If you have read the newspapers and watched media accounts of daily news events, you would think that the Russian Federation and its allies were responsible for all that has gone wrong in the world in the third millennium of the Common Era. Whether that is a true account of our time, like the owl of Minerva, I will relinquish that to future historians. Portrayed as primary culprits of everything evil in the world, from drug dealing to human trafficking, from subverting elections to ‘propagandizing’ political content on social media, we are left with a detritus of disinformation and contrived impressions that keeps us under a Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Sound bites and the recitation of talking points sow confusion, rather than inform. Here we can learn from one of the twentieth century’s leading statesmen, Sir Winston Churchill. The British Prime Minister, in a radio broadcast in October 1939, commended his listeners to reimagine Russia: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
In playing the role of an amateur historian, (I have no pretense to expertise), one must be willing to tolerate ambiguity; provide evidence; and where evidence is far from clear and convincing, using imagination and creativity to explain the lacunae in events, through a sympathetic attempt to understand a people and their history on their own terms. This is a reasonable approach which can yield strength to a historian’s interpretation, although it falls short of “clear and convincing certainty”.
Not to outdo Mr. Churchill’s assessment of Russia as a riddle (to be solved), a mystery (inexplicable and beyond understanding), and an enigma (difficult and virtually impossible to understand), I will attempt to enter the fray by starting with a question that the Roman statesman Cicero used as the basis of all argument: cui bono? – who stands to benefit? The “key” word is neither riddle, nor wrapped, nor enigma. But rather the “key” word is interest – in several meanings of that word. Since it has so many meanings, think of being interested in, or having interests, in terms of the following: interest as attention to; benefits (advantage); common aims (of a community); concern about; engagement (in a cause).
To “do” history, one must start somewhere. In understanding a nation, one looks to its history. And to interpret events, one looks to beginnings of a nation’s history. As I discussed in a previous post,* it is a wonder to me how a nation that was created through invitation, not revolution; that has suffered some of the most horrific enormities from the most savage regimes in history: Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde; Bolshevik-induced famine; and German National Socialism’s war of annihilation in its quest for Lebensraum – became the great international pariah and toxin of the 21st century. Although these regimes have now long been relegated to the dustbin of history, you might conjure the notion that the Russian nation lacks historical memory; that it has a Hegelian history of “unhistorical history”, in which the history of Russia [like that (supposedly) of China and India] is mere “duration” in which its ‘stability’ undergoes constant change and conflict, without development.** As in any nation, there are cultural constants and distinctive qualities that makes Russia “different”: epochs of evangelization (secular and religious); aftermaths of destruction and death, followed by resurrection and rebirth; a nation’s understanding of itself as both democratic and sovereign; and the nature of man found in one of the world’s illustrious heritages of liturgical and literary masterpieces.
*See my previous post OUR LAND IS GREAT AND RICH, BUT THERE IS NO ORDER IN IT. COME RULE AND REIGN OVER US, about Rurik, the Varangian Prince, and first ruler of the Rus’.
**Historian David Landes discusses Hegel in the context of historicism in Hegel’s philosophy of history. As an economic historian, Dr. Landes gives attention to the topic of “development’ in the broadest sense – human and social – as well as economic. His account of man’s nature is strictly Aristotelian: a creature who desires to know; who is a social being; who has abiding loyalty to a polis; and lives by virtue – has everything needed for a happy life.
In the context of Russia, (and in virtually any other society for that matter), David Landes points out that development, in any human context, presupposes that individuals, peoples, and nations have potentialities that are already in their possession, but needs to be activated in the unfolding of events. Unfolding (potentialities) necessitate change. Development means the unfolding of potentialities already present – which requires movement. Thus, an institution’s unchanging essence can be only known [disclosed, reveals, or shows itself] through its changes, its movement to realization.
SOVEREIGN RUS’
Before Rurik received his invitation to rule over the area that would come to be known as Novgorod (“Newtown”), the Slavic peoples of the area had formed their own regional jurisdictions in 860. Due to jurisdictional disputes that could not be resolved among themselves, invitation to rule was delivered to the Swedish Varangians of Gotland in 861. Rurik and his brothers responded they would accept, subject to imposing tribute on the “warring parties”, especially the tribes of the Chuds, Merians, Ves’, and Krivichians. They agreed to these conditions, invited Rurik again, and Rurik responded, arriving with boatloads of warriors, traders, and families in tow. The history of Rus’ and all successive states down to the Russian Federation, begins here.
Before Rurik and his two brothers, Sineus and Truvor, arrived among their subject people in the summer of 862, two other Varangians, Askold and Dir, had sailed down the Dnieper River and captured the town of Kiev. Although as an independent action from the mission of Rurik, it would not take long before an entangling, intertwining history between Novgorod and Kiev would take place.
