Boris and Gleb. Facts and metafacts

Print Yuri Pelevin

and He barks the wind blows. Boris asks Gleb in the face.

Joseph Brodsky

In Rus', like nowhere else, there are tenacious fictions that are taken for genuine historical facts. Either the climate here is favorable, or the soil is fertile, but the culture of metafact has firmly established itself in our fatherland. A metafact is not an event that actually happened, but a certain image of this event that has developed in the mass consciousness. Moreover, sometimes it doesn’t matter at all whether a certain incident happened in the past or not, but it is perceived by descendants as a genuine event, because it contains meanings that are relevant for the subsequent era. A rethought and reincarnated fact of reality becomes a metafact.

One of these fundamental metafacts underlying Russian society’s perception of its own history is the legend of Saints Boris and Gleb.

Three ancient Russian hagiographies are dedicated to Boris and Gleb: “The Legend and Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb” by an unknown author, “The Chronicle Tale” under the year 6523 (1015) in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and “Reading about Boris and Gleb”, written by Nestor. For all three ancient monuments, the historical vicissitudes that led to the death of the two princes are briefly as follows. After the death in 1015 of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who baptized Rus', power in Kyiv passed to his eldest son Svyatopolk, who reigned in Pinsk. He immediately gives the order to kill his half-brothers Boris and Gleb, which his minions carry out with the complete submission of the victims. Then, by order of Svyatopolk, the third half-brother, Svyatoslav, who reigned in the Drevlyansky land, was also killed. He tried to escape to Hungary, but the killers overtook him somewhere in the Carpathians. Another son of Vladimir, Yaroslav, nicknamed the Wise by his descendants, ruled in Novgorod. He, according to the hagiographers, for the sake of justice and retribution for the innocent death of his brothers, went to war against Svyatopolk. After a stubborn and long struggle, he overthrew the “treacherous prince” and finally seized the Kiev throne in 1019.

In hagiographic works, the features of the real Boris and Gleb turn into canonical faces. Church scribes persistently pursue the idea of ​​the martyrs’ conscious choice of a martyr’s fate. As befits true ascetics, both of them rejoice at the fate predetermined from above and are ready to accept the crown of martyrdom from the Lord. In the lives of a crescendo, “the motive of suffering with a particularly strong emphasis on the non-resistance of the victim sounds,” writes S. S. Averintsev. “The heroes of the Tale are princes who, with the help of a faithful squad, could easily fight off murderers, but choose to imitate Christ’s sacrifice” [1] .

The first saints glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church, Boris and Gleb, became heavenly helpers of the Russian princes, squads and the entire Russian army. The cult of princes played a significant role in the political history of Russia. The holy brothers miraculously appeared and defeated enemy troops in mortal combat both on Lake Peipus, and on the Kulikovo Field, and in many other battles.

Moreover, the holy princes did not win any military victories during their lifetime: their merit, as the ecclesia perceived it, was in meek humility. “The sheep of Christ are good, they did not resist when they were dragged to the slaughter, they did not shy away from violent death! That is why they reigned with Christ in eternal joy” [2] .

And the compilers of Borisoglebov’s hagiographic cycle constantly remembered Svyatopolk with the epithet “okanny,” which became his nickname. The prince entered Russian history as Svyatopolk the Accursed. He is “the damned”, “the second Cain”, “the devil’s prophet”, he has “an evil mouth” and an “evil voice”. The nameless author of the “Tale” gives a sharply negative description of Svyatopolk: “The third [son of Vladimir] is Svyatopolk, who planned this evil murder. His mother is Greek and was formerly a nun. Vladimir's brother Yaropolk, seduced by the beauty of her face, undressed her, took her as his wife, and conceived the accursed Svyatopolk from her. Vladimir, at that time a pagan ["filthy"] still, killed Yaropolk, taking possession of his pregnant ["non-idle"] wife. So she gave birth to this accursed Svyatopolk, the son of two fathers and brothers. That’s why Vladimir didn’t love him, because he didn’t come from him” [3] . The Christ-loving scribe emphasizes the sinfulness of Svyatopolk by birth, but is silent about his right to the Kiev heritage. The two eldest sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich - Vysheslav and Izyaslav - had died by this time. Svyatopolk remained the eldest not only in the family of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, but in the Rurik family, since his father Yaropolk was the eldest son of Svyatoslav, and Vladimir the youngest. According to the norms of princely law, Svyatopolk had every reason to take the Kiev throne legally. And here the first doubts creep in about the reliability of hagiographic texts. Why did Svyatopolk need a bloody reprisal against his half-brothers? After all, according to hagiographical sources, Vladimir’s other sons did not lay claim to the Kiev table, recognizing his seniority, did not threaten him in any way and were “kindly like sheep” [4] .

