The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139)
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2014 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут історії України НАН України
2014
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Ruthenica |
| Online Zugang: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191440 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) / M. Dimnik // Ruthenica. — 2014. — Т. 12. — С. 46-58. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-191440 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1914402023-07-01T18:17:30Z The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) Dimnik, M. 2014 Article The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) / M. Dimnik // Ruthenica. — 2014. — Т. 12. — С. 46-58. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. 1995-0276 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191440 en Ruthenica Інститут історії України НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Dimnik, M. |
| spellingShingle |
Dimnik, M. The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) Ruthenica |
| author_facet |
Dimnik, M. |
| author_sort |
Dimnik, M. |
| title |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) |
| title_short |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) |
| title_full |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) |
| title_fullStr |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) |
| title_sort |
monomashichi and mstislavichi rivalry for control of pereyaslavl’ during the reign of yaropolk vladimirovich in kiev (1132–1139) |
| publisher |
Інститут історії України НАН України |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191440 |
| citation_txt |
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139) / M. Dimnik // Ruthenica. — 2014. — Т. 12. — С. 46-58. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Ruthenica |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT dimnikm themonomashichiandmstislavichirivalryforcontrolofpereyaslavlduringthereignofyaropolkvladimirovichinkiev11321139 AT dimnikm monomashichiandmstislavichirivalryforcontrolofpereyaslavlduringthereignofyaropolkvladimirovichinkiev11321139 |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-16T15:38:13Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-16T15:38:13Z |
| _version_ |
1837818500203151360 |
| fulltext |
© Ruthenica XII (2014), 46–58
Martin Dimnik
The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry
for control of Pereyaslavl’ during the reign of Yaropolk
Vladimirovich in Kiev (1132–1139)
At unrecorded dates Yaroslav the Wise allocated patrimonies to all his sons: first he
gave Novgorod to his eldest son Il’ya but as he died soon after without an heir he
gave it to Vladimir, the next son in seniority1. Vladimir died in 1052 thus also
predeceasing his father2. Consequently, at the time of his death Yaroslav had five
surviving sons. The “Tale of Bygone Years” (Povest’ vremennykh let) reports that at
some unspecified date before his death he bequeathed domains to these sons
according to his so-called ‘testament’. Thus, to the eldest, Izyaslav, he gave Kiev and
Turov, to svyatoslav he gave Chernigov, to Vsevolod he gave Pereyaslavl’, to Igor’
he gave Vladimir in Volyn’, and to the youngest Vyacheslav he gave smolensk. The
chronicler adds that Yaroslav forbade his sons to trespass onto each other’s domains
or to evict one another3. That is, their domains were to be their patrimonies.
Yaroslav gave no explicit instructions concerning who Izyaslav’s successor would
be in Kiev. Nevertheless, the narrative account (skazanie) of ss Boris and Gleb gives
testimony in support of the view that Yaroslav designated his three eldest surviving
sons to succeed him to Kiev in rotation. According to the skazanie Yaroslav
left as heirs to his father [Vladimir] and recipients of his own throne [Kiev],
his sons Izyaslav, svyatoslav, and Vsevolod. And he organized them in a suitable
manner: [he appointed] the eldest Izyaslav to Kiev, svyatoslav to Chernigov, and
Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl’. The remaining [two sons] he sent to other domains4.
1 Novgorodskaya pervaya letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. by A. N. Nasonov (Moscow and
Leningrad, 1950), 161 (NPL).
2 NPL: 16.
3 “Lavrent’evskaya letopis’,” (Lav.) Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey (PsRL) 1, second edition
(Leningrad, 1926), column (col.) 161; compare (cf.) under the year (s.a.) 1055: “Ipat’evskaya letopis’,”
(Ipat.) PSRL 2, second edition (st. Petersburg, 1908), cols 150 and 151. Concerning Izyaslav’s domain
of Turov, see M. Dimnik, “The ‘Testament’ of Iaroslav ‘The Wise’: A Re-examination,” Canadian
Slavonic Papers 29, 4 (1987), 379, 383–384.
4 I ostavi v nasled’niky ottsa svoiego. i priim’niky prestola svoiego. siny svoia. iziaslava. sviatoslava. i
v’sevoloda. oupraviv im iako zhe be lepo. iziaslava kyieve stareishago. a sviatoslava ch’rnigove. a
v’sevoloda pereiaslavli. a proсhyia po inem volost’m. (Uspenskii sbornik XII–XIII vv., ed. by s.I. Kotkov
(Moscow, 1971), 62; Dimnik, “The ‘Testament’,” 376–378, 385).
47The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
To judge from the evidence that Yaroslav designated only the so-called
triumvirate, that is, his three eldest surviving sons to succeed him to Kiev, he
envisioned a peaceful order of succession. This is confirmed by his alleged
statement to Vsevolod:
If God grant that you [Vsevolod] succeed your brothers upon my throne justly
and without the exercise of violence, may you lie beside my tomb where I lie when
God takes you from this world, for I love you more than your brothers5.
According to this testimony Yaroslav’s two youngest sons, Igor’ and
Vyacheslav, were debarred from ruling Kiev.
