Where and under what circumstances did Russian journalists die. Photo gallery. Object property learning model

MODEL OF STUDYING THE PROPERTIES OF THE OBJECT

Logical chain of questions: What to study? Why study and for what purpose? Where and under what conditions to study? By what means to study? Examples of models for studying properties: "material security" of the family, "political activity" of the student, "prestige" of the district. Properties, variables, signs - the relationship of concepts.

In sociology, there is an eternal problem of the interaction of two levels of knowledge: theoretical and empirical. The subject of study of the methodology of analysis is this interaction. The “birth” of sociological research begins with the answer to the question either “What to study?” or “Why and for what purposes to study?” Any research is somehow planned, regardless of the approach under which it is carried out. In some studies, the original existence of the program is legitimate, but there are cases when it is not needed at all in the form in which it is commonly understood. The sequence in which the program is described in the literature correlates little with the sequence of the researcher's steps. Rather, this sequence is necessary for presenting the results of sociological research.

There are many techniques, ways of "birth" of sociological research. Excessive rigidity and liberty are equally unacceptable here. We will focus on only one technique that works well in almost any study. To do this, we introduce a logical chain of questions.

What to study? Why study and for what purpose? Where and under what conditions to study? By what means to study?

The role of this logical chain is natural and understandable when it comes to research as a whole. However, its role is not limited to this. It turns out that these questions are appropriate and useful to ask the sociologist when considering both horizontal and vertical connections, as it were, within the “body” of the study. Let us explain what connections we are talking about. Based on a simple scheme, when planning a study, a sociologist distinguishes three levels. This has already been discussed above as the three constituent elements of sociological research. A small digression is appropriate here.

We are forced to speak about the same thing in one word, then in another, which causes “bewilderment” in the student. The "language" of the sociologist is vast, and as you read many other books on the methods and methodology of sociological research, you will encounter a variety of styles and contexts, from overly simplistic to overly complex. Therefore, one should definitely plunge into the “ocean” of the conceptual apparatus in order to learn how to “swim”. It will not be a revelation to say that the same books will have to be consulted regularly. First, to read them diagonally, then thoroughly, and then critically, comparing them with other books on the same subject. This process is mandatory, and especially when working with literature of a methodological nature.

Let us return to the three levels of sociological research:

1. Conceptual scheme of research (subject and object of research, purpose, tasks, hypotheses, conceptual apparatus of research).

2. Methodology for collecting empirical data (empirical interpretation of tasks, hypotheses, concepts; research tools).

3. Methods of data processing (forms of information representation, methods of primary analysis, application of mathematical methods).

At each of these levels, the logical chain of questions mentioned above plays a certain functional role, clarifying the horizontal connections in the study. For example, the cognitive ability of even a single empirical indicator of a questionnaire can be analyzed using a designated logical chain. Then we ask ourselves the following questions: What is being learned through this question? Why and for what purpose is the question being asked? Where and under what conditions does the question work? In what form should it be asked to the respondent?

But the most interesting thing is building vertical connections through our logical chain. On the whole, the search for answers to questions included in the logical chain makes it possible to structure the research situation, as it were, to develop a methodology for solving research problems. At the same time, it is possible to solve them on an alternative basis. This is a very important point, the absence of which characterizes many sociological studies. What does alternative mean? When preparing to conduct a sociological study, a sociologist must “see” several options for conducting it, several options for choosing methods of collection, several options for analyzing empirical evidence, and several options for interpreting empirical patterns. Alternative and generates various logical schemes of analysis. In turn, these schemes are subject to empirical interpretation in the same way as hypotheses, tasks, research concepts. Then it is possible mathematical formation.

What does a sociologist study? The answer to this question is both complex and simple at the same time. Again, we will proceed from a simplified scheme. A sociologist studies social phenomena (drug addiction, prostitution, the way of life of the "new Russians", etc.).

· A sociologist studies social communities (youth, pensioners, drug addicts, alcoholics, "new Russians", etc.).

· A sociologist studies social facts, such as the results of a referendum, "the phenomenon of Mr. X in elections", etc.

· A sociologist studies social processes, for example, socialization, politicization.

A sociologist studies social norms, values, attitudes, needs, behaviors, identities, etc. You know this well

· The sociologist understands, describes, explains and tries to predict the development of social phenomena and processes.

At the same time, the deeper and better the area of ​​interest to the sociologist is studied, the more difficult it is to answer the question “What to study?” .

In whatever "language" the sociologist studies social reality, whatever section of this reality he explores, from the biography of an individual to the societal level, he studies it through the prism of manifestation properties either a social phenomenon, or a social object, or a social process, or individual individuals. Perhaps some other "social", introduced by the greats of the "world of sociology". You know their names from the History of Sociology course. Try to compare them with the position of the "language" of the study of social reality. And a very interesting book by I.F. Nine.

Each sociologist, depending on the purpose of the study, research tasks, his scientific worldview, adheres to a certain "language" of perception of social reality. Moreover, the language of different concepts can be used to study the same social phenomenon. Let us give a simple example, consider the phenomenon of drunkenness. First, the totality of drunkards and alcoholics can be studied as a kind of social community. Secondly, to consider drunkenness as a social process through the prism of the development of its forms. Thirdly, to study drunkenness in the context of other forms of deviant behavior as an object of social control. Fourth, to study the life paths of drunkards and alcoholics based on their biographies. The list goes on.

Property- a purely theoretical and very broad concept. We will focus only on the properties of a special, fairly simple form. What are these properties? Only those concerning which statements of the type are supposedly possible: object A has more of a given property than object B, or: objects A and B are indistinguishable from the point of view of this property. Here, objects are understood as empirical objects in accordance with the objects of analysis. We can assume that the object of analysis and the unit of study are one and the same. For example, in the mentioned work, such units of research as communities, institutions, texts, events are singled out.

In our case, we are talking about comparable empirical objects the role of which may be respondents, experts, families, student groups, regions, districts, countries, social communities, etc. Empirical objects are objects of comparison. Empirical objects are objects of analysis. These are not necessarily direct carriers of information. For example, families, brigades, groups are empirical objects, and individual respondents are the carrier (source) of information for their study. In what follows, we will use the term "object" to mean an empirical object. Each such object has different properties. So, we consider those and only those properties , regarding which one can speak in terms of "equal" - "not equal", "is" - "no", "greater" - "less".

In fact, we are excluding from consideration a whole layer from the field of sociological research methodology associated with the language of variables. Variable-empirically interpreted concept. Social object property-the concept of a high level of generality. In the study, they move from properties to a system of conceptual variables. From them- to operationally defined variables. Thus, two types of definitions arise: conceptual and operational. Recall what you know from the course "Methods of collecting information", namely the operational definition-a set of instructions for carrying out the actions of the researcher to establish the value of the variable. Instead of a variable, it is also possible to use the concept of "attribute". Usually within the same work there are several terms to refer to the same thing.

A property is both a variable and a sign, and something else that cannot be called either one or the other. Therefore, in order not to go into conceptual jungle, we will stick to the term for the time being "property" and consider a fairly specific group of properties. In this case, we will assume that as a result of constructing a model for studying the property, we reach empirical indicators. The latter could also be called observable features, operationally defined variables.

Let's pass to consideration of models of studying of some separate properties of various objects - research units.

Example 1

A model for studying such a property of a student family as "material security". In any study devoted to the problems of studying student families, there is a need to study this property. So far, we have only one small goal. We must be able to compare individual families, that is, to conclude that family A is better off financially than family B, or that families A and B are equally well off.