There is another circumstance in “The Tale” that causes bewilderment - Boris is killed twice. Men from Vyshgorod [5] were sent by Svyatopolk to the Alta River, where Boris camped after the death of his father. They surround the tent and through the curtains inflict wounds on the praying prince with spears and swords. “And without mercy, the holy and merciful body of the holy and blessed passion-bearer Boris of Christ was pierced” [6] .

However, after a detailed description of the death of Boris, the hagiographer immediately begins the story of the second murder of the prince. The killers wrapped his “god-blessed” body in a tent and took him to Vyshgorod, and when they were driving through the forest, Boris “began to venerate his holy head.” “And behold, Svyatopolk saw, sending two Varangians and a sword to the heart.” This text should obviously be understood as follows: the killers with Boris, who was still alive, stopped in the forest somewhere between Alta and Vyshgorod, a messenger was sent to Kiev to Svyatopolk, who, please note, did not entrust the execution of the work begun to the Vyshgorod squad, but sent Varangians. It was they who put an end to Boris “on the forest”. The author of the “Tale,” who, according to many researchers, wrote no earlier than 1072, i.e., approximately 60 years after the events described, in a confused story about the death of Boris, tried to link two different versions preserved in the oral tradition: one about the violent the death of Boris on Alta, and the other about the murder of the prince by the Varangians “on the forest”. Boris's body was brought secretly - "opened" - to Vyshgorod and buried near the Church of St. Basil.

In studying the realities of the most ancient Russian works about the martyred princes, an extremely significant problem arises: to what extent does Borisogleb’s hagiographic cycle correlate with genuine historical reality, and to what extent is it a metafact?

First of all, the contradiction between the hagiographers’ assurances of Yaroslav the Wise’s desire to glorify the holy names of his brothers and the fact that he in no way intended to do this in reality is alarming.

The creation of the cult of Boris and Gleb does not begin in the capital Kyiv, where Yaroslav eventually established himself, but in Vyshgorod, where Boris and later Gleb were secretly buried. And their veneration as saints was not associated either with the princely entourage, or even less with Yaroslav himself. When he came to power in Kiev in 1019, he was in no hurry to transfer the remains of his brothers to the family tomb - the Tithe Church of the Virgin Mary, where the remains of their father Vladimir Svyatoslavich and his wife Anna of Korsun, whom some researchers consider the mother of Boris and Gleb, already rested.

It was Yaroslav who established the Tithe Church as a place of family burial: in 1044, he transferred here the remains of his great-grandmother Princess Olga and his uncles, the sons of Svyatoslav - Yaropolk and Oleg, who died as pagans. To put them in a Christian church, he resorted to outright sacrilege: the corpses were baptized. However, Boris’s ashes will remain in Vyshgorod, and Gleb’s body, according to the “Tale” and Nestorov’s “Reading,” will lie unburied in the forest between two logs for several years, although rumors about miracles happening around him were widespread. During the four-year struggle with Svyatopolk, Yaroslav never bothered to search for the remains. But Gleb’s incorruptible body could become a powerful argument in the dispute over the succession. And when the remains of his brother were nevertheless found, Yaroslav ordered to place “the body of Saint Gleb near Boris” [7] , that is, in Vyshgorod. Although the act of burying the innocently murdered princes in the cathedral would have given Yaroslav greater authority and moral weight in the eyes of his contemporaries. This would be a public demonstration for the people of Kiev of his good intentions in the fight against the former “cursed” prince. And Yaroslav, a subtle and far-sighted politician, could not help but understand this.

Creature of Yaroslav, Metropolitan Hilarion, in his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” which, apparently, was read before the Kyiv prince himself, glorified the Christianization of Rus'. He praised her baptizer Vladimir and Yaroslav himself as a “God-loving” disseminator of the true faith [8] . But Hilarion does not mention Boris and Gleb in a single word, although in this context he could not help but speak about the holiness of the Russian passion-bearing princes, if by that time at least their narrow, princely veneration had already developed, and about the beneficent role of Yaroslav, if she was.