These texts and later conduct of the princes also reveal, in our view, that the
brothers were expected to occupy Kiev according to genealogical seniority, that
is, according to the ladder, rota, or lateral system of succession. Thus, provided
that each brother lived until his turn came to rule after the death of his elder brother,
svyatoslav and after him Vsevolod would succeed Izyaslav. After Vsevolod’s
death, succession would pass to the next generation, that is, to Izyaslav’s sons. The
eldest Izyaslavich would be succeeded by his brothers according to genealogical
precedence. After they died they would be succeeded in a similar manner by the
svyatoslavichi and then by the Vsevolodovichi. After that, succession would pass
to the next generation of Izyaslavichi and so on. Any son of a prince who failed to
occupy Kiev was debarred, that is, he became an izgoi. This stricture served as a
control to limit the number of potential candidates: it identified possible successors
and pruned ineligible candidates from each dynasty. According to this system of
succession, if our interpretation is correct, one or two members in each family of
Yaroslavichi would be given the opportunity to rule the common patrimony of
Kiev in rotation. Yaroslav evidently hoped to obviate succession rivalries and to
secure peaceful transitions of power to Kiev6.
Thus we see that Vsevolod, who was the third in seniority among his brothers
at the time of Yaroslav’s death, was designated as one of the three successors to
Kiev and received the third most desirable domain, Pereyaslavl’. It lay to the east,
across the Dnepr from Kiev, and was an important principality because it was part
of the so-called kernel of Rus’ along with Kiev, Turov, and Chernigov. It was also
located on the important trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks. Vsevolod,
who ruled Pereyaslavl’ until his death in 1093, bequeathed it to his only surviving
son Vladimir Monomakh, and the latter in turn bequeathed it to his eldest son
Mstislav.
5 The English translation was taken from s.H. Cross and O.P. sherbowitz-Wetzor (trans. and ed.), The
Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text) (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), 174; see also Lav., col. 216;
Ipat., col. 207.
6 For variant interpretations of the ‘ladder’ or ‘rota’ system, see E. sokol, “Rota system”, The Modern
Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, vol. 31 (Academic International Press, 1983), 183–188;
and J. Martin, Medieval Russia 980–1584 (Cambridge, 2011, second edition), 30–31.
48 Martin Dimnik
***
Immediately after Mstislav’s death the Kievans invited his younger brother
Yaropolk to be their prince. He arrived on 17 April 1132 from Pereyaslavl’7. The
citizens evidently agreed to choose him as their prince just as they had been in
accord when they had invited his brother Mstislav and his father Vladimir
Monomakh. This evidence confirms that in a peaceful succession to Kiev, even
though presumably both Monomakh and Mstislav had designated Yaropolk as
Mstislav’s successor contrary to the rota system stipulated by Yaroslav the Wise,
he still needed to be officially invited by the townspeople. In Yaropolk’s case the
succession proceeded peacefully since he belonged to the Kievans’ preferred
dynasty. This smooth transition of power boded well for Yaropolk for fostering
friendly relations with the townspeople.
One of his first administrative duties was to appoint his successor to
Pereyaslavl’, the patrimonial domain of the Monomashichi. According to
genealogical seniority his younger brother Vyacheslav of Turov was the rightful
candidate. Yaropolk, however, ignored the traditional rota system of seniority and
summoned his nephew Vsevolod, Mstislav’s eldest son, to come from Novgorod
and rule Pereyaslavl’. We are told that he did this just as he had pledged to do to
Mstislav. The chronicler explains that this was in keeping with the agreement that
they had made in obedience to the directive of their father Monomakh who had
given Pereyaslavl’ to both Mstislav and Yaropolk8.
The chronicles do not give the text of Monomakh’s directive to Mstislav and
Yaropolk. They also fail to report when he gave that instruction. Nevertheless, we
may conjecture that he issued it after 1117, that is, after he summoned Mstislav
from Novgorod to occupy Belgorod an outpost of Kiev. unfortunately for the
historian, the chroniclers give only a vague description of Monomakh’s alleged
directive. This ambiguity raises a number of questions. Was Mstislav to retain
control of Belgorod after moving to Pereyaslavl’? Were the two brothers to be
co-rulers and live in Pereyaslavl’ at the same time, or were they to rule the town
separately one after the other? Was each brother to look upon the town as his
patrimonial domain? Why did Monomakh give the family’s patrimony to two sons
rather than just to one, namely, to Mstislav, his eldest son? Why did he choose
Yaropolk rather than another of Mstislav’s brothers to share ownership? Finally,
did he intend the town to become the stepping stone for its prince to Kiev? Let us
see if the chronicles and circumstan tial evidence give us answers to these
queries.
7 see s.a. 1133, Ipat., col. 294; s.a. 1132, Lav., col. 301. Concerning Yaropolk’s career, see also
O.M. Rapov, Knyazheskie vladeniya na Rusi v X-pervoy polovine XIII v. (Moscow, 1977), 141.
8 Lav., col. 301; cf. s.a. 1131, “Moskovskiy letopisniy svod kontsa XV veka,” (Mosk.) PSRL 25
(Moscow–Leningrad, 1949), 32.
49The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
What do the chronicles tell us for certain concerning Mstislav and Yaropolk’s
rule in Pereyaslavl’? First, they report that the two did not live in Pereyaslavl’ at
the same time. under 1125 a number of chronicles state that Yaropolk came to
Pereyaslavl’ after Mstislav left it to become prince of Kiev9. This reveals that
Yaropolk had not been living in the town with Mstislav and that they ruled it
separately one after the other and not as co-rulers. second, to judge from Yaropolk’s
appointment of his nephew Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl’, this suggests that the town
was to become the patrimony of Mstislav’s sons. Third, succession to Kiev is not
mentioned. Monomakh’s directive deals solely with rule in Pereyaslavl’.