It is clear that the current situation requires a careful and "cunning" study of this property. The simplest way is to form a single empirical indicator in the form of a question addressed to the family as a whole or to one of its members. For example, it might look like this:

Please, mark one of the statements that best describes the financial situation of your family:

1. You have to deny yourself everything. There is not enough money for the essentials.

2. We have enough money for daily expenses, but even buying clothes is difficult.

3. Nom mostly has enough money, we even save it to buy durables.

4. Buying most durable goods is easy.

Such a model is used in a situation where material security interests us in a rather narrow aspect. This information - about the existence of different types of families (there are as many as there are judgments) - may be quite enough to achieve the goal set in the study. Such is the allocation of four types of families. The cognitive capabilities of our empirical indicator are just limited to stating the fact of the existence of four types of student families, different in terms of their level of material well-being.

At the same time, material security (MO) as a property can also be studied for the purpose of a deeper analysis in conjunction with other properties. For example, to study the factors that explain the existence of different types of families in terms of material security. Then there may be a need for another, more complex model. It is obvious that the components of MO for such a case are:

1. Cash income.

2. Material wealth is not of a monetary nature. The first part includes:

1.1. Scholarship.

1.2. Help from parents and relatives.

1.3. Permanent income.

1.4. Temporary earnings.

The second part breaks down structurally into two elements:

2.1. What the family already has or does not have (types of home goods and amenities, such as an apartment, car, VCR, etc.).

2.2. The quality of what the family has.

Thus, continuing the step-by-step procedure of operationalization, building a model for studying IR, it is possible at the last stage to approach a set of empirical indicators. These are observable signs, the values ​​of which can be obtained in the process of research.

For our purposes, the empirical indicators of MO are not important, but it is extremely important how and from what sources we obtain the values ​​of these empirical indicators. In this case, it is possible to consider two sources of information. First, it is the family itself. Second, her environment. In both cases, information is obtained either on the basis of rigidly structured survey methods (questionnaire data) or on the basis of a keynote interview (text data). Recall that, unlike a narrative (narrative) interview, a leitmotif interview is an interview on a given topic. From the consideration of this model, an important conclusion for us is that the model itself requires access to a certain type of information. In this case, these are survey data or text data, or both.

Example 2

A model for studying such a student's property as "political activity". Again, as in the previous case, the goal of the study is the possibility of asserting that student A is more active than student B, or that the political activity of two students is the same.

Please note that we do not ask the question: how much? The search for an answer to such a question may be meaningless due to the complexity of the properties. Searching for answers to these kinds of questions, that's what beats measurement theory, -specific area of ​​sociology. Although the implementation of the model based on which comparisons are made is “equal to- not equal", "greater than-less”, can also be called a measurement. We will return to this later, for the next section of the book is devoted to measurement techniques.

Let's return to the "political activity" property. This property is a social attitude. As with any other social attitude, three components, or three elements, can be considered in its study: cognitive, affective (emotional), and conative (behavioral). In sociology, there is a simplified method of studying these elements. The cognitive component is revealed by a question like "How much do you know so-and-so?" The affective component is questions like "How do you rate or how much do you want this and that?". The conative component is revealed by questions like “How would you behave in this or that situation?” Obviously, this is a simple (thus very convenient) but superficial approach.

Deep learning about political activity requires other ways of getting data. For example, for a behavioral component, we can talk about three ways. The first is based on the study of the use of the time budget for a certain time period. The second method relies on students' self-assessment of their pastime. And finally, the third way is a keynote interview about political activity. Then it is natural to conclude that the behavioral component of "political activity" can be studied using three types of information, namely:

time budgets;

survey data;

text data.

As for the emotional component, that is, the study of readiness for a certain political activity, it is quite clear that with the help of questions directly posed to the student, it is hardly possible to study such readiness. In this case, some methods from the field of psychology are needed, for example, methods of psychological testing. In fact, we can talk about the need to use questionnaires of complex structure.

Thus, to study political activity as a property, various types of sociological information may be required:

data obtained through questionnaires of a fairly simple structure;

pastime data (time budgets);

data obtained through questionnaires of a complex structure;

text data - interview results.

Example 3

A model for studying such a property of Moscow districts as their “prestige”. As you know, there are indices of prestige of individual districts of Moscow and published in the media. The model used by the developers of these indexes is unknown to us. Imagine that we are building such a model ourselves. The constituent elements of the prestige of the area can be:

1. Indicators of the ecological situation in the region.

2. The degree of development of the infrastructure of the area.

3. The image of the district in the eyes of its inhabitants.

4. The image of the district in the eyes of the inhabitants of Moscow.

5. The image of the district through the eyes of experts.

Consider the first of these possible elements. Here we can face two situations: the indicators of interest to us are contained or not contained in state statistics. In the second case, the sociologist will have to turn to the opinion of experts.

Accounting for the second element requires recourse to government statistics. As for the remaining elements for which the source of information is the individual, then from this source we can obtain information of two types: questionnaire data or interview text data.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that in order to study the prestige of a district, such types of information are needed as:

state statistics;

survey data;

text data.

Try to independently build models for studying such properties as: “popularity of a political party”, “cohesion of a student group”, “student sociability”, “attitude of young people towards the elderly”, “education of a practicing sociologist”, “staff turnover in a company”, etc. d.

Pay attention once again to the goal that we initially identified when starting to build the model. And the goal was simple - to be able to compare empirical objects. Of course, this is only one of the goals for which the model is being built. If, however, we strive to bring these models to their logical conclusion, i.e., to a set of specific empirical indicators, then it is necessary to identify other goals for constructing the model.

Try to compare the study models “Education of a homeless person” and “Education of a sociologist”, “Political activity of a rural resident” and “Political activity of a metropolitan resident”, etc. It is clear that the models will be different not only depending on object of study, but also on why we are studying the property of interest to us. No model can be built until the answers to the first three questions are found, from the mentioned logical chain of questions, that is:

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-10-25

In the Central African Republic (CAR), three Russian journalists were killed while filming a documentary. They are journalist Orkhan Dzhemal, cameraman Kirill Radchenko and director Alexander Rastorguev. About other cases of death of Russian media employees in the performance of their professional duty - in the RBC gallery

Dmitry Chebotaev

On May 6, 2007, in Iraq, northeast of Baghdad, a landmine blew up a patrol car carrying six American soldiers and Russian photojournalist Dmitry Chebotayev. Everyone in the car. Chebotaev collaborated with many Russian and foreign publications, including Russian Newsweek. At the time of the tragedy, only a week remained before the end of the business trip to Iraq

Igor Kornelyuk

On June 17, 2014, employees of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin were killed during shelling in the vicinity of Lugansk. The Russian side of the journalists is a former soldier Nadezhda Savchenko. In 2016, the Donetsk City Court of the Rostov Region found her guilty and sentenced her to 22 years in a penal colony. Subsequently, Savchenko was pardoned by a decree of President Vladimir Putin, her Yevgeny Erofeev and Alexander Alexandrov, who were detained in the Donbass by the Ukrainian side

Anton Voloshin

By decree of the President of Russia, Voloshin and Kornelyuk were posthumously awarded the Order of Courage

Anatoly Klyan

On the night of June 30, 2014, Channel One cameraman Anatoly Klyan, as part of a film crew, went to one of the military units in Donetsk, employees of the LifeNews TV channel also came under fire in the stomach. Klyan was also posthumously awarded the Order of Courage.

Andrey Stenin

On August 5, 2014, the car of a journalist from the Rossiya Segodnya international news agency, traveling as part of a convoy of refugees, came under fire on the Snezhnoye-Dmitrovka highway, not far from Donetsk. Stenin, like other Russian journalists who died in the summer of 2014 in Ukraine, was posthumously awarded the Order of Courage.

Orkhan Dzhemal

Presumably, Orkhan Dzhemal, Kirill Radchenko and Alexander Rastorguev were stopped by unknown persons at one of the checkpoints and killed.

