|
FRAGMENTS FROM THE HISTORY OF BYELORUSSIA
(To 1700)
MATERIAL FOR HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND STUDY OF THE SUBJECT BY Prof. R. OSTROWSKI
BYELORUSSIAN CENTRAL COUNCIL
57. CATHNOR RD.. LONDON.W. 12.
1961
Preface
As far as remote antiquities are involved in the same darkness with those of other nations, a calamity peculiar to the Byelorussian (White Russian) nation has thrown almost an equal obscurity over even more recent events.
This was occasioned by the malicious imperialistic policies of Polish and Russian governments. To justify their imperialistic expansion they call in question the existence of the Byelorussian nation; pretending that the Byelorussian territory historically was always part of Poland or Russia (Muscovy).
In order to establish their claim, they seized the archives, they ransacked churches and monasteries, and getting possession, by force or fraud, of many historical monuments, which tended to prove the antiquity or freedom of the Byelorussian nation, they carried some of them into Poland or Russia, and commanded the rest to be burned.
We learned, for example, from "The Cambridge History of Poland" (Vol. i, 1950, p. 164), that John Dlugosz (Longinus—1415-1486) was one who for the first time set before the world an account of Poland's history "in a language and style that was accessable and attractive to the educated people of Europe."
It is of great interest, however, that after the appearance of his twelve books in Latin many old documents from `his unusual collection have perished" except his own work. [Dlugosz was a tutor to the Royal Court and had easy access to all existing libraries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.] Due to his prejudice and unscientific historiography and his Polish chauvinism
he has been subjected to more criticism than any historian of that time.
A universal oblivion of past history might have been the effect of this fatal event, but some imperfect chronicles had escaped those malicious hands; foreign writers had recorded some important facts relating to Byelorussia; and the traditions concerning recent occurances were fresh and worthy of credit. These broken fragments are collected now with a pious industry, and from them gleaned materials which in future may be formed into a regular history of the Byelorussian nation.
London, February 22, 1961.
C. Cooke.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
"TO COURT" (translation)
THE DAWN OF BYELORUSSIAN HISTORY
THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
POLOTSK,- VITEBSK,- USVYAT,- MINSK,- DRUTSK,- BORISOV,
LOHOYSK,- IZYASLAVL,- GORODNO,- SMOLENSK,- EXTRACT
FROM THE TREATY WITH RIGA,—TOROPYETS,— TUROV-
PINSK,- BERASTSYE
FROM LETTER OF I PATSEY TO PRINCE OF OSTROG
THE GREAT PRINCIPALITY OF POLOTSK
INSCRIPTION ON A CROSS OF YEFROSINIA OF POLOTSK
VYECHE (VYECHA)
EARLY ASSOCIATIONS
THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA
THE RELIGIOUS STRUGGLE IN THE GRAND DUCHY
OF LITHUANIA
THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE GRAND
DUCHY OF LITHUANIA AND POLAND
THE LUBLIN UNION
THE RUSSIAN TREATY PROPOSALS. 1617
THE RELIGIOUS UNION OF BREST (1596)
THE EARLY CIVILIZATION AND LANGUAGE
THE FIRST OLD RUS WRITINGS
BYELORUSSIAN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL
ACTIVITY IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA
THE LITHUANIAN ANNALS WRITTEN
IN MIDDLE BYELORUSSIAN
JURIDICAL LITERATURE
EXTRACT FROM THE STATUTE OF 1529
EARLY BYELORUSSIAN PRINTING
JOHN LETTOU, FRANCIS SKORINA AND OTHERS
THE SOCIAL CONDITION AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA
BYELORUSSIANS IN MOSCOW ( І7-ТН CENTURY)
BYELORUSSIAN PRINTERS AND OTHER CRAFTSMEN IN MUSCOVY
BYELORUSSIAN SETTLEMENT IN MOSCOW
PUBLISHING ACTIVITIES OF SIMON POLOTSKI
CONCLUSION
Introduction
The extent of territory which the different states and nations have held at different times in history and different boundaries which the same country has had and the different meanings in which the same name has been used, very often is a source of certain confusion in the minds of not only ordinary readers but also of quite reputable historians of our times.
It is of great importance carefully to make these distinctions, because great mistakes as to the facts of history are often caused through men thinking and speaking as if the names of different countries, say for instance Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland and Russia have always meant exactly the same extent of territory.
The borders of Lithuania, Poland and Russia have greatly changed at different times, and forgetfulnes of this has led to many misunderstandings in reading the history of those countries.
Political divisions of the ethnical regions must be also taken into account. In this way we shall always see what was the meaning of any geographical or political name at any particular time, and we shall thus avoid mistakes, some of which have often led to really important practical consequences.
This omission could cause special difficulties in understanding the subject, especially when later conquerors and subjugators of Byelorussia (Moscovites and Poles) after seizing, plundering and destroying the majority of her monuments, manuscripts and documents of historical value and importance, systematically tried to obscure and falsify the remaining ones. To complicate matters further, both the Moscovites and the Poles deliberately used highly coniusing terminology such as `rossiyskry' for `Russian' i.e. Great Russian, and `russkiy' for `Rus' (a name with a much wider meaning which had been applied to all Eastern Slavonic nations, generally called "Rus'es", and the territory inhabited by them).
It is worth-while to point out the Old English usage of the word "Rus" by quoting some lines from Chaucer's description of the adventures of Henry IV of England (1367 — 1413) who joined the `crusade' of the Teutonic Knights against the Grand Duchy of Lettow (Lithuania) in 1390.
A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man,
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To ryden out, he loved chivalrye,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisye.
Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre,
And therto hadde he riden-no man ferre -
As wel in Cristendom as hethenesse,
And ever honoured for his worthinesse.
At Alisaundre he was, whan it was wonne;
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne
Aboven alle naciouns in Pruce, I
n Lettow hadde he reysed and in Ruce.
No Cristen man so ofte of his degree*.
Here the word `Rus' (Ruce) was used in a general sense but not the word `Russia'.
The term `Rus', however had no counterpart to it in any Western language and was substituted, until recently, by the term `Russia' which is very inaccurate. The term `Russia' applied to Kievan State, to Polotsk and Novgorod States or Muscovy under the Tartar Yoke, to Russian Empire of Peter the Great and to present day `Russia' has led and still leads to many misconceptions and to general confusion in the historical literature. On top of that adjective `Russian' should be used only to Russia but never to "RUS" which will be for example the Rus language, Rus people or Rus'es and so on.
The word `Russia' without any adjective but with its present meaning was unknown m English terminology before the eighteenth century. Russia, as we know her today, was called `Muscovy' or `Moscovia'. If there was need for a more precise description of any particular people or territory an additional descriptive word was used for example Kievan Rus, Polotian Rus, Moscovian Rus and others. The name `Byela Rus' (Byelorussia) meant territory with a number of principalities and people quite distinct from other Ruses (Muscovites, Novgrodians and Ukrainians). In Latin documents ol the Middle ages the word used was `Russia Alba' and occasionally `Rutnenia Alba'.
Thus Europe is a strictly geographical name; Lithuania, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland and Russia are names of parts of Europe, but Byelorussia. Ukraine and Russia are located in the territory oi RUS; Lithuania and Poland — not.
`Rus' again is at present the geographical name of the territory and Byelorussia (White Russia) is part of it, similar to:'Red Russia', `Black Russia', `Muscovy' (later called Great Russia or simply Russia), Volhynia, Podolia and Ukraine. The names of Lithuania. Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland and Russia are connected with the peoples occupying the territory, and the character of the names is rather political. They became tLe names of states whose boundaries have greatly varied, and which have sometimes formed separate government and sometimes have been joined together.
The Giand Duchy of Lithuania, or as it is called sometimes more fitly - the Rus-Lithuanian State, is a political name and indicates one or more participants of this common state of the Lithuanians and the Rus'es (strictly speaking-Byelorussians and Ukrainians). Russia with its present mining at the time in question, as we already have mentioned, was called Muscovy and was both politically and economically wholly a fief of Tartar Horde, subjected to all the conditions of feudal tenure.
Unfortunately very often the names were given to a certain space on the map one time after its inhabitants or another time after its government at any particular time. But mostly names like Poland, or Grand Duchy ol Lithuania are used to mean the territory to which they were politically applied at the time ol which we may be speaking, a territory which has been greater and less at different timeb. Thus the cities of Minsk and Pinsk have always been in Byelorussia since they were built. They have sometimes been in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, sometimes — in Poland and sometimes - in Russia (with its modern meaning) according to political changes.
In Eastern Europe, as in some other parts of Europe, we see a land which has taken the name from a people to which it does not owe its historic importance.
Lithuania has won for itself a position in Europe altogether out of proportion to its size and population. But it has not done this by virtue of its strictly Lithuanian element who was ten times smaller in number than the bulk of the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It must be remembered that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was by speech and manner five sixths Byelorussian (White Russian). The greatness of the name Lithuania was due to the fact that part of Rus territory gradually took this name and its inhabitants took the name of Lithuanians, in its political sense.
Today we can observe certain similarity when all citizens of Soviet Union are called Russians by many people who are not acquainted sufficiently with the subject.
Polish and Russian imperialistic forgers of the Byelorussian history are exploiting this complicated moment for their chavinistic ends and by all possible means try to force upon others their falsified version of history regarding that period. They juggle with the term `Lithuania' in such a manner that once one has the impression, that Lithuania was a huge pagan state, and another time that it was a little pagan part of the enormous country of the `Polish Commonwealth' or `Holy Russian Empire'. Regarding the existence of such people as for example Byelorussians, they prefer to `keep it dark' if it is possible.
Moscovian Princes, as well as Polish kings, were all to some extent afflicted by megalomania. They used to include m their titles territories which never belonged to them. For instance, the Moscovian Grand Duke Ivan IV (The Terrible) used the title `Tsar of all Rus' (Tsar vseya Rusi); whereas neither White Rus (Byelorussia) nor Kievan Rus (Ukraine) were at that period part of Muscovy as they formed a completely independent state, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Another example of this megalomania can be found in a book, written in Old Slavonic, entitled `Act of the Apostles', which was published in 1564 and was one of the first books to be printed in Moscow. In this book Tsar Ivan Vasilievitch is called `Tsar and Grand Duke of all Russia' and also `Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus'*.
Only at the end of the eighteenth century was Byelorussia conquered and included into the Russian Empire.
Simultaneously with the growth of Polish self-confidence, grew Polish intolerance, and Polish imperialistic appetite. The `modest' official title of their kings shows this:'With the Grace of God His most Gracious Majesty Sigismund III, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Russia, Prussia, Zhmudz, Inflant and other territories. Also with the Grace of God to the hereditary right of the Kingdom of Sweden, Goth, Vandals and the Grand Duke of Finland, etc.'** ** There was hardly any country left in Europe that had not been `subordinated' to the Polish Crown; at least on paper.
It is significant that when Poles speak of Yagellonian Poland, they mean the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania plus the territory of ethnographical Poland, and they very seldom call it the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth; more often they call it — Polish Commonwealth. This huge Union-State they describe as Poland, without mentioning that the number of Poles and ethnographical Polish territory consisted of only about one quarter of the total `input' into the union. They speak of the Polish frontier with Muscovy but they would never speak about, for example, the Lithuanian or Ruthenian frontier with Hungary or Germany.
Very often it is forgotten that the cultural contribution of the Byelorussian people to the union was very high, amounted to such value as the language of the royal court, the language of laws, administration and schools of the Grand Duchy. All that was intented to be destroyed later by the Polish carriers of "western civilization".
It happened also in the history when rulers of mighty German realm called themselves kings of the small Duchy of Prussia and assumed even name after the Prussians nongermanic race. So Muscovite half-Mongolian Tsar calls himself tsar of all the Rus'es and subsequently this huge Muscovite Empire assumes name of Russia.
The Old Prussian race was annihilated by culturally superior German conquerors. The truth is that, however hard the Polish and Mongolo-Russian oppressors tried to rob, to appropriate to themselves or to destroy cultural achievements of the Byelorussian people - they failed. The superiority of Byelorussian culture over the culture of their neighbours is easily visible even from those scant fragments of monuments of historical value, which are accessable today. In spite of the fact that the history of Byelorussian people is really also the history of their century's long bondage — the Byelorussian nation is still alive.
