Иноческие имена на Руси
The paper discusses the origin of pragmatic writing in Early Rus’ and its relationship to the Church Slavonic tradition. The emergence of birchbark literacy in Novgorod at about 1030 is treated as a by-product of the spread of church education under the reign of Jaroslav the Wise. The intermingling of lay and ecclesiastic affairs in the life of Lyudin konec of Novgorod is shown to have produded the breeding ground for the proliferation of birchbark writing in this part of the city.
The article is dedicated to the elements of Byzantine influence in the Caucasian architectural monuments of 9th–10th c. Its greatest extent shows from the end of 9th c. Abkhazia and Alania, where a local version of the provincial (Pontic) Byzantine architecture was created. In Kakheti several groups of Byzantine master-builders participated in the 10th c. in construction of churches in Vachnadziani, Sanagire, Bodbe etc., and also brought here the tradition of brick architecture. In Klarjeti and Tao the Byzantine builders, who used opus mixtum technique, were involved in different way in the 950-960’s in the construction of the churches in Opiza, Doliskhana, Dört-Kilise, Sinkoti and Ezbeki. Finally, in Armenia Byzantine influence was manifested from the middle of 10th c. in the brick architecture of Vaspurakan.
Early polities are often called as tributary (from Latin tributum). It is a question of great importance but also of great difficulty which tributes (taxes) the Rus’ collected from the subjugated population in the 9-11th centuries. The oldest Rus’ian chronicle texts contain several references about an extraction of some taxes in favor of the Rus’, but these references are difficult to understand. The author interprets the chronicle reports with these references taking two approaches: 1) it is taken for granted that the chronicle preceding to “The Tale of Bygone Years” is preserved in the so-called Novgorod First Chronicle of Younger Redaction, and 2) the chronicle reports are compared with the evidence of non-Rus’ian origin (the treaties by Constantine Porphyrogentis, the Arabian geographers’ accounts from the 9-11th centuries etc.). The most important conclusions drawn by the author are: 1) the tribute rate matched to the “standards” common in Eastern Europe in the 9-11th centuries, and this was in fact a fur skin which corresponded in prize to 4-7 g silver, 2) the Rus’ian ruling class collected the tribute (dan’) during the yearly circuit around the subjugated territory, extracting also some naturalia for feeding as “gifts”; both the circuits and the naturalia were called as poliud’e, 3) the evidence on both the tribute rate and methods of extracting the tribute comes from different regions of Old Rus’ – from Novgorod to Kiev. This fact shows that the basic principles of tax system which the Rus’ applied to the subjugated territories were the same anywhere. These principles laid a foundation for the “tributary” dominance of the Rus’ in the 9-11th centuries.