Chaotic Representation of the Relationships between Princes in the Ancient Rus'
The review analyses the monograph by D. A. Borovkov “Relationships between princes in Rus' in the late X - in the first quarter of the XII century and their representation in the sources and historiography”. The work professes to contain general conclusions with respect to the research topic, which is a pivotal topic in the Russian historiography of the middle ages. The author aims at “reconsidering the question of the essence of the relationships between princes during the initial stage of their development with a view to determining the degree of correspondence between the “material of the sources” and any of the historiographical theories related to the field of research, if possible”. This is where the main drawback of the monograph lies. The historiographical theories the monograph refers to are not substantiated; contain numerous errors, gaps; often represent frequently confused phrases and conclusions. The historical part of the work looks better. The author sometimes boldly resolves minor issues relating to, for example, the questions about where and when a particular prince reigned. However, the author, more often relies on the opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov, trusting him a priori, or refers to the textual reconstructions of other researchers. Thus, the monograph presents a skillful compilation from historiographical conclusions by many researchers. The findings of Borovkov are the following. The relationships between princes in Rus' since the first division of principalities by Svyatoslav Igorevich in 970 are presented as the development of collective co-ownership where the members of the princely family, who had the right to participate in management, were equal. Only at the turn of the XI-XII centuries the doctrine of the priority of “the oldest brother”, which the sources was associated with the preceding period, was formulated in Pechersk monastery. However, the struggle of “younger” princes for their rights made the “votchinny” (patrimonial) principle of succession proclaimed as the official doctrine at the Council of Liubech in 1097 politically relevant during that period. The princes'aspirations to individual power was perceived negatively. It remains unclear to the reviewer where the author reconsiders the questions of the essence of the relationships between princes and why he arrives at the final conclusion, contradicting the whole work, that the relationships between princes in Rus' can be characterized as kinship.