The people of Byelorussia have shown that they possess qualities and aptitudes which will ensure to them a future of potency, even of splendor, in the coming progress of the world.
All the while they have displayed a patience under humiliation in the persuit of ideal ends, which qualify them, if anything could, for national freedom.
The Soviet Russian government, by the policy of expansion and conquest, as well as by its maintenance of a large standing army, and its use of expensive modern armaments may succeed for yet other decades in diverting attention from internal questions and in playing before Europe and the United States the part of a great world power, but the collapse of military might of Soviet Russia will be none the less inevitable, which makes the cause of national independence, for ail the peoples of the Soviet Union, so full of promise.
London, November 20, 1960.
R.O.
[AS A SPECIMEN OF MODERN BYELORUSSIAN POETRY WE WILL HERE FIND SPACE FOR A SHORT POEM OF JANKA KUPALA. TRANSLATED BY LUBA U. TERPAK:]
J.KUPALA
To Court!*
To court, an international avenging court,
You pillaged and enslaved people go, report!
As equal human beings among equals go,
Your wrongs and tears and blood to all
the nations show!
In details tell of constant torture, mockery,
Of countless burial mounds and crosses they
can see!
And of the plundered graves remember to relate,
Where ravens your forefathers' bones dare violate!
How lords and kings wrung sweat from you
by their demands,
How cruel tzars deprived you of your native lands!
And how much blood you unchained slaves
have freely shed,
How in the futile fight the fields with
dead are spread!
How much your native land dismembered
by your foes,
How you, your children perish from the
tyrant's blows!
For judging by an international high court,
You pillaged and enslaved people go, report!
OCTOBER 29. 1918.
THE DAWN OF BYELORUSSIAN HISTORY
From geological excavations we can only roughly estimate the number of Slavonic tribes who settled in the Eastern part of Europe long before Christian Era. These tribes were first mentioned by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus in the fifth century before Christ. His descriptions of the tribes and of the geography ol the region, which he probably visited himself, are important although very vague.
The information given by Herodotus was confirmed some centuries later by the Roman historian Tacitus, who lived in the second century A.D. According to him, the Byelorussian tribes (not actually called "Byelorussian" at this time), Radimichi, Krivichi, Drehovichi, Drevlanye, Severanye and Vyatichi had settled on both sides of the Western Dvina, Pripet, Sozh and Dnyepr rivers and in the vast territories between them, covered by forests and marshes. These tribes, known to ancient historians as Budines and Venedes, lived a primitive existence without any central organization.
A more accurate and vivid description of the customs and living conditions of these tribes, and of the territories they inhabited, was given by later historians of the ninth and tenth centuries. In 988 the Eastern Slavonic tribes were converted to Christianity. This baptism of "Ruses" (not Russians) sometimes was forced on the people wholesale, sometimes even with fire and sword.
On the other hand many people were converted of their own free will after listening to the preaching of monks, most of whom came from Constantinople and belonged to the Orthodox faith.
The clergy brought new cultural ideas and laws but the old customary methods of trial were still maintained. We should not assume that before their conversion to Christianity these people were savage barbarians. They were quite advanced in comparison with the conditions of life of some neighbouring peoples, especially in the East. At this period in the towns of each principality, there were well developed public institutions and social life. Trade was lively and trading expeditions, supported by the princes and their"druzhina" (formerly a bodyguard of the prince) travelled down the rivers and reached as far as the Middle East and Western countries.
The most famous principalities were: Polotsk, Kiev, Smolensk, Turov, Vitebsk, Slutsk and Minsk (Myenesk).
The Historical Geography of The Polotsk—Smolensk Land*
The vast Polotsk Principality embraced the greater part of present-day Byelorussia, mainly the Western Dvina, the Nyemen, the Berezina and their tributaries. This territory was populated by forerunners of various Slavonic tribes chiefly: the Krivichi, Radimichi and Dregovichi, the present-day—Byelorussians.
The possessions of the Polotsk princes stretched almost up to the Gulf of Riga, where the Rus-ruled towns of Gertsike and Kukenois stood on the Western Dvina.
In contrast to the Smolensk Land, the Polotsk Principality boasted of several relatively large towns, among them Vitebsk and Minsk.
Polotsk, its centre, is unquestionably one of the earliest Rus towns, whose beginnings go back to high antiquity. It was named after the Polota River, a tributary of the Western Dvina.
The early rise and prosperity of the town were due to its geographical situation. It stood where the upper reaches of the Berezina approach the Western Dvina.
This direct link between Polotsk and the basin of the Berezina and the Dniepr explains its early intercourse with the Scandinavians, whose sagas repeatedly mention the town. This route along the Western Dvina up to Polotsk and on along the Berezina and the Dniepr to the Black Sea may well have been another variant of the famous route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." The waterway along the Western Dvina eastwards from Polotsk to Vitebsk and on to Smolensk, into the heart of Rus, was of still greater importance.
The history of the Polotsk Land is obscure and we have only a very faint idea of its political development. But trie little we know suggests that Polotsk was one of the biggest towns of Rus. One is struck particularly by the prominence of the Polotsk princes in the 10th-12th centuries.
Vitebsk, the second biggest town in the Polotsk Land, is situated on the left bank of the Western Dvina where that river is nearest the Dniepr. Thus, Vitebsk was on the ancient route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." A direct road from Vitebsk to the south must initially have run to Orsha along a network of small rivers and lakes. Another route along the Kasplya led from the Western Dvina to Smolensk. The northern route to the Lovat ran along the Usvyat, and this was noted in the annals. Finally, the Western Dvina led from Vitebsk to Polotsk and then on to the Gulf of Riga.
After 1021, reports about Vitebsk do not occur until the second half of the 12th century, and in this its history is reminiscent of that of Smolensk. A revival on the trade route along the Western Dvina was immediately felt in Vitebsk. In 1165, the town came into the possession of the Smolensk princes. Subsequent events make it clear that the Polotsk princes did not relinquish their claims to Vitebsk. In 1180, it was once again ruled by Brachislav, a member of the Polotsk royal family. The town played a prominent part in the royal quarrels for the possession of the land.
The record of the second half of the 13th century and the early 14th century describe Vitebsk as a great town trading with Riga and the German towns.
Usvyat, was situated near the Western Dvina on the Usvyach River and Lake Usvyat, which gave the town its name in its various versions. It stood at the start of the portage between the Lovat and the Usvyach which empties into the Western Dviha.
Usvyat is first mentioned in the annals in 1021, together with Vitebsk.
There is scarcely enough information for us to judge of Usvyat's antiquities. We are only aware that a citadel was built in 1566, on the site of an earlier horodishche, called Mezhevo.There are many earthen memorials around the town, among them "man-made hills" on the eastern bank of Lake Usvyat, where it runs in a narrow channel to join Lake Uzmen.
The fact that the Usvyat district is densely populated suggests that it had a relatively big urban centre.
Minsk (Mensk or Menesk) was one of the most ancient towns in the Polotsk Land, and is situated at a distance from the Western Dvina and the Dniepr. It derived its name from the Menka River which empties into the Ptich near the town. In 1066, Minsk is first mentioned in the annals as a relatively big town.
The town is on a small river called the Svisloch, a right tributary of the Berezina. The upper reaches of that river lie near the Rybchanka and the Usha, both tributaries of the Vilia, This was apparently the ancient route from the Dniepr to the Niemen. It appears then that Minsk was a major portage point on the great route from Kiev to the shores of the Baltic Sea.
The earliest section of the town must have been situated in the area of Nizky Rynak where the excavations oi 1950 revealed remains of walls known as Zamchishche. Traces of the first settlement in Zamchishche go back to the nth century. Its cultural layer is very thin and is the site of a 12th-century stone temple. The very fact that a stone temple was built in Zamchishche shows that ancient Minsk was an important centre. The temple was very probably destroyed in the sack of the town in n 19. A gold bracelet made of three thick strands ending in a serpent's head, found in the excavations m the temple,
may have been fashioned by local jewellers. The 1hin 11th-century cultural layer in Zamchishche shows that it was the site only of the royal citadel surrounded by a "posad."
DRUTSK (Drutesk),at present a small Byelorussian town, stands in the upper reaches of the Drut River, which gave it its name. It is first mentioned in 1092 among the Polotsk towns. In the events of the mid-12th century, Drutsk appears as one of the major towns of the Polotsk Land.
What the town looked like is suggested by "traces of an earthen wall and a deep moat," which may be seen on the island in the lake through which the Drut flows*. They are the remains of ancient Drutsk which derived its importance from the fact that the upper reaches of the Drut were very close to the rivers of the Western Dvina basin.
Borisov, stands in the upper reaches of the Berezma, i.e., on the waterway from Kiev to Polotsk. It is Irst mentioned in 1102 in connection with the campaign of Boris Vseslavich agains the Yatvyagi.
Lohoysk, or Logozhsk, is situated on the Gaina River where it was nearest to the upper reaches of some of the rivers that drain into the Vilia. The town and its people were first mentioned in 1128. Lohoysk apparently got its name from the Byelorussian word "loh" - a valley, for the town does lie in a valley surrounded by highland†.
Izyaslavl was one of the most ancient towns of the Minsk area. According to a legend rehearsed in the annals it was built by Vladimir Svyatoslavich who named it in honour of his son Izyaslav, the founder of the Polotsk royal house. The town stands in the upper reaches of the bvisloch River which, as has been seen, led to the basin of the Vilia. Legend and invention aside, very little is known about this town in the nth century. Highly authentic information about the town is given in the annals for 1127, in connection with the war between Mstislav Vladimirovich and the Polotsk princes. By that time Izyaslavl must have had a fortified citadel. There is mention of a lake, called the Rogneda, as well as of walls near the town. Tradition has it that the Church of the Transfiguration was built on the site of the Monastery of Rogneda, whose Christian name was Anastasia. This is plausible because cathedral churches in ancient towns were often named in honour oi the Transfiguration but it is extremely difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction in these reports about Izyaslavi antiquities. In the 12th century it declined markedly and yielded its position to neighbouring Minsk.
Gorodno later known as Grodno, was another important town ol the Polotsk Land, but reports in the annals about it are so fragmentary that at times it is hard to say which town they mean. It is mentioned in the "Ipaty Annals" in 1132 in an account of the campaign ot the Kiev Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich against Lithuania together with "Vsevolod of Grodno."** It should be noted that later Byelorussian annals call it Horadnya, Horadzyen. The fact that its prince took part in the campaign against Lithuania is an indication that it stood very near that country. In 1127, the same Vsevolod campaigned against the Krivichi; his regiments proceeding from Turov, Vladimir Volhynski, Grodno and Klechesk.
Horadzen once again occurs in 1183 in connection with a conflagration when the entire town, including its stone church, was razed.* The chronicler noted particularly the burning of the stone church. It is once again mentioned in 1253 and 1260.
Its name is of Byelorussian origin and may have sprung from the word "haradnya"—the abutment of a bridge or a section of a rampart. The town stands on the Nyemen and was possibly identified with the bridge across the river at that point. The existence of bridge abutments near the old town is indicated by the name Haradni-chanka River which empties into the Nyemen nearby.
The scarcity of the written records about Gorodno is redressed by archaeological materials, which describe the town as a sizable centre on the outskirts of Rus.
Numerous finds on the site reveal Grodno to have been a big industrial and commeicial centre. Of particular interest are the moulds for casting "pseudo-grained beads, stellular pendants and ornamented rings". They show the existence in Grodno of craftsmen's workshops.
Smolensk, according to the primary chronicle, was a town of the Krivichi The chronicles date its emergence to high antiquity; it is first mentioned in 882 as a town that had existed for some time. The Smolyanians were known not only in the upper reaches of the Dnyeper but also as far south as the Balkan Peninsula.
