The Prince and His Names in the 12th Century (A Philological Approach to Medieval Political History)

Die Welt der Slaven LX, 2015, 346-364.

THE PRINCE AND HIS NAMES IN THE 12TH CENTURY (A Philological Approach to Medieval Political History)∗

Dynastic life in medieval Europe was subject to a complex network of norms, rules, and prohibitions. Some of these were recorded in writing, although, as a rule, with a significant delay, when the rules themselves were about to fall out of use. Others, despite remaining unwritten, regu-lated many aspects of everyday dynastic life, which repeatedly confirmed their existence. This refers not only to ceremonial and dynastic etiquette, but also to a kind of family predestination compelling various dynasty members and their immediate circle to take on certain roles and behave in certain ways and not others.

One of the spheres regulated by such unwritten but very effective norms was that of name-giving. Based on evidence from various European royal courts between the 9th and early 13th centuries, we can identify a set of parameters according to which names could be given to members of the ruling family and establish which of these parameters were relevant to each dynasty. It is apparent that some of these parameters were linked to one another. These structural links are of interest in themselves, both for creating a comprehensive dynastic portrait, be it of the rulers of France, Hungary, Poland, Rus’ or Scandinavia, and for identifying certain legal relations with the help of proper nouns.

The following are perhaps the most significant and systemic para-meters, which determined all others: Could a new member of a dy-nasty receive the name of his living father or grandfather and Could dynastic names be widely used outside a dynasty? In the Middle Ages, newborns in all European ruling families were most likely to receive the names of their ancestors. The question is whether the names of living relatives could be used, or whether, based on vestigial ar-

∗ This work uses the results of the project “Eastern and Western Europe in the Mid-

dle Ages and the Early Modern Period: Historical and Cultural Commonalities, Regional Peculiarities, and the Dynamics of Interaction”, carried out as part of the program of fun-damental studies of the National Research University “Higher School of Economics” in 2015. We wish particularly to thank our colleagues and friends, Monica White and Tom Dykstra. The shortcomings and imperfections which remain in this article after help and assistance generously given are, of course, entirely our own responsibility.

The Prince and His Names in the 12th Century 347

chaic notions about a kind of reincarnation of an ancestor in his progeny, only the names of dead ancestors could be used1.

In the period of interest to us, the Slavic dynasties of Central Europe were not prohibited from making repeated use of the name of a living fa-ther. Thus, in both the Piast and the Przemyslid families there were two men in succession, a father and son, by the names of Mieszko and Boleslav, respectively2. In Scandinavia, by contrast, this pattern could, for quite a long time, mean only one thing: that the son was a posthumous child, that is, that he was born following the untimely and sudden death of his father. In this case, it was not his father but other members of his family who chose the name for him. Such was also the case in Rus’ and the Rus-sian princes followed this principle longer and more consistently than their northern neighbors did. Just as a king named Harald or Hákon could not name his son Harald or Hákon, a Rjurikid prince named Svjatoslav or Vladimir could not give his traditional princely name to his offspring3.

In Scandinavia, a certain onomastic shift occurred in the 12th century. In the second half of that century, the mighty Danish king Valdamarr the Great named one of his legitimate sons Valdamarr. In fact, among the

1 Cf. in this connection: Mitterauer 1988; Mitteraurer 1993, 130-131, 293-330; Литви-

на & Успенский 2006, passim; Mitteraurer 2011, 73-89. 2 Thus, in the lists of children of Mieszko I and Oda, their son Mieszko, who in all

probability was their eldest child, appears first (Balzer 2005, 102-104), and the heir to Boleslav the Cruel was his son Boleslav the Pious, who in turn had a son named Boleslav the Red (-haired) (Cosmas Pragensis 1923, 42 [Lib. I, Cap. XXI], 57-58 [Lib. I, Cap. XXXII, XXXIII]). One of the sons of Prince Svatopluk (Svjatopolk) I of Great Moravia also bore his father’s name, Svatopluk.

3 As is known, the dominant form of Russian princely naming practice at that time was to use two names: a Christian name (the name of a saint), received at baptism, as well as a birth name, traditional and pagan in origin (such as Igor’, Oleg, Mstislav, Vsevolod, Jaropolk, Svjatoslav, Rostislav, etc.). The majority of Russian princes appear in the chronicle under their traditional names, which apparently dominated in princely civil life. In addition, beginning at a certain point, some Christian names – above all David, Roman, Basil, George and Andrew – begin to be adopted by the Russian dynasty as clan names, since some of their most illustrious ancestors had received them in baptism (in the capac-ity of second, added names). Their heirs, the new members of the clan given these names, seem not to have needed yet another dynastic name. These princes include Da-vyd and Roman Svjatoslaviči (grandsons of Jaroslav the Wise), Vasil’ko Rostislavič of Terebovl’, Jurij Vladimirovič Dolgorukij and Andrej Vladimirovič Dobryj (the younger sons of Monomax), Jurij Jaroslavič of Turov, Andrej Bogoljubskij, Roman Mstislavič of Galič and his sons, Daniil Romanovič and Vasil’ko Romanovič. All of these rulers appear in the chronicle sources exclusively under their Christian names, whereas their closest relatives continued to be designated by their traditional names. Concerning the dual naming of Russian princes, see details in: Литвина & Успенский 2006, 111-175; Uspen-skij 2008, 12–16.

348 Anna Litvina, Fjodor Uspenskij

Scandinavian countries4, the largest number of deviations from the rules of name-giving can be found in Denmark. In Norway, on the other hand, just as in Rus’, the sons of sovereigns almost never became namesakes of their living fathers.

