Dear readers, before you is the 3rd part of the book "Emerald Wind",
it explains an ancient manuscript from an old Russian sorcerer's book.

Prince Igor and Olga.

In 934, the place of the deceased Oleg was taken by his son Igor. Igor began his reign with a campaign against the Drevlyans in order to break their alliance with the Khazars and subdue the Drevlyan lands. Having subdued the Drevlyans, the prince's army made a campaign across the steppe and hit the Khazars, but there were not enough forces to completely defeat the Khazar kingdom and Igor led the troops to Kyiv. The Khazar Khagan concluded a secret alliance with Igor against Byzantium, with which Khazaria had sharply deteriorated relations at that time.
In addition to the Khazars, Igor had another powerful ally, the Bulgarian prince Simeon. And in 941, the Russian fleet approached the Bosphorus and besieged
Constantinople from the sea. Here is how it sounds in the legend:

74. The Rosses humbled the Drevlyans by force of arms,
who tried to make friends with the Khazars against Prince Igor, the son of Oleg.
And again the Russians went to Tsargrad, in the seventh year of Igor's reign.
To avenge the insults of the Russians and the beaten merchants of Kyiv.
On the boats they approached Constantinople, laying siege to it from the sea.
And the Romans surrendered the city without a fight, hoping to exterminate the Russians with cunning.

75. Rosses learned about the approach of the main army of the Roman
And on the boats they left Tsargrad for the Russian sea.
A storm came up from the sea and half of Igor's boats were smashed against the rocks of Serak.
And the howls of the Russians, who escaped death, entered the battle with the Romans on the shore.
And the Russians broke through the Roman army,
In a secret way, between the rocks, we went out at night to the camp,
Where they defeated the entire Roman army, and went to Russia on dry land.

76. Rossy three years later, after the Tsaregradsky campaign,
went to Tsargrad on dry land.
But in the battle with the Romans they did not take the upper hand and went back to the Russian lands.
And on the boats, Igor's squad, along the South Sea, descended into the Persian lands.
And they defeated the Persian army at the city of Beira,
And made peace with the Persians.

The trick was to play for time by dragging out the peace negotiations, the purpose of the delays was simply to wait for the main army to arrive, busy pacifying the rebellion in Syria. A new peace was concluded between Igor and the emperor, and at this time the cohorts were approaching Constantinople. The Russian army managed to load the booty onto the boats, but they had to go out to sea in stormy weather. Heavily loaded landing craft had low stability and half of the Russian fleet crashed on the Serac rocks near Constantinople. The tragedy was that during a storm it was impossible to provide assistance to ships in distress. The surviving warriors gathered on the shore, hastily distributing the remaining weapons. Within an hour they had to engage in battle with the Roman fighters. The surviving warriors were led by the governor Gorislav. Having blocked the entrance to the gorge with the wreckage of broken ships, they fought off the furious attacks of the five thousandth army until dark. By the beginning of the battle, 600 Russian knights were under the command of the governor Gorislav. With the onset of darkness, the Romans set up camp on a plateau, leaving a screening detachment at the entrance to the gorge. There was no way for the remnants of the Russian army, sandwiched between the sea and the rocks, to get out of this trap. The forces were unequal, but Gorislav led his army through a secret passage between the rocks to the camp of the Romans, the blow was sudden and stunning. Russian warriors captured the enemy camp and defeated the Roman army. In that bloody night battle, three thousand warriors of the empire met their death. But out of 600 warriors, only two hundred soldiers returned to Russia with the governor Gorislav.
Despite all the heroism of that Constantinople campaign, except for the fact that Igor nailed his shield to the gates of the conquered city next to the shield of his father, they failed to achieve the main thing - peace. And after three years, Prince Igor, through Bulgaria, again went to Constantinople; the Bulgarian squad of Prince Simeon participated in this campaign. However, in the decisive battle, victory was not given to anyone and the Russian army, having ruined the surrounding themes, returned to Kyiv. More successful was the campaign of Igor's colleague Prince Simeon in 944. Then he managed to capture Constantinople and even receive a favorable tribute from the empire, though it all ended with the death of the Bulgarian prince. In the same 944, in confirmation of the peace treaty with the Khazar Khaganate, Prince Igor's squad on boats descended the Volga into the Caspian Sea and, having defeated the Persian army, captured the rich city of Beira. Immediately after the armistice, the squad returned to Kyiv.
It is generally accepted that Prince Igor died when he went for the second time to collect tribute to the Drevlyane lands, they say, the angry Drevlyans, they tore him between birches and it seems to be written in an ancient legend, but is this so? Why did the prince personally go for tribute, and the publicans for what? It is their direct duty to count the tribute for the marten from the smoke, to transfer it to other forms of payment, it is not the prince's business. How could a peasant with clubs defeat a heavily armed squad that defeated the best rati of that world?
And no matter how, otherwise everything was.
Prince Igor was 32 years old when he met his Olga, the one who became the first Christian and canonized. She was a temple dancer 17 years old, she danced a cheerful bright dance.
They secretly met for four years, until Prince Oleg (Prophetic) died. Igor ascended the throne and married Olga. A terrible romantic love story. This prince went through many battles, twice went to Constantinople, his shield still hangs on one of the gates of Istanbul, next to the shield of the father of the prophetic Oleg. And with the fact that they went for tribute twice, the story is simple. The Drevlyansky prince Mal hated Igor, for that reason, he himself aimed for the throne of Kyiv and he had support among the boyars. The tax collectors brought tribute to Kyiv, but there was half of what was supposed to be there, the skins were the worst, in general, not a tribute, but some kind of insult. The Drevlyans have been cunning before, but this time it is too noticeable. Igor gathered a squad and there, to understand. The Drevlyans, of course, obeyed, gave everything they had to, and Igor let the squad go to accompany the carts. He himself lingered for a joint feast with Mal, to celebrate the oath of allegiance and friendship. Igor stayed at the feast with ten "friends", those with whom he had studied and fought since childhood. They were feared even in such a small number, so they poisoned them at the feast. Here is such a story. That Drevlyansky prince wanted to sit on the throne himself. For the boyars in Kyiv, Olga was a stranger, many did not like her, a commoner. She was offered money, a husband, a couple of villages, saying that the girl should abdicate the throne and live to her heart's content. However, although Olga did not get along with the boyars, she knew all the wives of the combatants and themselves perfectly well and the squad followed her. Prince Mal thought to sit out in the fortress while the messengers from the villages were gathering the militia, but he was outwitted. The warriors scattered grain near the city walls and caught pigeons and sparrows with nets. They rub tinder on a thread to each foot and let them go, the birds to the city, to the nests. Iskorosten blazed, the gates opened, the inhabitants fled from the city. Olga's warriors executed all the boyars, and she personally cut off Prince Mal's head with a sword.
The beautiful and stern princess also led a squad, by the Russian Sea to Tsargrad, the Byzantines again began to repair obstacles to Russian merchants in trade. The army did not have to fight, during the negotiations the princess was offered to pay tribute, but she had to be baptized, this was the main condition and Olga became the first Christian. She was baptized with the permission of the supreme sorcerer, the Byzantines offered too favorable conditions for this, and why not be baptized when without bloodshed and gold wagons and a peace treaty, and trade benefits.
The reign of Princess Olga was not marked by more remarkable events, the strict and fair ruler ensured peace for her people.
In 965, she went into the shadows and her son Svyatoslav began to rule Russia.