Nevertheless, other historians have interpreted Monomakh’s directive differently.
According to them, before his death Monomakh made a ‘testament’ (ryad) in
imitation of the ‘testament’ that Yaroslav the Wise had made, and designated his
immediate successors to Kiev. In their opinion Monomakh instructed that he was to
be succeeded by Mstislav, who was to be succeeded by his brother Yaropolk, who
was to be succeeded by Mstislav’s eldest son Vsevolod. Monomakh and Mstislav’s
objective was to confirm on Mstislav’s descendants the sole right of ruling Kiev,
Pereyaslavl’, and Novgorod10. Given the discrepancy in the interpretations of
Monomakh’s directive, let us see if we can determine the correct reading of it.
To judge from chronicle information, Monomakh gave two sets of instructions
to his sons, the one concerning Pereyaslavl’ is referred to under the year 1132, and
the one concerning succession to Kiev is referred to under the year 1139. As already
noted, in the instruction reported under the year 1132, he ordered Yaropolk to give
Pereyaslavl’ to Mstislav’s son Vsevolod, evidently because he had given Pereyaslavl’
to Mstislav as his patrimony. He had not bequeathed a patrimony in Rus’ to Mstislav
during the twenty years that the latter was ruling Novgorod. Moving Mstislav to
Belgorod clearly had not been a permanent appointment since that town was an
outpost of Kiev and not important enough to become the principality of his eldest
son. Consequently, Mstislav was almost his only son who remained without a
patrimony after Monomakh removed him from Novgorod. He had already given
domains to most of his other older sons: Vyacheslav got Turov, Yury got suzdalia,
and Andrey got Vladimir in Volyn’. Monomakh therefore provided for his eldest son
by giving him the dynasty’s patrimonial domain of Pereyaslavl’.
Nevertheless, Yaropolk also had no patrimonial domain. Therefore Monomakh
designated him prince of Pereyaslavl’ along with Mstislav because Yaropolk had
no sons who would succeed him to the town. This meant that after Yaropolk
replaced Mstislav in Kiev, or died before Mstislav, Pereyaslavl’ would be occupied
by Mstislav’s sons of whom Vsevolod would be the first successor. In keeping with
9 Lav., col. 295; Mosk., 29.
10 A.E. Presnyakov, Knyazhoe pravo v drevney Rusi (st. Petersburg, 1909), 78–81; A.P. Tolochko, Knyaz’ v
Drevney Rusi: Vlast’, Sobstvennost’, Ideologiya (Kiev, 1992), 40–41; P.P. Tolochko, Drevnyaya Rus’,
Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoy istorii (Kiev, 1987), 112–113; V.A. Kuchkin, “Yury Dolgorukiy,” Voprosy
istorii, nr. 10 (1996), 38; A.V. Nazarenko, Drevnyaya Rus’ i Slavyane (Moscow, 2009), 99, and others.
50 Martin Dimnik
tradition, Mstislav’s sons would rule it one after the other observing the lateral
system succession. Accordingly, their uncles, Monomakh’s sons who were
younger than Yaropolk, were debarred from ruling Pereyaslavl’. As already noted,
the 1132 chronicle entry concerning Monomakh’s instruction makes no reference
to Kiev. The main purpose of that directive issued by Monomakh seemed to be to
ensure that Pereyaslavl’ would become the patrimony of the Mstislavichi.
under the year 1139 Yaropolk’s younger brother Vyacheslav would refer to
another instruction that Monomakh had allegedly given to his sons at an earlier
date. It defined his order of succession to Kiev for them. In that year, when Oleg’s
son Vsevolod usurped Kiev from Monomakh’s son Vyacheslav, the latter defended
his occupation of Kiev with the following unique message that he sent to Vsevolod
via Metropolitan Mikhail:
Brother, I have come here [i.e. to Kiev] after my brothers Mstislav and Yaro-
polk according to the testament of our fathers. But if you covet this throne and
wish to abandon your patrimony, then, brother, I am younger than you so let it be
yours. Withdraw to Vyshgorod for the time being and I shall return to my former
domain, and Kiev shall be yours.
Vsevolod did as Vyacheslav requested and the latter returned to his domain of
Turov. On 5 March Metropolitan Mikhail installed Vsevolod as prince of Kiev11.
significantly, Vsevolod could not occupy the town according to the traditional
axiom that he had the right to sit on the throne of his father because his father Oleg
had never ruled Kiev. He seized control of the capital through force with the
approval of the Kievans. usurpation was an accepted means of becoming prince
of Kiev provided that the townspeople welcomed the aggressor as their prince.
