncle Rostislav of Smolensky, but not for nothing: he gave up Vitebsk and some other border volosts for her. Rostislav of Smolensky soon moved to the great table of Kiev and continued from here to help Rogvolod against the Glebovichs. However, the war with the latter was not successful for the Prince of Polotsk. He went to Minsk several times and could not take this city. In 1162, Rogvolod besieged Gorodets, in which Volodar Glebovich defended with an army recruited from neighboring Lithuania. Here Volodar, with an unexpected night attack, inflicted such a defeat on Rogvolod, after which he did not dare to appear in the capital city; since he lost many Polochans killed and captured. He went to his former appanage city of Drutsk.

Since that time, the chronicles no longer mention Rogvolod Borisovich. But there is another kind of monument, which, apparently, speaks of the same prince nine years after his defeat at Gorodets. About twenty versts from the city of Orsha on the road to Minsk, in a field lies a reddish boulder, on the flat surface of which a cross with a stand is carved; and around the cross the following inscription is carved: “In the summer of May 6679 (1171), on the 7th day, this cross was added. Lord, help your servant Vasily in baptism, named Rogvolod, son of Borisov.” It is very likely that this Rogvolod-Vasily is the former Polotsk prince Rogvolod Borisovich, who at the end of his life had to be content with the Drut inheritance; and the mentioned stone is located on land that obviously belonged to this inheritance. It is curious that, in addition to Rogvolod, several more similar stones have been preserved in the bed of the Western Dvina. Namely, a little below the city of Disna, in the most rapid part of this river, a granite gray boulder rises in the middle of it with an image of a cross and the inscription: “Lord, help your servant Boris.” Even lower lies another boulder with the same inscription and cross. There on the Dvina there are several more stones with inscriptions that are impossible to make out. In all likelihood, the Boris stone belongs to Rogvolod’s father, the Grand Duke of Polotsk. And a pious appeal to God with a request for help was, of course, a prayer 6 for the successful completion of any enterprise; most likely, it related to the construction of temples.

Soon after the above events, Polotsk residents seated Vseslav Vasilkovich, one of the great-grandsons of the famous Vseslav, on their table. This Vasilko was in property with the Smolensk princes and only with their help he stayed on his table. But one day he was defeated by his rival Volodar Glebovich, Prince Gorodetsky, and his Lithuanian allies, and was forced to seek refuge in Vitebsk with David Rostielavich, then another of the appanage Smolensk princes. Volodar captured Polotsk, swore in the inhabitants and then moved to Vitebsk. David Rostislavich defended the crossing of the Dvina; but did not give a decisive battle, because he was waiting for the help of his brother Roman of Smolensky. Suddenly, at midnight, in Volodar’s camp they heard some noise, as if a whole army was crossing the river. It seemed to Volodar’s squad that Roman was coming at them, and David wanted to strike from the other side. She started to run and dragged the prince along with her. In the morning, David, having learned about the flight of the enemies, hurried in pursuit and captured many who were lost in the forest. And he again installed his brother-in-law Vseslav in Polotsk (1167), which thus found itself dependent on Smolensk, and the latter provided him with protection in relation to other neighbors. For example, in 1178, Mstislav the Brave went with the Novgorodians to Polotsk to take away from them the Novgorod churchyard, which had once been captured by Vseslav Bryachislavich. But Roman Smolensky sent his son to help Vseslav Vasilkovich, and sent him to Mstislav to dissuade him from the campaign. The brave man listened to his older brother and turned back from Velikiye Luki. But the Smolensk dependence was very unpleasant for Polotsk residents; The concession of Vitebsk was equally sensitive to them. Therefore, the princes of Polotsk again began to seek alliances with Lithuania and Chernigov. They finally managed to regain the Vitebsk inheritance when David Rostislavich received a volost in Kievan Rus (Vyshgorod). Vitebsk passed to Bryachislav Vasilkovich, brother of Vseslav of Polotsk.