On which a lot of dirt was poured. His death in the presentation of The Tale of Bygone Years left a negative imprint on his entire reign, in which a lot of sweat and blood was shed to strengthen the Russian state.

In the annals of the last days of the prince, the following is said: “The squad said to Igor:“ The youths of Sveneld dressed up and clothes, and we are naked. Let's go, prince, with us for tribute, and you will get it, and we will." And Igor listened to them - he went to the Drevlyans for tribute, and added a new tribute to the previous one, and his men did violence to them. Taking tribute, he went to his city. When he was walking back, on reflection, he said to his squad: “Go home, and I will return and gather more.” And he sent his retinue home, and he returned with a small retinue, wanting more wealth. Further, the plot is known to everyone from school history textbooks, the Drevlyans decided at the veche: “If a wolf gets into the habit of sheep, it will endure the whole herd until they kill it; so is this one: if we do not kill him, he will destroy us all.” The Drevlyans organized an ambush and killed the prince and his warriors, "since there were few of them."

The picture is figurative, bright, memorable. As a result, we know from childhood that the Russian Grand Duke Igor is a greedy and stupid robber (he poked his head with a small number of soldiers to an already robbed tribe), a mediocre commander (the plot of the burning of the Russian fleet by “Greek fire” in 941), a useless ruler who did not benefit Russia.

True, if you think sensibly and remember the subjectivity of historical written sources, which were always written to order, you can notice several inconsistencies. The squad says to the Grand Duke, "and we are naked." Just a year ago, in 944, the Byzantines, frightened by the power of Igor's troops, gave him a huge tribute. The prince "took gold and silk from the Greeks for all the soldiers." And in general, it is ridiculous to say that the squad of the Grand Duke (the military elite of that time) is “naga”. In addition, the chronicle reports that Igor took from Byzantium "tribute, which Oleg took and more." Oleg took 12 hryvnias of silver per brother (a hryvnia equaled approximately 200 grams of silver). For comparison, a good horse cost 2 hryvnia. Combat sea boat with rammed sides - 4 hryvnias. It is clear that after such wealth, the "treasures" of the Drevlyans - honey and furs - are an ordinary tribute (tax).

The next inconsistency is the image of the "unfortunate prince", a mediocre commander. During the long years of his reign (ruled from 912 - died in 945), Igor lost only one battle - in 941. Moreover, the rival of the Rus was the world power of that time, which possessed advanced military technologies - Byzantium. In addition, the victory was won by the Byzantines due to the lack of a surprise factor - the Greeks managed to prepare well for the battle (the Bulgarians reported about the attack of the Rus), and the use of the most powerful weapons of that time. It was the so-called. "Greek fire" - a combustible mixture that was used for military purposes, its exact composition is unknown. There was no protection from this weapon, the combustible mixture burned even on the water. We must also take into account the fact that the military campaign as a whole was won by Igor. Three years later, the Grand Duke gathered a new army, replenished it with the Varangians, made an alliance with the Pechenegs and moved on to the enemy. The Byzantines got scared and sent an embassy asking for peace. The prince took a rich tribute and concluded a peace treaty. Igor showed himself not only as a warrior, but also as a diplomat - why fight if the enemy himself offers a profitable peace? He did not forget the betrayal of the Bulgarians, he "ordered the Pechenegs to fight the Bulgarian land."

Why does Prince Igor order the Pechenegs? There is an answer, and it also does not fit into the image of a "robber and adventurer." In 915, when "the Pechenegs first came to the Russian land", the Grand Duke was able to force them to peace. It is clear that if the Russian land was weak, the situation would have developed differently. As in those days, so now, peoples understand only the language of force. The Pechenegs migrated to the Danube. In 920, in the annals of the Pechenegs, there is another phrase - "Igor fought against the Pechenegs." Pay attention - he didn’t repulse the raid, he didn’t fight them in the Russian land, but “fought against the Pechenegs”, that is, he himself went to them and won. As a result, the Pechenegs will decide to try the forces of Russia only in 968. In addition, if the fate of the fact that Igor could in 944 "command" the Pechenegs to fight the Bulgarian land, they were in vassal dependence on Russia. At least some of the tribes. This is confirmed by the participation of auxiliary Pecheneg forces in the wars of Svyatoslav. For 48 years (two generations) the Pechenegs did not dare to touch the Russian lands. This speaks volumes. Just one line - "Igor fought against the Pechenegs", and a whole forgotten feat of the Russian army. The blow was so powerful that the brave warriors of the steppes for two (!) Generations were afraid to attack Russia. For comparison, the Polovtsy, who came later than the Pechenegs, made only fifty major attacks on Russian lands in a hundred and fifty years. This is not to mention small raids, which were not considered. And if we take the period of the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the baptist of Russia, he had to build a line of fortresses along the southern borders of the state, to drive warriors from all over the state there. Under Vladimir, relations between Russia and the Steppe deteriorated sharply - there was an incessant "great battle" with the Pechenegs, who broke through to the Kyiv suburbs almost every year. According to the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the Pecheneg hordes roamed at a distance of only one day's journey from Russia.

Foreign sources confirm the opinion about the power of Russia during the reign of Grand Duke Igor. The Arab geographer and traveler of the 10th century, Ibn-Khaukal, calls the Pechenegs "a spearhead in the hands of the Rus", which Kyiv turns wherever it wants. The Arab historian, geographer Al-Masudi calls the Don - "Russian River", and the Black Sea - "Russian, because no one dares to swim along it except the Rus". This is during the reign of Igor Stary. The Byzantine writer, historian Leo the Deacon calls the Cimmerian Bosporus (modern Kerch) a Russian base, from there Igor led his fleet to the Byzantine Empire. From the agreement with Byzantium of 944, it is clear that Russia under Igor controlled both the mouth of the Dnieper and the passages to the Crimea from the steppe.

The question is, who is the great statesman? Igor, who was paid tribute by the mighty Byzantine Empire, the Pechenegs were "the edge of his weapon" and for two generations did not dare to disturb the Russian borders, the ruler who made the Don the "Russian River". Or Vladimir "Saint" - a participant in a fratricidal internecine war, who owned hundreds of concubines and built prisons on the Desna from the Pechenegs, who roamed a day's journey from Russian cities.