Other powers in the region, such as the Khazars, had, in 861, imposed tribute, by force, on such independent tribes as the Polyanians, Severians, and Vyatichians’. This may explain the eagerness of the future Rus’ people to hand over their destiny to proven boatsmen, navigators, tradesmen, and warriors. Varangian experience at building sturdy, seaworthy vessels, joined to an indigenous population of skilled woodworkers of cartwrights and wainwrights, and as adepts on horseback, the new state with its newfound land and sea power, trading acumen to go with a warrior ethos, and a skilled artisan class, did not go unnoticed by actual and potential adversaries.
Organized and confident, in 866, Rus’ forces launched a siege on Constantinople itself, but without success. The irony of the timing is that the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople at the time was Photios I, later recognized in the Eastern Orthodox Church as Saint Photios the Great. Photios, in 867, reported with pleasure that Christianization of the Rus’ was well underway, thanks to the efforts of SS Cyril and Methodius [see previous post, Our Land is Rich …] with their evangelization of a new religion, to be composed in a newly invented alphabetic syllabary called Glagolitic, for a new written language, that would come to be known as Old Church Slavonic. Photios is widely regarded as the most powerful and influential church leader of Constantinople subsequent to John Chrysostom’s archbishopric around the turn of the fifth century. Photios is also viewed as the most important intellectual of his time – “the leading light of the ninth-century renaissance”, largely for the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity. Photios is considered the great systematic compiler of ancient Church Law for the Eastern Church, similar to that of Gratian in the West.
As Christianization continued apace under Rurik (who died in 879), his successor, Oleg, sought to check Khazarian power. In 880, in a preemptive strike, he removed his forces from Novgorod to the south to expel the Khazars from Kiev. By this bold action, he becomes the founder of Kievan Rus’. In 882, Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev, and declared that it should be the mother of Rus’ cities. In subsequent years, he subdues various East Slavic peoples. In 883 Prince Oleg conquers the Derevlians. In 884, he defeats the Radimichians and the Severians, bringing them under his rule. As he continued his warring of conquest among the East Slavic peoples, Oleg, in 907, initiated a campaign against Constantinople in what came to be known as the Rus’–Byzantine War. After four years of war, without victory for either side, (although both claimed victory), Oleg signed a commercial treaty with the Byzantine Empire as an equal partner. The Greek emperor Leo conceded to provide allowances for Oleg’s men, award them a right to stay and trade in Constantinople free of tax, and to enter unconditional peace. With this treaty, the Kievan state prospered because it now controlled trade routes from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. In 912, Oleg died, and his son, Prince Igor, succeeded Oleg as Grand Prince of Kiev and the ruler of Rus’.
IGOR AND PRINCESS OLGA
Upon assuming the office of Prince and ruler of Rus’, Igor made a decision, (probably the most important and best decision of his life), that would put Rus’ firmly on the path toward embracing Christianity as integral to a Rus’ national identity: he married a descendant of a Varangian, the first Vikings who settled in the empire. His new wife was a mere fifteen years of age when she married Grand Prince Igor I, ruler of Kievan Rus. Although young in years, and as a woman in a family of male rulers and warriors predisposed to violence and dispatching enemies readily to the underworld, she would prove to be an adept in a treacherous life characterized by violent intrigue. Olga of Kiev***, (sometimes referred to as Helga, but is more often referred to as Olga, in primary sources), would go on to play a key role in Rus’ Christianization, employing the black arts of murder and torture to achieve her aims. How she secured the power to do that is discussed below.
***Since 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the English spelling of Kiev was changed to Kyiv. Because Olga of Kiev looms large as one of Russian history’s most important and colorful figures, the English orthographic spelling Kiev, in reference to Olga, is retained for historical reasons.
For many years after their marriage, Princess Olga of Kiev kept the home-fires burning in Kiev while her husband, Prince Igor, made frequent visits to regions across the empire, to keep current and see for himself the state of his kingdom. Coming from a lineage of builders, fighters, and masters of intriguery, Olga was more than equal to the task of tending home affairs during the absences of her husband. In 945, Igor, the ruler of the Kievan Rus’ in what is today Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, traveled to the edges of his empire. A local tribe known as the Drevlians had stopped paying tribute. Igor, as was his custom, traveled to the region of the Drevlians, to find out for himself, demanding to learn why they had stopped payments. In response, the Drevlians seized Igor and subjected him to hideous torture that tore his body apart limb from limb, which killed him in short order. The Drevlians, thinking they had gotten rid of the wolf from their soil, did not expect retaliation. They assumed there would be a succession struggle. One problem they overlooked. Igor had left a widow, with a young son, now without a father. With “the wolf” gone, the Drevlians never expected a “second wolf” would “arrive” to take charge so quickly. After a brief period of mourning, Olga took charge of Kievan Rus’. She would, as the saying goes, become a wolf in sheep’s clothing: but not any old wolf in sheep’s clothing, but as an “alpha wolf”, now in charge of the pack, in place of her deceased husband.