As a result, the opportunity to identify family members through the repetition of a name, which was highly advantageous in terms of design-nating the line of succession, was lost. It will be recalled that, throughout Europe, the right to a name was linked to the right to power in one way or another. By giving his name to his son, a ruler presented him to the world as his legitimate heir apparent from the very outset. At first glance, it seems that Russian princes and Scandinavian kings had no opportunity to perpetuate their dynastic names during their lifetimes. They appear to have been unable to make any use of their names at all, and could only hope that they would be needed after their deaths. Only then could the names be used to declare the legal succession of power from the rulers to some unknown descendants. This prohibition not only restrained rulers, but also gave rise to intricate manipulations of dynastic names.

For example, in Scandinavia a ruler could give his name as a gift to one of his attendants or newly acquired allies so that he might bear it himself or give it to a newborn heir (cf. Uspenskij 2004, 36, 113). Thus, according to a saga, when Magnús the Good, king of Norway, lay on his deathbed, he distributed all his property and valuables among his attendants. His man-at-arms Þorsteinn Hallsson, who was late for the distribution of the goods, was honored for his loyal service by the gift of Magnús’ name (Msk., 142-143; Flat., III, 330). Thereafter, the name Magnús made its way to Iceland: on his return to his homeland, Þorsteinn gave the name to his newborn son, from whom it was bestowed, according to the standard procedure, on his grandson, Þorsteinn’s great-grandson, the future Bishop Magnús Einarsson. Another king of Norway, Hákon Hákonarson (incidentally, a classic example of a northern dynast who was born after the death of his father, which was reflected in his name), made a certain Óspak king of the Hebrides and, in addition to the title (konungs nafn), gave him a new name, Hákon (Flat., III, 101).

It stands to reason that such name-giving is a token of special favor, implying the granting of other goods which are more tangible than a name, and it sometimes demonstrates, confirms, or forms hierarchical links (cf. in this connection: Mitteraurer 1993, 297, 314-330; Althoff 1997, 130-

4 Thus, before Valdamarr, his uncle Eiríkr Eymuni (“the Long-Remembered”, “the

Memorable”), the illegitimate son of Eiríkr the Good, was his father’s namesake, as was Sveinn, one of the very numerous sons of Sveinn Úlfsson, the founder of a Danish dy-nasty.


131; Mitteraurer 2011, 91-134). The case of Magnús the Good is of particu-lar interest in this respect, since the name-giving was meant to ensure benevolence towards the future child on the part of the dying king’s suc-cessors or, at least, honor and respect in the eyes of those around him after the king’s death5. Additionally, it is particularly clear in this case that the name was, in a sense, equivalent to a pecuniary gift, a worthy substitute for gold, silver and precious fabrics. In any case, it reflected an effort to in-fluence the future in the present, which was characteristic of name-giving in general and of dynastic name-giving in particular.

As for the Russian princes, they appeared to have been even more re-strained than their Scandinavian counterparts and relations in bestowing their names. As discussed above, in Scandinavia and Rus’ a child could not normally acquire the name of a living direct ancestor – his father, grandfather or great-grandfather. The names of Scandinavian rulers were, however, largely the same as those of the members of their retinues. Both the heir of a king and the heir of any free bóndi (husbandman) might be called Harald, and both of them might have a dead great-grandfather who bore that name. In other words, by no means every name was suitable for a dynast, but anyone in Scandinavia might be his namesake.

The situation with the Rjurikids was, however, completely different. As far as can be judged from the sources, most princely names, such as Svjatoslav, Vsevolod, Vladimir, and Oleg were never used outside the dynas-ty. This prohibition was not absolute: exceptions were possible6, but the set of princely names was the inalienable property of the princely family. Russian noblemen used similarly structured two-stem names whose only distinction from those of the princes was that they were not princely names. For example, a Novgorodian or Kievan nobleman could bear the name Mironeg or Žiroslav, but not Vladimir or Svjatoslav. Accordingly, a ruling prince could not give his name as a gift to his man-at-arms or even to an in-law for him to adopt instead of his former name or to give to his son. What, then, could the Russian princes do to perpetuate their names?

5 Obviously, this story may be regarded as a not-quite-correct example of giving one’s

own name to someone in one’s lifetime, for king Magnús did this while he lay on his deathbed.

6 In the second half of the 12th and the 13th centuries, some of the princely names penetrated into the immediate milieu of the Rjurikids. As a rule, these were names that were no longer used by the dynasty or at least were much less needed. Such names could be given to, for example, the sons of princes’ mentors or wet nurses (?). As far as can be judged from the sources, however, these children generally did not receive either the name of the prince at whose court they resided or the names of his immediate ancestors and patrilineal relatives. For more details, see: Литвина & Успенский 2013, 201-208.


In fact, they had quite a few opportunities to do so. In Rus’, more so than anywhere else in the surrounding states, princely names were used to create city names. Thus, Jaroslavl’, Vladimir, Dmitrov, Juriev, and quite a few other place names were proprietary signs reflecting the rights of their founders and lords.

No less interesting, in our view, are the rather intricate mechanisms for confirming treaty relations through the use of a name which developed in Rus’ in the 12th century. By that time, the princely family had grown extensively and, since the Russian land was a kind of collective family possession (like the set of dynastic names), a system for regulating relations among relatives, both immediate and distant, became necessary. In terms of choosing a name, it is quite significant that the prohibition on using the names of living ancestors applied only to direct ancestors, and not indirect ones. For example, a newborn Rjurikid could not be given the traditional name of his living grandfather, but might well become a namesake of his living first or second uncle (Литвина & Успенский 2006, 71–110; Uspenskij 2008, 10-12). It was also permissible to give the same name to two cousins or distant relatives in the same generation. The abundance of namesakes of this kind reflects certain processes in the dis-tribution of power and the struggle for it.