The mystery of Igor's death and the role of Olga

The question is, how did the great sovereign, commander and diplomat, who took gold, silver and silk from the Greeks, fall into a trap created by the greed of his warriors? According to the historian Lev Prozorov, Igor was killed not by the Drevlyans, but by the Varangian squad, which mainly consisted of Christians. There are several facts about this. Firstly, a real Russian squad would not leave the prince. The squad and the prince were one. The warriors could not leave the prince in a hostile land. The prince's squad suffered significant damage in 941. Therefore, to collect tribute, he took the Varangian detachments and the "small squad". Secondly, the army of Igor before the campaign against Byzantium in 944 was replenished with the Vikings. After the second campaign against Byzantium, the treaty of 944 mentions that a significant part of the Russians take the oath in the cathedral church of Elijah the Prophet in Kiev Podil. The chronicle explains: "For many Varangians are Christians." Thirdly, greed (the official reason for the death of Igor and the small squad) was not characteristic of the Rus and, in general, the pagans of northern Europe. Russ, Slavs always amazed foreigners with their generosity and disinterestedness, which often turned into extravagance. Christian Germans, Christian Poles, on the contrary, were distinguished by their greed for prey. Fourthly, the Byzantine author Leo the Deacon writes that Igor was killed by the "Germans", and Christianity on the shores of the Varangian Sea was then called the "German faith".

The fact of the return of the squad to Kyiv is also interesting, the prince and his closest associates were killed, and the soldiers returned alive and healthy. They are not punished, and their ridiculous story becomes the official story. It is clear that the assassination had a customer. The Christian community of Kyiv at that time felt good, even Prince Askold accepted the Christian faith, under Igor a cathedral church appeared. The Christian community also had a high patron - Princess Olga, Igor's wife. It is officially believed that at that time she was a pagan, and was baptized at the hands of the Byzantine emperor Constantine. But Byzantine sources do not confirm this version.

Olga's "revenge" raises even more questions. She allegedly avenged her husband "according to cruel pagan custom." It should be noted that, according to pagan customs, blood feud was a matter of a narrow circle of men - this is a brother, son, father of the murdered, son of a brother or son of a sister. Women as avengers were not considered. In addition, at that time the deeds of Christians were no less (if not more terrible) than those of the Gentiles. For example, the Christian emperor Justinian the Great ordered the massacre of 50,000 rebellious Christians at the capital's hippodrome, and Emperor Basil II ordered the execution of 48,000 captured Bulgarians (also Christians).

The number of dead is surprising, only at the “bloody feast”, according to the chronicle, 5 thousand Drevlyans who had drunk Greek wine were killed. By the way Olga is in a hurry and the number of those killed, one gets the impression that this is not revenge, but a “cleansing” of possible witnesses. True, apparently, we will never know whether Olga was among the organizers of this murder, or whether she was used “blindly” by agents of Constantinople who acted through the Christian communities of Kyiv and the Drevlyane land.

Who is Prince Igor? This is the Grand Duke who made the history of Kievan Rus. He is remembered in the annals "The Tale of Bygone Years". Grand Duke Igor Rurikovich is actually the ancestor of the Rurik dynasty. The exact date of birth is not mentioned anywhere, but according to some sources, it falls approximately on 878.

Prince Igor subjugated the East Slavic tribal associations, continuing the activities of Oleg's predecessor. In addition, he fought with the Byzantines and for the first time with the Pechenegs. As a result of an unsuccessful attempt to collect tribute from the Drevlyans, Grand Duke Igor was eventually killed in 945.

Did Uncle Oleg become a good "father" to Prince Igor?

After the death of his brother Rurik, the reins of government of the great power passed to Prince Oleg. From an early age, Igor and his uncle were eager to fight. When his nephew was three years old, Oleg took him to conquer neighboring lands. Therefore, the child spent his childhood in a camp life. There was no fight for the throne. Oleg, having sworn to his brother Rurik, gave way to the mature prince Igor. Throughout his life, the uncle was always next to his nephew, the latter always listened to the advice of a relative. Prince Oleg became a good "father" to Igor and fulfilled his promise to his brother.

How Prince Igor met his future wife

There are several theories of Prince Igor's acquaintance with Olga. The first says that Princess Olga was the daughter of Prophetic Oleg. They grew up together. Igor, noticing the mind, ingenuity and beauty of Olga, could not resist. Uncle married his nephew with his own daughter. The second legend says that when Prince Igor was hunting, he wanted to swim across the river from one bank to another. He called the man who was driving the boat to him and asked for a crossing. He couldn't refuse. Sitting on the boat, Igor noticed that a girl dressed in men's clothes was sailing with him. He began to pester her, she said that her honor is above life.


When the prince decided to marry, he decided to take her as his wife - a beauty from Pskov from the Vyborg village of an humble family. The third version of the legend says that Prince Oleg brought Olga of the Gostomyslov family from Izborsk.

Mirage feat of conquering Byzantium

Prince Igor during his reign sought to repeat the feat of his uncle - Prophetic Oleg, who was a great commander who conquered Byzantium. He wanted to perpetuate his name for centuries. Despite the peace treaty concluded with the Greeks, Igor began to hunt for a campaign against Tsargrad with a war. But because of the war in 921 with the Pechenegs, he postponed his campaign. Prince Igor realized his dream twenty years later. Due to the lack of money to pay the squad and the refusal of the Greeks to pay tribute, he thoroughly decided to go to war with them. Igor was not able to surprise the army of Byzantium, the latter was warned by the Bulgarians about the attack. He was defeated.

The collapse of the Russian fleet

During the war with Byzantium, seeing the inequality of military forces, Prince Igor decides to go to war. The slaughter begins. The Greeks attacked the Russian troops on land, not without heavy losses on both sides. The Russians fled the battlefield at night. Emperor Roman decided to settle accounts with them. Hired shipbuilders. Those on the bow, stern and sides placed throwing fiery devices that led to the collapse of the Russian fleet.

How Igor preserved the integrity of the state

The Drevlyans and Uchi, after the death of the Prophetic Oleg in 912, decided to break away. Igor gathered an army and defeated them and imposed a huge tribute. He besieged the streets with his army for about three years. Thus, Prince Igor managed to prevent the split of Kievan Rus.

Did Prince Igor have children besides Svyatoslav?

There is no definite answer to the question: did Prince Igor have children other than Svyatoslav? According to some sources, Gleb (Uleb) and Volodislav are the half-brothers of Svyatoslav. Svyatoslav Igorevich was the first to execute for his Christian beliefs. The fate of the latter remains unknown. For other data, Prince Igor had one son, and Volodislav was Svyatoslav's maternal uncle, and Olga's nephew was Uleb (Gleb).

The absurd death of Prince Igor

After collecting tribute, on the way home, Prince Igor decided that he had collected very little. He decided to return with a retinue, sending part of the army home. The Drevlyans could not measure up to the impudence of the prince and decided to beat him. Igor Rurikovich was brutally executed. He was tied to trees, the branches were released. The prince was torn in two. Later, his wife, Princess Olga, began to rule, who soon avenged the Drevlyans for the death of her husband.


As a result, we can conclude that Prince Igor was the Great Governor, a good ruler and guardian of the integrity of Russia.

That's what historians say. But let's look at the annals. The first thing that will surprise us is the absence of the epithet "wise". It is not in the annals. This is an invention of Karamzin. Well, everyone already knows how he wrote the history of Russia using cheat sheets sent from abroad. There are other oddities as well. It turns out that we do not know at all what Olga did during her reign. Out of 18 years, only three years are filled with events. In 946 Olga is at war with the Drevlyans. In 947 - visits Novgorod and Pskov. In 955 - accepts baptism in Constantinople. And that's it. What happened in other years is a mystery shrouded in darkness.