Smolensk is very conveniently situated on the Dnyeper where it runs close to the Kasplya, a tributary ol the Western Dvma. It was the site of the ancient portage between the Dvina and the Dnyeper. In the south, Smolensk is near the upper reaches of the Sozh, which is a second waterway running parallel to the Dnyeper from north to south. The Dnyeper linked Smolensk with the Kiev Land and the Black Sea farther south. Thus, Smolensk stood on the great route "from the Varangians to the Greeks."
Smolensk was one of the oldest Rus towns and was known to Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The Gnyezdovo (now the Railway-Station near Katyn) burial ground testifies to its great political and economic importance in the loth century, after which something hampered its development. Scattered 11th-century reports indicate that it did not in any way stand out among other towns.
The nth century appears to have been unfavourable to the town's development, possibly the result of the decline of the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." This in turn resulted in the decline of several towns along the Dnyeper. This explains why Smolensk was not prominent among other Rus towns in the nth century. No wonder the chronicles report the late baptism of Smolensk, which allegedly took place only in 1013. Smolensk was slow in accepting the new faith.
The new prosperity in Smolensk was due to the revival ol the trade route from the shores of the Baltic to Eastern Europe. And Smolensk flourished as a go-between in East-West trade, which is why its intercourse with Visby and the German towns became of such importance in its trade in the I2th-i3th centuries. This is testified to by the various transcripts of Smolensk's well-known treaty with the Germans in 1229 and later.
Rus ties with Western Europe, mainly with Germany, were much more pronounced in Smolensk than elsewhere. This is admirably proved by the inscription on the gravestone of the monk Zinovy, discovered in the ruins of a cloister on the Smyadyn.
Extract from the Treaty (1229) of Prince Mstislav Davidovitch of Smolensk with Riga and the Gothic Coast:
...SHOULD LATIN MERCHANTS COME TO BLOWS AMONGST THEMSELVES IN THE LAND OF RUS ..., THEY WILL SETTLE THE MATTER BETWEEN THEMSELVES ... SHOULD RUS MERCHANTS COME TO BLOWS AMONGST THEMSELVES EITHER IN RIGA OR ON THE GOTHIC SHORE. LATINS SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED WITH THIS. THEY WILL SETTLE THE CASE AMONGST THEMSELVES...*
Ancient Smolensk, like other towns at that time, was made up of two sections, the town proper and the suburb. The report that Rostislav founded a great horod in Smolensk speaks of the vigorous building activities of that prince, who appears to have enlarged the initial horod. The stone churches as well as the rather numerous remains of stone churches in Smolensk give a reminder of its earlier importance. Their architectural style reveals features akin to Romanesque. The ruins of an unnamed church on the Rachevka River revealed Romanesque pilasters, but the marks on the bricks are similar to those found on the bricks of the Svirskaya Church. This fact argues the existence of links between Smolensk and Romanesque architecture,but scarcely warrants the assertion that Smolensk builders imitated Roman architects. The fine Smolensk brick was made on the spot where a kiln dating from the 12th or 13th century was discovered.
Smolensk was a prominent cultural centre. Its architectural memorials, testify to development of its building industry. The Church of Saints Peter and Paul, the Svirskaya Church, and the Church of St.John the Apostle, are only a moiety of ancient Smolensk. Kliment Smolyatich, one ol the most learned men of Ancient Rus, who later became Metropolitan of Kiev, worked in Smolensk. Tne "Life of Avraamy of Smolensk" is a remarkable memorial of Smolensk letters.
Toropyets, which stood on an island formed by the ice-free Toropa River, was the only other big town in that land. As it approaches the town, the Toropa forks and empties into a lake. It is remarkable that a section of the river between the "dzyetsinyets" and the suburb remains ice-free over a distance ot a vyorst (about one km.) and freezes only for three days at the utmost in the bitterest frost. It must have been in that part of the river that the harbour of Toropyets was located.
In the middle of the 12th century, Toropyets was the second largest centre in Smolensk Land. The 1150 charter deed of the Smolensk diocese says that it paid 400 "grivnas" of tribute. ("And there are four hundred `grivnas' of tribute in Toropyets.") Its lake fisheries were of considerable importance. It had its own royal house, an indication that the town was somehow distinguished among the other populated localities of that land. In 1169, the people of Toropyets are mentioned on an equal footing with those of Polotsk and Smolensk, which shows that Toropyets was a developed urban centre. We find a hint at its "veche" activities in the chronicle's report about the campaign undertaken by the "people of Toropyets with Prince David" against the Lithuanians in 1225.
A number of Smolensk towns are mentioned in the charter deed of the Smolensk diocese, but the facts are so scattered that it is hard to define any of them as a sizable town. Besides, even in later times we fail to find any big urban centres in that land apart from Smolensk, Toropyets, Mstislavl and Roslavl.
The Turov-Pinsk Land
Turov, one of the most ancient Rus towns, stands near the confluence of the Strumyen and the Pripyat, not far from where the Sluch, flowing from the north, empties into the latter. This apparently explains Turov's early rise. The upper reaches of the Sluch are very near those of the Nyemen, which made Turov a point on the ancient trade route from Kiev to the shores of the Baltic Sea. The importance of this route is underscored by the fact that other Rus towns - Grodno and Slutsk - also stood on it.
The chronicler traces its name to a certain Tury, who, on the strength of the annals, is regarded as having arrived from overseas, like Rogvolod. But the text of the chronicle reads: "For Rogvolod had come from beyond the sea; and had his principate in Polotsk, and Tury in Turov, and it was after him that the Turovites were called." In other words, the text merely says that Tury ruled Turov as Rogvolod did Polotsk, but says nothing about his arrival from beyond the sea. At all events, the name Tury is explained by the Slav "tur" - an aurochs.
Today, the Turov "horodishche" consists of two parts: the smaller and earlier part lies in the form of a triangle at the confluence of the Yazda and the Strumyen; the other part is adjacent to it and occupies the widening space between the two rivers. The two parts are separated by a moat 4.8 metres deep. This arrangement agrees with our ideas of towns in Ancient Rus. The smaller and better fortified part of Turov corresponds to the initial "dzyetinyets" later augmented by the larger territory of the suburb.*
Pinsk is first mentioned in 1097 as a stout "horod" which had withstood a seven-week siege. Reports on Pmsk are extremely scanty and fragmentary. It derives its name from the Pina River, for it stands where the Strumyen joins the Pina. The site is highly advantageous, for it seems to be the centre on which converge the numerous rivers forming the Pripyat. In the chronicles, Pinsk is usually mentioned together with Turov and Berastsye. The Pinsk princes came into the limelight in the second half of the 13th century.
Berastsye, later Brest-Litovsk, stood further to the West. The name is of Slav origin being derived from the "berastsye" - birch bark. This town's importance was due to its situation on the Western Bug where the Mukhavyets River empties into it, and links it with the Pripyat River system. It is mentioned as early as 1019 and is regarded as the last Rus outpost facing the Polish land.
Its position on the outskirts made it vulnerable to attack and frequent seizure by neighbouring Poland. Tatishchev reports that a Polish campaign brought devastation to Berastsye in 1182.**
THE GREAT PRINCIPALITY OF POLOTSK
The Great Principality of Polotsk had three important centres: Polotsk itself, Vitebsk and Minsk (Myenesk).
In ancient times Byelorussia was thus referred to as Polotian Rus. This principality was the strongest and most advanced among the Byelorussian principalities and should be regarded as the first Byelorussian State.
In the period of its highest development the Polotsk State included in the west all the western Byelorussian territories including: Vilna, Novogrodok, Slonim, Volkovysk, Grodno, Slutsk, Kletsk and other cities. With the exception of a few short interruptions, the Polotsk Principality remained an independent state*.
The same author says that in the middle of the ninth century, when the Byelorussian tribes were organized in their own separate states, the Normans appeared in Eastern Europe and shortly afterwards Kiev became their main center. Subsequently rulers of Kievan Rus started wars against Byelorussian princes, for example: Olga, the widow of Igor, who reigned at Kiev during the minority ot her son Svyatoslav, made her name notorious for the perfidious cruelty with which she revenged the slaughter of her tyrant husband. Having horribly oppressed the Drevlyans, a Byelorussian tribe inhabiting the woods and marshes of the Pripyat, they lay in ambush for him; and Igor perished in the fray. To avert retribution and future dissensions, the people proposed the incorporation of their principality with that of Kiev, and sent an embassy to Olga, saying "We have killed jour husband because he plundered and devoured like a vroll; but our princes are good, and make our country thiive: come and marry our prince Male." Olga pretended to receive the proposal with satisfaction, but had all the envoys put to death. Carefully concealing their fate, she required a second embassy of the most considerable men to be sent, to make arrangements for the union; and the second ambassadors shared the doom of the first. While still wearing a mask, she repaired in person to the Drevlyans with a numerous retinue; and, after assuring them of the safety of their countrymen, Prince Male and the chief families were invited to a solemn entertainment in honour of the alliance. In the midst of the festival they were all massacred. The infuriated woman then acted without disguise, let loose her army to butcher the terrified people, and laid siege to their principal town, Korosten. After long holding out it fell by stratagem. The inhabitants being offered an act of indemnity on condition of sending a certain number of pigeons as a sign of subjection, willingly complied. Upon receiving the birds, lighted matches were fastened to their tails at night and, being liberated, they flew back to their usual haunts to fire the wood-built town. It was reduced to ashes; and those who escaped the flames perished by the sword.
Having bathed in blood, and become familiar with horrors, the implacable widow determined to receive Christian baptism, - a strange but not unnatural proceeding, - and repaired to Constantinople in 955, in order to have the ceremony performed in a manner as august as possible, by the hands of the patriarch himself.*
The reports of life in the nth century are so fragmentary that what we know of Polotsk Land history concerns mainly the period from the 12th century. We have no information, however, regarding the origin of the first Byelorussian princes but we know that in the last quarter of the tenth century Prince Rogvolod (in the Scandinavian sagas known as Ragnvald) ruled over Polotsk.*** [The legend that three Viking brothers were invited to rule over all Slavs seems doubtful because according to Nicon chronicle there is a statement to the effect tnat in the 9th century two Scandinavian knights, Ascold and Dir, raided Polotsk and wrecked havoc on its inhabitants. From this we can conclude that the people of Polotsk did not send the "invitation". It is true however that Nestor mentioned among Novgorodians, Chud and Veses also Kriviches as those seeking princes "who will rule over them and judge according to law", but we should know that territory occupied by the Krivichi tribes was only partly within the borders of Polotsk principality. It is possible, therefore, that Kriviches of Pskov who only in 1136 became independent from Novgorod, were mentioned in the chronicle in question.]
Prince Rogvolod was killed by Prince Vladimir of Kiev, who eventually married Rogvolod's daughter princess RoGNEDA(Ragnheid†). The son Izyaslav (d.iooi), born to Rogneda, was the next ruler over Polotsk Principality. Kiev was ruled by Vladimir's son Yaroslav, born to a different mother. Existing enmity between two favorite wives of Prince Vladimir laid foundations to the bitter hostility between the princes of Polotsk and Kiev. "And since that time - says the chronicler - the grandchildren of Rogvolod raised the sword against the grandchildren of Yaroslav.*
After the death of Prince Izyaslav the Polotsk Principality was ruled by his son Bracheslav who in connection with the war against Kiev prince Yaroslav the Wise, in 1021 concluded the treaty of peace and received from Yaroslav two towns Usvyat and Vitebsk.**
Prince Bracheslav Izyaslavich was succeeded by his son Vseslav who proved one of most able rulers of Po-lotian Rus. He is known in history under the name of VSESLAV the Sorcerer (Charadzey) 1044-1101.
After the prolonged wars with the princes ot Novgorod and of Kiev on the one hand and with Livonia on the other, Prince Vseslav managed to expand and enrich his principality. It was under him that no one dare4 to threaten "the formidable Polotians." He earned respect and confidence not only among his own people, but even imong dependent neighbouring princes, as the author of "The Story of the Expedition of Prince Igor" (Slovo o Polku Igorove) says that prince "Vseslav judged the people and distributed the towns to the princes."
