• Froyanov I.Ya. Ancient Rus of the IX-XIII centuries. People's movements. Prince and evening power. [DJV-52.8M] Tutorial. Author: Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov. Scientific educational publication.
  (Moscow: Russian Publishing Center, 2012)
  Scan, OCR, processing, DJV format: ???, provided: Mikhail, 2014
• Brief table of contents:
  Opening word (7).
  Chapter first. Rus in the IX - early XI centuries. Tribal conflicts (11).
  Chapter Second. Novgorod events 1014-1016 (70).
  CHAPTER THREE. Folk unrest and Magi in Russia XI century (87).
  Chapter fourth. Political coup of 1068 in Kiev (135).
  Chapter Fifth. South Rus at the turn of the XI-XII centuries. "Rebeling and goal" 1113 in Kiev (158).
  Chapter Six. Kiev land in the middle of the XII century (216).
  Head seventh. Fighting in Novgorod of the first third of the XII century and events of 1136 (265).
  Head of the eighth. Socio-political struggle in Novgorod after the events of 1136 (294).
  Ninth chapter. Folk unrest 1209 and the relationship of Novgorod with Prince in Vsevolod Big nest (323).
  Chapter Tenth. Fighting in Novgorod after the events of 1209 (348).
  Chapter eleventh. Folk unrest 1227-1230 in Novgorod (392).
  Chapter twelve. People's movements in the Smolensk and Polotsk lands of the XII - early XIII centuries (419).
  Chapter thirteenth. "Mountainery" and "Kramols" in the Galician-Volyn Earth of the late XI-XII centuries (474).
  Chapter fourteenth. Rostov-Suzdal Land in the second half of the XII - early XIII centuries (516).
  Conclusion (633).
  List of adopted cuts (636).
  Applications
  Chronology (638).
  Subject sign (663).
  Geographical pointer (712).
  Name pointer (769).
  Pointer of the names of the saints, blessed princes and the pious rulers of Russia, the most served by the Fatherland and the Russian Church (974).

Abstract Publisher: The book of the famous Russian scientist, the historian Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov is devoted to the most ancient and poorly studied pages of Russian history. The author considers in detail the main events and problems of the main historical regions of Russia in the Epoch preceding the Mongolian invasion. On a rich historical material, he reveals the reasons that influenced the emergence of social and political struggle within the Russian society.
Giving great importance Community (Veneer) Hardwood of Political Life Ancient RussiaThe author offers a completely new look at the problem of princely gods, which were due to conflicts between community groups of different volosts. Special attention is paid to the problems of the formation of genuine Russian spirituality when moving a society from paganism to the Orthodox faith.
The book is equipped with annotated pointers, rare illustrations and cartographic material. It is addressed to students and teachers of humanitarian universities, as well as to all who love and know the domestic history.

Popov G.G. Discussions on the nature of socio-economic development medieval Rus In the domestic and foreign science of the twentieth century // Historical and economic research. 2005. No. 2. P. 33-47.

... the ideologicalness of the theme of the early Russian statehood both in the pre-revolutionary and in soviet periods, constantly interfered objective research medieval history Russia / Russia. One political forces wanted to see Russia with historically "ripe" for global transformations and great experiments. Another needed to prove its backwardness and "dense" to substantiate the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need for Russia by the pre-soldered West path of development. ..

Western historiography and its essays in the post-Soviet russian science

... American historians did not have an unequivocal opinion on the issue of existence and, of course, the time of the genesis of Russian feudalism. Most American authors in the interwar and post-war periods refused to recognize the presence of feudalism in medieval Russia. A number of more moderate in this issue American scientists recognized Russian feudalism with many major reservations. R. Kerner found the time of the beginning of the Russian feudalism in the middle of the XIII century, and its completion was taken to the Rube region of the XV-XVI centuries., Moting such a time frame in that it was at that historical gap in Russia that existed political fragmentation. Russian feudalism, as the feudalism of a special type, recognized V.Kircher. At the same time, Russia (except for Novgorod and a number of some Western territories), Kirchner did not recognize the part of Europe at all. With the concept of economic feudalism in medieval Russia, another famous American historian, M. Ren. However, the historical framework of Russian feudalism, in his opinion, is limited to the beginning of the XII-early XIII centuries. According to Renu, feudalism in Russia was destroyed by Mongolian conquest.

A special place in the western historiography theme of the Russian feudalism occupies J. Blum, which in the 1960s. Around the existence of institutes in the ancient Russia, very similar (as well as the whole nature of the development of ancient Russian society) to Western institutions. However, Blum did not speak out "for" nor "against" the Russian feudalism, recognizing the very concept of "feudalism" by an unsuccessful generation of Western historical science. Like Pavlov-Silvansky, Blum noted in ancient Russia the processes of the offensive of private land ownership for the community and consolidating the peasantry characteristic of the Latin West of the same period.