There is one more fact that speaks of the reluctance of Yaroslav and the metropolitan obedient to him to cultivate the memory of his brothers. The first, earliest miracle that happened at the graves of Boris and Gleb was the miracle of the Varangian. In “Tales of Miracles” it is mentioned that a certain Varangian by chance, “unbeknownst to him,” found himself “near the place where the body of the holy passion-bearer lay,” and fire burst out of the grave, scorching his legs [9] . Let us leave the fiction about the grave fire to the conscience of the hagiographer, but from this episode it is clear that the graves of the “maliciously murdered” were not well-groomed and respectfully marked, but remained neglected and completely forgotten. Why did “the lover of Christ Yaroslav,” contrary to his political interests, not strive to consolidate at least the simple human memory of his brothers, without even making, say, far-reaching plans for their subsequent canonization?

The church cult of Boris and Gleb developed in a roundabout way, bypassing the palace of Yaroslav the Wise and the metropolitan court. Worship of the princes-passion-bearers arose among the common people. At first, the spread of their veneration was the rumor about healings at their graves. Moreover, Gleb enjoyed great recognition, whose image with his purity and sacrificial virtue endeared him to the surrounding people. The late brothers were considered miraculous healers of diseases, but not at all patrons of the princes and their squads [10] . Only the subsequent princely generation took part in the formation of the cult of Boris and Gleb, but only after their local veneration had already taken place. In 1072, the children of Yaroslav the Wise transferred the coffins of their uncles Boris and Gleb to the new church in Vyshgorod, while, according to the chronicler, “the liturgy was celebrated” [11] , that is, the usual service of remembrance of the dead was performed, but not the church rite of glorification saints At an early stage, it must be assumed that the church leaders also did not participate in the development of the cult of the martyred princes. This is evidenced by the story of Metropolitan George, who was present in 1072 at the transfer of the remains of Boris and Gleb, but “did not firmly believe in them” [12] , and only the fragrance from Boris’s coffin convinced him.

National veneration of Boris and Gleb took shape towards the end of the 11th century, nearly forty years after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, when the day of memory of Boris - July 24 - began to be celebrated in Kievan Rus as an all-Russian church holiday, equated to the great twelve holidays. The chronicler under the year 1093 especially notes: “there is already a new holiday [13] of the Russian land.” And a hundred years after the tragic murders, in the chronicle entry under 1115, dedicated to the transfer of their relics to the new, third, Vyshgorod temple, the perception of the princes as “protectors of the Russian land” [14] with the subsequent expansion of their veneration as heavenly protectors has already matured from external enemies, patrons of princes and the Russian army. Boris and Gleb became the first in the chronological series of canonized Russian saints. However, it is important for us to note something else here: the formation of the cult of the martyred princes took place beyond the will of Yaroslav the Wise.

There are too many inconsistencies and overlaps, inconsistencies and contradictions in the hagiographic texts about the death of the princes and Yaroslav’s attitude towards them. Hagiographical works have been largely smoothed over and emasculated. They have long been questioned by many researchers. Meanwhile, foreign sources have reached us, with the help of which it is possible to get closer to reliable facts of the princely struggle for the Kiev inheritance.

The “Chronicle” of Thietmar of Merseburg, a German chronicler and relative of the emperors of the Saxon dynasty, has been preserved. He bishopriced in the lands on the border of German and West Slavic possessions, in the city of Merseburg. From 1012 until his death in 1018, Thietmar kept weather records of a diary nature. His Russian news is short and fragmentary. They relate mainly to the military actions of Poland against Rus', but they preserve echoes of the struggle of the sons of Vladimir.

According to information that is only in the Chronicle, Svyatopolk, who reigned in Pinsk, plotted against his father in alliance with his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav I the Brave (Svyatopolk was married to his youngest daughter). Vladimir found out about this and imprisoned himself, his wife and Bishop Reinburn of Kolobrzeg, who was involved in an attack on the throne, in solitary confinement. Thietmar testifies that after the death of Vladimir, Svyatopolk, leaving his wife in prison, fled to Poland, but by no means seized the Kiev throne, which was inherited by some other two sons of the deceased [15] . That is, Svyatopolk at that time did not act as a contender for the reign of Kiev and, therefore, was not involved in the murder of Boris, committed immediately after the death of Vladimir I. Then who is to blame for the death of the prince?

Icelandic legends, the Saga of Eymund, contain unique information about the feud between the sons of Vladimir over the Kiev inheritance. The saga was based on the memories of participants in Eymund’s Russian campaign. It was preserved as part of the “Saga of Saint Olaf” in a manuscript of the second half of the 14th century [16] .

