Resuscitation of Belarusian nationalism
Since the publication in Minsk of the first volume of the academic "History of Belarusian statehood" (2018) in the latest educational literature, the idea began to be replicated, that the Principality of Polotsk was the first historical form of statehood on the territory of Belarus.
So it says, eg, in the school textbook on the history of Belarus for 10 class (2020). But in the tutorial for 6 class, dedicated to the historical period from ancient times to the end of the 15th century., published in 2016 city, the idea is still being established, that "Ancient Russia is the common state of the Eastern Slavs". It also points to the unity of Russia: similarities in economic activity and lifestyle, strong trade ties, proximity of origin, common historical destiny, "Old Russian people".
Polotsk principality
The same thoughts are found in an earlier edition of the study guide for 6 class (2009). In this way, under the influence of the "History of Belarusian statehood" a turn is made in school textbooks: the mention of the ancient Russian nationality and the united ancient Russian state disappears. Instead of the idea of the state and ethnic unity of the Eastern Slavs, the idea of tribal isolation of the Krivichi is being implanted, dregovichej and radimichej, and also about a special state - the Principality of Polotsk (earth).
Publications of the Institute of History of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences, beginning with 1994 city, constantly talking about, that Polotsk had its own statehood, and his stay in the Old Russian state was temporary and very short. Academic "Essays on the history of Belarus" 1994 city, "History of Belarus" in 6 volumes 2007 g. and the latest "History of Belarusian statehood" 2018 g. represent in this respect one line of development.
It remains only to wonder, how in school textbooks it was possible for some time to maintain the provision on the existence of a state, ethnic and cultural unity of Kievan Rus. Not the last role in this was played by the textbook "History of Belarus" for higher educational institutions., written by a team of authors edited by Prof.. Evgeniya Novika (ed. 1998, 2000, 2007 gg.). Here is a balanced criticism of academic publications.
About, what was Kievan Rus politically, debate has been going on for a long time.. At different times and by different academic schools, such interpretations were proposed, as the power of the Rurikovich, union of urban areas, early feudal monarchy, federation of lands-principalities, etc.. However, it is hardly possible to deny the thesis that, that the people of Russia formed their own statehood: sovereignty and its institutions, legal system, territorial unity, internal economic relations and socio-cultural community.
From its inception, the statehood of the Russian people has developed, its stages and forms changed, but in its essence it remained united and for centuries was determined by the unity of self-consciousness. In ancient Russia there was no concept of "citizenship", but there were terms "Russian land", "sons of Russia". If you look closely, the, what is presented in modern scientific and educational Belarusian literature as "Polotsk Rus", "Polotsk land", there is, in fact, not a special state, and one of the states of statehood, inherent in ancient Russia.
If we take such a sign of the state, as supreme power, then in the Polotsk land it belongs to the princely family, representing one of the lines of Rurikovich. In the academic "History of Belarusian statehood" the dynasty of Polotsk princes is referred to as "Rogvolodovichi-Izyaslavichi". The mention of Rogvolod here is not accidental., after all, this first prince of Polotsk known by name, apparently, was not from the Rurik family, and therefore, from him comes another dynasty.
Monument to Prince Vseslav in Polotsk
According to the authors of the academic "History", from the very beginning, princes of mixed origin ruled in Polotsk, at the same time Rogvolodovichi (on the female line from Rogneda) and at the same time the Rurikovich (from Izyaslav, son of Rogneda from Vladimir). However, among the ancient Russian chroniclers, family affiliation was determined by the paternal line. Why did the Tale of Bygone Years say: at 1001 g. "Izyaslav passed away, Bryachislav's father, son of Vladimir, at 1003 g. "Vseslav passed away, son of Izyaslav, grandson of Vladimir, at 1044 g. Bryachislav died, son of Izyaslav, grandson of Vladimir. In all these examples, the account is kept from Prince Vladimir Rurikovich, Baptist of Russia, but not from Rogvolod.
The dynasty of the Polotsk princes is designated as "Rogvolod's grandsons" only in the later monument of the Moscow chronicle of the 16th century.. - Nikon chronicle. This is a phrase from a poetic legend about the enmity between the Polotsk and Kyiv princes.. Old Russian chroniclers did not know any "Rogvolodovich dynasty". In the understanding of the ancient authors of the Tale of Bygone Years, the Rurik dynasty reigned in Polotsk, descended from Vladimir the Baptist. Significantly, that the trident of Rurikovich became the trident of the Polotsk princes. They did not separate themselves from other princes of the Russian land.
