This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus’ in the 10th century reeval... more This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus’ in the 10th century reevaluating the much debated role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Rus’ian polity. A large number of Scandinavians (mostly from Sweden and Gotland) migrated to Eastern Europe in the 9th - middle of the 11th centuries. This fact is clear from the historical, linguistic and archeological evidence accumulated to date. However, much is unclear about the results and significance of this migration. Particularly controversial is the question if and how it came to be related with the formation of the political structures of Rus’ which united a variety of peoples (gentes) in Eastern Europe in the 10th - 11th centuries. In this paper I examine the elite of Kievan Rus’ in the middle of the 10th century. The original sources from that time give us some valuable information on the political organization and social hierarchy of Rus’. Two of these sources are of particular importance: the treaty...
The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early... more The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus, the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I inter...
Стефанович П.С. Русь протопопа Аввакума: от «нового Израиля» к «духовному братству» // Религия и русь, XV–XVIII вв. / отв. составитель А.В. Доронин. М., 2020, с. 369-389., 2020
The author of the article analyses the Russian identity of Protopop Avvakum, the Old-believers' l... more The author of the article analyses the Russian identity of Protopop Avvakum, the Old-believers' leader (died in 1682). He concludes that, originally, the ideal of "light/saint Russia" was the most important to Avvakum but, after the Raskol (Schism), he corrected his identity relating himself to the "elected" part of Russia - "spiritual brotherhood" of the Old-believers.
Stefanovich Petr S. Poliud´e and the Evolution of Taxation from Rus´ to Russia (translated by D. Ezerova) // The State in Early Modern Russia: New Directions. Ed. by P. Bushkovitch. Bloomington, Indiana: “Slavica Publishers”, 2019. P. 7-27. , 2019
The evolution of poliud’e in medieval Rus’ is discussed in the context of the developing taxation... more The evolution of poliud’e in medieval Rus’ is discussed in the context of the developing taxation system. According to the Arabic sources of the 9th century, poliud’e was apparently a multi-purpose institution, i.e., a ruler/king’s touring, for various reasons, the area of a (tribal) community that recognized his authority. During the 10th century, such tours of the Rus’ian kings became associated with collecting a tribute for the benefit of the elite; in this form, poliud’e lingered in some places till the early 13th century. However, in Rus’s most advanced parts, such as Novgorod or Smolensk, at least by the 1130s, poliud’e has assumed the consistent form of a certain duty (tax) that could be delegated by the kings (princes) to third parties (persons or institutions).
After the Mongol invasion (1237–1240), the poliud’e disappeared in the areas directly controlled by the Mongols, yet survived till the mid-16th century on the territories under Polish and Lithuanian control. The demise of poliud’e in the northeastern Rus’ can be assigned to the radical changes in taxation which followed the introduction by the Mongols of the direct poll tax (tribute) levied from the conquered population. Once the northeastern Rus’ian princes were first given the authority to collect that tax (in the early 14th century) and later encroached on the revenue itself (in the 15th century), they acquired a powerful tool of appropriating and consolidating financial resources, as well as exercising their control over the population. The Moscow Grand princes, consolidating the Rus’ian lands under their authority, took full advantage of this tool. During the late 15th – early 16th centuries it gave them a strong advantage against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where various archaic taxation and collection practices, poliud’e being one of them, were still in use.
Stefanovich Petr S., "The Grand Retinue" Phenomenon in Northern and Eastern Europe in the 10-12th Centuries // Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. Vol. 26 (2020), Issue 2, pp. 437-451 , 2020
The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers
of early... more The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus, the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I interpret the Rus’ian “grand retinue” as an institution based on Scandinavian models, a result of the “transfer of knowledge” that occurred in Northern and Eastern Europe during the 10-11th centuries.
«Славянороссийский народ» в исторической литературе Украины и России XVII — первой половины XVIII в. // Slověne. 2020. Vol. 9, № 2. C. 417-447, 2020
The article analyzes the history of the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation”.
The concept was fir... more The article analyzes the history of the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation”. The concept was first used by Zacharia Kopystenskij in 1624, but its wide occurrence starts in 1674, when Synopsis, the first printed history of Russia, was published in Kiev. In the book, “Slavic-Russian nation” refers to an ancient Slavic people, which preceded the “Russian nation” (“rossiyskiy narod”) of the time in which the book was written. Uniting “Slavs” and “Russians” (“rossy”) into one “Slavic-Russian nation”, the author of Synopsis followed the idea which was proposed but not specifically defined by M. Stryjkovskij in his Chronicle (1582) and, later, by the Kievan intellectuals of the 1620s–30s. The construction of Synopsis was to prove that “Russians” (“rossy”) were united by both the common Slavic origin and the Church Slavonic language used by the Orthodox Slavic peoples. According to Synopsis, they were also supposed to be united by the Muscovite tsar’s authority and the Orthodox religion. The whole conception made Synopsis very popular in Russia in the late 17th century and later. Earlier in the 17th-century literature of the Muscovite State, some authors also proposed ethno-genetic constructions based on Stryjkovskij’s Chronicle and other Renaissance historiography. Independently from the Kievan literature, the word “Slavic-Russian” was invented (first appearance in the Legend about Sloven and Rus, 1630s). Both the Kievan and Muscovite constructions of a mythical “Slavic-Russian nation” aimed at making an “imagined” ethno-cultural nation. They contributed to forming a new Russian imperial identity in the Petrine epoch. However, the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation” was not in demand in the political discourse of the Petrine Empire. It was sporadically used in the historical works of the 18th century (largely due to the influence of Synopsis), but played no significant role in the proposed interpretations of Russian history.