Kirill Radchenko

Journalists arrived in the Central African Republic, presumably to shoot a documentary about the Wagner PMC

Alexander Rastorguev

According to the publication Ouest-France, the journalists were heading to the location of the army battalion, in which immigrants from Russia worked as military instructors. An AFP source in the CAR judicial authorities clarifies that they were killed by militants at a checkpoint while returning from the city of Kaga Bandoro

Torture can occur in any region, especially in countries where an atmosphere of violence prevails. The highest degree of risk is observed in places of interrogation, such as police/police stations, gendarmerie, as well as in any other places of detention, in particular, in places of pre-trial detention.

Although most of these places are well known to people living in these regions and are official places of detention, quite often there are other places of detention that are unknown to the general public. Such places can be various objects (for example, non-functioning factories or government buildings), the use of which is justified by convenience in some specific cases (for example, school premises or even an open field can be used for this).

It should be remembered that torture does not only occur in places of detention. It can also happen in the victim's own home or during transport to an official place of detention.

• The greatest risk of being subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment exists during the first stage of arrest and imprisonment, before the victim has the opportunity to access a lawyer or court. This risk exists throughout the duration of the investigation, regardless of where the person is at that time.

• Conclusion incommunicado(i.e. detention of a person without prior notice, or without the possibility of contact with other people, such as family members or a lawyer) is probably the most risky, since in this case there is no external monitoring of the interrogation process. Sometimes the security authorities officially register the detainee only after the end of the preliminary interrogation.

• In regular prisons, the torture of convicted prisoners is usually not as common, as the investigation process has already been completed, however, it should be noted that in many prisons there are untried prisoners awaiting trial, along with already sentenced prisoners. The risk to untried prisoners should not be underestimated, especially in cases where the prison is under the jurisdiction of the security forces or where they are known to act in concert. In the case of untried prisoners, the risk does not necessarily exist within the institution itself, but rather in the possibility of their transfer from prison to investigative institutions.

• Both at the stage of pre-trial detention and after transfer to prison, it should be remembered that conditions of detention as such may also amount to inhuman or degrading treatment and should therefore be documented.

• Torture can also occur during abductions. In temporary abduction, the victim is released after a few hours or days. When missing persons the evidence must show that the victim is being held on the basis of an order or with the approval of the authorities, yet the authorities do not acknowledge this fact. The victim may remain undetected, or the victim's body may be found. Both forms of kidnapping may involve torture and be used to intimidate or intimidate the community. Although cases of disappearance include violations other than torture (eg the right to life, the right to personal liberty and security), any evidence of torture during the disappearance must be documented. Disappearance as such can also amount to torture, either for the victim or his relatives.

"Adam visited Baitullah and climbed Mount Arafat."

After Adam (a.s.) wept for three hundred years, Allah taught him a few words. As a reward for saying these words, He accepted his repentance. Scholars argued about what these words were. According to some, Adam said a prayer with the words: "Ya Rabbi, forgive and have mercy on me out of respect for Muhammad (s.g.v.)". The Almighty asked: "Oh Adam! How did you know about Muhammad? Adam replied: “My Allah! When You breathed my soul into me, I opened my eyes and saw this inscription on the edge of the Arsh: "La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah" . His name You wrote next to Your name. So I realized that You love him very much.” The Almighty said: “Muhammad (s.g.v.) is one of your descendants. He is a prophet and a messenger. If I had not created him, I would not have created you and your descendants. Because you asked for his intercession, I have forgiven your sin."

After that, Allah sent from Paradise one ruby, the size of the Holy Kaaba. It was installed on the site where the Kaaba is now located. One of its doors opened to the east, and the other to the west. In it hung lamps made of beams of light. This house was called Beytul-mamur (House visited).

A revelation came from the Almighty: “I have one house, it is called Beitul-mamur. This house was erected on earth as a reflection of Arsh in heaven. Go there and perform tawaf around him, as the angels do around Arsh. Read prayer there and make dua. Then I will accept your prayer and forgive your sin. May your Hajj be acceptable and your efforts meritorious.” And Allah sent an angel to show how to perform Hajj. Those places where the blessed Adam's foot stepped were covered with green grass and became fertile. And everything around remained as before. Each of his steps was three days' journey, and according to another riyat, it was six kilometers.

Jabrail (AS) similarly explained to Adam how to perform Hajj. Adam visited Baitullah and climbed Mount Arafat. The pious Havva also traveled from Jeddah to Arafat in search of Adam. Here they met. For many years, living far from each other, they burned in the flames of separation. At first, Adam did not recognize Havva, as the color of her skin changed under the influence of air and sun. Gabriel introduced them. The sadness from a long separation was gone, its place was filled with the joy of a new meeting. They came together to Mina. The angels asked: “Oh Adam, what do you want from the Most High?” “I ask for mercy and forgiveness,” he said. Adam's wish was fulfilled here. Having received the permission of Allah, they went to Hindustan. Adam (a.s.) made the Hajj on foot forty times in his life. When Mujahid (r.a.) was asked the reason why Adam made the Hajj on foot, he replied that not a single riding animal was able to bear the weight of his body. In Hindustan, they lived in happiness and prosperity, spent their lives fulfilling the commands of Allah. Then, with the help of angels, they erected the building of the Kaaba in the place where Beitul-mamur used to stand.

It is said that the venerable Khavva was pregnant forty times and each time gave birth to twins: a boy and a girl. And only Shit (a.s.) was born alone, for the Messenger (a.s.) was born from his kind. The Almighty commanded to perform nikah between a boy from one pair of born and a girl from another pair. He made nikah forbidden between children of the same womb. Kabil and his twin sister Iklima were the first to be born. Khabil and his sister Lyubuda were born second. Khabil was married to Iklim, and Kabil to Lubuda. Such was the then Sharia. Iklima was very beautiful, but Lyubuda was not so beautiful. Because of this, envy arose between them.

Qabil killed Habil. Adam (s.a.) grieved greatly. Jabrail (a.s.) appeared to calm him down, and brought joyful news: “Soon the Almighty will give you a son, from whose descendants the leader of mankind (s.g.v.) will appear. Shit (a.s.) was born five years after Habil's death. It is said that none of Adam's children survived during the Flood. Prophet Nuh (a.s.) was one of the descendants of Shit (a.s.).

From the book "History of the Prophets"

2. When, where and under what circumstances was the baptism of Vladimir the Great

First of all, it should be noted that here we are not interested in the very fact of baptism, but in the circumstances due to which and under which this act took place. Many, including B. D. Grekov, 1953, believe that "the intricate question of the baptism of Russia has not yet been resolved in all details by historians."

Below we will show that the question is far from being so difficult and that there is enough data to solve it. Of course, if one does not understand the relative value of sources, and one does not follow logic in reasoning, then this question will not be resolved until the second coming. Finally, one can never come to exact conclusions if one allows oneself to be hypnotized by such a confused and dreamer as A. A. Shakhmatov was.

To solve it, one must not read the opinions of the so-called authorities, but take the primary sources and do the work again. We have quite a few, albeit meager, sources about the baptism of Russia: Russian, Byzantine, Armenian, Arab, Scandinavian, which, taken together, allow us to restore with sufficient detail the circumstances under which the baptism of Vladimir the Great took place.

True, the sources contradict each other in some details, but the nature of the reports of the sources clearly shows how much one can trust this source. It turns out that by discarding the conflicting details of sources that are not particularly trustworthy, we get a completely matching picture of events drawn by the most faithful and reliable sources.