Polotsk is the oldest city in Byelorussia and was already mentioned in 862. The residence ol bishops was established there as early as 992 and latest 1005.***
In Polotsk the oldest and most famous churches were built and it was there the center of bookmaking and learning. Already in the nth century Polotsk was a spiritual capital of Byelorussian people, no wonder then that it was there Prince Vseslav erected (between 1044-1066) on the pattern of St. Sophia's churches in Kiev and Novgorod, famous St. Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk. The past history of this city is illuminated also by the church of the Saviour in Yefrosinia's Monastery and the ruins in Belchitsy. The precious cross which belonged to Princess refrosinia is a magnificent memorial of Polotsk art It made in 1161 by Lazar, known as Bogsha, apparently a local craftsman.****
Inscription on a Cross of Yefrosinia of Polotsk:
(THE TEXT IS GIVEN IN MODERN BYELORUSSIAN)
"U leta 6669 (h.zn. 1161) pakladaje Jefrasinia cesny kryz u svaim manastyry carkvie sviatoha Spasa. Cesnaje dreva nieacennaje jos6, a akavannie jaho zolata i srebra i kamieiinie i perly 100 hryvien, a da, . . 40 hryvien. Kab nikoli nia vynosiusia z manastyra, ni addavausia, ni pradavausia. Kali z chto nie pasluchajecca i vyniesie z manastyra, kab jamu nie uspamahau cesny kryz ni u hetym zycci, ni u buducym, i chaj budzie praklaty sviatoju i zyvatvorcaju Trojcaju i sviatymi 318 ajcami i siamju saborami sviatych ajcou, 1 chaj jaho spatkaje dola Judy, jaki pradau Chrysta. Chto advazycca zrabic" heta...vialmoza ci kniaz, ci jepiskap ci ihumienia, ci luby insy calaviek, chaj na im zbudziecca hetaje prakiaccio. Jefrasinia z raba Chrystova, zladziusaja hety kryz, pryjmie viecnaje zyccio z usimi sviatymi»*
The remains of stone structures in Polotsk and its shroudings in Belchitsy, indicate the high level of its culture. Its written records have practically all perished, but that they had existed is proved by the remarkable "Lite of the Polotsk Princess Yefrosmia." Excerpts of Polotsk letters have also been preserved in Tatishchev's "History ol Russia" (the story of Svyatokhna, etc.) Songs extolling the feats of Vseslav of Polotsk have come down to us through the medium of Old Byelorussian epic lore "Slovo o polku Igorove" proves that they were sung as early as the 12th century.
Great Vseslav's aim was to unite all the Byelorussian lands of ancient Rus under his authority, and the city of Polotsk was intended to occupy the central position.
When Prince Vseslav entered Novgorod in 1066, he sent from there to Polotsk many pieces of art including the bells from the Church of St.Sophia of Novgorod.**
Prince Vseslav and his sons were very religious people and this circumstance was cunningly exploited by three brothers, princes of Kiev: Izyaslav, Vsevolod and Svyatoslav, sons of Prince Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev. Prince Vsesiav was invited to come near Smolensk in order to settle some differences existing between the principalities of Polotsk and that of Kiev. It was after terrible massacre of the population of Menesk (1066) by three brothers Yaroslavichi: "The people of Menesk (Minsk) barricaded themselves in the town, but the brothers took Menesk, and killed the men, and carried off the women and children into captivity, and went towards the Nemiga."**
As an assurance of good will and honesty, meeting in 1067 was proceeded by taking oath on the cross. The Kiev princes, however, broke the oath, kidnapped Prince Vseslav of Polotsk with his two sons and incarcerated them in Kiev. Meanwhile, in Kiev itself, arose a general dissatisfaction towards the ruling princes and eventually uprising broke out on September 15, 1068, the Kievates rebelled against "those who bear false witness and perpetate injustice" Insurgents went to the bailey, where Prince Vseslav, treacherously captured by the Yaroslavichi was held prisoner and liberated him. The Kievates regarded Vseslav as a fitting candidate for the Kiev throne and immediately nominated him as their ruler.
The Kievan princes fled: Izyaslav, the oldest one, sought support from abroad and launched vigorous campaign against Vseslav who due to uncertainty of the situation and urged by immense love of his own principality, under cover of night, at the head of a small guard advanced in the direction of Belgorod on his way to beloved Polotsk. "He was called to Polotsk by the peal of bells from St. Sophia." - says chronicle.
Prince Vseslav died in 1101 and left seven sons: DAVID, ROMAN † 1116, GLEB † 1119, BORIS † 1128, ROGVOLOD † 1129, SVYATOSLAV and YURY-ROSTISLAV.*
Russian historian Tatishchev reports that in 1102 "Boris Vseslavich ol Polotsk campaigned against the Yatvyagi and upon his victorious return built the town of Borisov in his name, and settled it with people.**
In conformity with contemporary customs the Principality of Polotsk underwent division first into Polotsk and Minsk and then into several smaller principalities. Internal misunderstandings and quarrels among princes of Polotsk encouraged Kievan rulers to aggression. Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kiev twice marched into the Polotsk Land against Prince Gleb Vseslavich of Minsk. Prince Vladimir of Kiev in a list of his feats mentioned the sack of the town in 1119: "We attacked the town and left neither man nor beast in it."** The second campaign of prince Monomakh against Minsk was less successful, he only "stood near Minsk".**** Generally speaking, Minsk played a prominent role in the wars between Kiev and the Polotsk princes, for it was outpost on the road from Kiev to Polotsk. Prince Gleb Vseslavich of Minsk was captured and died in captivity in 1119.
In 1127 Kievan Prince Mstislav managed somehow to capture three princes of Polotsk (David, Rostislav and Svyatoslav) together with their families, deported them to Tsargorod (Constantinople) as servants to Byzantine Emperor Ivan Kemnon, and installed in Polotsk his sons: first Izyaslav and then Svyatopolk. Reign of those two princes created general discontent and even revolt, the result of which Prince Svyatopolk was driven away and in his place was apointed grandson of Prince Vseslav - Vasilko Svyatoslavich (1132 - 1143). Then came to Polotsk as a ruler Rogvolod Borisovich, whom again dissatisfied people banished to Minsk. "In 1151 they took Rogvolod Borisovich, their prince, and sent him to Minsk, and held him in great want, and they led (Prince Rostislav) Glebovich (1151-1158) back with them..."; but in 1158 the people of Polotsk returned back their Prince Rogvolod Borisovich (1158-1161).
Under the circumstances the Polotsk people established custom of deposing princes as they saw fit. The chronicler has recorded the formula used by people of Polotsk to expel the princes: "He is deprived of us."*****
After the death of Prince Rogvolod Borisovich, the throne of Polotsk was occupied by his son Vseslav III (1191-1170). Period of rule by Vseslav III was marked by a tendency towards limitation of the power of princes, and eventually "Council of Elders" was established. This period is called "Republic of Polotsk" (1171-1180) and brought so many internal disturbances that in the «nd, by the decision of "veche", new Prince Vladimir Vseslavich (1180-1216) was invited to the throne of Polotsk.
During the reign of this prince trade relationship with the Baltic coast was developing very successfully. The German merchants from Riga were coming in great numbers to Smolensk and Polotsk. In 121 o Ludolf, "a "wise and rich man from Smolensk", negotiated in Riga oil behalf of Prince Vladimir of Polotsk.****** At that time the possessions of the Polotsk princes stretched almost up to the gulf ol Riga, where they ruled the towns of Kukenois and Gertsike on the Western Dvina.
In spite of the fact that not all the principalities were ruled by princes dependant on Polotsk - their cultural ties were never broken, and all the Byelorussian lands since times immemorial were presenting certain linguistic and cultural unity. This fact is especially appaient in regard to the Principality of Smolensk.
Veche (Vyecha)
The prevailing form of government in the early period was known as the "udyelny system," taking its name faom the word udyel, meaning "share." It may be described as a compromise between the Scandinavian practice of parceling out territories among members of the royal family, and the old Slav custom of common property in the family, with provision for the rule of the elder, but a compromise still further complicated by the right of primogeniture, or inheritance by the eldest son, imported from Byzantium. The central feature of the system or rather custom, for it depended wholly on compliance vrith usage —was the principle of possession and rule by the family of princes and their descendants. In the Slav view of the relations between the princes, the land might be divided and distributed belonged to the gens,—to all the members of the royal family,—and every prince was entitled to a "share" during his lifetime. This he could divide and transmit to his children in the male line. But the territories thus descending to the sons from the parent did not become their absolute property. That the princes could give up one "share" for another was provided by the system, and they did actually migrate from territory to territory. The occasion for changes of this kind was usually given by the succession of a new grand-prince to the throne. But actually to succeed to this power, to be a grand-prince, he had to be the eldest member at that time living in the whole family of princes. The princes, again, were not always agreed as to who was the eldest among them.
In the early days of the nation, when the princes were few, the working of the system was comparatively simple. But the increase in the number of the royal family soon made the satisfaction of the multifarious and conflicting demands thence arising a most difficult, almost an insoluble problem.*
The principalities were ruled by princes or dukes but their power was limited by the assembly of the community, usually of the town, called a «Vyecha", and thus formed a primitive type of democracy. The princes were elected for life by these assemblies; their power hardly ever absolute or their position hereditary, at least in the eaily stages of the development of the principalities as political units.
The development of the principalities and the growth of their cultural and political life was dependent on a number of historical events. One of the chief dependent factors was the ability of some princes to increase their power and authority by defeating neighbouring princes and seizing their territories after allowing the "druzhinas" to plunder the towns. Some princes had quite numerous "druzhinas" which were not disbanded after military expeditions or wars.
The so-called knyazh dvor (princely court) was the center oi political and administrative activities in the towns. It was there that thieves caught red-handed in the night were brought for punishment, it was there that the prince and his tiun mediated in disputes between townsfolk, and it was there too that the home guard gathered before setting out on a campaign. In short, the "knyazh dvor" or the dvor of pasadnik, in smaller towns, was the civic center. But the development of the towns and the emergence of the lyudi (the craftsmen and merchants) as a cohesive group of citizens, the so-called muzhi, who had become aware of their civic status, tended gradually to limit the role of the prince.
The weakening oi the princely power naturally led them to seek support in concord with the people and brought the people to the foreground. Although the vyecha was not created by the princes, they had perforce to apply to it. By the mid-12th century, for example, the princes of Polotsk were already dependent on the vyecha.
The vyecha formed some sort of the Supreme Council, or assembly, a kind of folkmote or peoples parliament. This form of folkmote existed in all parts of Byelorussia. At the time when the subjects had so far gained the upper hand of their ruler as to be able, by the imposition of conditions, to make his actions conform to their own will - the state of affairs resembled a" republic".
Later documents (13th and 14th cent.) describe Polotsk as a great commercial center carrying on lively intercourse with Riga. Its main exports were wax and honey, llax, bacon etc. A deed dating from the second half of the 13th century says that the people of Polotsk and of Vitebsk weie granted "free trade rights in Riga, and the Gothic coast and in Luebeck." The document also mentions "the old peace" between the Polotsk Land and the German towns.* Inscribed stones, discovered on the Western Dvina, testify to the maintenance of the water routes by the princes of Polotsk.**
The political role of the people of Polotsk was enhanced in the 12th century. Like the people of other big towns they "gather for the vyecha as for a council."***
Later we find a vyecha in Polotsk which functioned like its counterpart m Novgorod. A highly obscure and late report in the Byelorussian annals ascribes the inauguration of civic freedoms Prince Boris , who `was kind to his subjects and gave them freedom and allowed them to have a vyecha, and toll bells, and rule themselves as they did in Great Novgorod and in Pskov." After the death of Boris' children the people of Polotsk "began to rule themselves, as in Great Novgorod and in Pskov, and had no lord over them."****
The general conclusions-according to M.Tikhomirovon the development of vyecha activities in Polotsk are fully applicable to Smolensk, although its political history is very obscure. There is only one report, dated 1186, about an open clash between Prince David and the people of Smolensk: "At the same time there was a clash in Smolensk between Prince David and the Smolensk folk, and many heads of the best people rolled." The cause of the quarrel is unknown but it is highly probable that the prince had violated the civic freedoms which had become traditional long before the year mentioned. The charter deed of the Smolensk bishopric dating from 1151 says that the people ot Smolensk took part in politics. It has the prince say: "Having consulted with my lyudi, I brought the bishop to SmolenskȠ
[Golubvsky is quite right in pointing out that our chronicles use the word "lyudi" to denote the people at large in contrast to the prince and his men-at-arms.]