The reference to “our fathers” can be interpreted to mean Vyacheslav’s father
Monomakh and Vsevolod’s father Oleg. This is the only instance in the sources in
which the two princes are reported concluding this pact. Mosk., the only chronicle
that refers “to the testament of our fathers” is a late source with a pro-Monomashi-
chi bias. Its report of Vyacheslav’s reply is therefore suspect because it supports
the Monomashichi claim to Kiev. Nevertheless, there are reasons why it cannot be
interpreted to be pro-Monomashichi propaganda like other biased reporting made
by Muscovite publicists. Instead, we can look upon it as an objective and reliable
chronicle entry. Had the report been written by a publicist who wished to fortify
the claim of the Monomashichi to Kiev, he most likely would not have referred to
the authors of the testament with the ambiguous and passing reference to “our
fathers”. Rather, he would most likely have described the testament in some detail
and identified Vyacheslav’s father by name as Vladimir Monomakh in order to
obviate any doubt about the identity of the father in question. Moreover, the news
that Vyacheslav succeeded his brother Yaropolk shows that he acted according to
a predetermined order of genealogical succession that was different from the
11 Mosk., 34; s.a. 1140, Ipat., cols 302–303.
51The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
system envisioned by Yaroslav the Wise. This order was approved by his younger
brother Yury of suzdalia, a militant champion of the Monomashichi right to rule
Kiev according to genealogical seniority. It was also approved by the Kievans.
According to Vyacheslav’s declaration, Monomakh had made a deal with Oleg
that Monomakh’s sons would all rule Kiev according to genealogical seniority
beginning with Mstislav. In this way Monomakh attempted to ensure that his
descendants would become the sole ruling family of Kiev. At the time that he and
Oleg concluded their pact Monomakh had some seven living sons who were
eligible to succeed him. The svyatoslavichi, however, had only three princes.
These were Oleg and his two younger brothers who all belonged to an older
generation than Monomakh’s sons. This meant that a number of the younger and
more numerous Monomashichi would inevitably outlive the three svyatoslavichi
and become the ruling dynasty of Rus’. Monomakh expected each of his sons to
occupy Kiev from his own patrimonial domain and not from Pereyaslavl’, since
he had designated the latter to become the patrimony of the Mstislavichi.
Monomakh’s instruction to his sons concerning succession to Kiev as stated by
Vyacheslav therefore confirms that he did not designate Mstislav’s son Vsevolod
to succeed Yaropolk to Kiev but only to Pereyaslavl’.
Moreover, according to the arrangement Monomakh’s sons would succeed him
ahead of his genealogically eldest nephews, svyatopolk Izyaslavich’s sons, from the
senior-most family of the triumvirate. such a pact could not have been concluded by
Monomakh and Oleg while svyatopolk was ruling Kiev since he would have
inevitably objected to his sons being debarred from succession. Monomakh and Oleg
therefore would have formulated their agreement after svyatopolk’s death in 1113
and before Oleg’s death in 1115. As has already been suggested elsewhere,
Monomakh may have coerced Oleg into abjuring his rights and the rights of his
dynasty to ruling Kiev when he procrastinated in granting Oleg permission to
transfer the relics of ss Boris and Gleb into his church in Vyshgorod12.
***
On the very day that Vsevolod occupied Pereyaslavl’, we are told, his uncles Yury,
who was prince of suzdalia, and the younger Andrey, who had come from Vladi-
mir in Volyn’, drove him out13. They objected to his occupation of the town
because, they declared, “our brother Yaropolk, after his death, intends to give Kiev
12 M. Dimnik, “Oleg svyatoslavich and his Patronage of the Cult of ss Boris and Gleb,” Mediaeval
Studies, vol. 50 (Toronto, 1988), 361–367.
13 It has been suggested that Yury was able to act with such speed because he had positioned himself with
his troops in Gorodets Osterskiy to monitor developments (A. Yanovsky, Yury Dolgorukiy (Moscow,
1955), 70–71). Gorodets is located on the border between the lands of Pereyaslavl’ and Chernigov on
the Oster River a tributary of the Desna (A. N. Nasonov, ‘Russkaya zemlya’ i obrazovanie territorii
drevnerusskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1951), 246.
52 Martin Dimnik
to his nephew Vsevolod”14. It is difficult to know if this was merely an assumption
on their part or if it was truly Yaropolk’s intention in keeping with a directive given
by Monomakh. Nowhere do the chronicles explicitly state that either Monomakh,
or Mstislav, or Yaropolk intended Vsevolod to succeed Yaropolk to Kiev.
Nevertheless, Yury and Andrey’s declaration implies that Vsevolod’s succession
to Kiev would be a violation of the order of succession originally stipulated by
Monomakh, namely, a violation of the traditional order of lateral succession to be
followed by Monomakh’s sons. Thus, if at a later date Monomakh had changed his
mind and decreed that the Mstislavichi would succeed Yaropolk to Kiev, then his sons
and the Mstislavichi both had Monomakh’s decrees to support their claims to Kiev.
Eight days after Yury occupied Pereyaslavl’ Yaropolk drove him out in keeping,
we are told, with his promise to Mstislav. Yaropolk then summoned Vsevolod’s
younger brother Izyaslav from Polotsk to come and rule Pereyaslavl’. Meanwhile, the
two Monomashichi continued to object to having a Mstislavich ruling Pereyaslavl’.
Finally, Yaropolk gave in to the two malcontents and appointed their older brother
Vyacheslav of Turov to Pereyaslavl’. To Izyaslav he gave Turov, Pinsk, and instead of
reappointing him to Polotsk he also gave Izyaslav the lesser town of Minsk in the
Polotsk lands15. Meanwhile Vsevolod who had returned to Novgorod encountered
fierce opposition in that town. Before answering Yaro polk’s summons to go south to
rule Pereyaslavl’ he had pledged to the Novgoro dians that he would die as their prince.
since he broke his oath by going to Pereyaslavl’ the Novgorodians evicted him16.