But the most curious mystery is connected with Svyatoslav. Under 964 the chronicle says:

"Prince Svyatoslav has grown up and matured." Laurentian Chronicle 964.

In fact, it was from 964g. and the independent reign of Svyatoslav begins. How old was he? The birth of Svyatoslav in the annals is indicated under 942. That is, in 964. the prince was already 22. Even under current laws, Olga sat on the throne for an extra four years. And at that time already 16-year-olds were considered adults. Maybe there is a mistake in the date of birth in the annals? Most likely. But not in the direction of increasing age.

It is known that the eldest son of Svyatoslav, Yaropolk, was married to a Greek woman, a former nun, who was brought to him by Svyatoslav:

“Yaropolk’s wife, Grekini, was a blueberry, but his father Svyatoslav brought me and I’m going for Yaropolk’s beauty for the sake of her face” Laurentian Chronicle 977.

Child marriages were not practiced in Russia. Therefore, Yaropolk must have been at least 15 years old. Svyatoslav could bring the nun only from the Balkans, since there were simply no Christian monasteries in Khazaria. But Svyatoslav returned to Kyiv from the Balkans once, namely in 968. If this year Yaropolk was 15 years old, then he was born in 953. But in 953 Svyatoslav should have been only 11 years old. Not enough to have children. Consequently, the date of birth of Svyatoslav should be moved by five years. But then, at the time of coming to power, he should be generally 27 years old. True, it can be assumed that the marriage of Yaropolk with the "Greek" did not take place immediately. But here another contradiction arises. It is doubtful that the bride was older than the groom. And it is equally doubtful that a nine or ten-year-old teenage girl could be said to be "beauty for the sake of her face." Therefore, the version of the postponement of marriage can be withdrawn. But suppose, nevertheless, that the Greek woman was older than Yaropolk. And much older. But then another question arises - for whom did Svyatoslav bring her to Kyiv? For son? But he, with the traditional dating of the birth of Svyatoslav, is no more than ten years old - after all, if Svyatoslav was born in 942, then in 968. he is only 26 years old. Little son for marriage. So maybe Svyatoslav was carrying a Greek woman for himself, and Yaropolk inherited it? It also doesn't work. Why then leave it in Kyiv, if the prince thought of his capital in Pereyaslavets on the Danube? So the traditional dating does not explain this fact.

But that's not all. Let's continue. Let's open Igor's treaty with the Greeks in 945. There we will see a list of ambassadors, indicating those from whom they were sent. The first is the ambassador of Igor himself. The second is the ambassador of Svyatoslav. Then Ambassador Olga. In fourth place is the ambassador of Igor's nephew. On the fifth - Volodyslav's ambassador. But on the sixth - an ambassador from a certain Predslava. From the annals we know only about one Predslava. This name was the wife of Svyatoslav. So, Svyatoslav was already married in 945? How old was he? After all, as mentioned above, Russia did not know child marriages. Therefore, at least 15 years.

True, maybe we have some other Predslava before us. But there is another indication of such a significant age of Svyatoslav during the life of his father. Let's open the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus "On the management of the empire." Speaking about Russia, Constantine reports the following:

“Let it be known that the monoxyls coming from outer Russia to Constantinople are one of Nemogard, in which Sfendoslav, the son of Ingor, archon of Russia, sat ...” book 9

Svyatoslav, during the life of his father, sits on the reign in Nemograd-Novgorod. A baby cannot rule. Moreover, I emphasize that Svyatoslav is “sitting” in Novgorod, and not just listed as a Novgorod prince, while in Kyiv. And that means Svyatoslav in 945. really was at least 15-16 years old.

But after all, the annals indicate that Svyatoslav was born in 942. Let's look at this entry:

“Simeon went to the Croats, and the Croats were defeated, and died, leaving Peter, the son of his prince. In the same summer, Svyatoslav was born to Igor ”Ipatiev Chronicle 942.

Why is this text interesting? The fact that it follows that Svyatoslav was born in the year of the death of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon. Simeon really went to the Croats, was defeated and died, but not in 942, but in 927. If we accept exactly 927g. as the date of birth of Svyatoslav, then all questions will be removed. So in 945. Svyatoslav was already 18 years old. It is quite enough to be married, and to sit on the reign in Novgorod for several years on his own. Apparently, the transfer of the date was made by one of the scribes, trying to whitewash Olga. After all, it turns out that the princess removes her adult son from power. By the way, in other lists of the annals, for example, in Laventevsky, the date of Svyatoslav's birth is generally absent. Although the year of Simeon's death is also named 942. It seems that subsequent scribes, realizing that the transfer still does not save the situation - the prince in 964 still turns out to be too old - they removed the date of birth altogether. There is one objection here. The initial parts of the chronicle are dated by different eras. Not only in Constantinople - in it the birth of Christ falls on 5508. - but also for some others. Maybe in this case, the year of Simeon's death - 6450 - is calculated according to some other era and accidentally coincided with the year of Svyatoslav's birth - 942 in the Constantinople era? Indeed, the Bulgarian events in the annals are dated according to the Antioch era - 5500, and according to the so-called "Bulgarian era", the existence of which was established by the Bulgarian historian V.N. Zlatarsky, whose conclusions were supported by A.G. Kuzmin (13 pp. 277-287) . In the Bulgarian era, Christmas dates back to 5511. It is the presence of two eras that explains the double mention in the annals of the baptism of the Bulgarians: 6366 - 866. according to the Antiochian era and 6377. - 866 according to the Bulgarian era. As you can see, there are dating options. However, neither the Bulgarian nor the Antiochian eras help turn 6450. in 927 from the birth of Christ. The era that would date Christmas to 5523. neither in Russian, nor in Byzantine, nor in Bulgarian sources is it attested, and in general nothing is known about the existence of such an era. Therefore, what we have before us is the transfer of dating.

True, there is one episode of the annals that contradicts these conclusions. This is a description of the battle with the Drevlyans in 946. Svyatoslav is clearly depicted there as a child. Fortunately, we have extra-chronicle sources at our disposal. These include the work of Mavrourbini, an author who wrote at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. Here is what he says about these events:

"Since Igor's son Vratoslav was still too small and could not rule, his mother Olga did all the work."

"After Olga's death, her son Svyatoslav ruled."

That is, Igor had two sons. Most likely, it was he who was mentioned in the agreement with the Greeks as Vladislav. Mentions about the brother of Svyatoslav were preserved, in particular, in the Joachim Chronicle. And he is called a Christian. Apparently, it was Vladislav who appeared in the original text of the chronicle when describing the battle with the Drevlyans. It was on his behalf that Olga ruled. Svyatoslav in 964 regained power by removing his mother and brother. Although the option is not excluded, in which Olga transferred power to the matured Vladislav, and he himself voluntarily ceded the throne to his brother. This development of events is supported by the fact that Svyatoslav's younger brother is participating with him in the Balkan campaign.

So, the "wise" princess turns out to be an ordinary usurper. But maybe then it is worth considering in more detail the circumstances of the death of her husband, Igor? Moreover, the prince looks painfully strange, having gone three times for tribute to one place, and even finally, going to the already robbed Drevlyans twice, having forgotten to take his squad with him.