But the most curious fact is probably the report in official Smolensk documents describing the lyudi taking part in political alfairs side by side with the prince. In the above-mentioned charter deed we find the following concluding woids "And let no one judge this after my death, neither the prince, nor the lyudi". This connection of the lyudi, i.e., the townsfolk, with the installation, of a bishopric in Smolensk becomes clear if we recall riiat the town's weights and measures were kept at the bishopric. As was the practice elsewhere, the Cathedral of the Assumption in Smolensk served as a repository for Ithe standard weights and measures.
The well-known Smolensk treaty of 1229 is another document which bears traces of having been drawn up with the participation of the townsfolk. Golubovsky nctes that it, too, was drawn up after the prince consulted the vyecha. Some of its transcripts confirm this with the following words: "That it may be so for ever, and be acceptable to the prince and to all the people of Smolensk." At the signing of the treaty, the Smolensk side was represented by one Tumash Smolnyanin, called tumash imi khalev.ch in some transcripts. Among Smolensk envoys sent to Riga were the priest Yeremei and the - SOTSKY Pantelei, called "a wise muzh" in some transcripts. The sotskiye, it will be recalled, were connected with the urban craftsmen and merchants.
"The vyecha - according to Golubowski - had legislative powers which it shared with the prince, and without the vyecha it was impossible to establish the size ol the tributes, to grant land, or any other privileges in general."*
The vyecha was summoned by the ringing of a bell.
Early Associations
From the tenth to the twelfth century inclusive, all Byelorussian principalities were largely made up of federated "republics", whose citizens, in the form of trade guilds, maintained commercial relations with the territories of the far east, west and north.
It is veiy difficult to discover traces of various associations in all towns, but we are in possession of a hint at a merchant guild in Polotsk where a bratshchina used to be held at the Church of the Mother of God.
A bratshchina in Polotsk is mentioned in the report for 1159 with details that allow us to draw some conclusions about the nature of that association. Prince Rostislav of Polotsk was invited by the citizens of Polotsk to attend "a bratshchina at the Church of the Mother of God on St.Peter's Day." Having been forewarned that a plot was being engineered against him, Rostislav went to the bratshchina wearing a coat of mail under his surcoat, and thus foiled the attempt.
This story reveals that the bratshchina in Polotsk was held at the church of a patron saint -the Mother of God in this case — very possibly at the old town cathedral. St. Peter's Day (June 29), one of the great church feasts, was chosen as the occasion. It becomes evident from the message of the Polotsk citizens to the prince and his reply the following day that the bratshchina was no common banquet. "Prince, come to us, we have something to tell you..." And Rostislav replied to the envoys: "I visited you yesterday. Why did you not tell me what you had to? "** This is an indication that the bratshchina was attended by prominent Polotsk citizens with whom the prince could negotiate.
Nothing is known of the existence of merchant associations in other towns. But the absence of reports to that effect does not mean anything at all, because the lack of chronicle reports about urban life in the 12th-13th centuries is a matter of common knowledge.
THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA OR The Lithuano-Byelorussian State
The Byelorussian principalities, having two strong and ruthless neighbours - the Muscovite Principality to the east and the no less aggressive Teutonic Order of Knights to the west, began to unite, not only among themselves but also with the Principality of Zhmudz (the present Lithuania) which was threatened by the Livonian Order of Sword-Bearers. At the time of the Mongol invasion of Muscovy (sometimes called the Tartar invasion), i.e. at the beginning of the thirteenth century, there was formed in the west a new country known later as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In history such a federation of ttree nations was unusual. The territory of these three peoples, Lithuanians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians, extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea and covered an area ot approximately 350,000 square miles.
The Lithuanians proper (Zhmudzians), a non-Slav people, lived in the northern part of Grand Duchy ol Lithuania and spoke a language quite distinct from Byelorussian or Ukrainian. Philologists state that the Lithuanian language is the oldest surviving Indo-European language and closely resembles ancient Sanskrit.
The Byelorussian element* in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was about ten times more numerous than the Lithuanians proper. This factor and more highly developed Byelorussian culture led to the Lithuanian princes and their nobility being entirely assimilated, some even accepting the Greek-Orthodox faith, the official Byelorussian religion. It is worth while to note that the majority of Lithuanians proper (Zhmudzians) were pagan up to the end of the fourteenth century and the first mass baptism was m 1386, i e. 400 years later than the Byelorussians.**
Prince Ringhold, who according to the "Voskresenskaya Chroniclen, was a descendant of the princes of Polotsk, but for some time had lived in Zhmudz. Later, he ruled in Novogrodok, which was part of the Polotsk Principality, and united some neighbouring territories. He died in 1239 but the idea of the union was furthered even more vigorously by his son Mindovg (Mindaugas) [1239-1263], who was able to unite around the city of Novogrodok the following Byelorussian principalities: Volkovysk, Zdzitov, Slonim, Giodno, Hoiodok, Vilna, Brest, and Melnik, as well as part of Vitebsk and Smolensk Lands.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that Mindaugas obtained the Grand-Ducal dignity and became the founder of the Rus - Lithuanian State only by virtue of friendly relationship of his father Rmgold with the neighbouring Byelorussian princes.
[Recall in "The Story of the Expedition of Prince Igor" the poetic portrait of Izyaslav Vasilyevich "who alone drummed his sword on the Lithuanian helmets and was later killed on the blood — soaked grass by Lithuanian swords." The account ends with the words: "Gorodno's trumpets blare."*** Students of "The Story of the Expedition of Prince Igor" will now scarcely doubt that Izyaslav was connected with Gorodno or Horadzen - Grodno.]
No doubt that at the beginning there was a great deal of violence and compulsion. The period of early conquests of the Byelorussian lands around Grodno, Novogrodok and Slonim by Lithuanians is reflected in the appearance of the new name of "Black Rus" or Black Russia (Lat. Russia Nigra), subsequently applied to that territory. Only the following years brought a friendly co-operation of the two nations by the establishment of family alliances between the rulers.
From the 13th century onwards the word "black" was tormerly applied also to the territory of Moscovian Rus which was under the Tartars.
[In the Byelorussian language as in many other languages the word "black" means not only the colour, but also alludes to something utterly dismal or glum, dirty, foul, wicked; obtained by violence, not free, enslaved or conquered. The word "white", on the other hand, means: innocent, pure, without evil intentions and most of all free. Here we may find an explanation of the origin of the names: Russia Nigra, or Black Russia and synonymous terms Russia Alba, White Russia, Byelaya Rus, Byelarus which in the modern terminology became russified form in English-Byelorussia. ]
To gain influence over the Turov-Pmsk Principality, and Volhynia, Mindovg married his daughter to the ruling prince of those territories,Shvarno.
In 1252 the Grand Duke Mindaugas was converted to Christianity with all the grandees of his realm. "This fact is often passed over in silence although it has an important bearing upon the conversion of the entire Lithuanian people some hundred years later."*
"Mindaugas was a pagan, but in order to maintain his hold over the western areas, he was baptized, and by sending his own envoys to Rome succeeded in being crowned king in 1253 with the approval of Pope Innocent IV."**
From a manuscript of the year 1251 we hear that King Mindowe (also known as Mendowg) of Lithuania had become a Christian and had sent an embassy to Rome. The Pope received him under his protection and claimed all of his territory as the property of the Holy See.
According to a letter from Pope John XXII, June 1, 1324, to King Gedimin: "Mindowe had abjured Christianity because of the atrocities and the injuries which he had received at the hands of the Teutonic Knights."***
Zhmudz was dissatisfied with the new Byelorussian ruler, and there was an uprising in the course of which Min-dovg was killed in a battle in 1263. He was succeeded by the Polotsian Prince Tawtsvil, who was also killed in battle with Znmudzians. His place was taken by the oldest son of Mindovg, Voyshelak, who eventually suppressed the rebelious Zhmudz, and created the strong foundation for the Byelorussian-Lithuanian Union.
After the death of Voyshelak (1269) there were struggles among the princes but in 1271 the whole of the Grand Duchy ol Lithuania was again ruled by one prince, Troyden (1271 -1282), then followed Lutaver (1282-1295), Viten (1295-1316), and eventually most famous of them all, Gedimin (1316-1341).
Prince Gedimin was a very able and just ruler, diplomat and politician. He did all he could to strengthen the Grand Duchy and to unite further some Byelorussian territories which, due to very frequent changes of weak rulers, were only loosely united with Lithuania.
He transfered his capital from Novogrodok to Vilna, situated on the border between Zhmudz and Byelorussia, and more important from the strategic, political and commercial point of view. The majority of the inhabitants of Vilna and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a whole at that period were Byelorussians. An English historian W. E.D.Allen estimates that two-thirds of the population of the Grand Duchy were Byelorussians.* Byelorussian historians estimate the proportion as four-fifths.
Prince Gedimin invited to Vilna from abroad a number of craftsmen, artisans, architects and scholars; and during his rule there was quite considerable cultural and economical development. He built two castles: one in Vilna, and another one not to far from the capital, at Troki. By surrounding Vilna with a wall of stones he made it into a fortress. Because there were frequent attacks from the east and south by the Mongolians, and from the west by the Teutonic Order of Knights, Gedimin was forced to concentrate his energy in defending his borders. In one of the battle with the Teutons he was killed (1341).
Before his death, however, he divided his heritage between his seven sons, two of them, Olghird and Keystutis, succeeded in subduing the others to their authority and agreed (1345) to govern the country jointly. Olghird, the elder, took over the eastern part of the Grand Duchy, residing sometimes at Vilna and sometimes at the castle of Medniki. His court was of Belorussian character and the language spoken was Byelorussian.
Keystutis ruled Lithuania proper and it was he who in the 14th cent, signed a commercial treaty with England. In marked contrast to his brother's court, here the Lithuanian language was alone spoken.*
Prince Olghird successfully fought the Tartar's Golden Hord, and liberated part of the Ukraine, namtly the principalities of Volhynia, Kiev and Podolia, which were included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the east he annexed the territories of Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk. At the same time he tried to fortify his position and influence in the Principality of Smolensk, because he was afraid ol the aggressive Muscovite center. At that time Muscovy was becoming more and more intent on territorial expansion and was conquering weaker neighboring princes and taking their lands. That was the cause of the wars between Olghird and Prince Dimitr Ivanovich, the ruler of Muscovy, which lasted for four years (1368-1372).
Olghird was the more able as a military leader and twice surrounded Moscow. In one of the chronicles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there is the following account:
"Prince Dimitr not being able to defend his principality, sent to Prince Olghird a humble request not to expel him (Dimitr) from his fatherland and Moscow, and promised rich gifts; he agreed to give Olghird anything he liked, requesting him not to be angry with him and to have pity on him. Olghird was sorry for Dimitr, and showed his good will by not expelling him from Moscow and by making peace with him. After that treaty Prince Dimitr left Moscow and came to see Prince Olghird bringing him many valuable gifts: gold, silver, pearls, jewels and skins from fur-bearing animals to repay him for his losses in connection with the war."
Olghird accepted those gifts but said: "We made peace but it would be not fair for me to leave things as they are without other signs of glory and fame for the Grand Duke of Litliuama, Rus, and Zhmudz. And therefore I want to touch the walls of Moscow with my spear.»
He mounted his horse, took his spear in his hand, rode to the wall of Moscow, touched it with his spear, and said in a loud voice: "Remember, Grand Duke of Muscovy, that a Lithuanian spear has touched Moscow's wall." Then he (Olghird) with full honours left Moscow at the head of his army, taking with him many prisoners and costly booty. He made a new frontier between Muscovy and Lithuania, going through Mozhaysk and Kolomna, and annexing some territories and towns to Lithuania.*
In the first half of the 13th century the division of the three eastern groups of Slavs: Byelorussians, Ukrainians and Muscvites became a fact. Each of these nations started to live an independent life as a nation, and the assertion of the Russian historians that Byelorussian and Ukrainian Slavs wanted all the time to unite with their "older brothers" (meaning Russians) is a false one. On the contrary, Byelorussians and Ukrainians for more than three centuries struggled and fought against the aggressive Muscovite rulers to delend their national and political independence.