It is well known, that in the growing dynasty, conflicts between cousins and, in particular, between nephews and uncles, were the most serious, as well as the most common contributors to family strife. Moreover, the minor heirs of a prince were in particularly great danger if he died before they were mature enough to defend their dynastic interests. In the 11th century, such misfortune on the part of a prince’s sons who were orphaned early in life could be almost fatal, as in the case of the heirs to Vladimir, the eldest son of Jaroslav the Wise, who met an early death.

On top of that, it was rather difficult to define early orphanhood in the dynasty. Clearly, Mstislav the Great, the son of Vladimir Monomax, who lost his father when he was quite advanced in age and received the throne directly from his father’s hand, can by no means be regarded as orphaned. But what was the situation of a 15- to 18-year-old prince who lost his father at a time when he was already an active military leader but had only an insignificant throne of his own, along with a number of young and enterprising uncles who were his superiors in the hierarchy and, accordingly, successively laid claim to the plenitude of his father’s in-heritance? Would he not end up being forever deprived by them in the system of dynastic succession?

In the 12th century, apparently as a preventive measure to help guard against this situation, the Rjurikids developed a practice whereby two, three or even four princes who were full brothers and close allies agreed


in advance that the one who outlived the other(s) would take his orphan-ed nephews – the biological sons of the one(s) who died first – under his protection. (In other words, he would stand “in their father’s stead”, во отца место). It is likely that this practice was started in the days of the sons of Vladimir Monomax by Mstislav the Great and his brothers, who learned in their youth how long and bloody the conflicts provoked prac-tice of “outcasting” (изгойство) could be7.

This practice of concluding agreements between brothers almost im-mediately began to be expressed in name-giving. An uncle – most likely the youngest of those making the arrangement – gave his name to the nephew who was born first after the conclusion of the agreement, or with whose birth the agreement was timed to coincide. Let us examine in par-ticular name-giving in the families of Monomax’s descendants. The eldest of his sons, Mstislav, who received Kiev from his father, bequeathed it to his brother Jaropolk, who, in turn, having become the prince of Kiev, gave his active patronage to his nephews, the Mstislaviči. In fact, one of the youngest of these nephews bore his uncle’s name, Jaropolk.

Most likely, the agreement between the elder sons of Monomax, Mstislav and Jaropolk, was a kind of continuation of the will of their fa-ther, who in his lifetime had assigned roles to his elder sons and grand-sons (Назаренко 2009, 96-101). A corresponding mutual agreement ex-isted between Monomax’s younger sons, Jurij (George) Dolgoruky (i.e. “the Long-Armed”) and Andrej (Andrew) the Good, who, it appears, were born to a different wife than the one to whom Mstislav and Jaropolk were born (Кучкин 1999, 59-60, including bibliography).

Jurij’s son was named Andrew, yet neither he nor his brothers bene-fitted from the support of their uncle. On the contrary, it was Jurij Dolgoruky who upheld the interests of his orphaned nephews, fulfilling

7 We will not dwell here on the well-known article on “outcasting” in the Charter of

Vsevolod: “There are three types of outcasts: a priest’s son who is illiterate, a bondman who has bought himself out of bondage, and an indebted merchant. To these we will add a fourth type of outcast – a prince who has been orphaned” (Изгои трѡи: поповъ с(ы)нъ грамоты не оумҍєть, холопъ из' холопьства выкꙋпитсѧ, коупҍць ѡдол'жаєть. А се четвертоє изгоиство и себе приложимъ: аще кн(я)зь ѡсиротҍєть) (Щапов 1976, 157 [Para. XVII]). The date of the text and, in particular, of the addition concerning outcast princes, is a matter of contention among researchers. Moreover, its meaning is not absolutely transparent. Nonetheless, a series of situations in which grandsons whose father died young were clearly left out in the division of their grandfather’s inheritance among the members of the ruling family, unambiguously testify to the difficult situation of this kind of orphan, whatever term was used to describe it in pre-Mongol Rus’.


the promise he had made to their father8. Significantly, in both cases it was not the elder son who was given his uncle’s name, Jaropolk or Andrew.

Later, names were given in a similar way not only to Vladimir Mono-max’s grandsons but also, for example, to his great-grandsons: Mstislav Romanovič and Mstislav Davydovič, named in honor of Mstislav Rosti-slavič, the younger brother of their fathers, Roman and Davyd, princes of Smolensk. There were a number of similar cases, and in these episodes we can trace the results of such agreements and observe how uncles helped their orphaned nephews – not only those who had become their name-sakes, but also their brothers.