If we turn to the characteristics of the government activities of the Polotsk princes, then they appear as typical patrimonials: build cities, attack neighboring lands, take the inhabitants out of them, to sell them into slavery or to populate their regions with them. So, Bryachislav (ruled 1003–1044) attacked Novgorod and received from Yaroslav of Kyiv the city of Vitebsk and Usvyat. After all, Yaroslav, according to the review of the Tale of Bygone Years, was "an autocrat in the Russian land", i.e. its supreme ruler. Vseslav Polotsky (1044–1101, intermittently) also attacked Novgorod, to receive new lands from the heirs of Yaroslav. AT 1068 g. the people of Kiev choose Vseslav of Polotsk, who is in prison, as their prince. obviously, they do not view him as a representative of a foreign dynasty or a foreign ruler.
The fate of the Polotsk princes in 1129 ordered the Kyiv prince Mstislav, sending them with their wives and children to Byzantium "for the crime of kissing the cross", that is, for refusing to defend the Russian land from the Polovtsy, along with other Russian princes. Be the princes of Polotsk the rulers of another state, what was the point of Mstislav doing this to them? In the second half of the twelfth century. Polotsk princes fought more among themselves, which again forced the neighbors to intervene in these feuds in order to pacify them. Against this background, the Polotsk prince Izyaslav Vasilkovich stands out in the Tale of Igor's Campaign., who not only knew how to “call about Lithuanian helmets” with a sword, but he also died in the steppe far from his native borders in the fight against the Polovtsy for common Russian interests.
Seal of Prince Izyaslav of Polotsk in the form of a Rurik trident
The territory of the Principality of Polotsk also did not represent something isolated from the Russian land.. for example, Kyiv princes went to the Lithuanian tribes, to impose tribute on them. They made these campaigns through the lands of the Polotsk principality, wherein, obviously, Polotsk princes took part in them as subordinates. AT 983 g. Prince Vladimir went to Lithuania, at 1038, 1040, 1044 gg. Prince Yaroslav led campaigns against the Lithuanian tribes. It is no coincidence that the Tale of Bygone Years says, what "Lithuania, wintergreen, Korsi, attitude, Do you" tribute to Russia, and not just the Principality of Polotsk.
In economic terms, the lands of the Krivichi were closely connected with Kyiv., this key city of the Dnieper trade. Krivichi participated in the campaign of the Kyiv prince Oleg to Constantinople in 907 city, part of the tribute received from the Greeks was then received by Polotsk. The Byzantine emperor in his essay "On the Administration of the Empire" (middle of the 10th century) describes the collection of tribute by the princes of Kyiv (semi-human) and mentions among the tributaries of the Krivichi. obviously, we are talking not only about Smolensk Krivichi, but also Polotsk. Vladimir the Baptist sends his son Izyaslav to Polotsk 988 g. not as an independent ruler, but as his viceroy. Izyaslav, like other princes-viceroys, had to pay the prince of Kyiv "lesson" (tribute). At the same time, in Kyiv, the Polotsk princes had a permanent court, where they transported goods for the Dnieper trade (at 1068 city, eg, Bryachislavov Dvor is mentioned).
To all this can be added, that in ecclesiastical terms, the Polotsk land did not represent something special, but was a diocese of the Kyiv Metropolis. The same positions are known in the Principality of Polotsk, as in other areas of Kievan Rus, the court was made on the basis of customary law widespread in Russia ("Russian Truth"). Polochans called their land "Russian" (in agreement with Riga 1264 city), but themselves, obviously, "Rus", that is, they referred themselves to the Russian people.
Another attempt to introduce the interpretation of the Principality of Polotsk as a separate state into the Belarusian educational literature looks like a resuscitation of Belarusian nationalism. It was always typical for him to focus on the history of the Polotsk principality, ignoring the history of the Turov principality, which was an organic part of Kievan Rus. Indeed: on what basis is preference given to Polotsk over Turov on the issue of the formation and development of "Belarusian statehood"? The answer is clear: because in the history of the Polotsk principality there are more examples of "separatism" of Polotsk. so, you can talk about "identity", "independence" and so on. Only the historical picture at the same time comes out dim, monochromatic and far from reality.
Alexey KHOTEEV