Шиллинги на Руси, или «Шутки» летописцев // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Чтения памяти члена-корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Выпуск XXХII. Сравнительные исследования социокультурных практик / Отв. ред. Е.А. Мельникова. М, 2020. С. 203-207 , 2020
The author attempts to explain what the Old-Russian word щьлѧгъ meant. The word is mentioned in t... more The author attempts to explain what the Old-Russian word щьлѧгъ meant. The word is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle. He concludes it referred to the Arabic dirham.
Комплексный подход в изучении Древней Руси. Материалы X Международной конференции 9-13 сентября 2019 года, Москва, Россия / Отв. ред. Е.Л. Конявская (=Приложение к журналу «Древняя Русь: вопросы медиевистики»). М., 2019. С. 190-191, 2019
This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus’ in the 10th century reeval... more This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus’ in the 10th century reevaluating the much debated role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Rus’ian polity. A large number of Scandinavians (mostly from Sweden and Gotland) migrated to Eastern Europe in the 9th - middle of the 11th centuries. This fact is clear from the historical, linguistic and archeological evidence accumulated to date. However, much is unclear about the results and significance of this migration. Particularly controversial is the question if and how it came to be related with the formation of the political structures of Rus’ which united a variety of peoples (gentes) in Eastern Europe in the 10th - 11th centuries. In this paper I examine the elite of Kievan Rus’ in the middle of the 10th century. The original sources from that time give us some valuable information on the political organization and social hierarchy of Rus’. Two of these sources are of particular importance: the treaty...
The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early... more The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus, the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I inter...
Стефанович П.С. Русь протопопа Аввакума: от «нового Израиля» к «духовному братству» // Религия и русь, XV–XVIII вв. / отв. составитель А.В. Доронин. М., 2020, с. 369-389., 2020
The author of the article analyses the Russian identity of Protopop Avvakum, the Old-believers' l... more The author of the article analyses the Russian identity of Protopop Avvakum, the Old-believers' leader (died in 1682). He concludes that, originally, the ideal of "light/saint Russia" was the most important to Avvakum but, after the Raskol (Schism), he corrected his identity relating himself to the "elected" part of Russia - "spiritual brotherhood" of the Old-believers.
Stefanovich Petr S. Poliud´e and the Evolution of Taxation from Rus´ to Russia (translated by D. Ezerova) // The State in Early Modern Russia: New Directions. Ed. by P. Bushkovitch. Bloomington, Indiana: “Slavica Publishers”, 2019. P. 7-27. , 2019
The evolution of poliud’e in medieval Rus’ is discussed in the context of the developing taxation... more The evolution of poliud’e in medieval Rus’ is discussed in the context of the developing taxation system. According to the Arabic sources of the 9th century, poliud’e was apparently a multi-purpose institution, i.e., a ruler/king’s touring, for various reasons, the area of a (tribal) community that recognized his authority. During the 10th century, such tours of the Rus’ian kings became associated with collecting a tribute for the benefit of the elite; in this form, poliud’e lingered in some places till the early 13th century. However, in Rus’s most advanced parts, such as Novgorod or Smolensk, at least by the 1130s, poliud’e has assumed the consistent form of a certain duty (tax) that could be delegated by the kings (princes) to third parties (persons or institutions).
After the Mongol invasion (1237–1240), the poliud’e disappeared in the areas directly controlled by the Mongols, yet survived till the mid-16th century on the territories under Polish and Lithuanian control. The demise of poliud’e in the northeastern Rus’ can be assigned to the radical changes in taxation which followed the introduction by the Mongols of the direct poll tax (tribute) levied from the conquered population. Once the northeastern Rus’ian princes were first given the authority to collect that tax (in the early 14th century) and later encroached on the revenue itself (in the 15th century), they acquired a powerful tool of appropriating and consolidating financial resources, as well as exercising their control over the population. The Moscow Grand princes, consolidating the Rus’ian lands under their authority, took full advantage of this tool. During the late 15th – early 16th centuries it gave them a strong advantage against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where various archaic taxation and collection practices, poliud’e being one of them, were still in use.