Name-giving to a nephew in honor of a living uncle among the descendants of Vladimir Monomax

A typical example is the destiny of Mstislav Mstislavič Udatnyj (i.e. “The Lucky”, “The Fortunate”). Like Monomax’s sons Jurij Dolgorukij and An-drej the Good, the Rostislaviči brothers came to an agreement about the destiny of their children, but events did not go according to plan. The

8 “…Your father (that is, my brother Andrey) and I kissed the cross that, should

either of us stay alive, he would be the father to the children of the one who would perish, and would keep his volosts [districts] after him, and then I also swore to you to have you for my son and seek to conquer Vladimir for you; now that I have not con-quered Vladimir, here is a volost for you — Dorogobuž, Peresopnica and all of the Pogo-rina towns” (…ѧзъ есмь с твоимъ ѿц ҃мь а съ своим братомъ Андрҍемъ хрстъ цҍловалъ на томъ яко кто сѧ наю ѡстанетъ то тыи будет ѡбоимъ дҍтемъ ѿц ҃ь и волость ѹдержати а потомъ к тобҍ хрстъ цҍловалъ есмь имҍти тѧ сн ҃мъ собҍ и Володимирѧ искати нын же сн ҃у аче ти есмь Володимирѧ не добылъ а се ти волость и да ему Дорогобужь и Пере-сопницю и всҍ Погориньския городы) (ПСРЛ, II, 487-488).

Vladimir Monomax

Mstislav the Great

Jaropolk

Jaropolk Andrej the Good

Jurij the Long-Armed

Andrej Bogoljubskyj Rostislav

Roman Davyd Mstislav the Brave

Mstislav Mstislav Mstislav the Fortunate

Rjurik

Rostislav


younger of them, Mstislav Rostislavič, whose name was passed on to two sons of his brothers, was not destined to render support to his nephews. Instead, he died an early and sudden death, leaving his underage sons behind. Strictly speaking, one of them, to whom we will now turn, was a posthumous child, as is shown by the fact that he was given his father’s name. In other words, Mstislav Mstislavič Udatnyj was not just a prince who was orphaned early, but was born an orphan (Литвина & Успен-ский 2006, 296-318).

The eldest of his uncles, Roman Rostislavič, could not help him, since he died at almost the same time as Mstislav’s father. However, Mstislav Mstislavič became closely connected to the family of his uncle Rjurik Rostislavič, the next by seniority, and there is every reason to believe that he was raised in that family. In any case, he accompanied his cousin Ros-tislav, Rjurik’s son, on risky “youngster” raids (ПСРЛ, II, 677) and then, in all probability, became the godfather to Rostislav’s daughter, Rjurik’s long-awaited granddaughter (ПСРЛ, II, 708).

It should be noted that this prince’s rights were in no way infringed. As an adult, his dynastic interests were realized, for example in Novgorod, the city where his father had died, and later on, in his claim to Galič, which the unfortunate son-in-law of his uncle Rjurik had formerly ruled9. These complex dynastic collisions illustrate one simple principle – that agreements between brothers which were cemented by one of them giv-ing his name to a son of the other could work quite well when the name-giver was no longer alive. In other words, the legal status of a kind of guardianship and protection of orphaned nephews, manifested in the practice of name-giving, was often enough implemented quite success-fully.

No less interesting, although more rare, was the possibility for a prince to transfer his name during his lifetime. Where this concerned male heirs, the normal procedure was for a child to receive his name from his father’s family. In the preceding discussion, when discussing grandfathers, great-grandfathers, uncles, and other, more distant kin, we have meant relatives on the paternal side. In this context, the distinct connection between the

9 At first, as is known, the relations between Rjurik Rostislavič and his son-in-law,

Roman Mstislavič, were exceptionally close. In particular, Rjurik actively helped Roman conquer Galič and, at his request, sent his own son Rostislav to his aid. By the time of Roman’s death, however, these relations had deteriorated beyond repair. Roman forced his father-in-law Rjurik and his wife and daughter to take monastic vows (ПСРЛ, I, 420-421, 425-426; cf. Литвина & Успенский 2012). However, after the death of his son-in-law Rjurik repudiated his vows, and one of his first deeds was an attempt to lay siege to Galič (ПСРЛ, I, 426-427, 717, XXV, 108; cf. Домбровский 2012). Apparently, Rjurik assumed that he had the right to rule the city.


right to a name and the right to power is once again apparent. In the 11th and 12th centuries, there are no examples of Rjurikids claiming the right to rule on the basis of kinship through women, and there are no cases whereby power over lands was gained by the right of succession through the female line of descent. It can be stated with confidence that a strictly patrilineal system was in force. Regarding the conclusion of military alli-ances with or the extension of patronage to the sons of sisters, daughters or even nieces, however, the situation was somewhat different10.

Thus, more often than not, an orphaned prince sought support from his father’s brothers (stryis). Cases are known, however, particularly in complex multilateral interdynastic conflicts, when a prince might go over to his uis (maternal uncles), who readily accepted him, pointing out that they did so precisely because he was their sestričič (sister’s son). Could this orientation towards relatives on the mother’s side be a strategic decision taken in advance, in the manner of brothers concluding an agreement in the event of their sons’ early orphanhood? Finally, could these strategic agreements be confirmed through name-giving?

As mentioned above, this practice was not frequent, but individual examples can nevertheless be found in the late pre-Mongol period. Thus, in the 1170s sons were born to prince Igor’ of Novgorod-Severskij, who was not particularly mighty but who has gone down in the history of Russian culture because he was one of the main characters of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”. Two of his sons, including the eldest one, were given the names Vladimir and Roman. These were extremely rare among the Černigov branch of the Rjurikids, to which their father and grandfather belonged. To be precise, before the boys were born, the entire Černigov house had had only one prince owner by each name. Both of them were rather distant relatives of the young princelings (one of them was their grandfather’s first cousin and the other their great-great-uncle), and they died long before the birth of these heirs of Igor’11. This fact is rather significant, since in Russian dynasty names that were important for the family strategy did not, as a rule, remain unused for any protracted

10 Intra-dynastic marriage was a highly effective means of concluding political and military alliances between princes. One of the objectives of marriages between the Rjuri-kids could be to stop a conflict that had resulted in opposition between two branches of the ruling family. This was not always successful, but quite a few cases are known in which this traditional method of medieval politics turned out to be quite productive (Литвина & Успенский 2014). Certainly, the birth of common grandchildren or sisters’ children, which renewed the blood relationship between feuding clans, played no small role in ensuring its effectiveness.