The Religious Struggle in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were endeavouring to establish in their country an independent Orthodox Metropolitan See, and this was achieved during the reign of Lutaver. In 1291 the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed bishop Theophil as a Metropolitan of Novogrodok (in Byelorussia) for all Rus.
Before the conquest and destruction of Kiev by the Tartars the Metropolitan See for all Rus was in Kiev, and later on was transfered to Novogrodek. This move was sanctioned by the Bizantine Emperor Andronicos the Elder, who admitted the See of Novogrodok to the Council of Patriarchs granting it 82nd place out of 100.**
The Muscovite princes were trying all the time to subordinate to themselves the Metropolitan See of Kiev and all Rus, and thus the Orthodox Church of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was one of the reasons for the struggle on religious grounds between Muscovy and Lithuania. The authorities of the Church of Constantinople preferred to see one united East-Slavonic Metropolitan See, the Lithuanian princes insisted on division. The Grand Duke Olghird sent to Constantinople the Metropolitan of Novogrodok, Roman (who was the brother of his wife, Mary Yaroslavna, Princess of Polotsk) as his candidate to the Metropolitan See of all Rus, Kiev, Galicya and at the same time of Muscovy.
But the Muscovite Prince sent his own candidate, Bishop Alex, to Constantinople with a similar request. The Patriarch of Constantinople, receiving many gifts from both sides, approved and appointed both candidates as Metropolitans of all Rus, Kiev, Galicya and Muscovy. This decision only embittered the struggle and eventually caused the division of the Metropolitan See into two separate and independent ones. Thus, as it was before, to the Metropolitan Roman were subordinated the bishoprics of Polotsk, Novogrodok, Turov, Bryansk and Volhynia But the struggle foi power lasted for about two centuries, and the Byelorussian Metropolitans were still independent and had nothing to do with the Muscovite Church authorities.
When the eyes of the Polish rulers turned in the direction of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an object of the political and religious expansion, the Grand Duchy at that time was a free and independent state, one of the largest and most powerful states of medieval Europe. The "brain" of the Polish ruling class-Roman Catholic clergy knew periectly well, that an attempt of military conquest of the Grand Duchy would be disastrous to Poland, so they had to find other means than that of military adventure. They persuaded their young Queen Hedwig (Yadwiga) to break her engagement to William of Austria, and to marry the Grand Duke of Lithuania Yagailo (Yagello).** The Polish Roman Catholic clergy convinced the Queen that, by this act, she will accomplish Christian work through "introduction" of Christianity into pagan Lithuania. The Polish priests cunningly exploited the fact that the young Queen was ignorant of the presence of Christianity in the Grand Duchy for the past four hundred years.
After the death of Olghird (Algirdas) in 1377, his son Yagailo tried to make himself sole master of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the help of the German Teutonic Order. In 1382 he took Keystutis captive, and also his eldest son Vitovt, both of whom were imprisoned in Krevo castle. Several days later Keystutis was found strangled.
Vitovt escaped and with the help also of the Teutonic Order proceeded to challange Yagailo's hegemony.
Yagailo, on marrying the Polish Queen Hedwig, became at the same time the King of Poland. In 1386 there was concluded a union between Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, creating one political organization for two independent countries. It was called the Union of Krevo, after the town in which it was concluded It was a personal union by which two independent states agreed to have one ruler. This policy of Yagailo created discontent among the Byelorussian and Zhmudzian boyars and townsfolk. An uprising was organized and the union with Poland was dissolved. A new Grand Duke for Lithuania was appointed; he was Grand Prince Vitovt. In this way the validity of the Krevo union was anulled.
Vitovt (1392-1430) was the pupil of Hanno Windenheim and was highly educated for those days, speaking both German and Latin.
In 1399 Hedwig, the Queen in her own right, died without issue; her daughter having lived only a few days.
Alter Anne of Cilli, who left Yagailo only a daughter and after a third childless marriage with a Polish laity, the old king (Yagailo) had married, at Vitovt's suggestion, a Byelorussian princess from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Sophia Holshanskaya.
The same year 1424 a son Ladislaus was born. Second son died, but in 1427 another son, Casimir, was born.
The Poles themselves thought that these sons, given to the King by Sophia Holshanskaya, being of entirely foreign origin without any blood of the old national dynasty in them, had no hereditary rights.*
The religious struggle between Lithuania and Muscovy continued, and the Church Authorities at Constantinople tried to unite both of them into one Metropolitan See. There was a time when the Lithuanians were considering breaking from Constantinople, when the Church authorities refused to appoint a separate Metropolitan for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Byelorussian Orthodox clergy were wholeheartedly supported by Prince Vitovt, who on the 15th of November 1416 convoked all the Orthodox archbishops, bishops, and other clergy as well as the Byelorussian princes and boyars to elect, in accordance with the apostolic rules, the new Metropolitan of the Grand Duchy ot Lithuania, contrary to the request of the Patriarch of Constantinople. During that convocation Bishop Gregory Tsamblak, a Serbian by birth, was elected as the Metropolitan of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.**
At the same time there was an increasing conflict with the Polish Roman Catholic clergy, who, after baptizing the Znmudzians by Yagailo into that faith, began to arrive in Lithuania in great numbers. They were trying not only to convert the people to their faith but also were carrying out the policy of polonization. They had the full support of the ruling Polish authorities, whose aim was eventually to annex the Grand Duchy ot Lithuania to Poland. The Byelorussian princes and boyars opposed this, but it was not an easy struggle. The Poles were working it systematically, preoccupied with that aim, whereas the attention of the Byelorussians was concentrated in the first place on the external enemies - the Muscovites and the Teutonic Order who threatened Lithuania. These political aspects forced Vitovt to new agreements with the Poles, signed at Vilna and Radom in 1401.
One of the results of these agreements was the vigorous attack of the combined forces, consisting in prevailing majority of Byelorussians, against their old enemies, the Teutonic Knights, whom they defeated at the great battle of Gruenwald, near Tannenberg in Prussia, in 1410, in which Ulrich von Jungingen, the Grand Master, was killed.*
The victory over the Teutonic Knights at Gruenwald did not remove the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the threat of the Muscovites, and Vitovt was forced to an agreement with the Poles at Horodlo (1413), by which the Lithuanians agreed not to elect, after Vitovt's death, a new Grand Duke of Lithuania without Polish consent, and the Poles at the same time agreed not to elect kings without consent of the Lithuanians.
There were some difficulties and complications inside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania because the Zhmudaian boyars, being Roman Catholic and influenced by the Polish Catholic clergy, quite often took the Polish side against the Byelorussian Orthodox boyars. Realising the danger of this Vitovt wanted to give the Byelorussian noblemen the same rights as those of the boyars, but to do so he had to be crowned as king of the Grand Duchy ot Lithuania. An agreement was reached with the Pope and the coronation was to be held in 1429 at Lutsk, but was postponed to the next year because the crown on its way from Rome was stolen by the Poles. Unfortunately Vitovt died in 1430.
The Political Struggle between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland
The incident with Vitovt's crown caused a lot of discontent and anger amongst Lithuanians against the Poles. After Vitovt's death, in spite of the agreement of Horodlo, a Prince of Bryansk and Novgorod-Seversk, Svidrigailo (Svidrigello) was elected Grand Duke ot Lithuania (1430-1432) without the Poles being consulted. He was a follower of the policy of complete independence for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The King Yagailo approved as Vitovt's successor Svidrigailo, who was the only surviving brother of the King, and was supported by a majority of the princes and boyars of the Grand Duchy. He was a Roman Catholic, but always strongly objected to polonization of his country. That is why in his fight against the Poles, Svidrigailo also had partisans among the Catholics of the Lithuania proper.
"These circumstances strengthened his position when, scarcely entrusted with power, he entered into a conflict with the Poles. The dispute had two causes. First, disregarding the stipulations of the Horodlo Union, Yagailo had made him Grand Duke without consulting the Poles, and Svidrigailo himself, continuing Vitovt's policy after the unfortunate Lutsk congress, was not inclined to recognize Poland's supremacy as' laid down in 1401 and 1413... The Poles, therefore, decided to remove him from grand-ducal dignity and encouraged a plot... The "coup d'etat" of 1st September 1432 succeeded only in part: Svidrigailo escaped..."**
The Poles did not manage to have Svidrigailo murdered. With the help of the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania he continued fighting the Poles until his death in 1452.
After Svidrigailo, Sigismund I, the son of Keystutis, was elected Grand Duke of Lithuania (1432-1434). He was under Polish influence and even transfered to them a large province of Podolia without the consent of the Lithuanian nobility. After a short rule he was murdered.
After Sigismund's assassination the Lithuanians asked the Polish King Ladislaus (Yagailo),who at the same time was Duke of Lithuania, to send to Lithuania his successor Prince Casimir. But when Casimir arrived at Vilna, he was immediately elected as Grand Duke of Lithuania (1440-1492), again without consulting the Poles. (Later, after the death of Ladislaus, the Poles elected Casimir their king.) The Lithuanians approved their choice on condition that the union or rather federation with Poland would have only one aim: common defence, and that the provinces Volhynia and Podolia would permanently belong to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The conditions were accepted and King Casimir granted the Lithuanian princes, boyars, noblemen and townsmen special privileges ("Zyemskiya pryvilei"), guaranteeing them full personal freedom. In 1468 Casimir granted the Grand Duchy of Lithuania an important law called "Statute" or "Sudziebnik of King Casimir". It is worth while to remember that all laws and documents of the Grand Duke of Lithuania were written in Byelorussian.*
Casimir was a just and wise ruler but towards the end of his reign he wanted to subordinate the Byelorussian Orthodox Church to the Pope, thus causing dissatisfaction, some anxiety and even disturbances. The plan was eventually abandoned.
After Casirnir's death, his son Alexander was elected as Grand Duke (1492-1506) by the Lithuano-Byelorussian nobility, and again without consulting the Poles. In spite of that, the Poles invited the Lithuano-Byelorussian princes and bovars to take part in the Seym (some form of Parliament) for the election of a king. Lithuano-Byelorussian representatives refused to take part in that election, and the Poles themselves elected John Albert (brother of the Grand Duke Alexander) as their king.
Duke Alexander sent his brother congratulations and best wishes not as a subordinate but as a man on equal terms, as a representative of an independent country. From the previous union there was left practically nothing except good relationship between two neighbours, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.
This did not last very long. Muscovy, supported by Tartars, made war on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was forced to request help from the Poles. They agreed to do so on condition that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would honour all previous treaties, especially these of 1413-1432 concerning union with Poland. Such an agreement concerning the union binding both countries was again signed, and this time the union was to last longer and to bring both partners closer together.
Grand Duke Alexander had married Princess Helen, a daughter of Ivan III., of Muscovy. She used her influence to effect a reconciliation between her father and husband, and a truce for six years was signed from March 25, 1503, to March 25, 1509.
When Prince Alexander died (he had been elected by the Poles as their king after the death of John Albert), the Byelorussian and Zhmudzian princes, nobles and boyars again refused to participate in the Polish Seym for electing a new king, and instead, at their own Seym, elected Sigismund II (brother of Alexander) as their Grand Duke (1506-1529) The Poles, in order not to break with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, also elected him as Polish king (1506-1548).
Muscovy at this period was quite strong and tried to extend the territories not only to the east but also to the west, at the expense of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The war between Muscovy and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania lasted, with short intervals, for 37 years (1501-1537) without any decisive results and with changing fortunes, although the trotps of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania won a number of important battles: at Orsha in 1514, at Opochka in 1517 and in 1527 against the Tartars.
The full burden of the war was carried by trie Grand Duchy of Lithuania alone without the promised help from Poland. Therefore the representatives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania decided the last agreement with the Poles no longer binding. To emphasize this, they ignored the Poles, and elected in 1522 Sigismund August (son of King Sigismund II) as their temporary grand duke, in case of Sigismund'sII death. In 1529 (before Sigismund's II death) they made Sigismund III August their Grand Duke with full rights, arranging big ceremonial festivities and celebrations.