The Norwegian king Eymund, having lost his family estate in Norway through the machinations of King Olaf the Saint, arrived in Novgorod and entered the service of the Russian prince Yarisleif, married to Ingigerda, daughter of the Swedish king Olaf. Eymund led a mercenary detachment of Varangians and took an active part in the war between Yarisleif and his brother Prince Burislav. According to the saga, after the death of King Valdamar (Vladimir Svyatoslavich), power in Gardarik (the Scandinavian name for Rus') passed to his two sons - Burislav, who received most of the possessions with Kenugard (Kiev-city), and Yarisleif went to Golmgard (Novgorod). A war began between the brothers.

Eymund, having obtained half-consent from Yarisleif to kill his brother Burislav, developed a cunning plan. He and his people had previously bent a tree to the ground at Burislav’s site. And at night they tied the prince’s tent to the bent top. When they released the tree, it threw the tent up. The Varangians kill Burislav, who was taken by surprise, as well as “many others.” As proof of his feat, Eymund brings Yarisleif his brother's severed head. Seeing her, he blushed and ordered Eymund to return to the forest and bury Burislav. At the site of the parking lot, the Varangians did not meet anyone, since the warriors “dispersed in disagreement” and found the murdered prince. “They dressed him and put his head to his body and took him home. Many people knew about his burial. All the people in the country went under the hand of Yarisleif” [17] .

Researchers have no shadow of a doubt that Yarisleif in the “Saga of Eymund” is Yaroslav: he really ruled in Novgorod, was married to Ingigerd (Irina) and constantly hired Norman squads. But who is Burislav, the son of Valdamar, from whom he inherited the rule of Kiev?

Attempts were made to identify Burislav with the Polish king Boleslav I the Brave based on the consonance of names. But he, of course, was not the son of Vladimir I, did not receive the Kyiv throne from him, and died a natural death in Poland. Other researchers believed that Svyatopolk the Accursed was hiding under Burislav. However, their names sound completely different, and Svyatopolk was by no means killed in the princely feud: he, in fact, having fled from Kyiv, disappeared “between the Czechs and the Lyakhs,” that is, unknown where.

Burislav is a Scandinavian copy of the Slavic name “Boris”, and only he is the only one who corresponds to all the historical realities attributed to Burislav in the saga. Consequently, Yaroslav, and not Svyatopolk, will have to be recognized as the murderer of Boris.

Experts in Scandinavian sources are unanimous that the sagas are the most valuable material on the ancient history of Rus'. However, in “The Saga of Eymund”, domestic historians refuse to see a description of genuine events, finding only general situational and formulaic stereotypes characteristic of the Scandinavian epic [18] . True, in a work devoted to the Varangian king Eymund, T. N. Jackson, an authoritative expert on Scandinavian sources, admits that “when discussing the issue of the reliability of the sagas, one should discard the messages of the sagas, constructed taking into account etiquette requirements. <...> Behind the stereotypical shell it is necessary to look for traces of reliable information, which can be seen in the very fact of the existence of a stereotype and in deviations from the stereotypical formula" [19] . And then, through the traditional forms of the Scandinavian epic, the real background of historical events emerges. We will have to separate the wheat from the chaff: compare the messages in the “Eymund Saga” with ancient Russian sources.

The saga says that before the start of the princely fratricides, “Burislav held Kenungard, and this is the best principality in all of Gardarik” [20] . That is, Burislav (Boris) ruled in Kyiv. There is no trace of etiquette fiction here. According to Russian sources, it was Boris who could very realistically take the Kiev table after the death of his father. He was loved “by his father more than anyone else”; he led his father’s squad in a campaign against the Pechenegs. In fact, Boris was a co-ruler of his father, the Prince of Kyiv. S. M. Solovyov wrote with full confidence that Vladimir “had the intention of transferring to him the senior table of Kiev” [21] . Perhaps his “designation” even took place - he was declared heir to the grand ducal throne during Vladimir’s lifetime [22] . And the Eymund Saga can be trusted in this message. Thus, Boris is by no means a meek and harmless victim, as he is portrayed in hagiography, but a real contender for the reign of Kiev [23] . Moreover, the political situation was developing very favorably for him: the legal heir to the throne, Svyatopolk, according to Thietmar, fled to Poland after the death of Vladimir.