Stefanovich Petr S., "The Grand Retinue" Phenomenon in Northern and Eastern Europe in the 10-12th Centuries // Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. Vol. 26 (2020), Issue 2, pp. 437-451 , 2020
The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers
of early... more The author summarizes evidence of large professional armies in the service of the rulers of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus, the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I interpret the Rus’ian “grand retinue” as an institution based on Scandinavian models, a result of the “transfer of knowledge” that occurred in Northern and Eastern Europe during the 10-11th centuries.
«Славянороссийский народ» в исторической литературе Украины и России XVII — первой половины XVIII в. // Slověne. 2020. Vol. 9, № 2. C. 417-447, 2020
The article analyzes the history of the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation”.
The concept was fir... more The article analyzes the history of the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation”. The concept was first used by Zacharia Kopystenskij in 1624, but its wide occurrence starts in 1674, when Synopsis, the first printed history of Russia, was published in Kiev. In the book, “Slavic-Russian nation” refers to an ancient Slavic people, which preceded the “Russian nation” (“rossiyskiy narod”) of the time in which the book was written. Uniting “Slavs” and “Russians” (“rossy”) into one “Slavic-Russian nation”, the author of Synopsis followed the idea which was proposed but not specifically defined by M. Stryjkovskij in his Chronicle (1582) and, later, by the Kievan intellectuals of the 1620s–30s. The construction of Synopsis was to prove that “Russians” (“rossy”) were united by both the common Slavic origin and the Church Slavonic language used by the Orthodox Slavic peoples. According to Synopsis, they were also supposed to be united by the Muscovite tsar’s authority and the Orthodox religion. The whole conception made Synopsis very popular in Russia in the late 17th century and later. Earlier in the 17th-century literature of the Muscovite State, some authors also proposed ethno-genetic constructions based on Stryjkovskij’s Chronicle and other Renaissance historiography. Independently from the Kievan literature, the word “Slavic-Russian” was invented (first appearance in the Legend about Sloven and Rus, 1630s). Both the Kievan and Muscovite constructions of a mythical “Slavic-Russian nation” aimed at making an “imagined” ethno-cultural nation. They contributed to forming a new Russian imperial identity in the Petrine epoch. However, the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation” was not in demand in the political discourse of the Petrine Empire. It was sporadically used in the historical works of the 18th century (largely due to the influence of Synopsis), but played no significant role in the proposed interpretations of Russian history.
Шиллинги на Руси, или «Шутки» летописцев // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Чтения памяти члена-корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Выпуск XXХII. Сравнительные исследования социокультурных практик / Отв. ред. Е.А. Мельникова. М, 2020. С. 203-207 , 2020
The author attempts to explain what the Old-Russian word щьлѧгъ meant. The word is mentioned in t... more The author attempts to explain what the Old-Russian word щьлѧгъ meant. The word is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle. He concludes it referred to the Arabic dirham.
Комплексный подход в изучении Древней Руси. Материалы X Международной конференции 9-13 сентября 2019 года, Москва, Россия / Отв. ред. Е.Л. Конявская (=Приложение к журналу «Древняя Русь: вопросы медиевистики»). М., 2019. С. 190-191, 2019
Uploads
Papers by Пётр Стефанович
After the Mongol invasion (1237–1240), the poliud’e disappeared in the areas directly controlled by the Mongols, yet survived till the mid-16th century on the territories under Polish and Lithuanian control. The demise of poliud’e in the northeastern Rus’ can be assigned to the radical changes in taxation which followed the introduction by the Mongols of the direct poll tax (tribute) levied from the conquered population. Once the northeastern Rus’ian princes were first given the authority to collect that tax (in the early 14th century) and later encroached on the revenue itself (in the 15th century), they acquired a powerful tool of appropriating and consolidating financial resources, as well as exercising their control over the population. The Moscow Grand princes, consolidating the Rus’ian lands under their authority, took full advantage of this tool. During the late 15th – early 16th centuries it gave them a strong advantage against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where various archaic taxation and collection practices, poliud’e being one of them, were still in use.
of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus,
the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German
Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected
as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North
Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on
the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military
servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed
from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the
centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as
the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and
show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I interpret the Rus’ian “grand retinue”
as an institution based on Scandinavian models, a result of the “transfer of knowledge”
that occurred in Northern and Eastern Europe during the 10-11th centuries.