To avoid breaking with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Sigismund III August was hurriedly elected by the Poles also as their king, and thus there came about quite a unique event in history — Poland had at the same time two elected reigning kings (1529 — 1548): father (Sigismund II-Old), and Sigismund III August - his son.
After careful study of the matter it appeares clear that the proverbial expression that Poland was "ante-murale Christianitatis" does not make much sense because all the weight of danger, from the east, had fallen always upon the Grand Duchy of Lithuania There is no doubt that the latter with its strong Orthodoxy was a real wall of Christianity sheltering this very same Poland and the rest of Western Europe.
The Lublin Union
Sigismund III August was the last Grand Duke, elected by the Byelorussian and Zhmudzian (Lithuanian proper) nobility, freely and without consultation with Poland.
Because of the growing threat from Muscovy, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not feel strong enough to oppose its enemies so she had to seek some sort of formal agreement with Poland, in order to assure her co-operation in the defence of the country. For this reason union with Poland was concluded at the Diet of Lublin in 1569.
Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose relationship up to that time had not been very close, because of the differences of language and religion, it became one federal kingdom with one king and one parliament, but the Lithuano-Byelorussian State retained a seperate administration, separate army, budget and law. The records and minutes of the joint session of the Lublin Diet were written in Byelorussian.
For about another fifty years the ruling classes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were still trying to secure some form of independence in international relations, as is proved by the following document:
The Russian Treaty Proposals, 1617.
(Record Office, S.P. 91/2, ff.40-1)*
« (f. 40 r.) The written propositiones upon which the greate Lord Emperor & greate Duke Michaeil Feodorowich of all Russia, selfe upholder, desyres to be in an everlasting League with his deere brother the greate Lord James of England Scotland France and Ireland, etc.
1.Whosoever shalbe freind to the greate Lord Emperor and greate Duke Michaeil Feodorowich of all Russia, selfe upholder, his Emperiall Majesty, the same shalbe freind to his brother the greate Lord James, his Kingly Majestic of greate Bryttanie.
————————————————————————————————— —————
12. And yf that the greate Lord King James etc. cannot at this tyme upon his part for some resonable cawses send his people against Sigismundis King of Poland, by land nor by Sea, for the remotnes of the place, then the greate Lord James etc. shall assist his Brother the greate Lord Emperor etc., against the sayd his enemies Sigismundis King of Poland and his Sonnes, and against the Crowne of Poland, and the greate Dukedome of Letto (Old English name ior the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Lithuano-Byelorussian State. R.O.) with Treasure and all manner of warlike munytione as much as he is (f. 40 v.) trewly able, and shall forbyd his Subjectes Soldiers of England and Scotland and other Domyniones, to serve the sayd enemies Sigismundis King of Poland and his Sonne Vladislaus and the Crowne of Poland and greate Duke of Letto, nether shall surfer any other Straingers Soldiers nor cause them to be suffered to pass through any his Domyniones, against the sayd greate Lord Emperor,..."
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was still struggling for its independence as was partly reflected in the third edition of famous "Statute" in 1588 (edited by Prince Leo Sapyeha, chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), consisting of constitutional, civil, criminal and administrative laws. It is of interest, that such an important act as the Union of Lublin was not mentioned at all. Some other laws, which were imposed on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by the Polish kings, were omitted too. Those omissions could mean that they regarded these laws to be invalid. The Statutes were written in Byelorussian.
[.. ."But having in mind God, His Holy justice and common law, court trials already appointed, I will never postpone, except in case of serious illness. I sincerely swear by this, and God help me, if I should break my oath, however, may God strike me dead. The official letters, copies and court notices must be written in Rus letters and words of Rus, and not in any other language; and the clerk has to be sworn into his office." (The term `Rus' refers to the Middle Byelorussian language and not to the Great Russian. R.O.)]*
The first Statute or Code of laws for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was published in 1529 during the reign of Sigismund III, while the first Book of Laws, partly based on the Statutes, was published in Moscow as late as 1550.
The above, constituting a very short outline of the historical happenings and facts, shows that up to the second half ol the sixteenth century the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, even alter Yagailo's marriage to the Polish Queen Hedwig, was an independent country very loosely united with Poland. (Yagailo spoke only Byelorussian and up to the end of his life never learned Polish, although he was the Polish King.) The majority of the princes did not recognize the previous unions, but the Union of Lublin had more serious consequences.**
The people of the Byelorussian principalities were converted to the Orthodox laith in the tenth century, but there had never been any pressure brought to bear on non-Byelorussians to accept the same religion, and therefore it is not surprising that during the Byelorussian influence in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania the Zhmudzians were pagans up to the fourteenth century. Other religions, too enjoyed full freedom, Moslems, Jews, and later Protestants, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics. Even Tartars living in Byelorussia, although their number was very small, were able to publish their prayer-book "Al-Kitab" in Byelorussian, using Arabic letters.***
[There were in Byelorussia some Tartar Moslems; they were incomers - mostly descendant ot emigrants and former prisoners oi war. They fcrgot their native tongue but preserved their religion and Arabic alphabet.]
The Byelorussians did not interfere with the coming of the Polish Roman Catholic clergy and their vigorous activity, even when Grand Duke Vitovt renounced his Orthodox religion and was himself converted to Roman Catholicism. That conversion had an enormous influence on the Byelorussian princes and nobility, who, to retain their positions and privileges or to gain even greater ones and some fiscal concessions enjoyed by the Polish nobility — so called "shlakhta", began to adopt Catholicism and later on were polonized.
The Religious Union of Brest (1596)
The Polish King Stephen Batory encouraged letters by the foundation of the University of Vilna, the care of which was committed to the Jesuits, who after 1569 were swarming into The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in great numbers, and gradually getting the control of the education of the country. Supported by the patronage of the king the Jesuit colleges and schools spread all over the country, and the University of Vilna, founded by Batory, became their headquarters. It was cunningly established in the centre of a population the great bulk of which was Protestant or Greek Orthodox.
Prince Radzivill, the palatine of Vilna, and Eustathius Vollovich, the Vice-Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who were Dissidents, for a long time reiused to affix the seal of the state to the charter for this Jesuit university, but the king disregarded their representations.*
A wave of polonization was decomposing the unity of the people of the Grand Duchy with growing strength.
However to achieve the final aim - the Byelorussian Orthodoxy had to be destroyed. So on the pattern of the Union of Lublin (political union) - the Church union was on its way.
"Poland sent the most lamentable specimens as pastors to the Grand Duchy. Large numbers of priests were totally devoid of intellectual qualifications, many receiving Holy Orders without having passed through any school. Disorganization and anarchy in ecclesiastical affairs reached such a pitch that according to contemporary evidence even Jews were appointed to hold office as parish priests! Contaminated by this example the Lithuanian nobility presented a melancholy spectacle of deterioration."**
Some well known Byelorussian noblemen: Radzivill, Sapyeha, Tyshkyevich, Korsak, Chartaryski, Pats and Kishka accepted Catholicism in exchange for a few important fiscal concessions and privileges. Such was the background of the religious union.
Again with the help of artifice and bribery there was signed in Brest in 1596 the religious union of two Churches - Roman Catholic and Orthodox. The supremacy of the Pope was recognized, but nearly all rituals of the Orthodox Church were preserved. This act brought a strong opposition from Orthodox magnates and clergy. Thus a split in the Orthodox Church was created. The leaders of the new sect, called Greek Catholic or Uniat, having support from the ruling class, excommunicated the Orthodox bishops who opposed the union, and the Orthodox Church ceased to exist as a legal Church.
The Roman Catholic and Uniat (Greek Catholic) Churches became State Churches of the Grand Duchy on: Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian territories. The Polish Jesuits, who were in large numbers "imported" into Lithuania proper, Byelorussia and Ukraine were set the task of forcing Roman Catholicism and Greek Catholicism onto the people with the ultimate aim of final polonization. Many atrocities were commited in the name of so called "true" religion but not in complete harmony with the spirit and principle of any religion.
"In his Threnody, or the Plant of the Eastern Church, published in 1610, the noted theologian Meletey Smotritski said: `In Vilna the chief center of the White Russian (Byelorussian) culture and religious life, the churches are taken by force from the Orthodox, soldiers breaking in the doors, taking possession of buildings, and turning them to Uniats.'
The Ukrainian representative, Lavrence Drevinsky, criticized the Polish government in parliament in 1621 for the abuses and oppression of the Ukrainian and White Russian people using the following terms: Throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom, how is the glory of God manifested with the aid of the newly invented Church Union? In the larger cities churches are already closed and the wealth of the Church is dissipated; in the monasteries, cattle are now kept instead of monks' »*
Since then a lot of new Roman Catholic and Uniat Churches and monasteries were built, a lot of Orthodox Churches were taken and handed over to the Jesuits and converted into Roman Catholic and Uniat Churches. In the 17th century a number of laws were passed in parliament which were directed against non-Poles, Orthodox and other "dissident" clergy and population. For instance, the Roman Catholics and Uniats were exempted from all taxes, but not the Orthodox (1667); the Catholics were forbidden to change their religion (1668); with the help of the bribed aristocracy ot the Grand Duchy in r5c,6 parliamet passed a law stating that the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was to be Polish. Thus Byelorussian started to loose its official status, and the next editions of Lithuanian Statutes were translated and published in Polish. Only Roman Catholics and Uniats could be accepted and hold office (1733).
There were quite frequent uprisings of the persecuted Orthodox people, especially in the 17th century under such leadership as: Vashchyla, Dubina, Halota, Harkush, Khvyeska, Kryvashapka, Stakhar, Mitkovich, Shabelnik and others who often with the co-operation of Ukrainians were fighting for the freedom of their countries.**
A number of the Byelorussian Orthodox nobles remained faithful to their religion and people, although the Poles, mainly the militant clergy, were persecuting them and others of different faiths. Of some interest is a letter of the chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Leo Sapyeha (himself converted to Catholicism), to the Polish Uniat Bishop Joseph Kuncevich of Vitebsk, which says:
"... I have no wish to argue with Your Eminence, but seeing with what obstinacy and disregard for reason you defend your convictions, I am forced to reply to your ill-founded letter.. .In the Seym, you say, voices now are heard which are harmful not only to the union, but the Roman Church as well. Whose fault is this?.. .You violated people's consciences, closed their churches so that they should perish without divine service and rite, like the heathen.. The King has ordered you to unseal and reopen the churches in Mogilev, of which I advise you hereby according to his order. Should you fail to carry this out, I shall myself, by order of the King, issue orders to have the churches returned to the Orthodox so that they may worship God according to their faith. The Jews and tlie Tartars are allowed to maintain their synagogues and mosques in the Grand Duchy, and you close down Christian churches!. . May the Almighty bless you with the spirit of humility and brotherly love.
Lev Sapyeha, March 12, 1622, "**
Even the letter of a man of such importance could not help. Persecutions went on and on. People were indignant and exasperated by the bishop's terrorist activities. Eventually it caused a revolt; the people killed the bishop, dragged his body through the streets of Vitebsk, and threw it into the river.
There were revolts in some of the towns, Polotsk, Smolensk and others, some of them headed by Orthodox Byelorussian princes, such as Gashtold, Michael Olelkovich of Slutsk, and Theodor Byelski. Those revolts were mercilessly suppressed and a number of the leaders and people taking part in them were executed.
As evidence of the Polish intolerance I would like to quote an extract from the book written by the English historian W.Morfill, M.A. (Reader in Slavonic Languages in the University of Oxford). In his book Prof. Moriill gave the following description of the persecutions:
"The Jesuits were very active during his reign (Sigismund III August R.O.), and many Socinians and other Dissidents met with cruel deaths, The Greek Church suffered much persecution, and the condition of its members is graphically described in the celebrated work, the `Lament of the Oriental Church,' by Meletius Smotritski, who was also the author of the first Slavonic grammar. The continued persecutions instigated by Koncewicz, the Bishop of Polotsk, led to a deplorable event, the murder of that prelate on the 12th July 1623. No revolt against the civil authorities followed on this tumult, but severe punishment was inflicted on the town by a commission presided over by the chancellor, Leo Sapyeha, who lad tried in vain to prevent the occurrence by representing to Koncewicz the danger of his proceedings...