“Rekosha squad to Igor: the children of Svenlzha dressed up as weapons and a port, and we are Nazis. And go to the prince with us in tribute, di and you will get us too. And listen to them, Igor goes to the Tree as a tribute. And when he came to the first tribute, he did it to them, and his men, having taken tribute, went to their cities. Going back to him, thinking rekosh to his squad: “Go with a tribute to the house, and I will return and look like more.” Let your squad go home, and return with a small squad, wanting more property. Laurentian Chronicle 945.

A ruler tearing three skins from his subjects is not uncommon in history. But so that such greed coexists with incredible stupidity ...

However, the chronicle is not the only source of information. The saga of Sturlaug the Industrious reports that the Viking Franmar was engaged to the daughter of Ingvar, king in Gard. Having failed, Franmar leaves for Sweden, and after a while returns to Gardariki with Jarl Sturlaug:

“He equipped (Sturlaug) 300 ships, well equipped in every respect. Then they head for Gardariki with great pomp and good humor. When they arrived in the country, they went over the land, committing robberies, burning and burning everywhere they went in the country. They kill livestock and people. And so it had been for some time, when they learned of the gathering of troops. When Snakol and Hvitserk find out about this, they prepare for a duel. As soon as they met, a fierce battle ensued, and one side attacked the other. Sturlaug, as usual, went out without covering himself with armor. The brothers fought with great valor and courage. The battle continued for three days with heavy losses of people. In this battle, King Ingvar and Snekol fell at the hands of Sturlaug, and Hvitserk fled with many of his people. Sturlaug orders to raise the shield of peace and goes to Aldegyuborg with the whole army. And in their army there was joy and merriment. The whole city was in their power, as well as all the people in the city.

The saga is full of notorious conjectures. In particular, it is stated that Franmar became king in Gardariki. But at the same time, the actions of the saga coincide with the reign of Harald the Fair-Haired in Norway, that is, with the first half of the 10th century. In Ingvar it is not difficult to recognize Igor, who ruled in Russia just at that time, whose name is transmitted by Greek sources as Ingor.

Given the fantastic details, the data of the saga could be neglected, but we have another source at our disposal. Igor's death is reported by Leo the Deacon. So, according to him, Igor was killed by the Germans:

“I believe that you (Svyatoslav) did not forget about the defeat of your father Ingor, who, having looked down on an oath agreement, sailed to our capital with a huge army on 10 thousand ships, and arrived at the Cimmerian Bosporus with barely a dozen boats, himself becoming a herald of his misfortune. I don’t even mention his miserable fate, when, having gone on a campaign against the Germans, he was taken prisoner by them, tied to tree trunks and torn in two ”History 6,10

Given this fact, the data of the saga should be treated with more care. Moreover, the text of the chronicle also gives reason to doubt that the perpetrators of the death of Igor are the Drevlyans.

“The Drevlyans killed Igor and his squad, for there weren’t enough of them. And Igor would be buried. There is his grave near the Iskorosten castle in the Trees to this day ”Laurentian Chronicle 945.

The question is, why would the Drevlyans bury the prince they killed, and not just throw it to the wolves for grass? In favor of the fact that it was the Drevlyans who buried, the further text testifies, which says that Olga comes to Igor's grave. Moreover, they buried not the enemy who fell in battle, but the executed enemy. There is no reason not to trust Leo the Deacon in this case. This can only mean one thing - the Drevlyans are just the supporters of Igor, on whom the blame was laid retroactively. Why? We will talk about this below, and now we will deal with the circumstances of Igor's death.

The Scandinavian mercenaries of Sturlaug and Franmar could get to Russia in two ways - along the Dvina past Polotsk and along the Volkhov past Novgorod. The following considerations allow us to give preference to the first version. About the Polotsk prince Rogovolod in the annals it is said that he "came from beyond the sea." The daughter of Rogovolod became the wife of Vladimir, that is, the Polotsk prince himself belonged to the same generation as Svyatoslav. So, he had to settle in Polotsk either in the reign of Igor, or in the reign of Olga. According to the annals, Polotsk was part of the Novgorod state even before the unification of Novgorod and Kyiv. That is, Rogovolod could capture this city only at a time when there was some kind of civil strife in Russia, and the central government was simply not up to the outskirts. The invasion of Sturlaug and Franmar is just the right moment. Rogovolod could be the third participant in the invasion, who did not fall into the saga due to his non-Scandinavian origin.

So, the Scandinavians walked along the Dvina. Their further way to Kyiv lay along the Dnieper from Smolensk. That is, not at all through the land of the Drevlyans. But Igor died there. There can be only one explanation - having lost the battle on the outskirts of the capital, the Grand Duke fled not to Kyiv, which would be completely logical, but to the Drevlyans. Well, or rather, who forced Igor to choose such a path to escape. The answer is simple - Olga. While Igor fought with the aliens, Olga seized power in Kyiv. The memory of this among the people lived for centuries. In the 90s of the XIX century, the historian and folklorist N.I. Korobko collected and recorded the folk traditions of the Ovruch district, on the territory of which the ancient Iskorosten was located. Among other legends, there are several versions of the story about the murder of Princess Olga of her husband Igor. Moreover, in one of the options, Olga besieges Igor in Iskorosten for seven years.

Another participant in the events was installed by Chess. Analyzing the chronicle story about the death of Igor, he drew attention to the fact that the Drevlyane tribute, during the collection of which Igor died, had previously been transferred to Sveneld. Thus, Igor, having gone for tribute to the Drevlyans, violated the rights of one of his very powerful subjects, who, according to the chronicle, had their own squad. Further, Shakhmatov comes to the conclusion that one of the direct culprits of Igor's death was Sveneld. More precisely, not himself, but his son Mistish. Briefly, the reasoning leading to this conclusion is as follows. The Polish historian Dlugosh, who used the Western Russian chronicles that have not come down to us, describing the death of Igor, calls him the killer not of Mal, but of a certain Niskin. Shakhmatov believes that we have a distorted name of Mistish:

“Based on the proposed reading of the Most Ancient Kyiv Code, we conclude that inserts in the text of the Initial Code. (PVL) we have to admit, firstly, the passage “Lova is acting Svenaldich ... And about that there was hatred between them, Yaropolk on Olga”, and secondly, the words “although take revenge on your son.” The insertion of the first passage is revealed by its extremely careless and clumsy language: “Catch of action”, instead of “Catch of action” we read in the Lavrentiev, Radzivilov, Moscow Academic and Commission lists of the Novgorod 1st; instead of "the name of Lut" we would expect "the name of Lutu"; below, after the words "and stop and kill," clumsily inserted: "because of Oleg's day"; in the phrase "And there was hatred between them, Yaropolk on Olga" two constructions are mixed. We reinforce the assumption that we have in article 6483g . dealing with the insert, not only considerations about the roughness of the language of this insert, but also a number of other considerations.First of all, we note that Lyut Sveneldich, about whom the insert speaks, is identical with Mistish (Mstislav) Sveneldich, about whom the Initial Code (and PVL) reports above, under 6453 (945) This statement is based on the fact that an ancient Russian historical song belonged to the image of Mstislav the Fierce.This is how Mstislav Vladimirovich Tmutorokansky is called two monuments: firstly, Simon's legend about the creation of the Caves Church, where we read about Yakun, that he “ran away from gold ore (instead of luda), fighting the regiment along Yaroslav with the fierce Mstislav”; secondly, the Novgorod 4th chronicle, which inserted into the text of the code 1448 (cf. Sophia 1st chronicle) under 6532 (1024) city, trace The breaking news (repeating what was stated above): “Yaroslav Vladimirich in Suzdal beat the Vlkhva, and take him Fierce Mstislav sede in Chernigov.” I think that the name of Mstislav the Lyuty was transferred to Mstislav Vladimirovich from Mstishi-Lyuta, the son of Sveneldov; from this I deduce that Mstisha and Lut meant the same person. We have just assumed that the episode with Lut Sveneldich is inserted in Article 6483; we have reason to assert that some episode with Mstisha Sveneldich was excluded from the text of the Primary Code in article 6453. Indeed, this is what we read about Mstisha Sveneldich in this article: “Olga was in Kyiv with her son with her children Svyatoslav, and his breadwinner Asmud, governor be Sveneld, the same father Mistishin.” The chronicler refers to Mistisha as a well-known person, but meanwhile he did not speak about him before, without mentioning him later (or, more precisely, calling him Luth under 6483). I think that the reference “the same fathers of Mstishan” shows that there was some kind of legend about Mistish, some kind of song, perhaps singing about him as a hero; Of course, the chronicler could not have in mind that pale image of Lyuta Sveneldich, which he inserted into Article 6483. Sveneld, mentioned more than once by the chronicler, would not need to be defined by reference to his son Luth, who plays (in contrast to the same Sveneld) a completely passive role. The existence of a song or legend, where Mstisha the Fierce appeared as a hero, is proved by transferring his name to the Tmutorokan prince, who, according to the chronicle, was a brave soldier. And so, knowing this heroic Mietishu, the compiler of the Primary Code confines himself to a simple reference to him when he speaks of Sveneld, and introduces Mitishu himself into his story below under the name of Luta as an accidental and completely passive person. This alone makes me think that the compiler of the Initial Code had some reasons that prompted him to present Mistisha in a different light than he could do on the basis of data known to him, but not discovered; consequently, the chronicler left traces of acquaintance with two different legends or songs about Mistish; he gave preference to the legend that reported on the killing of Mistisha-Lut while hunting by Oleg Svyatoslavich, and inserted it into the text of the Most Ancient Kyiv Code; it is probable to think that he met another legend in the text of the Most Ancient Code itself, but excluded it as contradicting the first. Where, then, could this legend about Mistish-Lute, excluded by the compiler of the Primary Code, be read in the Most Ancient Code? We will answer this question below; here we only note that, in all likelihood, before the place where the words “the same father Mistishin” are read, for they are easiest to understand in such a way that the chronicler refers to a person about whom his source spoke before, but which he for some reason it was omitted in the appropriate place. I,1,XIV,219

Further, Shakhmatov concludes that originally there were two legends about Mistish. In one, Mistisha kills Igor, in the other, he himself dies at the hands of the Drevlyansky prince. The first legend was removed from the chronicle, and the second was transferred to a later time and is associated with Oleg Drevlyansky. But this leads to a conclusion not noticed by Shakhmatov. He himself identifies Mistisha with Mal. But this is absolutely impossible, since Mistish, who was killed by the Drevlyan prince, cannot in any way be the prince of the Drevlyans himself. Mistisha Killer - Mal. And no one else. This is in complete agreement with everything that has already been said above. Apparently, the intention to take away the Drevlyan tribute from Sveneld served as a convenient pretext. Olga received an unexpected ally and Igor's fate was sealed. But Mistisha Sveneldich did not survive the Grand Duke for long, having fallen at the hands of Mala Drevlyansky.

In general, the events, apparently, looked as follows. Having taken away the Drevlyane tribute from Sveneld, Igor made a powerful enemy in his person. Olga took advantage of this, attracting an influential boyar to her side. Denying Franmaru's matchmaking was the next step. Franmar entered into an agreement with Olga and Sveneld and attracted Sturlaug and Rogovolod to the campaign against Kyiv. The ally was captured by Polotsk, where Rogovolod settled, and moved to the capital of Russia. Igor came out to meet them, but during the battle that took place, part of the regiments led by Mstisha Sveneldich went over to the side of the enemy. Igor was defeated and fled. But not to Kyiv, where just at that time Olga seized power, but to the Drevlyans. However, he did not have time to unite with Mal, he was overtaken, captured and executed. True, his death did not remain unavenged. The chronicle story about the death of a prince with a small retinue most likely initially did not refer to him, but to Mstisha. Moreover, the death of Luth is also not described as a death in battle. Most likely, Mal managed to lure Mstisha into an ambush, possibly under the pretext of negotiations. The body of the murdered boyar, apparently, was changed to the body of Igor, whom the Drevlyans buried.

Whether Olga participated in this or not is not clear. In any case, the chronicle speaks of her two campaigns in the land of the Drevlyans. During the second, Iskorosten fell.

The emerging image of the princess is not very attractive. But he explains very well some facts related to her reign. As already mentioned, we do not know what exactly happened during Olga's reign. But, on the other hand, we can compare the situation in Russia before it, and after it. In Igor's treaty with the Greeks, 20 princes are named by name, including two of Igor's nephews. There is no more mention of them. But we know for sure that by the end of the reign of Svyatoslav there were no other princes in Russia, except for Svyatoslav himself. The reign of Svyatoslav is known weather-wise. Solid hikes. There is simply no room for internal conflicts. The conclusion is simple. These princes disappeared during Olga's reign. How? To answer this question, it is enough to recall the fate of Mal Drevlyansky.

And what do we have? The image of Olga the Wise concocted by Christian authors disappears somewhere, giving way to the bestial grin of Olga the Bloody.

This is where it could have ended. But there is one more question to consider. All forgeries in the annals were made with one goal - to create a noble image of an Orthodox princess, a harbinger of the baptism of Russia under Vladimir. So let's look at how Olga herself treated Christianity in general, and Orthodoxy in particular.

The Laurentian Chronicle reports that in 955. Olga visited Constantinople, where she was baptized under the name Elena. Emperor Tzimisces became the godfather. The error is immediately obvious. John Tzimisces became emperor after Olga's death. True, in the Ipatev list the name of the emperor is indicated correctly - Constantine. But here we are most likely dealing with a correction made by a competent copyist. In favor of the fact that it was Tzimisces in the original text, the text of the life of Olga, contained in the Book of Powers, also speaks. There, too, stands Tzimisces. But at the same time, although the baptism is dated 955, it was placed after the first Balkan campaign of Svyatoslav, and the death of Nicephorus Foki, the predecessor of John Tzimiskes. Apparently, here the scribe tried to correct the mistake, but in a different way.