11 Vladimir Davydovič, the grandson of Svjatoslav Jaroslavič, the progenitor of the Černigov line, died in 1151 (ПСРЛ, I, 334; II, 438) and his uncle, Roman Svjatoslavič, in 1079 (ПСРЛ, I, 204; II, 196; III, 18).


amount of time. Neglect that lasted for some decades meant that a name had practically dropped out of use by a given family line, and in that case substantial reasons were required for its revival.

Perhaps the memory of their distant ancestors played a certain indirect role in the naming of the boys, but no direct connection can be found between the lives of the earlier princes and what Igor’ might have expect-

Name-giving in the family of Prince Igor’ Svjatoslavič

ed to achieve for his children. Two of his contemporaries who bore the same names had, on the other hand, a far greater and more obvious sig-nificance for the life of the Novgorod-Severskij clan. Igor’s family was re-lated to one of them, Roman, who was prince of Smolensk and, at one time, prince of Kiev, through a cross marriage: Roman was married to

Cross marriage between the children of Svjatoslav and Rostislav

Svjatoslav

Oleg Igor’

Jaroslav the Wise

Svjatoslav

Davyd Roman Oleg

Vladimir Roman

Vladimir

Oleg

Agafja

Svjatoslav Rostislav

N.

Roman


Igor’s sister, while Roman’s sister was the second wife of Igor’s elder brother, Oleg Svjatoslavič12.

The other contemporary, Vladimir Jaroslavič, the heir to the mighty house of Galič, was a brother of Igor’s wife, the mother of the young princelings. In other words, it is highly likely that, in contrast to the gen-eral dynastic tradition, the first-born of Prince Igor’ of Novgorod-Severskij was named Vladimir in honor of his maternal uncle, and his younger brother was named Roman in honor of the husband of one of his aunts, who was a brother of another aunt.

Name-giving based on in-law relationships in the family of Igor’ Svjatoslavič

In order correctly to assess this anthroponymic demarche, an excursus into the political history of the Novgorod-Severskij princes is necessary. Igor’ and his brothers were the children of Svjatoslav Olgovič, who died after

12 So-called cross-marriages, in which a brother and sister from one family married sib-

lings from another family, violated canonical law, and the Rjurikids normally did not form such matrimonial unions. Apparently, only his extreme insecurity after the death of his father caused Oleg to break this prohibition and marry the daughter of prince Rosti-slav of Kiev, whose brother, Roman, had married Oleg’s sister many years earlier. For more detail about this non-canonical marriage, see: Литвина & Успенский 2014.

Svjatoslav

Oleg

Igor’

N.

Agafja

Rostislav

Roman

Jaroslav Osmomysl

Vladimir

Vladimir Roman

Mstislav the Great Oleg

Svjatoslav N.


quite a long period ruling Černigov, one of the most important territories after Kiev. His sons hoped and made efforts to inherit the Černigov throne, but their elder cousin won it (ПСРЛ, II, 522-524) and, together with his entire family, became their long-time adversary and persecutor (ПСРЛ, II, 525-526; cf. ПСРЛ, II, 579, 599-600). The Svjatoslaviči broth-ers simply had no other male next-of-kin, and in order to acquire even secondary possessions they had to rely on their in-laws.

On the other hand, the closeness between the brothers – or rather, Igor’ and Vsevolod’s loyalty to Oleg, who was much older than they were and who apparently took their father’s place for them – was very great. It will be recalled that naming an eldest son after a brother was not an accepted practice among the Rjurikids; or, rather, if an elder son became a namesake of his living uncle, this implied a kind of family rivalry with him. It should not be ruled out that Igor’ could not name his first-born Svjatoslav after his own grandfather for the same reason, since Oleg al-ready had a son named Svjatoslav, and such name-giving would have cre-ated a situation of undesirable competition between the cousins13.

It was the Rostislaviči, the princes of Smolensk, they and above all the eldest of them, Roman, who became for many years the main guarantors of the dynastic rights of their Novgorod-Severskij in-laws. Characteris-tically, it was to them that Igor’, a very young man at the time, brought saigat (ПСРЛ, II, 569) – gifts of war trophies which, in accordance with princely ceremonial, a younger relative presented to his older relatives.

Igor’ in his lifetime not so much enjoyed the support of prince Vladi-mir of Galič for himself and his children as he himself had to render as-sistance to his brother-in-law Vladimir by giving him shelter and recon-ciling him, with greater or lesser success, with his own father, Jaroslav Osmomysl. It should be mentioned that Vladimir Jaroslavič himself had few close male relatives. There had been instances, before his time, when Rjurikid princes quarreled with their fathers; in such cases, they resorted to the help of their uncles or elder cousins without much damage to their family honor. Vladimir had no such possibility, and his more distant rela-tives at first did not risk interfering in the conflict. The chronicler stresses that at one time Igor’ was, in effect, the only one who dared (not without success) offer hospitality and help to him (ПСРЛ, II, 633-634). Thus, prince Vladimir of Galič clearly suffered no disadvantage from having given his name to the eldest of his sestričiči (sister’s sons).