Thus we see that Yaropolk inadvertently initiated the first internal rivalry in the
House of Monomakh, one that was to become a prolonged dispute between his
brothers and nephews. significantly, his own rule in Kiev was secure. All his
brothers and nephews acknowledged him to be the senior prince of the dynasty
and the rightful successor to Kiev. The disputes raged over the appointments that
he made to the dynasty’s patrimonial domain. unfortunately for him, by obeying
the alleged wishes of his father Monomakh, and by honoring the oath that he had
made to his brother Mstislav, he violated the traditional order of genealogical
succession to Pereyaslavl’. According to the latter, his brother Vyacheslav, who
was next in seniority in the family after him, should have occupied its patrimonial
domain. To judge from Yury and Andrey’s accusation they believed that, in
keeping with the lateral system of succession, the prince of Pereyaslavl’ should be
one of Monomakh’s sons, and should become the next prince of Kiev. In their
view, under Yaropolk’s arrangement Pereyaslavl’ would serve as the stepping stone
to Kiev for the Mstislavichi. Accordingly, the genealogically senior Monomashi-
chi, namely Vyacheslav, Yury, and Andrey, would be denied rule in Kiev. Thus we
see that by designating Pereyaslavl’ as Mstislav’s patrimony and therewith
14 NPL, 22, 207.
15 Lav., cols 301–302; s.a. 1131, Mosk., 32.
16 NPL: 22–23, 207; “Tverskaya letopis’,” PSRL 15 (st. Petersburg, 1863), cols. 197–198.
53The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
breaking the tradition that gave each son the right to sit on the throne of his father,
Monomakh was indirectly responsible for the first internal conflict among his sons.
Yury and Andrey ultimately got their way by forcing Yaropolk to break his oath to
Mstislav and to hand over Pereyaslavl’ to their elder brother Vyacheslav. In their view
he was the rightful successor to Pereyaslavl’ and, after Yaropolk’s death, to Kiev.
The Mstislavichi lost ground at the end of this first round of squabbling. The
two eldest brothers, Vsevolod and Izyaslav, had failed to secure their hold on
Pereyaslavl’. Moreover, by occupying the family patrimony Vsevolod had incur-
red the displeasure of the Novgorodians; they evicted him and thus deprived him
of his northern domain. In like manner, after Izyaslav abandoned Polotsk the
townspeople there were displeased with his departure and drove out the
Mstislavichi from their lands. Nevertheless, as noted above, after Yaropolk
removed Izyaslav from Pereyaslavl’ he compensated him by giving him
Vyacheslav’s Turov domains. Following their failure to occupy Pereyaslavl’ and
following their evictions from their former domains, there can be little doubt that
the two Mstislavichi were frustrated with Yaropolk. He had failed to fulfill the
promise that he had made to their father that he would ensure their succession to
Pereyaslavl’. Thus, even though Yaropolk had appeased the three Monomashichi,
and even though the chronicler claimed that by the end of the year 1132 Yaropolk
had established peace in his dynasty, there can be no doubt that there was
simmering discontent among the Mstislavichi.
Moreover, during the following year Yaropolk faced a new problem: Vyache-
slav proved to be uncooperative. He was unhappy with his lot in Pereyaslavl’ and
wished to return to Turov. Even though he was next in precedence after Yaropolk,
and thus next in line to rule Kiev, he was not politically ambitious. He had been
forced to occupy Pereyaslavl’ against his will because his younger brothers, Yury
and Andrey, insisted that all of Monomakh’s sons exercise their right of succession
to Pereyaslavl’ and to Kiev. Vyacheslav attempted to flee to Turov but got only as
far north as Yury’s Gorodets Osterskiy. There Yaropolk intercepted him and forced
him to return to Pereyaslavl’17. After this failed attempt he allegedly took the
unexpected course of action of riding east to distant Ryazan’ where he seized
control of that town. If this information is reliable the chronicler does not explain
what Vyacheslav hoped to achieve with his action. In any case, it evidently failed
to serve his purpose so he returned to Pereyaslavl’. Yaropolk rebuked him for
behaving “like a Polovtsian” and ordered him to remain peacefully in Pereyaslavl’18.
17 Lav., col. 302; Mosk., 32. It has been suggested that Yaropolk gave Gorodets Osterskiy to Yury in 1132 after
evicting him from Pereyaslavl’ and giving it to Izyaslav Mstislavich (Kuchkin, “Yury Dolgorukiy,” 38).
18 “Patriarshaya ili Nikonovskaya letopis’,” (Nikon) PSRL 9 (st. Petersburg, 1862), 158; V.N. Tatish chev,
Istoriya Rossiyskaya, 7 vols. (Moscow – Leningrad, 1962–1968), 4, 189; 2, 145. Although Nikon is a
late chronicle and Tatishchev has to be used with caution, the two sources corroborate each others’
information. Moreover, since Tatishchev has the information in both redactions this suggests that it is
probably reliable.
54 Martin Dimnik
Vyacheslav refused to do as he was told and in the early part of 1134 he evicted
Izyaslav from Turov and occupied it19. Izyaslav was therefore forced to find a
temporary home in Minsk in the Polotsk lands. Vyacheslav’s disobedience created
two problems for Yaropolk: he had to find a prince for Pereyaslavl’ and he had to
find a suitable domain for his nephew Izyaslav. Of course, he could not reappoint
Izyaslav to Pereyaslavl’ owing to Yury and Andrey’s opposition.