In order to assess the evidence of sources immediately and in the proper direction, we will indicate the two main alternatives that are available. According to some, Vladimir was baptized in 987, even before his marriage to Princess Anna, somewhere in Russia, either in Kyiv, or in Vasilkov, or in some other place. According to others, Vladimir captured the Greek city of Korsun (Chersonese) in the Crimea, demanded that the Greek emperors fulfill the agreement on the marriage of their sister Anna to Vladimir, upon her arrival in Korsun, was baptized there and then married Anna. This happened no earlier than the second half of 989. From here, the baptism of Russia falls, most likely, not on the year 988, as it was accepted, but on the 990th. All Russian chronicles adhere to the latest version, that is, 988.

In essence, if it were not for Chess (Research on the most ancient Russian chronicle codes. St. Petersburg, 1908), then everything would be quiet and calm. It was he who, with his excessive, and most importantly, unfounded criticism, opened a campaign against the version of the annals and launched a popular expression - "Korsun legend".

Indeed, in the story of the chronicle there is a place about the miraculous healing of Vladimir, which is a religious legend. But this legend is sewn with such white threads that only a completely narrow-minded person can make a mistake, that is, take it for the truth.

Equally, the speech of the Greek preacher to Vladimir, outlining the Creed and the biblical story, is an insert that has nothing to do with the story of Vladimir's baptism, an insert, moreover, much later.

The story itself is striking in its accuracy, certainty and consistency. Everything is told exactly: how, where, when and why, with all the accompanying specific circumstances. This story is a real story, not pious reflections on the topic of Vladimir's baptism.

In addition to the chronicle, we have three more Russian sources from which something can be gleaned. Firstly, this is Metropolitan Hilarion's "Sermon on Law and Grace" ("Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers", Part II. Moscow, 1844), as well as other publications; secondly, this is “The Life of Boris and Gleb” (“Reading about the Life and Burial, and the Miracles of the Holy and Blessed Passion-Bearer Boris and Gleb.” “Readings in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities.” Moscow, 1859), attributed to Nestor, thirdly, it is “Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir” by Yakov Mnikh (“Christian Reading”, 1849. II. 317–329; “Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir and His Life According to the Apostles”, 1494, ed. V. I. Sreznevsky, Notes of the Academy of Sciences on History - Philology Department, Section VIII, Series I, No. 6, St. Petersburg, 1897).

All these three sources are not historical, but religious works. If there are elements of history in them, then everything in them is subordinated to the main thing: the religious side of the matter. Everything is viewed from a single, narrowly specific point of view. Historical facts are easily sacrificed to "higher considerations".

The “Sermon on Law and Grace” does not say anything about where Vladimir was baptized, the “Life of Boris and Gleb” is silent about this, but the author of the life says that Vladimir, inspired from above, was baptized himself in 987. From this silence about the baptism of Vladimir in Kherson, they made a false conclusion that, they say, Vladimir was baptized even before the campaign against Korsun.

It is difficult to understand the unpretentiousness of historians: after all, it is quite obvious that all the three religious works mentioned, dedicated to the praise of Vladimir, could not tell their readers the truth, namely that Vladimir was baptized for political reasons, not in his homeland, and that in fact he was not he himself was baptized at his own request, but fulfilling the requirement set by the Greeks.

To tell the truth meant to dispel all praise, that is, to cut down one's own tree at the root. Therefore, everything real, historical, was thrown out by religious sources, the inspiration of Vladimir from above was invented, etc.

If the voluntary baptism of Vladimir himself was a real fact, then they would not be confused about the question: where did the baptism take place? Some said - in Kyiv, others - in Vasilyev (Vasilkov), others - somewhere else. After all, each of these cities would be proud of this and probably would have a special legend about this event, but this is not the case.

This also explains the false date of baptism - 987; in order to be justified by inspiration from above, it necessarily had to be before the year 989 and even 988, for this date is given by the annals, but it was impossible to reject the date even more deeply due to the fact that various contradictions could be encountered.

Both the "Word" of Hilarion and the "Life" of Nestor, strictly speaking, do not provide anything for our purposes, they do not talk about baptism and do not describe baptism. “Memory and Praise” by Yakov Mnikh is another matter - in this work many chronological dates are given and many events from the life of Vladimir are mentioned, this work, in essence, is the “life” of Vladimir. However, it is precisely in it that there are no details of his baptism. If "Memory and Praise" told exactly and clearly where and how Vladimir was baptized, then this could be believed, but in fact there is nothing concrete in this source. On the contrary, upon closer examination, it turns out to be insufficiently reliable.

Yakov Mnikh says that Vladimir “goes to the thresholds for another summer after baptism” (meaning, in 988), “taking the city of Korsun for the third summer” (meaning, in 989), etc. However, he once again adds: “Volodimer was baptized in the tenth year after the murder of his brother Yaropolk.”

Since Yaropolk was killed in 980, Vladimir's baptism took place in 989, that is, in the tenth year, and not in 987. Thus, Yakov Mnikh gives two different dates about the same event, and one of these dates exactly coincides with the date of the annals.

In addition, it also says that “and sit in Kyiv, Prince. Vladimir in the eighth year after the death of his father Svyatoslav, the month of June on the 11th day, and the summer of 6486 ", in other words, Vladimir reigned in 6486-5508 = 978. This date contradicts, on the one hand, the year of Svyatoslav's death, and on the other hand, the year of Yaropolk's death. This means that the chronology of Jacob Mnich is generally inaccurate.

Thus, it can be positively asserted that nothing can be built on the chronology of Yakov Mnich, a separate date may be correct, but there is no certainty which of them.

So, on the one hand, we have the Russian chronicles, a historical document provided with a large number of precise details, on the other hand, an apocryphal religious source, clearly biased, contradicting itself and definitely wrong with respect to some dates. Historians preferred the latter! They "corrected" the historical source, relying on a laudatory life, where it was impossible to tell the truth, because all the doxology disappeared. It is difficult to understand such a "scientific" method.

About the "Korsun legend" (it should be called the "Korsun story"), we know that it was entered into the annals, probably by the chronicler Nikon. During his stay in Tmutorokan, he probably personally visited Korsun, or had the opportunity to learn from the old Korsunian the details of the siege of Korsun, the baptism of Vladimir, etc.

That this is so is evident from the fact that the Korsun story knows, in essence, only the second half of the actual history, not a word is said about the first. And this is understandable: the Korsunian told what he saw: the siege of Korsun, the arrival of Princess Anna, the baptism and marriage of Vladimir, his departure to Kyiv. However, the narrator did not know why Vladimir laid siege to Korsun, secret reasons turned out to be hidden for him, and the chronicle does not know them at all.

However, we are aware of this from foreign sources: for the military assistance provided by Vladimir to the Greek emperors, he demanded the hand of their sister Anna, help was provided, but Vladimir did not receive Anna, then he besieged and took Korsun.

The Greek emperors, barely freed from mortal danger, were forced to yield, "and the weeping Anna was taken to Korsun." The marriage of a porphyry-born princess to a barbarian, and even with a tarnished genealogy (the son of a housekeeper), was an unheard of thing, but the Greeks did this partly under the pressure of force, partly because of special benefits.

The fact is that, by baptizing Vladimir and Russia, the Greeks received a huge influence on a large, strong and, in general, hostile state. From now on, family dynastic and religious ties with Russia not only neutralized a dangerous enemy for the Greeks, but also made it possible to receive help against other enemies, which happened more than once later. Under the pressure of these considerations, reminding Anna that thanks to her the fatherland avoids danger and a whole huge people will be baptized, the Greeks sacrificed Anna to the political demands of Vladimir (we will return to this issue a little later).