In 1180, a remarkable meeting took place between the Smolensk princes and the Chernigov princes in Polotsk. David Rostislavich had just taken office in Smolensk after the death of his elder brother; and in the Drutsky inheritance his assistant Gleb Rogvolodovich was sitting, of course, the son of the above-mentioned Rogvolod Borisovich. At that time, the struggle of the Monomakhovichs and Olgovichs over Kyiv was in full swing, the Grand Duke of Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, returning from his campaign against Vsevolod of Suzdal (more about which later), stopped by Novgorod the Great, where his son then reigned. From here he went to Polotsk land; at the same time, his brother Yaroslav Chernigovsky and cousin Igor Seversky came from the other side, having hired Polovtsians, and headed to Drutsk to take it away from the Smolensk henchman. David Rostilavich hastened to the aid of Gleb Rogvolodovich and tried to attack Yaroslav and Igor (“give them a regiment”) before Svyatoslav of Kiev arrived in time, with whom most of the Polotsk princes united, including both Vasklkovich brothers, Vseslav of Polotsk and Bryachislav of Vitebsk, with Lithuanian and Livonian mercenary detachments. But the Chernigov-Seversk princes avoided a decisive battle and took a strong position on the opposite bank of the Drutya, and both armies stood there for a whole week, limiting themselves to a skirmish. When Grand Duke Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich arrived with the Novgorodians and the brothers began to build a road across the river, David of Smolensk went home. The Grand Duke burned the fort and outer fortress of Drutsk, but did not take the city itself and, having dismissed his allies, returned to Kyiv. The Polotsk land thus found itself dependent on the Chernigov Olgovichi, but before the first change of circumstances. In 1186, David Rostislavich took advantage of the Polovtsian pogrom of the Olgovichi to humble Polochan. He undertook a winter campaign against them from Smolensk; and his son Mstislav, who was then reigning in Novgorod, went to his aid with the Novgorodians; on his side were two more appanage Polotsk princes, Vseslav Drutsky and Vasilko Logozhsky. The Polotsk residents were embarrassed and made the following decision at the meeting: “We cannot stand against the Novgorodians and Smolnyans; if we let them into our land, they will have time to do a lot of harm to it before we make peace; it is better to go out to them.” And so they did: they met David at the border with bow and honor; They presented him with many gifts and settled things peacefully, i.e. They agreed, of course, to his demands.

At David's request, Vitebsk was given to his son-in-law, one of the grandsons of Gleb Minsky. But Yaroslav Vsevolodovich opposed this order, and hence a new clash between the Chernigov people and the Smolensk people occurred in 1195. Above we saw how the meeting of the opponents in the Smolensk region ended and how the Drut prince Boris helped the Chernigov people win the battle. Vitebsk was taken from David's son-in-law. It seemed that Smolensk influence on Polotsk affairs was finally going to give way to Chernigov. But, on the one hand, the growing unrest in Southern Rus' distracted the attention of the Chernigov residents; on the other hand, hostile foreigners increasingly pressed Polotsk land from the west. Therefore, Smolensk supremacy prevailed here again. Proof of this is the well-known contractual letter of Mstislav Davidovich with Riga and Gotland. The Smolensk prince recognizes the main artery of the land of Polotsk, the Western Dvina, as free for merchant ships along its entire course, and at the end of the letter he declares the agreement binding not only for the Smolensk “volost”, but also for Polotsk and Vitebsk. Consequently, the latter were then dependent on Smolensk.

The most important settlements in the land of the Polotsk Krivichi were located along the banks of its main river, i.e. Western Dvina. On its upper part, on the border with Smolensk land, there was the Vitebsk appanage. The city of Vitebsk was built at the confluence of the Vitba River and the Dvina on the rather elevated left bank of the latter and, being well fortified, also had a ship pier, one of the most important on the Dvina. On its middle course, on the right bank, at the confluence of the Polota River, stood the capital city of the Kriv land, Polotsk. Its main part, or the Kremlin (“upper castle”), was located on a coastal hill, which rises at the confluence of the Polota and the Dvina. Adjacent to this Kremlin from the east was the outer city (“lower castle”), separated from it by a moat and fortified by an earthen rampart with wooden walls. Suburban settlements located on the opposite banks of both rivers constituted Zapolotye and Zadvinye. In the Polotsk Kremlin, in addition to the princely and episcopal towers, according to custom, there was the main shrine of the city, the stone cathedral of St. Sophia, about the seven heights and chapters. Its very name shows that it was built in the likeness of the Kyiv churches, which served as models for all of Rus'. In addition to the St. Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk, as in other Russian capital cities, there was also a cathedral church in the name of the Mother of God, which in the second half of the 12th century was already called the “Old Mother of God,” judging by the history of Rostislav Glebovich.