Vernadsky and S. Pushkarev - Bright representatives of the Eurasian School - categorically refused medieval Russia in the presence of feudalism. Eurasians had a significant impact on the formation of attitudes towards the problem of Russian feudalism in American historical science. As a result, their point of view was defeated, which was already reflected in the Russian historiography of the 1990s. And our decade. Some modern Russian researchers openly defend this particular American (Eurasian) position in the matter of feudalism in medieval Russia. ...

If we proceed from the vision of the problem of feudalism Western scientists, that this is primarily legal and political forms social device, then issues of technological development, the time of the appearance of one or another ethnos on the world historical arena, climatic and geographic conditions Development becomes secondary in the analysis of the genesis and the spread of feudalism in society. If we proceed from the Soviet interpretation of feudalism as a form of economic relations, the factors listed above are the factors of the historical process become much more serious in understanding the problem of Russian feudalism, but it is impossible to bind the level of development of agrotechnologies with feudalism. Some Western scientists do not associate feudalism even with the decomposition of the genus, considering the feudalism by the adequate structure of the Western European political structure of the Middle Ages generated by the decline of the Karoling Empire.

Slavs appeared in history later by the Germans. They later developed those institutions that were in the Middle Ages are characteristic of German peoples. But does this mean that we should deny the existence of feudalism in Russia? Of course no! After all, if we proceed from the logic that one or another ethnic group is more retaining, because it has been formed later than some other ethnic groups, then it will have to admit that Europeans should significantly give way to the level of socio-economic development to the Chinese or Indians.

... A major contribution to the study of the topic of Russian feudalism was made by German medieval historians. If in the USA interest in medieval Russia decreased noticeably by the 1980s., In Germany, he, on the contrary, increased. Like most American researchers and Russian scholars, German researchers oppose the Kiev Ruus of Moscow Russia in the aspect of the characteristics of socio-economic development.

In the theoretical system, W. Halbach, for example, ancient Russian boyars differ in its attachment to city centers. Boyar in Kievan Rus is not a hereditary rank, but acquired status. Accordingly, the boyars, in the understanding of Halbach, is a kind of military caste, who lives in its special laws and open to all those who want to enter it. According to Halbahu, the ancient Russian know was not interested in land possessions, but sought to service at Prince and within the city centers.

The same idea develops in his writings H. Rüss. He put forward the concept that Russian to know throughout the Dopeprovsk history of Russia was solid with the power of the monarch and did not have its own political benchmarks, that is, pronounced thesis interests. At the same time, the power of the monarch in the Russian state was strongly dependent, on Rüss, from nobility. The denying existence of feudalism in Russia as a whole, Rüss, however, does not consider the Russian path of development in the Middle Ages some special. It's just, in his opinion, in ancient Russia there was a conservation of barbaric institutions related to the organic nature of the organization serviced for a venue. These institutions were characteristic of the societies of the ancient Germans.

According to W. Halbahu and H. Ryus, nor about that feudalism, in the Western European scientific understanding of this term, in Kievan Russia can not be speech (as, in principle, in Moscow Rus). True, in Northeastern Russia, Halbach found a service organization for the period of the XIV-XV centuries. However, in general, halbach is solidized with R. Pipes, considering Russia of the Mongolian period as a system of patrimony states.

A brief overview made by us shows that feudalism in Kievan Rus was recognized only by the Soviet official historiography and a number of scientists in the West, the latter did it with great reservations and identified Russian feudalism in their theories of relatively brief historical frameworks. In addition to orthodoxian historians, no one clearly formulated the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of feudalism among the Slavic tribes and in the early stages of the development of Kievan Rus. Thanks to I.Ya. Froyanov, in Soviet historical science since the 1970s. It was rather about the very local and "germs" feudalism (even more proto-feudalism) in Kievan Rus, rather than on the existence of its developed forms in ancient Russian society.

Differences between the Russian and Western European Public Development

Our review shows that the time when the genesis of feudal relations occurred, most researchers belong to the specific period or even directly to the history of Moscow Rus. Thus, the XIII-XV centuries. - The most affected by many historians, the temporary framework clearly pronounced the beginning of Russian feudalism (or, in any case, signs of feudal relations). The table provides generalized characteristics of the differences in the Russian social device of the IX-XV centuries. from Western European. As can be seen, typical feudal institutions appear in Russia by about 800 years later than in Western Europe.

Memory of Vladimir Vasilyevich Maurodina

The study of the problems of historiography of Kievan Rus is an important branch of the classes of Soviet historians. Interest in these problems arose in science already in the first decades after the Great October. Then, not little work was written later, tracing the study of Kievan Rus in the Soviet historical literature. The survey in this area was crowned with the exit to the light of two monographic works prepared by the team of authors under the leadership of V.V. Maurodina. A natural question arises how appropriate after the appearance of these works is the publication of this book.

We believe that there are proper foundations for its printed. It is primarily necessary to emphasize that in the work offered to the work of the reader, the study of some of the most important issues of the history of Kievan Rus is not only Soviet, but also pre-revolutionary historians. This allows you to more clearly show the achievements of Soviet historical science.