So, the ins and outs of the case were not known in all details in Korsun. Russian chroniclers could not borrow it from Greek sources, because the latter either do not say anything about this event, or speak extremely sparingly. Obviously, there was not enough civic courage to paint with all the details a story that was offensive to Greek pride, and the behavior of the Greeks in this story did not shine with special decency. On the other hand, since the baptism took place not in Constantinople, but in Korsun, it could easily escape the attention of the Greek chroniclers, because they were not witnesses of the event.

Let us now turn to the reports of Arab sources, they are varied in detail, content and quality. The most accurate, detailed and up-to-date source is Yahya of Antioch (see Russian translation: V.R. Rosen. Emperor Vasily the Bulgar Slayer. Extract from the annals of Yahya of Antioch. - Notes of the Academy of Sciences. SPb., 1883).

He writes: “And his cause (i.e., Emperor Basil II) became dangerous due to the strength of the army and victory (Vards Foki), his wealth (expenses for the war) was depleted, and his need prompted him to send the Russians to the king, and they enemies to ask them to help him in his present situation, and he agreed to this. And they concluded an agreement between themselves on the matchmaking and marriage of the Tsar of the Russians to the sister of Tsar Vasily, after he set him the condition that he and all the people of his country be baptized, and they are a great people. And then the Russians did not reckon themselves to any law, and did not recognize any faith (of those that, obviously, were known to Yahya. - S.L.).

And the king sent him afterwards (note this word. - S.L.) metropolitans and bishops, and they baptized the tsar and all whom his land embraced, and sent his sister to him, and she built many churches in the country of the Rus. And when the matter of marriage was decided, the troops of the Russians arrived and united with the troops of the Greeks, which Tsar Basil had, and set off to fight Varda Foka by sea and land to Chrysoopolis. And they defeated Fok.

The striking coincidence of the "Korsun story" with the story of Yahya is striking, they coincide with each other, like two halves of a broken dish, making up one complement to the other.

What you should pay attention to is the course of presentation of events by Yahya, although it is absolutely accurate, but in the hands of a careless person it can be easily distorted (which was done by the authors who used Yahya's work as a primary source). Yahya consistently sets out the essence of the agreement between Vladimir and Vasily, and then what came of it: that Anna got married, according to the agreement, and built many churches in the country of the Russians. From this it can be seen that Yahya is running far ahead, for the construction of churches takes years.

However, continuing the story, Yahya returns to the main thread of the presentation and adds that after the conclusion of the contract, subsequently, i.e., after the conclusion of the contract, and not after the construction of churches by Anna in Russia, clerics were sent to Russia and Anna herself was sent.

Then Yahya returns to the description of the military events and again quite accurately adds: "and when the matter of marriage was decided between them, the troops of the Russians arrived." From this it follows with complete clarity that the marriage itself did not yet take place, only the “marriage matter was decided”, and then the rout of Varda Foka began.

Yahya did not know anything about the deception by Emperor Vasily of Vladimir and about his campaign against Korsun, he only knows his part of the events: an agreement was concluded, help was sent by the Russians, Foka was defeated, the princess was married. On the other hand, the chronicler knows his part of the events: the capture of Korsun, Vladimir's demand, and Anna's marriage. About the deception of Vladimir and he knows nothing.

A few words should be said here about Yahya himself. He was a doctor, born in the late 70s of the 10th century, died about 1066. The first edition of his historical work appeared around 1007-1008, then he supplemented and revised it until his death. Thus, he was a contemporary of the events that interest us. Yahya's work is characterized by its striving for chronological consistency and accuracy. “His whole history,” says Rosen, “is distinguished by an abundance of accurate chronological data, usually showing not only the year, but also the day of the week and the day of the month.”

In this respect, it compares favorably with other sources, which present events in the most general terms, avoiding everything specific, and often presenting a mixture of events from which it is difficult to understand what happened before and what later (and when what happened).

This passage of Yahya, as we have seen, is not flawlessly presented and gave rise to false understandings of subsequent Arabic authors. However, it is stated so clearly that it is not the slightest difficulty to restore the actual sequence of events.

Historians did not do this, but followed the distorted version of subsequent Arabic sources, which clearly copied everything from Yahya. They preferred the original source to the garbled retellings of subsequent compilers. Baumgarten's work deserves special reproach in this respect ( N. de Baumgarten. Saint Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Nr. 79; Vol. XXVII. Roma, 1932, 1-136), in which he not only did not critically understand the sources, but also added his own false interpretations.

So, for example, on p. 74 he says: “…et ils ont conclu un trait?, et le roi des russes e?pousa la soeur de l'impereur Basile…” First, see Yahya's translation above, - it is said that he did not “marry”, but “marries”, the condition of the contract is stated, and its implementation is not described. Baumgarten stumbled on the most elementary mistake (if this is not intentional overexposure at all).

Secondly, let's assume that the source used by Baumgarten says that "the king of the Russians got married." But then it says: “…et dans la suite l’empereur envoya a? Vladimir des metropolites et des e?v?ques, qui le baptis?rent. Avec eux arriva aussi sa soeur Anna.

So the marriage, according to Baumgarten, took place before baptism Vladimir. Is it possible to allow the porphyrogenic Anna to marry a non-Christ? Finally, if Vladimir married being a pagan, then why did Anna not end up in Russia, but came (already being a wife) to Russia to baptize her husband! The absurdity of all this is quite obvious.

However, Baumgarten, like other historians, swallows the material of history like an ostrich, without digesting it. He does not analyze his material at all, this is a dull, mechanical swallowing, without the participation of critical thought.

In reality, however, we have something worse. We cited pp. 23-24 of the work of V. R. Rosen, the same work and the same pages that Baumgarten himself cites. This means that he used the correct text of Yahya, and he himself incorrectly translated the quotation into French and thereby deceived the entire Western European world, which, not knowing the Russian language, could not verify the quotations and believed Baumgarten, the Vatican's scientific specialist.

Baumgarten does not further notice that his argument is unproven: he writes that El-Makin says almost the same thing as Yahya, but El-Makin lived in the thirteenth century; his work was translated into Latin in 1625 (Historia Saracenica Georgii Elmacini, edit. Thomae Erpenii. Lugduni Batavorum, 1625), extracts see: V. G. Vasilevsky. To the history of 976-986 (works of V. G. Vasilevsky. Volume II, issue 1. St. Petersburg, 1909), and has no independent value. This is not only our personal opinion (see: M. V. Levchenko. Relations between Byzantium and Russia under Vladimir // Byzantine Provisional, VII. 1953, pp. 194–223).

Further, Baumgarten refers to the Turkish version of El Makin, where instead of the words: “...ils allerent tous ensemble contre Phocas” - “Et le roi de Russes se rendit avec toutes ses proupes? l'aide de l'empereur et se joignit? lui; apr?s avoir d?cid? tous les deux d'aller a la rencontre de Phocas, ils se mirent en marche contre lui par les voies de mer et de terre."

Here El-Makin's fiction that Vladimir himself led the Russian army in Byzantium is taken for granted, although not a single Russian or Byzantine source speaks of such a seemingly noticeable event.

That El-Makin is an unreliable source can be seen from the following passage: “And the king of the Russians went with all his troops to the services of Tsar Basil and united with him. And they both agreed to meet Varda Fok and went to him by land and sea, and put him to flight.

For some reason, not a word was said about the battle of Chrysopolis, where Varda Foka did not participate, which means that we are talking about the battle of Abydos. But if El-Makin does not know that in this battle Varda Foka died from a blow, and was not "put to flight", then such a source is worthless. Baumgarten does not pay attention to this - he is only interested in catching anything, just to compose some incredible version.

Uses Baumgarten and Ibn al-Atir, who died in 1223, i.e., who wrote at least 200 years after the events, giving a double dose of lies: according to this author, Vladimir first marries Anna, and then he himself goes into battle with Varda Foca. Baumgarten believes this too, not seeing that all the authors are copying obviously false news from one another.