Like other capitals, here, in addition to temples, pious princes early built monastic monasteries both in the city itself and in its environs. Of the monasteries, the most famous is Borisoglebsky: the names of the martyred brothers are especially common in the family of Polotsk princes. This monastery was located in Zadvinye, among groves and bushes, on the slope of a deep ravine, along the bottom of which flows the Belchitsa River, which flows into the Dvina. It was founded by Boris Vseslavich, they say, the same one who built the Polotsk Sophia. Near the same monastery there was also a country princely courtyard. It is known that Russian princes for the most part liked to stay not in their city mansion, but in the countryside, where various economic establishments were set up, especially their favorite pastime, i.e. hunting. Country living attracted them, of course, not only because of the clean air, space and economic amenities, but also because of some distance from the noisy evening and the obstinate urban mob. At least a similar conclusion can be drawn from the above story of Rostislav Glebovich.

Saint Euphrosyne of Polotsk. Icon 1910

Among the women's monasteries here, the most famous is the Spaso-Euphrosinievskaya. In Polotsk, compared to other capitals, there were many princesses and duchesses who devoted themselves to monastic life. Among them, the first place is occupied by St. Euphrosyne, who bore the secular name of Predislava. Her life is decorated with legends; but its historical basis is beyond doubt. The beginning of her monastic exploits dates back to the time of the aforementioned Polotsk prince Boris Vseslavich, to whom she was the niece, being the daughter of his younger brother George and, therefore, the granddaughter of the famous Vseslav.

Even in her teenage years, when she was preparing for marriage, Predislava secretly left her parental home to her aunt, the widow of Prince Roman Vseslavich, who was the abbess of a women’s monastery, located, apparently, near the cathedral St. Sophia Church. Here Predislava took her hair under the name of Euphrosyne, to the great chagrin of her parents. At her request, Bishop Elijah of Polotsk allowed her to live for some time in a cell attached to the cathedral, or in the so-called. "cabbage roll" Here she was engaged in copying church books and distributed the money received from this work to the poor. Soon her thoughts turned to the usual desire of pious Russian princesses, to establish their own women's monastery. For this purpose, the bishop gave her his nearby village, where he had a country house with a small wooden church in the name of the Transfiguration of the Savior. This place lies about two versts from the city on the right bank of the Polota. Here Euphrosyne set up a new monastery, in which she was installed as abbess. Among her nuns, to her father’s new chagrin, she attracted her sister Gorislava-Evdokia and cousin Zvenislava-Euphrasia Borisovna. With the help of relatives, instead of a wooden one, she built and decorated the stone Transfiguration Church, which was consecrated by Elijah's successor, Bishop Dionysius, in the presence of the prince's house, with a large crowd of people. Euphrosyne did not limit herself to this and, in order to have her own clergy, founded a nearby monastery in the name of the Virgin Mary. In her monastery, she peacefully survived the storm that broke out over her family during the time of Mstislav Monomakhovich of Kyiv, who expelled the Polotsk princes to Greece. The time for this exile has passed; the princes returned. The time of civil strife between her cousins, Rogvolod Borisovich and Rostislav Glebovich, has also passed. Euphrosyne managed to tonsure two more princesses, her nieces, as nuns. Having reached old age, she wished to visit the Holy Land, in accordance with the pious mood of her age. This, apparently, was at a time when her nephew Vseslav Vasilkovich was sitting on the Polotsk table, and Manuel Komnenos was the Byzantine emperor. The holy abbess left her monastery in the care of her sister Evdokia; and she herself, accompanied by a cousin and one of her brothers, went to Constantinople. Having venerated the shrines of Constantinople, she sailed to Jerusalem, where she took refuge in the Russian hospice at the Feodosievsky Monastery of the Mother of God. There she died and was buried in the vestibule of the monastery church.

The face of Euphrosyne became the subject of special veneration in the Polotsk land. And the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savior (still preserved in its main parts), small in size but elegant in architecture, like all examples of the Byzantine-Russian style of that era, is an excellent monument to her piety. The cross of Euphrosyne, built in 1161, is kept in this temple; it is six-pointed, wooden, bound in silver and decorated precious stones, containing particles of relics. One of Euphrosyne’s successors as abbess was her niece, the Venerable Paraskevia, daughter of Rogvolod-Vasily Borisovich, who donated all her property to the Spassky monastery and brought it into a very prosperous state.

