Образование Новгород-Северcкого княжества: постановка проблемы
The key goal of the chapter is to summaries the most promising ideas and approaches to to the social organization of the people named the Rus’ of the 9th – 10th centuries and to the history of the Rurikid polity created by one of such groups around Kiev in the 10th century. This Rurikid local polity appeared circa 900. It was not a long process of “maturing” of its political structure from deep antiquity, but it was a fast outburst, that required risky experiments from this Rus’ Kiev’s community. This community in Kiev underwent rapid identical and cultural transformations. The Rurikid polity on the Dnieper in the middle of 10th century was a compact polity with the center in Kiev, around which other fortified settlements of the Rus’ people have been grouped along the radius. This basic territory around Kiev was surrounded on almost all sides by the territories of subordinated Slavic communities. It was a typical chiefdom with two (later three) levels of political control and the leading kin (lineage) of the princes (“chiefs”) Rurikids in the head of it. All attempts to prove that this polity was a “state” were inspired only by wishful thinking of different recearches and by their attempts of retrospective projection of the realities of the 11th century on the previous 10th century.
In the chapter the history of Rus' is presented from the first mentions of the people "rus'" until the period of political desintegration of Kievan Rus' (9th. century - ca. 1150).
The article investigates the ways in which the celebration of the name day (imeniny) of Russian princes or their entourages was presented in the Russian chronicles. The custom of celebrating the name day was firmly rooted in the Russian princely environment. For a chronicle narrative, the very rootedness of this custom and the number of its associated actions plays an important role—it is this rootedness that makes stories told in the chronicles quite opaque to the modern reader. A prince’s Christian name and the day of his patron saint were considered to be important background knowledge for the audience of the medieval compiler. There were, apparently, clear ideas about appropriate behavior for prince or a person from his environment on his name day or on the eve of this day but, on the other hand, such assumptions explain why this kind of “normal” behavior rarely forms the subject of special reflection in the chronicles. It is not only a description of the celebration itself that might be very informative, whether it be a church service, a ceremonial feast with various relatives, or an exchange of gifts, but also the description of acts and deeds that were undertaken specifically on a prince’s name day. Therefore, particular attention is given here to stories about undue or inappropriate behavior on this special day. The paper deals with the function and nature of such episodes in the broader context of historiographical narrative.