Finally, Baumgarten cites the testimony of the successor of the Miskaveikhi chronicle (the latter stopped at 369 Gejra, i.e., 979–980 AD), Abu-Shuji (Abu-Shyjac), who speaks of the baptism of Russia under the year 375 Gejra , i.e. under 986–987 (i.e. obviously inaccurate). We cite the passage in full: “The emperors, driven to complete impotence, sent to ask for help from the prince of the Rus; this prince asked for the hand of their sister for marriage, but she refused to be given to a groom of a different faith; negotiations on this case resulted in the adoption of Christianity by the Russian prince. Then the agreement took place, and the princess was married off as a Russian. He sent many of his servants to help the emperors, people of solid and courageous. When these reinforcements reached Constantinople, they barred the strait with ships against Bardas, who disdained their appearance and asked ironically how they risked themselves so much. But they reached the shore, moved to the location of the enemy, and in the battle that began then, the Rus showed superiority and killed Varda. His forces were dispersed and the emperors were restored to their power."

This passage shows that Abu Shuja was not well informed about the events. Firstly, the Russians, having appeared in Constantinople, did not defeat Varda Foka, but part of his army, led by Kalokir Delfina, who stood on the Asian coast opposite Constantinople. This was done early in the morning, completely unexpectedly, and there were no mockery of Foka over the Russians. During the battle of Chrysopolis, Varda Foka was in Nicaea and did not take any part in the battle.

Thus, the words of Abu-Shuja can only refer to the battle of Abydos, but the battle of Abydos was not near Constantinople, but in the Dardanelles region, which means that Abu-Shuja did not know the most basic things, finally, the defeat of the troops of Varda Foki was due primarily by his unexpected death from a blow, and not by the strength of the combined Russian and Greek troops.

It should be noted, however, that Abu-Shuja does not say a word about the presence of Vladimir, it is quite natural that this report is false. However, it remains that the princess was married "to the Rus" even before the battle. The question is: why neither Russian nor Byzantine sources say a word about sending Anna to Russia? Because, we will answer, it was not. Abu-Shuja knew the essence of the matter rather superficially, and therefore made inaccuracies.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian work of T. Kezma “The description of the Arab historian Abu Shodzhe Rudroversky about how Rus was baptized” in the collection of articles in honor of D. I. Bagalei (Kyiv, 1927) and the conclusions reached by this researcher remained unknown to us. Apparently, he stands (i.e. Abu-Shuja) closer to Yahya than to others.

Having outlined what the Arabic sources write about, it should be noted that Baumgarten himself writes completely opposite to what the sources on which he relies write: “Le mariage ne peut se conclure qu'? Constantinopole, les grecs n'auraient jamais envoy? la princess? Kiev avant l'arrivée des troupes variagues".

Whom to believe: Abu Shuja or Baumgarten? The latter understands perfectly well that Anna did not go to Kyiv even before the arrival of the Russians to help in Tsargrad. In other words, Baumgarten does not believe the mistake made by some interpreters of Yahya. But instead of explaining the mistake, Baumgarten embarks on a trick that only makes him shrug.

According to him, Vladimir, who personally led his troops in the fight against Varda Foka, remained at peak interest, that is, without Anna, because the Greeks allegedly terminated his marriage to her, boarded ships, moved across the sea and attacked the Greek city in revenge Korsun. Here already the emperors agreed to his marriage. Thus, the attack on Korsun, according to Baumgarten, was Vladimir's demand: "Give me my lawful wife!"

One becomes ashamed, not for Baumgarten, of course, for a person who indulges in distortions is not ashamed, but for historians, among whom such “learned” writings can appear and which do not cause the slightest protest (we, they say, have freedom of speech, they lie and worse).

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it also obliges us to use it to protect science from fraudulent machinations and wild fantasies. After all, Baumgarten, accepting his official position, can be believed!

Of course, "paper endures everything." but point to at least one historian, including even the latest editions of 1953, where Baumgarten would find a proper assessment. There are no such historians, on the contrary, we see that the very efficient work of Levchenko, 1953, bears clear traces of the influence of Baumgarten (for example, the assumption that Vladimir, having invited the Varangians to help him, kept them at least from 980 until almost 988 , which is absolutely unbelievable and has not been proven by anything.On the contrary, we know that as soon as they played their role, they were immediately fused by Vladimir to Tsargrad.

Let us now turn to the Armenian sources. Of these, the story of Stephen (Asohik) of Taron is significant (see. V. G. Vasilevsky. Varangian-Russian and Varangian-English squad in Constantinople in the 11th and 12th centuries. - Proceedings of V. G. Vasilevsky, Volume I, St. Petersburg, 1908; there is a Russian translation by N. Emin: The General History of Stepanos Taronsky, called Asohik. M., 1862). It mainly gives some dates (it is known that Stefan strove for the accuracy of the chronology), but it does not change the picture we have sketched. It is especially noteworthy that the Russian auxiliary detachment sent by Vladimir numbered 6,000 people. This is the only source that gives the number of troops.

Finally, we turn to Greek sources. They are extremely scarce. Leo Deacon ( Leoni Diaconi. history. Bonn, 1828, also Migne) only mentions the capture of Chersonese by the Russians, but does not say how and why. However, the capture of Chersonesos is an indisputably historical fact, confirmed by both Russians and Greeks.

Michael Psell ( Bibliotheca Graeca Medii Aevi, IX. Comp. K.N. ????. Venetia, 1879) only speaks of the arrival of a Russian military detachment shortly before the battle of Chrysopolis. It is quite clear that this detachment did not come for “you live great”, but Psellos is silent about paying for this service.

Skylitsa and Zonara mention Anna’s marriage to Vladimir, but they are silent about the ups and downs of the struggle, in which the Greeks played an ugly role (“the essence of the Greeks are flattering (deceivers) to this day,” the chronicle says not without reason).

To summarize: using all available sources, critically comparing them, fishing out individual details, we can restore in general terms the events associated with the baptism of Vladimir - they completely coincide with the "Korsun story".

Let us now turn to the question: when exactly did the baptism of Vladimir, and then all of Russia, take place? To do this, it is necessary to outline the entire chronological outline of previous events associated with baptism.

The uprising of Varda Foki began on August 15, 987, when he was proclaimed emperor (see: Gustave Le?on Schlumberger. L'epope?e Byzantine, (2nd ed.) 1925, p. 610 and 619), but according to Ostrogorsky (Vladimirskii sbornik, 1938, p. 39), it "began in distant Cappadocia in mid-September."

If there is no simple typo in this message, then both messages can still be reconciled: the proclamation took place in August, and the beginning of the campaign against Constantinople in September - such is the logic of things. It is hard to imagine that both the proclamation and the beginning of the campaign took place on the same day. Until there was a proclamation, there was no reason to gather an army, and as soon as the proclamation took place, then, naturally, Varda Foka began to gather on a campaign. Then he gradually, supported by the nobility, began to take possession of the entire Asia Minor territory of the empire and at the beginning of 988 approached Constantinople.

Part of his troops concentrated near Chrysopolis (Scutari), opposite Constantinople on the Asia Minor coast, and the other near Abydos, in the Dardanelles region, in order to stop the delivery of food supplies to Constantinople by sea.

The position of the emperors in Constantinople became critical. Obviously, only at the end of 987 or the beginning of 988 the real danger was realized by them and, as a last resort, an embassy was sent to Vladimir with a request for help.