In that year Yury finally persuaded Yaropolk to hand over Pereyaslavl’ to him,
according to the chronicler, in exchange for his Rostov-suzdal’ lands “but not all
of them”. It has been suggested that Yury did not relinquish control of his
patrimonial lands but gave Yaropolk the tribute from these lands in payment for
Pereyaslavl’20. When Izyaslav was informed that Yaropolk had given Pereyaslavl’
to a Monomashich and, what is more, to Yury who, he argued rightly, had no
immediate right to rule it, he was furious. He rode to Novgorod to seek help from
his brother Vsevolod who had been reinstated as the town’s prince. The Mstislavi-
chi — Vsevolod, Izyaslav, and svyatopolk — met in council and resolved to ask
for assistance from their brother-in-law Vsevolod Ol’govich of Chernigov who
had married their sister Maria. They evidently had little difficulty in persuading
him to declare war on their uncles. significantly, however, their main goal was not
to fight for the possession of Pereyaslavl’ but to seize a domain for Izyaslav. since
Yury was in Pereyaslavl’ they proposed to capture domains in his suzdalia. On
their march to Rostov, however, the Novgorodians who had joined them quarrelled
and abandoned the campaign. Their desertion forced the Mstislavichi to cancel
their attack. Vsevolod returned to Novgorod and Izyaslav withdrew to Novgorod’s
eastern outpost of Volok Lamskiy21. In the autumn, after word reached Izyaslav
that Yaropolk and the Monomashichi were planning a campaign against Vsevolod
in Chernigov, he rode to assist his brother-in-law22.
In the autumn of 1134 Yaropolk, Yury, and Andrey marched against Chernigov
but refrained from attacking it because Vsevolod, who was waiting for the Polovtsy
to come to his aid, refused to come out of the town to do battle. The brothers therefore
withdrew without concluding peace. After the tribesmen arrived in the winter
Vsevolod, accompanied by other Ol’govichi and two Mstislavichi, Izyaslav and
svyatopolk, pillaged Yury’s lands of Pereyaslavl’. The chronicler reports that neither
Yaropolk nor Vsevolod could cross the Dnepr River so they withdrew. Although the
princes concluded an uneasy peace Vsevolod repeated his demands to Yaropolk
insisting that the latter return to him the lands that his father Oleg had owned during
19 Lav., col. 302; Ipat., col. 295; N. G. Berezhkov, Khronologiya russkogo letopisaniya (Moscow, 1963), 50.
20 Kuchkin, “Yury Dolgorukiy,” 38–39; it has been suggested that two years later, in 1136, Yury ceased
paying this tribute to Yaropolk, see A. Karpov, Yury Dolgorukiy (Moscow, 2006), 70–71.
21 Volok Lam’skiy (Volokolamsk), one of Novgorod’s vassal towns, was located on the river Lama on the
borders between the Novgorod, suzdal’, and smolensk lands. Concerning the importance of Volok
Lam’skiy, see A. A. Zimin, “Novgorod i Volokolamsk v XI–XV vekakh,” Novgorodskiy istoricheskiy
sbornik 10 (Novgorod, 1961), 99–101.
22 Lav., cols 302–303; Mosk., 32; s.a. 1134: NPL: 23, 208; Berezhkov, Khronologiya, 50.
55The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
Monomakh’s reign. If Yaropolk refused Vsevolod threatened to go to war. Later in
the winter, however, Yaropolk and Yury positioned their troops in front of Chernigov
threatening to attack. Once again the princes had recourse to negotiation and on this
occasion their deliberations were successful. The two princes were seemingly
making only token gestures of war and preferred to negotiate peace settlements. This
is not surprising since it was not their war. Yaropolk was helping his brothers and
Vsevolod was helping his brothers-in-law in their disputes. Finally, Yaropolk and
Vsevolod concluded a satisfactory agreement and Yaropolk re-allocated domains
seemingly to everyone’s satisfaction. He gave Pereyaslavl’ to his youngest brother
Andrey and to his nephew Izyaslav he gave Andrey’s town of Vladimir in Volyn’.
Yury withdrew to his lands in Rostov-suzdal’23.
The chronicles seemingly allude to the reason why Yury abandoned his claim
to the Monomashichi patrimonial domain without any reported protest. We are told
that before he arrived in the northeast his domains were attacked by Izyaslav’s
elder brother Vsevolod of Novgorod. Once again he attempted to capture towns in
the Rostov-suzdal’ region for Izyaslav. Commanding the forces from Novgorod,
Pskov, and Ladoga he clashed with Yury’s troops led by his eldest son Rostislav.
On 26 January 1135 Vsevolod’s troops were defeated24. The threat that the
Mstislavichi posed to Yury’s domain in the northeast may well have helped to
persuade him to hand over control of Pereyaslavl’ to his youngest brother Andrey
so that he could return to his patrimonial domain and defend it25.