The prince of the Drevlians traveled to Kiev and proposed to the Kievan Rus’ princess. Prince Mal thought he could bring Kievan Rus’ territory under Drevlian control through the marriage. Without considering time for mourning her dead husband, Mal sent twenty dignitaries to Kyiv to convince Olga to marry him. But Olga had no intention of marrying the man who helped slaughter her husband.
AVENGING ANGEL
Instead of rejecting the proposal, Olga welcomed the envoys to Kyiv and promised to honor them. Then, she ordered her soldiers to dig a ditch. The next day, the dignitaries arrived dressed in their finest robes. Olga led them to the edge of the ditch, and her soldiers threw them to the bottom. As Olga watched, her soldiers buried the men alive. As the dignitaries slowly suffocated, Olga gazed down at them from the edge of the trench. She asked the dignitaries if they “found the honor to their taste.” The dying men called up that their suffering was “worse than the death of Igor.”
And Olga still wasn’t satisfied, for this was only the beginning. With the wrath-filled fury of a ‘scorned’ woman, she set out to bring all hell to those responsible for the death of her husband. Olga plotted her next act of revenge. Before news got out about the dignitaries’ fate, the princess wrote immediately to Prince Mal, asking him to send his best men to Kyiv to escort her back to the prince. Mal sent a group of decorated chieftains. When the Drevlian chieftains arrived, Olga offered them hospitality to the use of her bathhouse, to freshen up after their journey. But when they all entered, Olga bolted the doors and burned the entire building to the ground. No one escaped alive.
Olga still demanded vengeance, but she had to act fast. Before Mal and the Drevlians learned of the cruel fate of their dignitaries and chieftains, Olga would have to travel north to the Drevlian capital with all deliberate speed to satisfy her fury for vengeance. Upon arrival, Olga hosted a funeral banquet for her husband, plied the Drevlian soldiers to drink to excess, and then ordered her soldiers to draw their swords, hacking 5,000 men to death.
The Drevlians now feared that Olga would “take no prisoners” – that the killing would not stop until she had killed every Drevilian. Olga next step was to slaughter every Drevlian soldier and burn down their towns for good measure. Because the houses were packed tightly together, virtually the whole town, and almost every house, succumbed to the torching. For those who fled from the city, Olga ordered her soldiers to catch them – some of whom were elders of the city. Most were slaughtered; some were sold into slavery, while a few were allowed to remain to rebuild the town. Her vengeance finally complete, Olga returned to Kiev in triumph, to attend to business of a different order.
SAINT OLGA
The Churches – both East and West – have canonized warriors, kings, queens, princes, and princesses that had violent pasts, but then turned away from violence once they discerned that they were meant for something different, if not better. I could list several who fall under this banner, starting with Saul of Tarsus; St. George (soldier); St. Hubert (hunter); St. Louis, King of France and “Most Christian of Kings” (warrior); St. Alexander Nevsky (prince and warrior); and St. Ignatius Loyola (soldier) – to name just a few. But to canonize someone who drove living people into deep pits to be buried alive; who incinerated her enemies in locked buildings; and who destroyed entire towns by fire and the sword – would be a bit of a stretch. One explanation given is that while Christianization was underway, Rus’ was still essentially pagan, including the ruling Varangian family. The nearby Byzantines to the south saw themselves as having a mission to “tame the wild beast” by bringing the pagan Rus’ fully into the Christian fold.
Once Olga’s campaign against the Drevlians ended, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII invited Olga to visit Constantinople. On that journey, Olga converted to Christianity. When Emperor Constantine VII met Olga of Kiev, he asked for her hand in marriage. Olga turned him down. And this time, she did it without bloodshed. When she returned to Kyiv, she encouraged her subjects to convert. She continued to rule, as regent, until 964, when her son, Svyatoslav, would “come of age”. Olga of Kiev became known for her many “firsts”: first princess ruler in Russia; first member of Kiev ruling family to adopt Christianity; first canonized Russian saint of the Orthodox Church; and she is the patron saint of widows and converts.
After her death in 969, death and treachery returned to ruling circles, until a new ruler inherited the throne. This ruler initially upheld pagan practices, then from 986 to 988, took instruction and was baptized into the Orthodox Church. This act by Prince Vladimir was later referred to as the “Baptism of Rus’.” Widespread Christianization followed. For all his achievements, Vladimir, Prince of Novgorod, Grand Prince of Kiev, Prince ruler of Kievan Rus’, became known as Vladimir the Great, and was canonized as St. Vladimir in both Western Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox Church. His story will be the subject of a future post.