It can be said for sure that when sending ambassadors, the emperors did not put up the hand of the princess as payment for help, for such a proposal was connected simultaneously with a certain demand. In the position of the emperors, there was no time for demands. Finally, the sources cited indicate that it was Vladimir who demanded such payment. It is quite obvious that the ambassadors could not agree to the conditions of Vladimir without the consent of the emperors, no matter how wide their powers were. One might think that Vladimir's demand was completely unexpected, the Greeks could have expected a very high payment or cession of land for a service, but not a completely eccentric demand for the hand of a purple-born Byzantine princess by a pagan barbarian with a tarnished genealogy.

Therefore, the ambassadors had to go through a threefold path, at least: arrive in Kyiv and ask for help, return to Constantinople with the conditions of Vladimir, and again go to Kyiv with a notice of the acceptance of the conditions by the Greeks and with their counterproposals. It is very likely that a written certificate of the terms of the contract was also concluded.

All these trips required a lot of time and were also connected with the season (the Dnieper River freezes for 2–3 winter months, while the overland journey was much longer and more dangerous). It is possible that the negotiations themselves were much more complicated, we have outlined only the simplest version of them.

In any case, back on April 4, 988, Emperor Basil II, publishing a decree against an excessive number of monasteries and monks, considered his situation very difficult.

Since the army of Vladimir, in the most favorable course of affairs, could only be delivered by the Dnieper, it could not come to the aid of Vasily II before the end of May - the beginning of June 988.

Indeed, a number of historians, including the chronicler of Armenia, Stefan of Taron, indicate that Vladimir's help arrived in 988, and the battle of Chrysopolis took place in the middle of that year. However, Schlumberger places this battle in February-March 989, which seems more likely to us.

Indeed, if the battle of Chrysopolis took place in the middle of 988, almost immediately after the arrival of the Russians, then what did the opponents do until April 13, 989, when the final battle of Abydos took place? After all, the distance between the two points is not very significant.

Meanwhile, taking into account the opinion of Schlumberger, we will get a very logical picture if we assume the battle of Chrysopolis in February - March 989. Everything then develops naturally and consistently.

With the arrival of the Russians, Vasily II immediately launched an offensive, suddenly attacked part of the army of Varda Foki and defeated it utterly (all the main enemy commanders were captured and executed).

Further, according to some authors, “after the victory at Chrysopolis, Basil II returned to Constantinople in order to prepare for a decisive struggle against Varda Foki.” Of course, the expression “returned” sounds a little strange when it comes to the other side of the Bosphorus, but, of course, having defeated one army of Foka, it was necessary to prepare for a campaign against Foka himself, put the army on ships, etc. It is quite obvious that it was necessary to enjoy the fruits of victory, and not let the enemy gather his strength. The landing of Basil's army took place at Lampsak, and then on April 13, 989, the final battle took place at Abydos.

Thus, the logic of things says that a maximum of 2 months have passed between the first and second battles. If we accept the first battle of Chrysopolis as taking place in the middle of 988, then 9? the monthly preparation for the final campaign turns out to be absolutely incredible (it took only a few days to be delivered by sea, for example, from Tsargrad to Lampsak).

If we accept Schlumberger's position, then the possibility of complex negotiations between Byzantium and Russia, that is, repeated visits by Greek ambassadors to Kyiv, will become clear.

We find an interesting detail in Jacob Mnich under the year 988 that Vladimir the next summer after baptism "go to the doorstep." Here it is impossible not to dwell on Baumgarten's machinations around this phrase - he translates this phrase as follows: "...Vladimir alla aux cataractes", and adds in brackets "(passa par les cataractes)" (p. 72.).

It is clear from the Russian text that Vladimir only walked to the thresholds, that is, he reached them, and returned. Baumgarten translates correctly: “alla aux cataractes” (“went to the rapids”), but immediately adds a false one: “passa par les cataractes”, that is, “passed through the rapids”: this already means that Vladimir went somewhere for thresholds. All this is an unscrupulous invention of Baumgarten, and, characteristically, on p. 79 he no longer says “aux cataractes” (“to the thresholds”), but “passa la seconde anne? "). This is an example of the Jesuit method of Baumgarten: slightly, bit by bit, move away from the truth until he reaches the lie he needs.

The expression "went to the thresholds" has a completely different meaning. The chronicler noted the very fact of going to the rapids, but for what purpose Vladimir went there, remained unknown to the chronicler. It is quite obvious that this was not a military campaign, for example, against the Pechenegs - this would have been said. What was the point for Vladimir in visiting completely empty, uninhabited rapids? The answer is quite clear: having sent his army to Constantinople to help the Greeks, Vladimir began to wait for the fulfillment of the agreement by the Greeks, that is, the sending of Anna. Since the Pechenegs always set up ambushes in the region of the rapids, Vladimir went out to the rapids to meet Princess Anna, to show her due honor and at the same time to protect her. His campaign was, so to speak, diplomatic; in addition, from history we know cases that the prince of Russia (Izyaslav) sent his son there to meet his future stepmother, who was traveling from Greece.

Since the campaign was "diplomatic", its meaning remained unknown to the chronicler.

After waiting for Anna in vain, Vladimir realized that he had been deceived by the Greeks, and decided to enforce the agreement by force, so in the spring of the next year 989 we already see him under the walls of Korsun.

Vladimir's march to the rapids must be attributed to the autumn of 988, before the summer of 988 the princess could not leave. Finally, if the battle of Chrysopolis took place in the summer of 988, then in a month or two Vladimir already knew about the success of his army and could now expect the Greeks to fulfill their obligations, and hence his march to the rapids.

Let's see how Baumgarten imagines this case. According to the latter, Vladimir, already a Christian, baptized in 987, himself leads his army in 988 to Constantinople, takes part in the battles, but, being deceived by the Greeks, calmly, like a calf, returns home and attacks Korsun along the way.

Baumgarten makes of Vladimir some kind of gullible fool who leaves his state to the mercy of fate and personally enters into a real adventure somewhere far beyond the borders of his lands, some kind of adventurer, like Richard the Lionheart, who wants only one thing - to fight.

Everything we know about Vladimir speaks against this: he was a reasonable, cautious and cunning person, firm and persistent. He sent a detachment of his troops for a high fee, but to climb with his head into someone else's fight for distant lands - this was the height of recklessness. What was incomprehensible to Arab historians, who like to tell fables in general, should have been clear to a learned historian in 1939.

Moreover, the Russian chronicle, which does not know the ins and outs of this story at all, conveys highly characteristic negotiations between Vladimir and the Greeks after he captured Korsun.

Give the princess back, - he says, - or I will do with Tsargrad, as with Korsun. - We can't pass Anna off as a pagan, be baptized! the Greeks say. - Send me Anna, and I'll be baptized, - Vladimir answers. He did not allow, having already been deceived once, to make a fool of himself, that is, to be baptized, but not to get a princess. Before his firm will, the Greeks had to bow. If the Greeks tried to marry a man with such a character in Constantinople, and then dissolve the marriage, as Baumgarten thinks, Vladimir would have smashed Constantinople to smithereens, immediately entering into an alliance with the Bulgarians, etc.

How many soldiers were sent by Vladimir? We find an indirect answer in Stefan Taronsky - 6,000 people. B. D. Grekov believes that this number is much lower than the actual number, that it was impossible to defeat Vard Fok with such forces. But the fact is that Emperor Basil also had his own troops, of course, exceeding 6000. The significance of the Russians was not in their quantity, but in quality. Probably, these were selected thugs who could be killed, but not defeated. Their strength was in their hardness. With such support, Emperor Basil could expect good performance from his troops.

B. D. Grekov does not notice the internal weakness of his argument, if the detachment of Russians, witnessed by Stefan of Taron, was in fact much larger, then, therefore, a huge number of soldiers had to return to their homeland with their governors.