It is curious that the very date of the trip, which is in the annals, is erroneous. According to Greek sources, Olga's visit to Constantinople dates back to 957. True, a different point of view has recently appeared, according to which this fact should be dated to 946. Academician Litavrin, in particular, insists on this. However, all his conclusions are crossed out by one single fact. The thing is that Konstantin Porphyrogenitus wrote his essay “On the Management of the Empire” no earlier than 949. Litavrin himself agrees with this fact. But, as has already been shown above, Constantine calls Igor the ruler of Russia. Consequently, Olga visited Constantinople after the composition was completed. That is, not earlier than 952. By the way, apparently, the annalistic date of Igor's death is not exact. But rather, it is not true that we recalculate to the modern style. As Kuzmin pointed out, a number of events in the chronicle are dated not according to Constantinople, but according to some other era, which differs by four years. With this in mind, we just get 949g. as the date of Igor's death. Then the ignorance of Constantine is understandable. She began her work when Igor was still alive.

What conclusion follows from all that has been said? Very simple. The description of Olga's baptism in Constantinople is nothing more than a late legend. This conclusion is also confirmed by the fact that in the description of Olga's reception by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, which has come down to us, there is not a word about baptism. Moreover, the priest Gregory is mentioned in Olga's retinue, which suggests that Olga was already a Christian (5 pp. 118-120). The assumption that we have before us a simple priest who accompanied Christians who were already among the Russian nobility is untenable. After all, there were also Christians in Igor's army. However, no priests appear in his treaty with the Greeks. So the selection of the priest Gregory, who is entitled to separate gifts, most likely means that we have before us the confessor of the princess. Strange, isn't it? But nevertheless, confirmation of this is available in the annals.

“Igor, I will grow up and walk around Olza and listen to him. And bringing him a wife from Pskov, named Olena” Laurentian Chronicle 902.

Olena-Elena is Olga's Christian name. It turns out that Olga was a Christian at the time of her marriage? We find an explanation in a historical collection of the 15th century, in which a passage from an ancient chronicler was quoted. Information from this collection was published in 1888. in the July issue of Russian Antiquities, Archimandrite Leonid, who discovered the collection (8). From the text it follows that Olga was a Bulgarian princess, and that the city of Pleskov (so in the Ipatiev and Radziwill lists) is not Pskov, but Pliska - the first capital of Bulgaria.

So, Olga was a Christian. The question arises - why then did she go to Constantinople at all? Most likely, the reasons were purely political. It is possible that Olga did not have a relationship with her Bulgarian relatives, and she sought support from the Greeks. There is a high probability that during the visit the question of the subordination of the Russian Church to Constantinople was decided. Apparently, this is where the opinion of John Skylitzes comes from:

“And the wife of a Russian archon who once set sail against the Romans, named Elga, when her husband died, arrived in Constantinople. Baptized, and favoring the true faith, she, having received a great honor on this occasion, returned home ”240, 77-81 (11 p. 166)

Skylitsa wrote 100 years after the events in question. None of the earlier authors report this. Was there a second baptism in Constantinople? Unlikely. The fact is that we do not know any other name of Olga's godfather, except for Elena. And this name she wore already before marriage. Most likely, Skylitsa logically contrived baptism, based on the fact of church subordination of Russia to Constantinople. In general, it is worth noting the fact that the baptism of Olga in Constantinople is reported either by late Byzantine authors, like Skylitsa and Zonara, or by authors from countries very remote from both Russia and Byzantium, such as, for example, the successor of Reginon.

So, Olga nevertheless turned to Orthodoxy. But it is too early for the zealots of the true faith to rejoice. The call was not very long. Olga visited Constantinople in 957, and already in 959. in Germany, to King Otto I, ambassadors from Russia come with a request to send a bishop and priests. This is reported in the "Continuation of the Chronicle of Reginon Pryumsky":

“In the summer of the Incarnation of the Lord 959 ... The ambassadors of Helen, the rugorum region, who was baptized in Constantinople under the emperor of Constantinople Roman, came to the king, feignedly, as it turned out later, asked to appoint a bishop and priests to their people.” cont. Reg. P.170 (5 pp. 303-304)

Note that, reporting on the baptism of Olga-Helena in Constantinople, the author calls the emperor Roman. This shows his poor awareness of the actual events that took place in Byzantium.

The result of the embassy was the direction to Kyiv in 961. Bishop Adalbert. He stayed in Russia for only two years, and already in 963. returned to Germany. Note that according to the annals in 964. Svyatoslav is already ruling. The change of power itself could take place a year later. Most likely, it was Svyatoslav who expelled Adalbert from Russia. This expulsion led the chronicler to the opinion that the Russians acted "pretendly." The very message about the embassy is also confirmed in the Annals of Hildesheim:

“Envoys from the people of Russia came to King Otto with a plea that he send one of his bishops who would open the path of truth to them; they assured that they wanted to abandon pagan customs and adopt the Christian faith. And he agreed to their request, sent Bishop Adalbert of the right faith to them. They, as the outcome of the case later showed, lied in everything. Ann.Hild., a.960. P.21-22 (5 p.304)

It is curious that the Russian chronicle also retained a dull hint of Adalbert's stay in Russia:

“Then the Nemtsy came, saying that a message was coming from the pape, and deciding to him: “Speak like this papa:“ Your land is like our land, but your faith is not like our faith. Faith is our light. We also bow to God, the hedgehog who created heaven and earth, the stars, the moon and every breath. And your bosies are a tree." Volodimer Nemtsem said: “Go again, as our fathers did not accept this” ” Laurentian Chronicle 986.

It was under the father of Vladimir, Svyatoslav, that Bishop Adalbert was expelled from Russia.

We do not know what prompted Olga to turn to Catholics. The chronicle indicates the obvious displeasure of the princess with the Greeks after her return from Constantinople. Perhaps Olga intended to receive in Germany what she did not receive in Byzantium. In any case, one thing is clear. Until the end of her reign, Olga adhered to the church orientation towards Rome, and not towards Constantinople. This is such an interesting evolution that we observe in the "holy" princess. Orthodoxy-Catholicism.

It is not surprising that none of her closest successors decided to canonize the princess. The memory of Olga the Bloody, Olga the apostate, was too alive. And what do we read in the annals? Just a beautiful legend, designed to hide the cruel truth from posterity. Legend of Princess Olga.