13 The name Oleg would, in full conformity with the tradition of agreement between

brothers, be given to one of the younger sons of Igor’ Svjatoslavič born in the lifetime of his uncle (ПСРЛ, II, 600), and Svjatoslav Igorevič, who was given his name in honor of his grandfather, was even younger (ПСРЛ, I, 491-492; II, 604).


In what way did the other side benefit from this union cemented by name-giving? It should be remembered that, in choosing names, dynasty members were guided not only by the immediate political situation but also, to a greater extent, by long-term strategic considerations. Naturally, such calculations did not always work out, yet the name remained a kind of marker documenting the process of painstaking political maneuvers. We learn from the Galič-Volyn’ Chronicle that, when Vladimir Jaroslavič passed away and the situation for people loyal to him in Galič became unfavorable, the Novgorod-Severskij princes willingly and hospitably re-ceived some of his closest boyars. Later, one of them headed a party that summoned the sons of prince Igor’ of Novgorod-Severskij to the princely throne of Galič (ПСРЛ, II, 718). In other words, in a period of trouble and incessant military clashes around this highly important center of south-western Rus’, the descendants of Igor’ Svjatoslavič managed to control the throne previously occupied by their maternal uncle for some time.

Thus, once again, continuity in names proved to be demonstrably con-nected with continuity in power, even though the dynastic succession pattern f rom an u i [ma te rna l unc l e ] t o a s e s t r i č i č [ s i s t e r ’ s son ] was by no means traditional or legitimate for a Russian ruling dy-nasty. Moreover, we would not go so far as to propose that, when naming his eldest son Vladimir, Igor’ was expecting this turn of events, all the more so as the Galič project ended tragically for Igor’s sons when they were hanged by the citizens. Yet by unconventionally giving his name to his sister’s son, Vladimir Jaroslavič clearly agreed to long-term cooperation with the Novgorod-Severskij princely family. This turned out to be highly significant to the dynastic destinies of both sides, and continued to be in force during the lifetime of the elder of the two namesakes and for many years after his death.

All of this conforms perfectly to the original strategic orientation of the tradition of name-giving in the Russian princely dynasty, which was in-tended to maintain the unity of the Rjurikids – living, dead, and not yet born – in their right to power. By the end of the 12th century, giving one’s name to an indirect relative as a way of securing an agreement be-came a customary naming practice. As the ruling family continued to grow, intra-dynastic marriages brought the increasingly divergent branches of the vast clan together again. However, as the system of suc-cession grew ever more complex and became in part indeterminate, so the traditional anthroponymic tools began to be used for unexpected pur-poses. The possibility of passing one’s name to in-laws and relatives from the female line may have reflected a more general tendency for matrilineal relationships to play a greater part in the acquisition of power, thus re-ducing the customary androcentrism of the Rjurikid dynasty. However,


the upheavals that were in store for the country and the ruling family in the 13th century did not allow for a natural or gradual evolution of the dynasty’s accepted practices.

Significantly in all of the situations discussed above, names – a sym-bolic family property – did not leave the Russian ruling dynasty. Matters were more complex and, perhaps, more interesting when the Rjurikids established alliances and entered treaty relations with the Polovcians, the “frenemies” of the Russian princes, against whom the family united in battle on many occasions. In the 12th century, however, the Polovcians were drawn into practically every internecine feud among the Rjurikids as allies of one or both opposing sides.

In the medieval world, inter-dynastic marriage was a universal and highly effective means of establishing and strengthening such alliances, and the Russian princes were quite prepared to make use of it. From the chronicles we know of some dozen cases in which Rjurikid princes mar-ried Polovcian princesses. In fact, however, the number of such episodes was apparently somewhat or even substantially greater (Гуркин 1999; Гуркин 1999a; Литвина & Успенский 2013, 20-25, 248-266; Litvi-na & Uspensky 2014). An equally spectacular and effective method of securing alliances was name-giving, which could be used together with an inter-dynastic marriage in various combinations or, to all appearances, could quite well work on its own.

Turning once again to the aforementioned family of prince Igor’ Svja-toslavič of Novgorod-Severskij, we note that this prince sought an alliance not only with his Rjurikid in-laws, but also with the Polovcians. We know quite a lot, for example, about the dramatic and largely tragic history of his long relations with the Polovcian ruler Končak. Apparently, these re-lations amounted to more than just a political alliance. They seem to have been based on personal friendship that ended (probably not quite ended) with Igor’s absurd campaign into the steppe and his famous captivity. Note, however, that Igor’s captivity and subsequent escape did not pre-vent his son Vladimir from entering into a dynastic marriage with Kon-čak’s daughter. The marriage had long been contemplated by the elders, and later Vladimir returned safely, together with his young wife and their child, to his father in Rus’ (ПСРЛ, II, 659).

No less significant is the fact that Končak had a son, who became his main heir and to whom the Russian prince gave his name as a gift. How-ever, this Polovcian heir, who was destined to become “greater than all the Polovcians” (болиише [sic!] всихъ Половець) (ПСРЛ, II, 740) and perish at the hands of the Tatar-Mongols shortly before the Battle on the Kalka, was not called *Igor’ Končakovič. Remarkably, he received his ally’s baptis-


mal name, Jurij (George) as a gift, and thus became Jurij Končakovič14. It should be noted, incidentally, that the name Jurij, Gyurgi or Jurgi appears not only in Russian but also in Chinese sources describing the victorious advance of the Mongol conquerors (Храпачевский 2009, 228).