However, Boris did not have large military forces behind him: he could not count on the militia of the Kyivans, since they did not like him. (In the “Tver Collection” - a Tver chronicle compiled around 1534 - confirmation of this was preserved. After the death of Boris, “they brought [his body] to the Dnieper, put it in a boat, and sailed with it near Kiev; the kiyans did not receive him, but kick you away” [24] .) Perhaps Boris, due to the reluctance of the Kievites, did not dare to enter Kiev, as his father’s squad advised him, and he stood on Alta, a day’s march from the city.

Yaroslav by this time was ready for military action. While Vladimir was still alive in 1014, he refused to pay him the due tribute and recruited a large Varangian squad for the war with his father. After his death, Yaroslav, eager for power, inevitably had to clash with Boris. Moreover, it was necessary to eliminate his brother as soon as possible, using a favorable moment - the flight of Svyatopolk. Then he had a real chance to seize power in Kyiv. The easiest way to reach Boris from Novgorod was with the help of Varangian hired killers.

Even N.N. Ilyin, who devoted an entire monograph to the chronicle story of the death of Boris and Gleb, traced in detail the similarities in the circumstances of the murder of Burislav in the saga with a number of details of the Alta legend in the hagiographic cycle. After careful and detailed comparisons, the researcher came to the conclusion that “a comparative analysis of the situation of the murder of Boris on Alta and the killing of Burislav by Eymund’s Varangians reveals the coincidence of the most characteristic details and suggests that the “Tale” and the saga describe the same event” [25] . The “Tale,” which talks about the two deaths of Boris, combines two oral variations of one event: one found its place in Rus', the other in Scandinavia. For us, it follows from this that Boris’s killers were sent by Yarisleif-Yaroslav, and not by Svyatopolk. And the real culprit in Boris’s death is Yaroslav Vladimirovich.

Only this can explain the fact that Yaroslav did not want to preserve the memory of his dead brothers. Too many in Kyiv knew who Boris's real killer was. The ashes of the “innocently murdered” in the cathedral would have been a constant and inexorable reproach to Yaroslav [26] . And even more so, the new Kiev prince was not interested in the cult of Boris and Gleb that was being created.

To the question: “Was Yaroslav, in principle, capable of killing his brother?” - you must answer in the affirmative: yes, he is capable. Yaroslav, a man of his time, was inclined to resolve political conflicts by violent means, not shying away from deceit. When he recruited a large Varangian squad for the war with his father, the Normans began “violence against married wives,” while the Novgorodians killed the perpetrators at night. Then Yaroslav lured “a thousand glorious men” by cunning and ordered them to be killed. But, having received news from Kiev about the death of his father, Yaroslav, a subtle politician, managed to make peace with the Novgorodians and set out on a campaign for the Kiev heritage at the head of the Novgorod militia and the Varangian squad [27] .

It is known how Yaroslav brutally dealt with his brother Sudislav, the youngest son of Vladimir. In 1036, after the death of Mstislav the Brave, besides Yaroslav, only one brother Sudislav remained alive - a potential contender for the reign of Kiev. Yaroslav imprisoned him “in a hole, slandered him.” The prisoner was released from prison by the sons of Yaroslav only in 1059, five years after the death of their father. These actions are difficult to reconcile with the hagiographic image of the “brotherly-loving prince.” Moreover, the unfortunate Sudislav did not pose any real threat to the powerful Kyiv ruler and did not play any role in the political vicissitudes of the princely enmity.

Yaroslav was a resourceful and far-sighted politician, but an unlucky military leader. In 1016, his troops stood for three months until frosts on the banks of the Dnieper near Lyubech, not daring to start a battle with Svyatopolk’s army, which was on the other side. On the night when Svyatopolk “drank all night with his retinue” [28] , Yaroslav crossed the river and defeated the enemy. Svyatopolk had no choice but to flee to his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav I the Brave.

In 1018, Yaroslav completely lost the battle on the Bug to Boleslav and Svyatopolk, surrendered Kyiv, leaving his boyars and sisters in captivity. He fled with only “four men” to Novgorod, from where he was going to sail overseas to Scandinavia in order to save his life. But the Novgorodians “cut” his boats, convinced him to continue the fight for Kyiv and gave him money to raise a new Varangian army. But Svyatopolk at this time behaved shortsightedly. When Boleslav placed military garrisons in Russian cities for food, Svyatopolk shouted the cry: “If there are any Poles in the city, beat them up.” Under his leadership, the rebel people killed the foreign invaders and expelled Boleslav from Kiev, where Svyatopolk began to rule autocratically [29] . But at the same time, the prince lost reliable military support. As a result, a year later he was defeated by Yaroslav in the battle on the Alta River, fled abroad and died on the road.