Thus we see that by the end of 1134 the dispute between Monomakh’s sons and
their nephews had escalated into an inter-dynastic war. Yaropolk as prince of Kiev
was unable to mediate successfully between the two camps each of which demanded
that he defend its rights. His job was made all the more challenging because, as
already noted, each camp had legitimate authority backing its claims. On the one
hand, the Monomashichi adhered to the age-old tradition according to which all of
Monomakh’s sons had the right to sit on the throne of their father and were thus
eligible to succeed him to Pereyaslavl’ in the order of genealogical seniority. On the
other hand, the Mstislavichi cited the authority of their grand father Monomakh and
their father Mstislav. The latter two, having recourse to the same authority vested in
their office as prince of Kiev that Yaroslav the Wise had exercised, changed the
traditional practice of lateral succession to Pereyaslavl’. Accordingly, Yaropolk
would be succeeded not by his eldest surviving brother but by Mstislav’s eldest
surviving son, Vsevolod. Yury and Andrey, however, saw a great danger in this
arrangement. since each son had the right to sit on the throne of his father, they
claimed that the Mstislavichi would use Pereyaslavl’ as a stepping stone to the throne
23 Ipat., cols. 295–297; Lav., col. 303; Mosk., 32.
24 see s.a. 1134, NPL: 23, 208; cf. s.a. 1135: Lav., col. 303; Mosk., 32; s.a. 1136, “L’vovskaya letopis’,”
PSRL 20 (st. Petersburg, 1910), 105–106.
25 see s.a. 1137, Ipat., col. 300.
56 Martin Dimnik
of Kiev which also had been occupied by their father. In this way they would debar
all of their uncles, Monomakh’s sons, from ruling Kiev. understandably, the
Monomashichi objected to the revised scheme and had recourse to force.
The outcome of the conflict was a compromise. Monomakh’s youngest son
Andrey was given Pereyaslavl’. Even though he was not the rightful Monomashi-
chi claimant to the town, the uncles were appeased in that they were able to keep
the dynasty’s patrimonial domain under their control and out of the hands of the
Mstislavichi. Izyaslav was also pacified on being given the important principality
of Vladimir in Volyn’26.
Although Yaropolk had placated his nephews by giving Izyaslav the principa-
lity of Vladimir in Volyn’, Vsevolod Ol’govich of Chernigov remained disgruntled
because Yaropolk refused to return to him the unidentified Ol’govichi lands. In
August of 1135, therefore, he waged war against the Monomashichi without the
Mstislavichi, solely on behalf of the Ol’govichi. He launched an unprecedented
attack on Andrey and his brothers Yaropolk, Vyacheslav and Yury. On 29 December,
after scoring a brilliant victory over the four brothers, he invaded the lands of the
prince of Kiev himself and threatened to lay siege to the Kievan outpost of
Vyshgorod. Even so, Yaropolk remained intransigent and refused to return the
domain that Vsevolod demanded. Finally, at the Lybed’ River, the threat of another
all-out war, the memory of his recent defeat at Vsevolod’s hands, and evidently
the intervention of the metropolitan to spare Christian lives prompted Yaropolk to
settle for peace. On 12 January 1136 he negotiated a pact with Vsevolod and finally
returned to him the domain in question27.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that the region in question was Kursk and the
Posem’e district which the Monomashichi would have annexed to the principality
of Pereyaslavl’. It was one of the few regions that changed hands periodically
between svyatoslav (d. 1076) and his heirs and Vsevolod (d. 1093) and his heirs.
According to a number of historians, Mstislav had been the last Monomashich to
seize control of Kursk. He probably took it from Vsevolod in 1127 as payment for
not challenging the latter’s usurpation of Chernigov28. Thus we see that during
Yaropolk’s rule in Kiev the Monomashichi and Mstislavichi lost control of the
principality of Polotsk after Izyaslav departed from it, and also of Kursk and the
26 As we have seen, according to the allocations Yaroslav the Wise made to his sons, Vladimir was ranked
after Pereyaslavl’ in importance.
27 see s.a. 1136: Ipat., cols. 297–300; Lav., cols 303–304; compare NPL: 23–24; 208–209. Berezhkov,
Khronologiya, 136–137.
28 A number of historians believe Mstislav took Kursk in 1127 (e.g. V.V. Mavrodin, "Ocherk istorii
drevney Rusi do mongol’skogo zavoevaniya," Istoriya kul’tury drevney Rusi, Domongol’skiy period:
1 (Moscow and Leningrad, 1948], 28; A. K. Zaytsev, “Chernigovskoe knyazhestvo,” Drevnerusskie
knyazhestva X–XIII vv., ed. by. L.G. Beskrovny (Moscow, 1975), 92, 94 and others). Cf. M. Pogodin
who states that Yaropolk took Kursk from the Ol’govichi (“Mezhdousobnyya voyny 1055–1240,”
Vremennik, book 2 (Moscow, 1849), 66). see also M. Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1054–1146
(Toronto, 1994), 335–336.
57The Monomashichi and Mstislavichi rivalry for control of Pereyaslavl’...
Posem’e region whose last reported Mstislavich ruler had also been Izyaslav.
Nevertheless, after Yaropolk and Vsevolod reached a settlement in 1136 Yaropolk
could sit back content with the knowledge that his brothers and nephews finally had
been placated even though at a high price. In pacifying them he had broken his oath
to his brother Mstislav with which he had promised to give Pereyaslavl’ to the eldest
Mstislavich. He was no doubt also relieved that he had appeased Vsevolod of
Chernigov and brought peace to the land with the return of the Ol’govichi domain,
even though at the cost of losing that region for the Monomashichi.