The strip lying north of the Dvina is a somewhat hilly lake region, which apparently did not have a dense population. The Polotsk borders here converged with the Novgorod borders near the upper reaches of the Lovat and Velikaya. The only significant city known from the chronicle in this direction was Usvyat, lying on the lake of the same name, on the border with Smolensk and Novgorod lands. The largest and best populated part of the Polotsk land extended south of the Dvina; it embraced the area of ​​the right Dnieper tributaries, the Drut and Berezina. This area is a wooded sandy-clayey plain, often elevated and hilly in its northwestern zone, and low-lying and swampy in the southeastern zone; the latter imperceptibly merges with Turov Polesie. The most prosperous region in this area was the Minsk inheritance, which had drier and more fertile soil, mixed with black soil, with deciduous forests and rich pastures. The capital city of the appanage, Minsk, rose on the coastal hills of the Svisloch River (the right tributary of the Berezina). This is one of the oldest Kriv cities, along with Polotsk and Smolensk. Just under the city, the small but historical river Nemiza flowed into the Svisloch. The famous battle between Vseslav and the Yaroslavichs took place on its banks in 1067. The singer of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” sang this battle in the following images: “On the Nemiza they lay sheaves with their heads, thresh them with damask flails, lay their bellies on the threshing floor, winnow the soul from the body; the bloody banks of the Nemiza are not well sown, they are sown with the bones of Russian people.” Not far from Minsk, to the northwest, on one of the tributaries of the Svisloch, lay Izyaslavl, built by Vladimir the Great for Rogneda and her son Izyaslav. A little further north on the Goina River, a tributary of the Berezina, was Logozhsk, and on the Berezina itself was Borisov, founded by Boris Vseslavich. Moving from it to the east, we meet one of the most significant Polotsk cities, Drutsk, in a very wooded and swampy area. In the southeast, the extreme Polotsk cities were Rogachev, at the confluence of the Druti and the Dnieper, and Strezhev, somewhat lower on the Dnieper; these cities lay on the Chernigov-Kiev border.

In the west, the borders of the Polotsk land were lost in the Lithuanian forests, where the Krivichi settlements gradually penetrated. Such settlements were established partly through trade relations, partly by force of arms. The Russian princes imposed tribute on the neighboring Lithuanian peoples and cut down Russian towns on convenient coastal hills, from where their warriors went to collect tribute and where the natives could exchange booty from their animal trades for household tools, fabrics, women's jewelry and other Russian goods. Lithuania quite easily submitted to the influence of more developed Russian citizenship and in its Ukraine was subjected to gradual Russification; in the 12th century we often meet auxiliary Lithuanian detachments in the Polotsk troops. But disorder and lack of unity in the Polotsk land itself hindered the strength of Russian domination in these remote regions.

According to some signs, the Polotsk princes controlled the flow of the Dvina almost to the Baltic Sea, that is, they collected tribute from the native Latvians. But they did not bother to strengthen the mouth of this river for themselves by building strong Russian cities and, apparently, did not occupy with their squads fortified places on it beyond two castles that bore Latvian names: Gersike (now Kreutzburg, lower than Dvinsk) and Kukeinos (Kokenhusen). From the Neman side, the Polotsk borders crossed the Viliya and headed towards its middle course. On the Holy River, a tributary of the Viliya, we have a city with the Russian name Vilkomir, then Novgorodok, on one of the left Neman tributaries, and Gorodno, on the high right bank of the Neman at the confluence of the Gorodnichanka River. The prosperity of this last city is clearly evidenced by the remains of the beautiful Boris and Gleb Church (better known as “Kolozhansky”), the foundation of which dates back to the 12th century and which only in our time was destroyed by the action of water that washed away the sandy, loose bank of the Neman. This temple is especially remarkable for its many voices, i.e. oblong clay pots embedded in the walls, presumably in order to make the sounds of church singing more pleasant. Gorodno and Novgorodok served as a stronghold of the Kriv land on the part of the wild Zaneman tribe of the Yatvingians.