Meanwhile, the name of Svyatopolk was not perceived by the “cursed” subsequent princely generation. In 1050, while Yaroslav was still alive, his son Izyaslav named his son, Yaroslav’s grandson, after Svyatopolk [30] . The ends of the traditional version don't meet! It turns out that the wise and fair Yaroslav waged a life-and-death struggle with the “cursed” prince, and his son names his heir after the insidious fratricide. But in honor of Saints Boris and Gleb, none of the princes was baptized during this period. Among the princes, obviously, they still remembered the true circumstances of the bloody civil strife, in which Svyatopolk’s role was by no means “Cain’s.” And the canonical legend about the humble passion-bearers Boris and Gleb has not yet crystallized. Only two generations after the death of Boris and Gleb at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, their names would be included in the princely name book.

Of course, the fact of Yaroslav’s murder of Boris cannot be proven with absolute factual accuracy; researchers do not have enough sources for this, and new ones are unlikely to appear. But, as in any political crime, investigators (and in our case, researchers) first of all ask the question: cui prodest? Who needed this “contract killing”? And it was beneficial, first of all, to the ambitious Yaroslav. The reign of Kiev could not have been given to him legally. He was inferior in family seniority to Svyatopolk and could not receive it under the will, since he was in a military conflict with his father. Yaroslav could reach the grand-ducal throne only by force. Too many facts speak about this.

As for the young Prince Gleb, his actions in the internecine strife were not as clear-cut as church authors tenderly portray them. V. Ya. Petrukhin quite rightly questioned the generally accepted fact that Gleb dutifully went to Kyiv at the call of Svyatopolk. The fact is that the prince set off from Murom on horseback, although it would have been easier to get to the capital city by river. But Gleb took the horse route “to the mouth of the Tom River” [31] . What explains such a strange path? Nestor in his “Readings” lets it slip that Gleb was killed on the way to the “midnight countries” [32] , as Scandinavia was called in Russia. That is, the prince from Murom headed to Smolensk in order to get to the Baltic along the Western Dvina [33] . Here he moved to the rook. On the Smyadyn River, where he was killed, a stone church was built in 1138 in the name of Boris and Gleb, and before that, apparently, there was a wooden one.

But Nestor in his “Readings” preserved another, striking testimony: Vladimir Svyatoslavich kept Gleb with him, since he was “young in body,” and after his death the young man fled from Kiev [34] . It turns out that Svyatopolk fled to the west along one road from the capital city, and Gleb along the other to the north. It is not so important how Gleb got to Smyadyn, the place of his death, but the important fact is that he fled, trying to elude the killers.

Gleb's escape to the Varangian countries is quite likely. In Sigtuna (on the site of which modern Stockholm stands) an ancient Russian princely seal of the first half of the 11th century was found with the name of David: in that era only one prince bore this Christian name - Gleb [35] . The close connection of the Varangians Rurikovich with their historical homeland continued until the middle of the 12th century. Vladimir Svyatoslavich once hid there, fleeing from his older brother Yaropolk. The Rurik princes constantly wooed brides from the Norman kings. Gleb probably received a warm welcome and safe shelter in Scandinavia.

Thus, the hagiographic version contains an obvious overlay: Gleb was in no hurry to surrender himself resignedly into the hands of the murderers, but fled for his life. And a chase was sent after him. The question remains open: from whom did the young prince flee? In any case, not from Svyatopolk. Then, perhaps, from Boris, who inherited the Kiev throne? Or, quite possibly, from Yaroslav, for why didn’t Gleb run the short road to Novgorod under the protection of the “brotherly-loving” Yaroslav, but instead took a roundabout route to the “midnight lands”. In any case, Gleb was by no means planning, as the compilers of the Lives are trying to convince us, to go to the slaughter “like a lamb, blameless and without forehead” [36] .

In the oldest church writings there is one curious detail: Gleb was killed not by the “cursed” people sent in pursuit of him, but by his personal cook “named Torchin” [37] , who “pulled out his knife and the meat of Saint Gleb” [38] . Consequently, the cook was in cahoots with the villains sent, and a conspiracy was drawn up against the prince in advance. Who compiled it? Svyatopolk must again be excluded from the list of initiators. He was in his father’s prison, and, of course, he had no time to prepare the murder of his young brother. Boris could not be the “customer”. For Gleba “to give up his soul in the hand of God, the month of September at 5 melons” [39] 1015. And Boris died at the hands of hired Varangians more than a month before this “July 24 melons” [40] . Therefore, of all the “Christ-loving” princes, the real figure who “thought” the death of Gleb could only be Yaroslav.