Connections between Igor’ Svjatoslavič and Končak

Apparently, political-onomastic combinations might be even more com-plex. There were, for example, two Polovcian princes, one older and the other younger, named Beluk and Kza. The latter, like Končak, is men-tioned not only in the chronicles but also in “The Lay of Igor’s Cam-paign”. They were close allies, and sometimes together suffered substantial losses during raids by Russian princes (ПСРЛ, II, 532). At one point, however, when yet another Rjurikid family – this time, the one headed by Rostislav Mstislavič, the father of Roman, Rjurik, Davyd and Mstislav, whom we have already encountered – needed to conclude peace with the nomads, the treaty was marked by the marriage of Beluk’s daughter to Rjurik Rostislavič (ПСРЛ, II, 521-522). (This Rjurik has already been mentioned as the uncle and patron of the early orphaned Mstislav Msti-slavič Udatnyj.) The junior partner, Kza, was given the name of Rostislav’s other son, Roman, for his heir. As a result, Roman Kzič, who eventually also gained a rather high position among the Polovcians, appeared in the historical record.

14 It is significant that Igor’ Svjatoslavič apparently was not the godfather of Končak’s

son. In all probability, Jurij Končakovič, like the other Polovcian princes who received Christian names from Russian princes, remained a heathen. In any case, all the chronicle sources continued to describe them consistently as pagan and accursed. The nomads’ Christian names were thus by no means a marker of their confessional affiliation, but rather a kind of diplomatic tool used in the process of concluding agreements (for more details, see: Mikhailova 2013, 66; Литвина & Успенский 2013; Litvina & Uspensky 2014, 70–72).

Igor’-George Končak

Vladimir N. Jurij (George)

Svjatoslav

Oleg

Otrok

Šarukan


Here again, we encounter a situation in which an heir of a Polovcian prince received the baptismal name of a Russian prince and not his dynas-tic name, such as Igor’, Svjatoslav, Mstislav or Vsevolod, which was pagan in origin. Almost all cases of the appearance of “Russian” names among the Polovcians, be they Gleb Tirievič, Daniil Kobjakovič or Vasilij Polovčin, are

Connections between Rostislav Mstislavič’s sons and Polovcian princes

similar. There is, in fact, only one exception: Jaropolk Tomzakovič, but the uniqueness of this case is in itself rather symptomatic15.

It is easy to guess why Russian princes gave their Christian names, and not their traditional names of pagan origin, to the sons of their nomad al-

15 The name Jaropolk belongs to the group of anthroponyms which, although origi-nally dynastic, were increasingly rarely used by the Rjurikids themselves by the end of the 12th century, yet might sometimes appear outside the princely family within its closest milieu. Thus, one of the sons of Vladimir Jaroslavič’s mentor, a close attendant of the prince of Galič (discussed above), was named Jaropolk. Apparently, the pattern of naming a Polovcian heir was in this case somewhat reminiscent of the pattern according to which this kormiličič (son of the prince’s mentor) was given his name. See also footnote 6 above.

Rostislav

Mstislav the Great

Vladimir Monomax

Roman

Davyd

Rjurik

Mstislav the Brave

Beluk Kza

Roman N.

Mstislav the Fortunate


lies. They could not do otherwise, for the possession of a princely name in Rus’ was closely tied to the right to princely power in the Russian land, and, naturally, transferring that to the Polovcians was out of the question. At the time, however, the double naming of princes, whereby each Rjuri-kid took on an additional Christian name at his baptism, was a general systematic phenomenon. The set of these princely baptismal names was also quite limited, and most of them were repeated generation after gen-eration. However, there was no prohibition on their use outside the dy-nasty, nor could there be any such prohibition, and any subject, just as the prince himself, could be given the name Roman, Gleb or Vasilij (Basil) in baptism.

Thus, the double naming system provided the Rjurikids with the means to strategically and successfully dispose of at least one of their own names – not the most public one, but still a well-known one. If a prince had only a Christian name, he could still give it as a gift to the son of a Polovcian ally; in any case, there was no taboo in the dynasty against such name-giving. We do not know whether there were cases in which a Rjurikid directly gave his Christian name to his own subject in Rus’, but if, for example, a prince’s Christian name was the same as that of a man sent to him on a delicate mission, that fact was noted and even emphasized in the chronicles16.

Thus, over the course of time the ancient ban on the use of the tradi-tional name of a living father or grandfather, generated a number of pat-terns in the diplomatic use of anthroponyms in the Rjurikid dynasty, whereby the name of a newborn heir consolidated an agreement between elders. Apparently, the oldest and most essential of these was the naming of a nephew in honor of a living uncle to affirm an agreement between two full brothers, each of whom undertook to uphold the interests of the heirs of the sibling who happened to die first. We note once again that, more often than not in this situation, one of the younger boys in the fami-ly became his uncle’s namesake, although this certainly was not an abso-lute rule. Eventually, some princes began giving their names to the new-borns to whom they were related by marriage – the sons of a sister or a brother-in-law. This emphasis on relationships through the female line was, on the whole, unusual for the dynastic family, and it was not particu-larly important whether it involved younger or older heirs: the “andro-centric counter” of family seniority could sometimes afford to falter in this respect.

16 “…I am sending you, Vasil’, to go to Vasil’ko, your namesake, with these youths,

and tell him from me…” (…да се Василю шлю тѧ . иди к Василкови тезу своєму . с сима ѡтрокома . и молви ѥму тако…) (ПСРЛ, I, 265).