Note further that we are not taken by all the plots of historiography of Kievan Rus, but only those that are essential for the knowledge of the social structure of Russia X-XII centuries. This kind of thematic restriction makes it possible to more fully disassemble the corresponding works of scientists, compared with today historiographic reviews.

It should also be said that since the publication of the monographic work that we mentioned, dedicated to the Soviet historiography of Kievan Rus, has passed more than ten years. In print during this time, a significant number of new studies deserving historiographic analysis were published.

And finally, another circumstance for which I would like to indicate. Speaking about the works of Soviet historians, especially the newest, we tried to draw attention to the controversial and unresolved issues of the ethnic, economic and social history of Kievan Rus, seeking to give your understanding of each of them. Therefore, this book should be considered a stage of research conducted by our history of ancient Russia and partially published.

Like the previously preceding our work, it is concluded in the essay form.

In the first essay, as if input, we are talking about the Soviet historiography of the Old Russian nationality, that is, the carrier of economic and social relations, whose historiography is the subject of further analysis.

In the second essay, the history of study by Soviet scientists of the ancient Russia economy: agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, crafts and trade. It also turns out the nature and degree of impact of the evolution of agricultural production on the development of social relations among eastern SlavsHow modern authors write about it, on the one hand, and as it seems to us - on the other; The problem of the occurrence of cities in Russia is raised, closely linked by researchers with the growth of productive forces and the formation of a class feudal society.

The third, fourth and fifth essay contains the historiography of Chelyadi, Haldops, Danikov and Smes. Appeal to these categories of the dependent population of ancient Russia is not accidental, it is due to the fact that these categories were the most significant and typical among other groups of non-free people and therefore the most indicative of the nature of the system of domination and subordination in the ancient Russian society. Since the problems of slavery, dannikov and the infancy are now caused by historians. Of great interest, I give rise to disputes in science, we seemed necessary to summarize the results of their discussion both in Soviet and in pre-revolutionary historiography, so that the results and prospects for solving these problems were clearly visible.

The sixth essay is final. It discusses the works of Soviet scientists belonging to the genesis of feudalism in Russia. According to his meaning, this essay is central in the book, which is understandable, because the genesis of feudalism is a key problem in the Soviet historical science about Kievan Rus.

At the end of the essays, we formulating your own opinion on this or that matter. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we emphasize that this is done by no means for the purpose of making copyrights some particular importance (they are only one of the possible options to read the ancient Russian history, no more), and in order to clearly identify the degree of their novelty and independence.

Finishing the preceding clarifications, the author recalls with the deep gratitude of his teacher Vladimir Vasilyevich Maurodine for its continued support, good advice and instructions. He is also very grateful to B.B. Piotrovsky, K.V. Chista, A.L. Shapiro, A.G. Mankov, Yu.G. Alekseevu, V.M. Paneyahu, A.N. Tsamutali for valuable comments expressed by them in the process of preparing the manuscript for printing.

L. Publishing House of the University of Leningrad. 1990. 328 p.

The development of problems of historiography of Kievan Rus has a large tradition in Soviet historical science. However, the newly published monograph Professor of the University of Leningrad, Doctor of Historical Sciences I. Ya. Froyanov occupies a special place. The author is limited by the analysis of only those historiographic plots, "which are essential for the knowledge of the social structure of Russia X-XII centuries." (p. 3 - 4).

Significant attention is paid to pre-revolutionary historiography. The author emphasizes that some ideas and conclusions of pre-revolutionary historians have not lost their scientific significance and to the present time (p. 137). Appeal to the pre-revolutionary historical thought allowed Froyanov rather reliefly to show the importance of studies of Soviet authors, fully and objective to reveal the process of the formation of the Soviet historiography of ancient Russia (p. 30 - 33, 213 - 231, etc.).

Essay "The genesis of feudalism in Russia in Soviet historiography" is key in the monograph. It is beneficial to stand out by the completeness of the material and the depth of understanding the raised problems. In the Soviet historiographic writings under the subject matter under consideration, it is relatively little referred to about the works of the 20s on the Old Russian feudalism. The focus is on the formation and development of the views of B. D. Grekov in the 30s, which, voluntarily or unwittingly, diminishes the merits of other historians. It remained not fully studied with this approach and complex process of the formation of Soviet historical science.

Froyanov's work largely eliminates gaps available here. Scrupulously analyzing the work of the 20s, it, on the one hand, shows their still strong dependence on the constructions of pre-revolutionary historiography, and on the other, notes new moments that appeared in studies of those years. In this regard, the assessments of the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, S. V. Yushkova, P. I. Lyashchenko, Yu. V. Gautier, G. E. Meerson, M. N. Tikhomirova et al. (P. 215 - 229 ). The author shows that "most researchers" already at that time "led to the thought of the feudalization of Russia" (p. 225), but still in the 20s "the idea of \u200b\u200bfeudalism in Kievan Russia did not affect well enough in the minds of scientists, not became generally accepted truth "(p. 229). Interesting and withdrawal Froyanov that ...