The concept was first used by Zacharia Kopystenskij in 1624, but its wide
occurrence starts in 1674, when Synopsis, the first printed history of Russia,
was published in Kiev. In the book, “Slavic-Russian nation” refers to an ancient
Slavic people, which preceded the “Russian nation” (“rossiyskiy narod”)
of the time in which the book was written. Uniting “Slavs” and “Russians”
(“rossy”) into one “Slavic-Russian nation”, the author of Synopsis followed the
idea which was proposed but not specifically defined by M. Stryjkovskij in his
Chronicle (1582) and, later, by the Kievan intellectuals of the 1620s–30s. The
construction of Synopsis was to prove that “Russians” (“rossy”) were united by
both the common Slavic origin and the Church Slavonic language used by the
Orthodox Slavic peoples. According to Synopsis, they were also supposed to be
united by the Muscovite tsar’s authority and the Orthodox religion. The whole
conception made Synopsis very popular in Russia in the late 17th century and
later. Earlier in the 17th-century literature of the Muscovite State, some authors
also proposed ethno-genetic constructions based on Stryjkovskij’s Chronicle
and other Renaissance historiography. Independently from the Kievan literature,
the word “Slavic-Russian” was invented (first appearance in the Legend
about Sloven and Rus, 1630s). Both the Kievan and Muscovite constructions of a
mythical “Slavic-Russian nation” aimed at making an “imagined” ethno-cultural
nation. They contributed to forming a new Russian imperial identity in
the Petrine epoch. However, the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation” was not
in demand in the political discourse of the Petrine Empire. It was sporadically used in the historical works of the 18th century (largely due to the influence
of Synopsis), but played no significant role in the proposed interpretations of
Russian history.
After the Mongol invasion (1237–1240), the poliud’e disappeared in the areas directly controlled by the Mongols, yet survived till the mid-16th century on the territories under Polish and Lithuanian control. The demise of poliud’e in the northeastern Rus’ can be assigned to the radical changes in taxation which followed the introduction by the Mongols of the direct poll tax (tribute) levied from the conquered population. Once the northeastern Rus’ian princes were first given the authority to collect that tax (in the early 14th century) and later encroached on the revenue itself (in the 15th century), they acquired a powerful tool of appropriating and consolidating financial resources, as well as exercising their control over the population. The Moscow Grand princes, consolidating the Rus’ian lands under their authority, took full advantage of this tool. During the late 15th – early 16th centuries it gave them a strong advantage against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where various archaic taxation and collection practices, poliud’e being one of them, were still in use.
of early medieval polities in Northern and Eastern Europe. Following František Graus,
the author refers to that institution as “grand retinue” (Czech velkodružina, German
Staatsgefolge). The rulers maintained these troops mainly by paying in cash collected
as tribute from the populace. The late 10th-early 11th-century Poland and the “North
Sea Empire” of Cnut the Great (1016-1035) provide the most compelling evidence on
the grand retinue. In the 10-11th centuries Rus’, the princes also had armies of military
servants, referred to as otroki (a Slavic word) or – more specifically – grid’ (term borrowed
from Old Norse). Such troops played a major role during the emergence of the
centralized political framework, but have disappeared or degenerated as early as
the 12th century. Rus’ian records describe them as prosperous in the 11th century and
show their decline during the 12-13th centuries. I interpret the Rus’ian “grand retinue”
as an institution based on Scandinavian models, a result of the “transfer of knowledge”
that occurred in Northern and Eastern Europe during the 10-11th centuries.
The concept was first used by Zacharia Kopystenskij in 1624, but its wide
occurrence starts in 1674, when Synopsis, the first printed history of Russia,
was published in Kiev. In the book, “Slavic-Russian nation” refers to an ancient
Slavic people, which preceded the “Russian nation” (“rossiyskiy narod”)
of the time in which the book was written. Uniting “Slavs” and “Russians”
(“rossy”) into one “Slavic-Russian nation”, the author of Synopsis followed the
idea which was proposed but not specifically defined by M. Stryjkovskij in his
Chronicle (1582) and, later, by the Kievan intellectuals of the 1620s–30s. The
construction of Synopsis was to prove that “Russians” (“rossy”) were united by
both the common Slavic origin and the Church Slavonic language used by the
Orthodox Slavic peoples. According to Synopsis, they were also supposed to be
united by the Muscovite tsar’s authority and the Orthodox religion. The whole
conception made Synopsis very popular in Russia in the late 17th century and
later. Earlier in the 17th-century literature of the Muscovite State, some authors
also proposed ethno-genetic constructions based on Stryjkovskij’s Chronicle
and other Renaissance historiography. Independently from the Kievan literature,
the word “Slavic-Russian” was invented (first appearance in the Legend
about Sloven and Rus, 1630s). Both the Kievan and Muscovite constructions of a
mythical “Slavic-Russian nation” aimed at making an “imagined” ethno-cultural
nation. They contributed to forming a new Russian imperial identity in
the Petrine epoch. However, the concept of a “Slavic-Russian nation” was not
in demand in the political discourse of the Petrine Empire. It was sporadically used in the historical works of the 18th century (largely due to the influence
of Synopsis), but played no significant role in the proposed interpretations of
Russian history.