The first mention of the Dvina stones that we know of is found in the 16th century by Stryikovsky in his chronicle. He says the following. It happened to him one day to travel along with other zholners on plows from Vitebsk to Dynaminda. Then he heard from one Disna merchant that seven miles from Polotsk, down on the Dvina between the cities of Drissa and Disna, there was a large stone on which a cross was carved “in the Russian way” and a Slavic inscription: “Lord help your servant Boris, son of Ginvilov.” When the plow landed for the night near that place, Stryikovsky himself went in a canoe to look at it. He explains that this inscription was made by order of Boris Ginvilovich in memory of the safe delivery from Livonia of the Dvina on planks of brick, alabaster and other materials for the construction of a temple in Polotsk (Kronika. I. 241 pp. Warsaw edition). Another historian of the Lithuanian region, Koyalovich, in his Historia Litvaniae, from the words of Stryikovsky, literally repeated his news about the same inscription, translating it into Latin; Miserere, Domine, mancipio tuo Boryso Ginvilonis filio. But Stryikovsky’s news turns out to be incorrect, and it is unlikely that he himself took a good look at the inscription during his evening trip in the shuttle. Sementovsky, secretary of the Vitebsk Statistical Committee, in his essay “Ancient Monuments of the Vitebsk Province” (St. Petersburg, 1867) presented drawings of five Dvina stones; Of these, on three of them you can still read the name of Boris; on the one that Stryjkowski speaks of, the inscription is very well preserved; but there are no traces of the words “son of Ginvilov” on any stone. They turned out to be Stryikovsky's addition. Further information about these Dvina stones and Rogvolodov, see the reports of Keppen (Uchen. Zap. Ak. N. on 1 and 3 departments. T. III, issue I. St. Petersburg. 1855). Plater (Collection of Rubon. Wilno. 1842), Narbut (Vitebsk province. Ved. 1846. No. 14). Shpilevsky ("Travel through Belarus". St. Petersburg. 1858), in the newspaper "Vilna Bulletin", edited by Kirkor (1864. No. 56), gr. K. Tyshkevich “On ancient stones and monuments of Western Rus' and Podlyakhia” (Archaeological Bulletin, published, edited by A. Kotlyarevsky. M. 1867), Kuscinsky and Schmidt (Proceedings of the first Archaeological Congress LXX - LXXVI) and finally gr. Uvarov (Antiquities of Moscow. Archaeological Society. T. VI, issue 3). Sapunov "Dvina, or Borisov, stones" (Vitebsk 1890).