At the same time, one should bear in mind that all the Rjurikids with-out exception were not only blood relations, but also fully aware of this relationship, however distant it might be, and based their policies on the fact that all men belonging to this vast family were direct descendants of the same person. It will be recalled that princely names were a kind of inalienable collective property of this rapidly growing family and, al-though individual branches gave strong preference to some dynastic an-throponyms, there was, strictly speaking, no prohibition on the circulation of this general stock of names within the family. As discussed above, it was their dissemination outside the princely family that appeared to be undesirable.

The situation with the Rjurikids’ baptismal names, which formed a special onomastic space that brought the rulers closer to people who did not belong to the dynasty, was different. It made possible the existence of another pattern of name-giving, whereby a prince could give his own Christian name to the son of a heathen Polovcian ally.

Onomastic possibilities of this kind highlight the singularity of each particular dynasty and the singularity of the basic principles of choosing names, which developed against the backdrop of their universality and convergence. Abbrevia t ions and Li tera ture

Althoff, G. 1997. Namengebung und adliges Selbstverständnis. In: Geuenich D., W. Haubrichs, J. Jarnut. (eds.). Nomen et gens: Zur historischen Aussagekraft frühmittelater-licher Personennamen. Berlin, New York. (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. 16.), 127-139.

Balzer, O. 2005. Genealogia Piastów. Kraków. Cosmas Pragensis. 1923. B. Bretholz (ed.). Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum / Die Chro-

nik der Böhmen des Cosmas von Prag. Berlin. (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scrip-tores rerum Germanicarum. N. S. II.)

Flat. 1860-1868. Guðbrandr Vigffusson, C.R. Unger (eds.). Flateyjarbók I-III. Christiania. Litvina, A.F., F.B. Uspensky. 2014. Russo-Polovtsian Dynastic Contacts as Reflected in

Genealogy and Onomastics. The Silk Road 12, 65-75. [www.silk-road.com/newslette r/vol12/]

Mikhailova, Y. 2013. “Christian and Pagans” in the Chronicles of Pre-Mongolian Rus: Be-yond the Dichotomy of “Good Us” and “Bad Them”. In: Lübke, C., I. Miftakhova, W.v. Scheliha. (eds.). Geschichte der Slavia Asiatica: Quellenkundliche Probleme. Leipzig, 50-79.

Mitterauer, M. 1988. Zur Nachbenennung nach Lebenden und Toten in Fürstenhäusern des Frühmittelalters. In: Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für K. Bosl zum 80. Geburtstag. München, 386-399. See also Mitteraurer 2011.

— 1993. Ahnen und Heilige: Namengebung in der europäischen Geschichte. München. — 2011. Traditionen der Namengebung: Namenkunde als interdisziplnäres Forschungsgebiet.

Wien, Köln, Weimar.


Msk. 1932. Finnur Jónsson (ed.). Morkinskinna. København. (Samfund til udgivelse at gammel Nordisk Litteratur. LIII.)

Uspenskij, F.B. 2004. Name und Macht: Die Wahl des Namens als dynastisches Kampfinstru-ment im mittelalterlichen Skandinavien. Frankfurt a.M. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik. LII.)

— 2008. A brief survey of the anthroponymic situation in the Riurikid Dynasty (from 10th to 16th centuries). Studia anthroponymica Scandinavica: Tidsskrift för nordisk person-namnsforskning 26, 5-24.

Гуркин, С.В. 1999 К вопросу о русско-половецких матримониальных связях. Дон-ская археология 2, 40-50.

— 1999а. К вопросу о русско-половецких матримониальных связях. Донская архео-логия 3-4, 41-54.

Домбровский, Д. 2012. Вступление Мстислава Мстиславича в борьбу за Галич. – Горский А.А. (отв. ред.). Средневековая Русь 10. Москва, 170-196.

Кучкин, В.А. 1999. Чудо св. Пантелеймона и семейные дела Владимира Мономаха. – Россия в Средние века и Новое время. Сборник статей к 70-летию Л.В. Милова. Москва, 50-82.

Литвина, А.Ф., Ф.Б. Успенский. 2006. Выбор имени у русских князей в X–XVI вв.: Ди-настическая история сквозь призму антропонимики. Москва.

—,— 2012. Насильственный постриг княжеской семьи в Киеве: от интерпретации обстоятельств к реконструкции причин. – Горский А.А. (отв. ред.). Средневековая Русь 10. Москва, 135-169.

—,— 2013. Русские имена половецких князей: Междинастические контакты сквозь призму антропонимики. Москва.

—,— 2014 Случалось ли князьям домонгольского времени брать в жены близких свойственниц? Политические выгоды, церковные запреты, прецедент. – Успен-ский, Б.А., Ф.Б. Успенский (отв. ред.). Факты и знаки: Исследования по семиотике истории 3. Москва, Санкт-Петербург, 72-105.

Назаренко, А.В. 2009. Древняя Русь и славяне (историко-филологические исследования). Москва.

ПСРЛ. 1841–2009. Полное собрание русских летописей I-XLIII. Санкт-Петербург/Пе-троград/Лениград, Москва. [In case of reissue of a chronicle, except in specially marked cases, we always refer to the latest edition.]

Храпачевский, Р.П. 2009 (ed.). Золотая Орда в источниках. Том третий: Китайские и монгольские источники. Москва.

Щапов, Я.Н. 1976 (ed.). Древнерусские княжеские уставы: XI–XV вв. Москва. Moscow, National Research University “Higher School of Economics” ([email protected]) Anna Litvina ([email protected]) Fjodor Uspenskij

Date post:	08-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ruslang
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The Prince and His Names in the 12th Century (A Philological Approach to Medieval Political History)

Documents