On 17 April 1138, after almost two years of rule, the Novgorodians deposed
Vsevolod’s brother svyatoslav and once again invited the dynasty of Monomakh
to send them a prince. Even before svyatoslav’s eviction from Novgorod, we are
told, Vsevolod began pillaging districts in Andrey’s principality of Pereyaslavl’.
After he was informed that his brother svyatoslav had been taken captive by
Rostislav Mstislavich’s men when he was fleeing south past smolensk, he
intensified his attacks. He declared an all-out war against Yaropolk and advanced
against Kiev. Nevertheless, he retreated to Chernigov after learning that Yaropolk
had marshalled an enormous army against him. When Yaropolk pursued Vsevolod
to Chernigov he capitulated in face of the overwhelming odds. The two therefore
concluded peace29. It is reasonable to assume that, as part of their agreement,
Yaropolk ordered his nephew Rostislav Mstislavich to release svyatoslav
Ol’govich and to send him to his brother in Chernigov.
The chroniclers do not explain why Vsevolod and the Polovtsy initiated forays
into the districts of Pereyaslavl’ even before svyatoslav was evicted from
Novgorod. The most likely reason for their pillaging was not because Vsevolod
had a personal grievance against Andrey, but because he wished to stop the
Monomashichi and Mstislavichi from imposing economic sanctions on Novgorod.
It appears that, by boycotting trade and by prohibiting merchants of Novgorod
from passing through their lands, Novgorod’s neighbouring Monomashichi
principalities were so successful in disrupting its commerce that the Novgorodians
were forced to expel svyatoslav. By evicting him they hoped to persuade Yaropolk
and his allies into lifting their embargoes.
svyatoslav’s capture near smolensk was an important coup for Yaropolk’s family
because it gave him bartering power with Vsevolod. His capture also gives us useful
information concerning Yaropolk and his nephews. since svyatoslav was taken captive
by men in the service of Yaropolk’s nephew Rostislav Mstislavich, this is testimony
that Rostislav was once again loyal to Yaropolk. That is, he had renounced his alliance
with Vsevolod Ol’govich that he and his brothers had made. Circumstantial evidence
shows that his brother Izyaslav, now the most senior Mstislavich, had also returned to
his uncle’s camp. This is confirmed by the news that his troops from Vladimir in Volyn’
were numbered among Yaropolk’s contingents that campaigned against Vsevolod.
29 Lav., cols 305–306; Mosk., 34; cf. Nikon. 9, 162–163. see also, s.a. 1139: Ipat., cols. 301–302.
58 Martin Dimnik
Indeed, we may take for granted that the Mstislavichi were never hostile to Yaropolk
who had assumed the role of their guardian after their father’s death. Rather, the
Mstislavichi had formed an alliance with Vsevolod Ol’govich against Yaropolk’s
brothers Yury and Andrey who refused to allow Yaropolk to give Pereyaslavl’ to one
of the Mstislavichi. It appears that, after Yaropolk gave the patrimonial domain to his
brother Andrey and appointed his nephew Izyaslav to Vladimir in Volyn’, the
Mstislavichi resigned themselves to not controlling Pereyaslavl’. Consequently, in
1138 Yaropolk finally ruled a united dynasty.
***
Yaropolk died in Kiev on 18 February 1139 and was buried in the Church of st
Andrew30. His main political problem had been the allocation of the patrimonial
domain of Pereyaslavl’. In the end he failed to fulfill the promise that he had made
to his brother Mstislav to give Pereyaslavl’ to the latter’s son Vsevolod.
Yaropolk was the first prince of Kiev and senior prince of the House of Monomakh
who had to deal with insubordination in his family. The younger Monomashichi had
remained submissive to the prince of Kiev for as long as their father Monomakh, and
their eldest brother Mstislav, were in power. One of the strongest unifying factors had
been the family tie that the sons had had with Monomakh and the brothers had had
with Mstislav. During Yaropolk’s reign that family harmony was shattered when his
brothers opposed him. Ironically, Yaropolk was not directly responsible for creating
the disunity. Rather, he was the catalyst who triggered it by attempting to implement
Monomakh’s alleged revised plan, endorsed by Mstislav, to make Mstislav’s heirs the
ruling family of the dynasty’s patrimonial domain of Pereyaslavl’. His brothers Yury
and Andrey challenged Yaropolk by rejecting his appointment of the Mstislavichi to
Pereyaslavl’, while Vyacheslav disobeyed Yaropolk by refusing to rule the town in the
name of the Monomashichi. These were the first instances of dynastic insubordination
to the senior prince in the House of Monomakh.
In his dealings with his brothers and nephews over the allocation of Pereyas lavl’
Yaropolk has been accused of being indecisive and too ready to resolve the problem
with compromises. 31 Thus, before his death, he appeased his brothers Yury and
Andrey by appointing the latter, the youngest living Monomashich, to the principality
of Pereyaslavl’. After failing to give Pereyaslavl’ to the Mstislavichi, he appeased
his eldest living nephew Izyaslav Mstislavich by giving him the town of Vladimir
in Volyn’; it would become his family’s patrimonial domain.
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval studies university of Toronto
30 see s.a. 1138: Lav., col. 306; s.a. 1139: Ipat., col. 302; Berezhkov, Khronologiya, 52.
31 see P.P. Tolochko, Drevnyaya Rus’, 112–116.
|