The main source for Polotsk history is Rus. chronicle, mainly according to the Ipatiev list. Stryikovsky, referring to some old chronicler, in his Chronicle says that the direct generation of the Vseslavichs ceased in the second half of the 12th century; that Polotsk residents introduced a republican government with a veche and thirty elders of judgment at its head; that then the Lithuanian prince Mingailo took possession of Polotsk, and his son Ginvil married the Tver princess and adopted Christianity; that Ginvil was succeeded by his son Boris, the same one who built St. Sophia with some other churches and left a memory of himself on the Dvina stones. Boris was succeeded by Rogvolod-Vasily, who restored to the Polotsk people their veche customs, taken away by Mingail; and Rogvolod was succeeded by his son Gleb, with whose death the Miigailovich family in Polotsk ended (Kronika. 239 - 242). The same in Pomniki do dziejow Litewskich. Ed. Narbuta. Wilno. 1846. (The so-called Chronicle of Bykhovets.) Some writers dealing with history Western Russia , continued to repeat this news until later without a critical attitude towards it. (Including August Schlozer - Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte. II. 37.) Meanwhile, Karamzin already pointed out their improbability and complete inconsistency with chronology (to vol. IV, note 103). The Dvina stones, as we have seen, finally exposed Stryikovsky in adding the words “son of Ginvilov.” If we accept his testimony, it would turn out that Boris built Polotsk churches in the 13th century, while his son Rogvolod-Vasily reigned in the 12th century; for the stone of the latter is clearly marked with the year 1171, etc. Pogodin and Soloviev also rejected the existence of the Polotsk Mingailovichs, as did Belyaev ("Essay on the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania." Kyiv. 1878). To prove that in the first half of the 13th century the Russian dynasty, and not the Lithuanian one, still reigned in Polotsk, I will add the following instructions. Firstly, Heinrich Latvian reports about the Polotsk prince Vladimir, under whom the Germans were settled in Livonia. Secondly, the aforementioned trade agreement between Smolensk and Riga and Gotland in 1229; the agreement included the Polotsk and Vitebsk volosts without any hint of any change in their princes. Thirdly, the direct news of the Russian Chronicle (according to Voskresen. and Nikonov, list) that Alexander Nevsky in 1239 married the daughter of the Polotsk prince Bryachislav. There is some confusion regarding the aforementioned Prince Vladimir. News of Henry Latvian about him lasted for thirty years (1186 – 1216); and yet the Russian chronicles do not know him at all. Hence the assumption arose that this Vladimir is none other than Vladimir Rurikovich, later the Prince of Smolensk and the Grand Duke of Kiev, see Lyzhin “Two pamphlets from the times of Anna Ioannovna” (Izv. Acad. N. T. VII. 49). This assumption, however, is too bold; Vladimir Rurikovich was only born in 1187. However, it is also unlikely that the same Vladimir reigned in Polotsk in both 1186 and 1216. Tatishchev, under 1217 (vol. III, 403), has a story about the Polotsk prince Boris Davidovich and his second wife Svyatokhna, Princess of Pomerania. Svyatokhna, in order to deliver the reign to her son Vladimir Voitsekh, slandered her two stepsons Vasilko and Vyachka before the prince. This story ends with the Polotsk residents indignant against her and the Pomeranians beating up her accomplices. According to Tatishchev, he borrowed the story from Eropkin’s Chronicle. In his reasoning mentioned above, Lyzhin considers this entire romantic story a pamphlet that was directed against the German government of Anna Ioannovna and composed by Eropkin himself. This opinion remains a question for now. On this issue, see Mr. Sapunov, “The reliability of an excerpt from the Polotsk chronicles placed in the history of Tatishchev under 1217.” (Read O.I. dated 1898. III. Mixture). He proves the existence of the Polotsk chronicles, from which Eropkin borrowed this story. Of the new works on the history of the region, the main place is occupied by professors Dovnar Zapolsky “Essay on the Krivichi and Dregovichi lands until the end of the 12th century.” Kyiv. 1891 and Danilevich “Essay on the history of the Polotsk land until the XIV century.” 1897

For the archeology and ethnography of the Northwestern Territory, we indicate the following. works: Sapunov “Vitebsk Antiquity”. T. V. Vitebsk 1888. His “Polotsk” St. Sophia Cathedral". Vit. 1888. His own "Inflants". Vit. 1886. Sementovsky's "Belarusian Antiquities". Issue I. St. Petersburg. 1890. Romanov's "Belarusian Collection". 4 issues. 1886 - 1891. (Fairy tales, songs, etc. d.). Published by Batyushkov "Belarus and Lithuania". (With 99 engravings and a map.) "Antiquities of the North-West, regions". "(Proceedings of the IX Archaeological Congress. M. 1895). Eremenka and Spitsyn "Radimical mounds" and "Alleged Lithuanian mounds" (Zap. Archaeological. Ob. VIII. 1896).

"Life of Euphrosyne" in the Degree Book. I. 269. Stebelsky Dwa swiata na horyzoncie Polockim czyli zywot ss. Evfrozynii i Parackewii. Wilno. 1781. “The Life of the Venerable Princess Euphrosyne of Polotsk” - Govorsky (West. South-West. and West. Russia. 1863. Nos. XI and XII). "Ancient monuments of Vitebsk province." – Sementovsky with the image of the cross of Euphrosyne. The inscription on it contains a spell so that no one would dare to take this cross from the Monastery of St. Savior. The same inscription testifies that silver, gold, expensive stones and pearls worth 140 hryvnia were used to decorate it, and that the master who made it was called Lazar Bogsha. About Euphrosyne and Paraskeva in Sapunov Viteb. Old man. T. V. "Minsk Province" - lieutenant colonel. Zelensky. SPb. 1864, and "Grodno Province" - lieutenant colonel. Bobrovsky. SPb. 1863. (Material, for geogr. and stat. Russia - by general, staff officers.) "Grodno Kolozhanskaya Church" (Bulletin of Western Russia. 1866. book 6). Memorial book of the Vilna General Government for 1868, edited by Sementovsky. SPb. 1868 (with some historical and ethnographic notes). Starozytna Polska Balinski and Lipinski. Volume. III. Warsch. 1846.