And yet a goy for a Jew is cattle and I am a great prince of Rus,
in the opinion of a Jew I belong to the beasts.
Why are you the covenants of the Jews, Old and New,
old continuing, gave me a couple?
So that I am the abyss of evil, created by the ineffable god of the Jews,
tasted, or that I, leaving my good, their evil, alien to me, would accept,
Like crazy Romans, looking for the ruin of their empire,
yes gullible Khazars, who died in the abyss of that?
Have you already sold our people and me as slaves to the Greeks and Jews in Tsaregrad?
Tell me, tell me the truth, you were a carrier on the river, I will not execute you.
I also remember that you are my mother, I will not lay hands on my mother.
Your trembling is inappropriate, in life and its death, assigned to you, you are free.
To your father and mother, unfaithful or corrupt, you know, a Russian is not a judge ...
Forgive me, but I repeat your own: destruction will be rewarded in the generations of those who, having, father will forget And the earth, I will look at the ancestors, false brothers,
like daily bread, from native children to puppies breaks,
That they caress at the feet, for satiety and thiefs with malice in their eyes.
Dispose of your soul as you wish;
Yours is your right. But for our people and before their grandchildren, I, the Grand Duke of Russia, are responsible. Russia for dirty consolation in exchange for burning our books
your philosophers in robes of black and gold crosses only with my head,
Do you hear, Olga, they will receive from me
"Song about the beating of the Jewish Khazaria by Svyatoslav Khorobre"

References:
1. "Laurentian Chronicle" Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles Volume I
2. "Ipatiev Chronicle" Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles Volume II
3. "History" Leo Deacon Moscow "Science" 1988
4. "On the management of the empire" Konstantin Porphyrogenitus Moscow "Science" 1989
5. "Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources" Moscow "Logos" 1999.
6. "Russian History" V.N. Tatishchev Moscow "Ladomir" 1994-96.
7. “Orbini Mavro. The book is a historiography of the beginning of the name, glory, and expansion of the Slavic people. Collected from many historical books, through Mavrourbin Archimandrite of Raguzhsky "St. Petersburg printing house, 1722.
8. "The probable origin of St. Princess Olga" D. I. Ilovaisky. In the collection "Ryazan Principality" D.I. Ilovaisky Moscow "Charlie" 1997.
9. “The Saga of Sturlaug the Hardworking Ingolvsson” in the collection “Icelandic Viking Sagas about Northern Europe” by G.V. Glazyrin Moscow “Ladomir” 1996.
10. "Byzantium and the Slavs" G.G. Litavrin St. Petersburg "Aletheia" 1999
11. "Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Russia" G.G. Litavrin St. Petersburg "Aletheia" 2000
12. "Fall of Perun" A.G. Kuzmin Moscow "Young Guard" 1988
13. "The initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing" A.G. Kuzmin Moscow "Publishing house of Moscow University" 1977.
14. “Tales about the tracts of the Ovruch district and epics about Volga Svyatoslavich” N.I. Korobko SPb. 1908

The love story of Prince Igor and Olga is unusual in that over the years it has turned into a folk tale. Since it was about the rulers of the Rurik dynasty, this legend had great political meaning for subsequent sovereigns. According to legend, Olga was a simple girl whom Prince Igor fell in love with. She conquered the prince with intelligence and courage.

One day Prince Igor, then still a young man, was hunting in the Pskov land, when suddenly, on the opposite bank of the river, he saw, according to the chronicler, "desired fishing", that is, rich hunting grounds. However, getting to the other side was not so easy, because the river was swift, and the prince did not have a "boat" - a boat.

"And he saw a certain one swimming along the river in a boat, and called the one who was sailing to the shore, and ordered him to be transported across the river. And when they were sailing, Igor looked at that rower and realized that this was a girl. blessed Olga, still very young, handsome and courageous" (this is how the old adjectives "very young are, she is good-looking and courageous" are translated into modern Russian).

"And stung by a vision ... and inflamed with desire for nude (To her. - Ed.) , and some verbs mockery transforming (shamelessly began to speak. — Ed.) to her, "- the first meeting of Olga with her future husband, Prince Igor, is reported in the Power Book of the Royal Genealogy. This historical monument of the official Moscow ideology was compiled in the middle of the 16th century by an associate of Metropolitan Macarius, Archpriest of the Moscow Kremlin Cathedral of the Annunciation Andrei, who became later, under the name of Athanasius, the Moscow metropolitan.

True, the author directly Lives of Princess Olga As part of the Book of Degrees, historians consider another famous writer and church leader, the Annunciation priest Sylvester, who was the spiritual mentor of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. We were told about the acquaintance on the Velikaya River not by contemporaries of the prince and princess, but by scribes who lived six centuries later.

But let's hear what happened next. Olga she answered the prince not like a young maiden, but like a woman wise with life experience - "not youthful, but slandering him with an senile sense": "Why are you embarrassing yourself, oh prince, inclining me to shame? Why, holding the unsimilar on your mind, you utter shameless words? Do not delude yourself when you see me young and alone, and do not hope that you can overcome me: although I am unlearned, and quite young, and simple in character, as you see, I still understand that you want to offend me ... Better about think to yourself and leave your thought. While you are young, take care of yourself, so that foolishness does not overcome you and suffer you from some evil. Leave all lawlessness and unrighteousness: if you yourself are wounded by all sorts of shameful deeds, then how can you forbid others to unrighteousness and Know that if you do not cease to be tempted by my defenselessness (literally: "about my orphanhood"), then it will be better for me that the depth of this river swallow me up: may I not be a temptation to you, and I myself will avoid reproach and reproach ... "We quoted this passage in the translation of the historian and writer Alexei Karpov.

The rest of the way the young people did in complete silence. Prince Igor returned to Kyiv. After some time, it was time for him to marry: "and by the command of his former wife to invent for him a bride for marriage." The prince began to search everywhere for a bride. Igor remembered Olga, "wonderful in girls," her "cunning verbs" and "chaste disposition" and sent for her his "relative" Oleg, who "with due honor" brought the young maiden to Kyiv, "and so it was destined for him by the law of marriage" .

A small digression. In The Tale of Bygone Years, Prince Oleg is named the ruler of the Kievan state at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. Whether he was in fact the true ruler of Kievan Rus and whether he lived at the same time as Igor is a separate and difficult topic for historians, but has nothing to do with the love story of Igor and Olga.

Here is a legend about Olga, who was one of the favorite characters of Russian folklore for centuries, was transmitted six centuries after her life and death. In the popular mind, Olga turned out to be wiser than both the prince of Kyiv and, in other stories, the Byzantine emperor. And the role assigned to her as a carrier, as researchers of folk tales emphasize, is also far from accidental. Crossing a river is not just a movement in space. In Russian ritual songs, crossing the river symbolizes a change in the fate of a girl: her union with her betrothed, her transformation into a married woman. The crossing is usually carried out by a man, but there are also reverse examples. Moreover, the first meeting Olga with Igor predetermined her future replacement of Igor as the ruler of his state.

The name Olga is the Russian female form of the male name Oleg, most likely, just like the Scandinavian name Helga (Helga), is the female form of the male name Helgi (Helgi). It acquires the meaning of "holy" only with the spread of Christianity (not earlier than the 11th century), and in pagan times it meant "lucky", "possessing all the qualities necessary for a king." This "princely" name was given to epic, legendary heroes.

And although Olga was not the only wife of Prince Igor, the names of other princely wives were not preserved in the annals. Just like the names of his other sons, except son Igor from Olga- famous Prince Svyatoslav. In the political life of the Kyiv state, other sons, except for Svyatoslav Igorevich, did not take part. And you marriage of Igor and Olga, the exact date of which is also unknown to us, is considered by some historians as a combination of two initially unrelated dynasties of the rulers of ancient Russia - "Kyiv" and "Novgorod".

Women in ancient Russia were not disenfranchised beings. The legal (in Russian, "led") wife of the ruling prince and the mother of his sons had her own court, retinue and even squad, different from her husband's squad. It was through the hands of her warriors that Princess Olga carried out revenge on the Drevlyans who killed Prince Igor. This story is well remembered by many from school history textbooks.