As for the other participants in the tragic feud, each of them considered himself a contender for the Kiev throne and saw potential rivals in his brothers. Sooner or later they had to come into conflict. At one time, Vladimir did this, seizing his father’s table with a sword and deceit. His heirs followed his example. And Boris, and Svyatopolk, and Yaroslav, and later Mstislav came together in a fierce battle for supreme power.

True, while some were filled with passion for “unique power,” others (Svyatoslav, Gleb) tried to evade and survive this fratricidal rivalry. But neither one nor the other, I repeat, was going to meekly hand over themselves “in the hands of their enemies” [41] and expose their heads to slaughter for the sake of the Christian feat of the passion-bearers.

There is no consensus among researchers about the time of the appearance of the Borisoglebov hagiographic cycle, but it can be confidently stated that its earliest dating dates back to the last quarter of the 11th century or is pushed back to the beginning of the 12th century. The compilers of hagiographic texts should not be accused of malicious distortion of facts. They themselves could no longer know what actually happened six or seven decades ago. They only recorded on parchment those metafacts that crystallized in the church tradition of venerating the martyred princes. At the same time, under the pen of hagiographers, the pious image of Yaroslav, a wise and just ruler, was established: “The Christ-loving Yaroslav,” writes Nestor touchingly, “reigned for many years in the orthodoxy” [42] . At the same time, from the last quarter of the 11th century, the political use of the holiness of Boris and Gleb began. Their cult becomes a powerful argument in the demand for “strict fulfillment of the feudal obligations of the younger princes in relation to the elders and the elders in relation to the younger” [43] . By this time, the patina of time had already covered the fact that it was not Yaroslav, but Svyatopolk who remained the eldest in the family and had every right to reign in Kiev. But by attributing malicious murders to him, the scribes were able to justify the seizure of the throne by Yaroslav as an act of just retribution.

The death of Boris and Gleb was interpreted by descendants as an exemplary Christian martyrdom, and the princes were canonized as passion-bearers. But the paradox is that they, in fact, did not die for their faith, but fell victim to political struggle.

It is remarkable that not all victims of this kind were awarded canonization. Those whose “metafactual” image helped strengthen the authority of state power became saints from the ruling dynasty, and those whose image could discredit it were completely forgotten. For a real character to become a hero in the history of metafacts, it was not enough to accept martyrdom. His image had to be consistent with the historical situation.

Boris and Gleb turned out to be very useful during the formation of the young Christian state. But then the Russian ecclesia, only in certain political conflicts, will perceive some rulers who died in palace intrigues as passion-bearers, while others will not. “Lucky” were Andrei Bogolyubsky and Dmitry Uglichsky. But his older brother Ivan Ivanovich, who became a victim of the unbridled anger of his father Ivan the Terrible, was “unlucky.” Another “maliciously murdered” tsar’s son, Alexei, tortured to death in the Peter and Paul Fortress on the orders of Peter I, was left without any attention at all from the Russian church, just like the infant Tsar Ivan Antonovich, who innocently spent his entire sinless life in dungeons and was killed by order of Catherine II in Shlisselburg. On the other hand, society demanded the canonization of Nicholas II, who during his lifetime could not serve as a role model either in matters of government or in matters of faith.

The truth of reality will always be outweighed by the mythology that is relevant at the moment. However, the myth of Saints Boris and Gleb miraculously does not lose its relevance. Reinterpreting real historical events associated with the death of Boris and Gleb and replacing them with metafacts that turned the princes into “non-resisters” is not accidental. The ideal images of Boris and Gleb, as they eventually took root in the national consciousness, contributed to the formation of the Russian Orthodox model of history and the attitude of the Orthodox Christian to the state, and set a model of behavior in the state hierarchy. A model built on a narrowly literalist reading of the words of the Apostle Paul: “...Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God” (Rom. 13:1). Through the works of ancient Russian scribes, the Russian people were prescribed public humility up to self-immolation for the sake of the triumph of the monarchical state...

---

[1] Averintsev S. The image of Jesus Christ in the Orthodox tradition // Jesus. Two thousand years of religion and culture. M.: Interbook Business, 2001. P. 127.

[2] The Tale of Bygone Years / Preparation of the text, translation, articles and comments by D. S. Likhachev. Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. Ed. second. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1996. P. 267.