Liberty of opinion in religious matters did not make much progress in Poland...
In the reign of John Sobieski (1689), a noble of Lithuania, Casimir Lyszczynski, had been cruelly put to death on a frivolous charge of blasphemy. He was sentenced to have his tongue cut out and then to be beheaded and burnt. This atrocious sentence was carried out in spite of the opposition of the king. Bishop Zaluski, whose letters furnish such valuable materials for the historical student, has recorded the execution with manifest satisfaction...
In 1731 the ambassador from Great Britain at the Polish Court presented a memorial to the king, enumerating various oppressions to which the Protestants were exposed in Poland, and concluding with a threat of retaliation on the Roman Catholics in Engand and the other Protestant States. But all the efforts were fruitless, and even increased the sufferings of the unfortunate Dissidents. But the day of reckoning was at hand. Like the French noblesse, on the eve of the Revolution, the infatuated Polish magnates did not see that they were digging the grave of their country.
In 1733 a law was passed by which the Dissidents were declared incapable of holding any office or enjoying any dignity.
The Dissidents began to betake themselves to Russia for assistance, which she seemed disposed to offer."*
These persecutions gave the princes of Muscovy, as they used to state, some right as defenders of the Orthodox Church to interfere in the internal affairs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and later on into Polish affairs as well.
THE EARLY CIVILIZATION AND LANGUAGE
The centers of Byelorussian culture from the tenth to the twelftii centuries were towns situated on "the road from the Varangians to the Greeks", the river route from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea by way of the Western Dvina and the Dnieper. This commercial waterway led not only to Byzantium but also beyond to the Middle East as far as Baghdad. The most important towns were Polotsk, Vitebsk, Smolensk, Orsha, Mogilev and, in the Ukraine - Kiev. The latter, due to the proximity of Byzantium, assimilated the advanced culture of that Empire and spread it among the Slavonic tribes. Alter the introduction of Christianity this process was continued by means of the clergy and the monasteries where education was concentrated and many ecclesiastical books were translated.
The Greeks learnt the art of writing from the Jews who in their turn had learnt it from Phoenicians. The Slav alphabet was derived from the Greek alphabet as can be proved by the order of the letters. The Jewish alphabet begins with the letter "a" (alev), then comes "b" (beyhs), "g" (gimul), «d" (dalhev) and so on. The Greek alphabet begins with the letters: "a" (alfa), followed by "b" (beta), "gamma", "delta" etc. The Slavonik alphabet has the same letter order. Naturally, in every alphabet there were some changes when additional letters were included to express sounds unknown in other languages; for language is always changing as some sounds die out and others come into use.
Historians tell us that the civilising mission of the Church in this area began in 863 when the Byzantine Emperor Michael III at the request of a Moravian prince, Rostislav, sent to Moravia a group of learned men.*
There is a true as well as a false account of the introduction of Christianity into Rus territory. The event dates from the middle of the ninth century. An exaggerated allusion is made to it by Photms, the patriarch oi Constantinople, in a letter addressed to the eastern bishops in 866. "The Ruses - he states - conquerors of the neighboring tribes who have had the audacity to attack the Roman empire, have abandoned their superstitions, and become our friends. We have sent them a bishop and a priest; and they show a real zeal for the Christian religion."†
The principal agents were Methodius and Cyril, two Greek monks, brothers, and natives of Thessalonica, descended from an illustrious senatorian family, men whose labours were abundant, and whose lives were pure. Cyril, the most distinguished, had m early life borne the name of Constantine, and obtained the surname of Philosopher from his progress in learning. Having visited Bulgaria, Moravia, and the adjoining districts on an evangelising mission, they penetrated into the dark regions further north, and translated the Scriptures and Liturgy into the Slavonic language. For this purpose they invented an alphabet, principally formed from the Greek capitals, and gave to each letter the name ol a word beginning with it. These characters are usually termed Cynllian, from one of the inventors; and the alphabet the Serbian or ancient Rus. About the year 880, Pope John VIII. addressed a letter to a Slavonic prince, in which he observes:— "We approve of the letters invented by the philosopher Constantine; and we order that the praises of Christ may be published in that language. It is not contrary to the faith to employ it in the public prayers of the church, and in reading the Holy Scriptures. He who made the three principal tongues, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, made the rest for his own glory."**
The First Old Rus Writings
The first Old Rus manuscripts: translations oi the gospel, the psalter, Greek scriptures, liturgies, prayers, and lives of saints started to appear after the conversion to Christianity of the Eastern Slavs. From Bulgaria there began to arrive not only monks but also priests and educated men connected with them who were supported by the princes. These men built monasteries and started to teach selected members of the local communities to read and write and so created something of a local educated class which was very restricted numerically.
By rewriting Old Rus manuscripts these local people gradually introduced some phonetic and grammar changes peculiar to their own language. The social and economic development of feudal Rus after the end of Mongolian conquests caused the decline of the Kievan Rus and the formation of three separate Slav nationalities: Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Moscovian (later called Great Russian), and three distinct languages.
Soon after the introduction of Christianity in Byelorussia, independent church-administrative centres (bishoprics) were formed, in 992 at Polotsk, in 1114 at Turov, and in 1137 at Smolensk.
Princess Pradslava-Eufrosinia of Polotsk, granddaughter of the Prince of Polotsk, Vseslav Charadzey, founded a monastery in that town in which, besides educational aims - there were rewritten and translated a number of books not only tor the Polotian Principality but for the neighbouring ones as well. St.Eufrosinia devoted all her life and energy to cultural and religious work, and visited with her sister and brother David, Jerusalem, Constantinople and other cultural centres.*
The second important cultural centre was Smolensk where the same kind of work was carried out by Klim Smolatitch who later (1147-1154) was a Metropolitan of Kiev, and at that period was the head of all Byelorussian bishoprics also. Princes Rostislav and Roman of Smolensk collected books, opened schools and invited scholars. Prince Rostislav founded at Smolensk an academy for a small number of privileged pupils.
In the chronicles of 1147 Klim Smolatitch is called "a great scholar and philosopher, and there was no equal to him in the Slav world." From his numerous works only one survived to our time: "THE letter to presbyter Thomas." In this we can see that there was a controversy between them because Smolatitch, in spite of Thomas's advice and reproach, in interpreting holy scriptures quoted Homer, Aristotle and Plato, instead of "the holy fathers of church", and Smolatitch was defending his right to choose the authors and arguments. The style, contents, tone and way of expressing his thoughts show that he was really a great scholar and philosophei.**
Contemporary witn Klim Smolatitch was another gifted writer, preacher and orator - Cyril of Turov. From his short biography we know that he was born in 1130 and died in 1182. He was the son of wealthy parents and had a good education at a monastery. As a young boy he was admitted to the monastery and later, at the request of the prince and inhabitants of Turov, was appointed as a bishop of that town. A chronicler describing him says: "he (Cyril) with his education and wisdom shone over Rus as the sun shines over darkness", and that «he wrote quite a lot of books."
His precepts make reading compulsory not only for the monks but for the craftsmen as well, i.e., those very people who elected him bishop; he also speaks about the calamities coming "from the people, or the prince." Another of his essays mentions certain `'doers labouring with hope," as well as a plough, furrows, etc. A set of precepts ascribed to Cyril censures men who fast but "bear malice and enslave the innocent." His discourse of the departure of the soul deals with merciless lords and the suicides of slaves, etc.***
The most Important literary document of that period was "THE STORY OF THE EXPEDITION OF PRINCE IGOR" (Slovo o polku Igorevye). It was written about 1187 in the Old Rus language by an unknown author. It is a masterpiece of early literary work of Ruse's, but not of Russians. Moscow was the centre of a comparatively small principality and even the word "Russia" was at that time unknown.
With great patriotism the author of the "Story" praises the Prince ol Po]otsk, Vseslav Charadzey, the princes of Sevyersk, and the Grand Duke of Kiev, Svyatoslav. He describes not the Muscovy, but the Polotian, Severeniaji, and Kievan Rus, the independent principalities, whose princes were waging war against Polovtsy, headed by the Severenian Prince Igor. The battle was lost and few returned. The author started his prose-poem by quoting a legendary song-writer and ballad-singer Bayan, who inspired him to describe that disunity among ruling princes (as existed before this expedition) could be very dangerous and harmful for the people. The author quoted the Byzantine chronicles, Joseph Flavius, and some other contemporary Western writers, and described facts and people in such a vivid and masterly way that the poem lias not lost its artistic value up to the present day.
One of the ancient works of the same 12th century was the literary account entitled: "THE travels of p ri-or daniel TO the holy land" by pilgrim Daniel oi Chernigov, who in 1115 travelled to Jerusalem and described a number of legends and stories, all with religious backgrounds.
Byelorussian Cultural and Educational Activity in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
In spite of very unfavourable conditions in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Byelorussian element, as 1he most cultured and numerous, secured for itself a dominant position. "The official spoken and written language of the Grand Duchy during Yagailonian period was neither Lithuanian nor Polish, but White Ruthenian; the lower class only spoke Lithuanian in the northern part of the country."*
Documents, annals, chronicles, codes of law, religious and secular works and so on were written in Byelorussian. It was language of the Courts, and, according to the English historian Prof. W. R. Morfill, Byelorussians "formed the most civilised element of the strange Lithuanian principality."**
To enable the reader to form an idea of the life of Byelorussian nobleman in the sixteenth century, I will quote a very graphical description of the Court of Nicolaus Radzivill at Vilna by the English ambassador to Muscovy, Jerome Horsey. It will be observed that the orthography of Horsey is very capricious:
"When I came to Villna the chief citie in Littuania, I presented myself and letters pattents from the Quen, that declared my titells and what I was, unto the great duke viovode Ragaville [Radzivill], a prince of great ex-celencie, prowes and power, and religious protestant, gave me great respect and good enterteynment; told me, though I had nothinge to say to him from the Quen ol England, yet, he did so much honnor and admire her excelent vertus and graces, he would also hold me in the reputacion of her majesties ambassador; which was som pollacie that his subjects should thincke I was to negociate with him. Toke me with him to his church; heard devine service, sphalms, songs, a sermon and the sacraements ministered according to the reformed churches; whereat his brother cardinal, Ragavill, did murmur. His hightness did invite me to diner, honnored with 50 halberdeers thorow the cittie; placed gonners and his guard of 500 gentilmen to bring me to his pallace; himself accompanied with many yonge noblemen, receaved me upon the tarras; brought me into a very larg room where organes and singing was, a long tabell set with pallentins, lordes and ladies, himself under a cloth of estate. I was placed before him in the middest of the table; trompetts sound and kettell droms roared. The first service brought in ghesters and poets discourse merily, lowed instruments and safft plaied very musically; a set of dwarffes men and weomen finely atired came in with sweet harmeny still and mourrfull pieps and songs of art; Davids tymbrils and Arons swett soundinge bells, as the termed them. The vanetie made the tyme pleasinge and short. His hightnes drancke for the Majesty the angelicall Quen of England her health; illustrated her greatnes and graces. The great princes und la dyes every one their glass of sweet wines plaeged and I did the like for his health. Strainge portraturs, lyons, unicorns, spread-eagels, swans and other made of suger past, som wines and spicats in their bellies to draw at, and succets of all sorts cutt owt of their bellies to last of; every one with his sylver forcke. To tell of all the order and particuler services, and rarieties wear tedious; well-feasted, honnored, and much made of, I was conducted to my lodginge in manner as I was brought. Had my letters pattents, and a gentilman to conduct me thorow his countrye; with which I toke my leave. Some pastymes with lyons, bulls, and bares, straing to behold, I omytt to recite."*
The best contrast to all splendor and polish found at the Court of Prince Radzivill is offered to the reader by Lord Raby who gives us a picture of the Royal Courts of Swedish [Charles XIL] and Polish [Stanislaus Leszczynski] kings, some one hundred and fifty years laier:
"He wears a black crape cravat, but the cape of his coat, buttoned so close about it, that you cannot see wh