[3] Tales of Boris and Glebe // Monumental literature of Ancient Russia. The beginning of Russian literature. XI - beginning of XII century. M.: Artist. lit., 1978. S. 279.

[4] Reading about Boris and Gleb // [Abramovich D.I.] Lives of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them. Pg., 1916. P. 12.

[5] Vyshgorod is a princely town 14 versts from Kiev.

[6] Tales of Boris and Gleb. P. 286.

[7] Reading about Boris and Gleb. P. 15.

[8] The “Word” appeared no earlier than 1037, when the gate church of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate, mentioned by Hilarion, was built, and no later than 1050, when Grand Duchess Irina, the wife of Yaroslav the Wise, died, whom the author speaks of as alive.

[9] Reading about Boris and Gleb. P. 16.

[10] Aleshkovsky M. Kh. Gleboborisov encolpions 1072-1150. // Old Russian art. Artistic culture of pre-Mongol Rus'. M., 1972. S. 113, 117-118; Lesyuchevsky V.I. The Vyshgorod cult of Boris and Gleb in monuments of art // Soviet Archeology. 1946.

T. 8. pp. 225-247.

[11] The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 78.

[12] Ibid. P. 78.

[13] It was no coincidence that the chronicler mentioned that the holiday was new, that is, it arose shortly after the time of chronicle recording.

[14] The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 128.

[15] Thietmar of Merseburg. Chronicle. M.: Russian Panorama, 2005. P. 163.

[16] Melnikova E. A. “The Saga of Eymund” about the service of the Scandinavians in the squad of Yaroslav the Wise // Eastern Europe in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Sat. articles. M., 1978. P. 291.

[17] The saga of Eymund // Rydzevskaya E. A. Ancient Russia and Scandinavia in the 9th-14th centuries: Materials and research. M., 1978. P. 100.

[18] Glazyrina G.V., Dzhakson T.N., Melnikova E.A. Was Yaroslav the killer of his brother? // Ancient Rus' in the light of foreign sources / Under. ed. E. A. Melnikova. M.: Logos, 1999. pp. 518-523.

[19] Jackson T.K. Scandinavian king in Russia (on the methodology for analyzing information from the Icelandic royal sagas) // Eastern Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Sat. articles. M., 1978. P. 288.

[20] The Saga of Eymund. P. 91.

[21] Soloviev S. M. Works in eighteen books. Book 1. M., 1988. P. 195.

[22] Nazarenko A.V. The order of succession to the throne in Russia in the 11th—12th centuries: Hereditary divisions and attempts at designation // Roman-Constantinople heritage in Russia: The idea of ​​power and political practice. M., 1995. S. 83-96; Petrukhin V. Ya. Ancient Rus': People. Prince. Religion // From the history of Russian culture. T. 1. M., 2000. P. 175.

[23] Poppe A. The fight for the succession to the Kiev throne after June 15, 1015 // Research on Eastern European history. 1995. Vol. 50. pp. 275-296.

[24] PSRL. T. 15. Stb. 128.

[25] Ilyin N. N. Chronicle article of 6523 and its sources (Experimental analysis). M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1957. S. 163.

[26] The people of Kiev did not like Yaroslav anyway and gave him the nickname “lame”. During the siege of Kyiv, he was seriously wounded in the leg and walked with a limp.

[27] The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 62.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid. P. 63.

[30] Novgorod First Chronicle, under 1050. P. 16.

[31] The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 472.

[32] Reading about Boris and Gleb. P. 11.

[33] Petrukhin V. Ya. Ancient Russia. P. 178. This was noted by N.N. Ilyin (Ilyin N.N. Chronicle article of 6523... P. 99).

[34] Reading about Boris and Gleb. pp. 10-11.

[35] Yanin V. L. Old Russian seals from excavations in Sigtuna // Eastern Europe in historical retrospect: To the 80th anniversary of V. T. Pashuto. M., 1999. P. 271.

[36] The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 60.

[37] Tales of Boris and Gleb. P. 294.

[38] Reading about Boris and Gleb. P. 13.

[39] Ibid. P. 13.

[40] Tales of Boris and Gleb. P. 288.

[41] Reading about Boris and Gleb. P. 11.

[42] Ibid. P. 21.

[43] Likhachev D.S. Some questions of the ideology of feudal lords in the literature of the 11th—13th centuries. // TODRL. 954. T. 10. P. 89.

Figurative Realism in Testimony Literature Direct Democracy in Ancient Greece: Cautionary Example or Historical Artifact?