The chroniclers of Russia could not ignore them, the stories of how grandfathers or great-grandfathers fought near Constantinople would certainly have reached the chroniclers. In fact, we have complete silence about this operation.

This is explained simply: the 6000th detachment of the Russians did not return to Russia. This is precisely what is clear from the message of Stefan Taronsky, who does not speak about the 6000th detachment and its participation in the battle, but about the fact that these were those “whom Tsar Vasily asked the Tsar of the Rus at the time when he married his sister for the last one." Thus, the 6000th detachment was sent, but did not return; it is possible that these were Scandinavian mercenaries. It also follows from this that the message of the later Arab chroniclers that the tsar of the Russ himself participated in the battles "with all his troops" is nothing more than an empty fiction - the tsar of the Russ of "all" troops, of course, had at least 10 times more .

So, in the early morning of April 13, 989, the battle of Abydos was won and the rebels were finally defeated. At the same time, Vladimir with his troops, obviously, was already approaching Korsun. A siege began that lasted six months. The betrayal of Anastas Korsunyanin, who gave out the location of the water supply system that supplied the city with water, gave victory to Vladimir. This is a completely historical figure, mentioned more than once in the sources.

The capture of Korsun gave Vladimir a major trump card in his hands - the emperors, avoiding further war, sent the unfortunate Anna to Korsun "for slaughter" for the sake of the interests of the state. It was here, probably in the late autumn of 989 or even early spring of 990, that Vladimir was baptized and then married Anna.

The "Korsun story" gives relatively very detailed and accurate information about this event. There are some discrepancies in the Russian chronicles, presumably, due to clerical errors, errors or misunderstanding of the text by scribes.

According to the Ipatiev Chronicle, Vladimir was baptized in the Church of St. Sophia, according to the Laurentian Chronicle, in the Church of St. Basil. There are reasons to think that the first information is more correct. The Laurentian Chronicle indicates that it was a church in the middle of the city at the market, therefore, the oldest and most important.

Since, according to tradition, in almost every city the best and oldest church was called Hagia Sophia (Kyiv, Polotsk, Novgorod, etc.) in imitation of Constantinople, the name of the church is beyond doubt. Where did the church "St. Vasilika" of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle? Apparently, there was a mistake here: the Greek "basilicon" (i.e., the church) was mistaken for "Vasilika", especially since Vladimir adopted the Christian name of Vasily. Naturally, a connection arose: he was named after the saint in whose honor the church where he was baptized was named.

In reality, of course, it was different. The Russians (and personally Vladimir) sought equality in the international arena - the emperor of the Greeks was called Vasily, and the prince of the Russians was also called Vasily. The same thing happened with his grandmother: Olga in baptism took the name of Elena after the queen of the Greeks Elena. By the way, we note that this circumstance can greatly help in the question of the time of Olga's baptism. Unfortunately, at the moment we are not able to establish exactly which Greek queen Olga was named after.

From hagiographic literature we know that Anna did not immediately go to Kyiv, that she was in Feodosia and visited other places in the Crimea. It can be thought that this was a kind of "honeymoon" arranged by Vladimir for his porphyry wife. With the onset of warm weather, Vladimir and Anna went to Kyiv.

Here, in fulfillment of the obligations of the original treaty, Vladimir officially baptized Russia, which happened in the spring or early summer of 990, and not 988, as is officially accepted by the majority. The zealous destruction of idols and the eradication of paganism shows that Vladimir took the matter seriously (and we can guess to please his royal wife).

It should also be noted that it is in the "Korsun story" itself that it is indicated that the opinion that Vladimir was baptized in Kyiv, either in Vasilkov, or somewhere else, is incorrect. The chronicler, who has learned the absolutely exact history of baptism, puts an end to the "i" and stops the circulation of false rumors. It is clearly felt here that the person knows what he is talking about, and does not indulge in polemics.

It remains to be clarified: where, in fact, was Russia baptized - in Pochaina or the Dnieper? This is already a casuistic dispute, for it is clear to anyone who lived in Kyiv that both are true.

Pochaina flows into the Dnieper near the foot of the hills with the Church of St. Andrew, located almost next to the Church of the Tithes of the times of Vladimir and his palace.

From the annals we know that a significant number of inhabitants (mainly "black people") lived on Podil, along which the Pochaina flows. Since there were, in any case, several tens of thousands of inhabitants in Kyiv, there is every reason to think that the ceremony took place not far from the princely palace, near the place where the Pochaina flows into the Dnieper. A huge number of people led to the fact that people entered the water where they stood, that is, some into Pochaina, others into the Dnieper, and, in general, there is nothing to argue: the baptism of Russia took place in Kyiv.

Let's move now, however, from defense to attack, we will prove that the year of Vladimir's baptism - 987th - is generally incorrect.

1) From the annals we know that Vladimir was busy for a long time studying the issue of choosing a new faith, which is also confirmed by outside sources (see: V. V. Bartold. New Muslim news about the Rus // Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society IX. 1895, pp. 264–265). The chronicle claims that, after listening to the Greek preacher he liked the most, Vladimir nevertheless said: "I'll wait a little longer." In this phrase, the prudent, expectant Vladimir is perfectly felt. He understood that his conversion to a different faith would be very beneficial to one of his neighbors, but he was waiting for a convenient moment to weaken this advantage of a neighbor as much as possible. And he waited for this in 989, when he received something for the transition to a new faith.

2) How could such an incident pass without a trace? After all, someone baptized Vladimir, if it was in 987, then not only an individual priest, but the church to which he belonged, should have been rightfully proud. After all, it meant something to convert the prince of the Russians to Christianity. However, no one, except the Greeks, claimed this honor (for Catholics, see below). Finally, such an event, no doubt, should have taken place with a certain pomp, etc., but for some reason it came out quietly.

3) If Vladimir was baptized in 987 without any noise (let’s say), then why didn’t he do what he was supposed to do in 987, 988, or 989, i.e. destroy idols, baptize people, build churches ? Finally, why even Arab sources indicate that the Greeks made the baptism of Vladimir a condition for Anna's marriage? The supporters of baptism in 987 do not give an answer to all these questions, and indeed they cannot.

4) Finally, there are official Byzantine documents ( Franz Joseph Dülger. Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters. bd. I. 99. No. 776-778) that by 989 Vladimir had not yet been baptized. This means that all the evidence of the real chronicles of Russian, Byzantine, Arabic, Armenian, etc. should be sacrificed to a purely religious, laudatory (and, therefore, one-sided) work just because someone likes it better. And why we like it more, we will now explain.

Baumgarten climbs out of his skin, trying to push back as far as possible the date of Vladimir's baptism. Why? Because it is more in line with his theory that Vladimir was baptized under the influence of his friend Olaf Triggvison, the future King of Norway. And since Olaf was a Catholic, therefore, Vladimir accepted Catholicism. Clear? Hier ist der Hund begraben!

Before turning in the most brief outline to this hypothesis, we would like to remind Baumgarten of the following passage from... Baumgarten: "La saga d'Olaf Tryggwison de la plus recente redaction rapporte avec beaucoup des details d'oeuvre missionaire d'Olaf et lui atrribue exclusivement l'honneur de la conversion de Saint Vladimir. Ce re?cit porte incontestablement un caract?re tout l?gendaire et, comme il ressort du texte m?me de la saga, ces d?tails furent en partie emprunt?s? un ouvrage du XII si?cle dont valeur historique est bien douteuse” (p. 68).

Here we meet with Baumgarten's purely Jesuit trick: first he accepts - look, they say, how objective I am in relation to the evaluation of sources! - that the story of the saga is undeniably very legendary and is included in a work whose historical value is very doubtful, and then begins to explain the details, entirely accepting the truth all the "legendary and dubious" source. In a word, "sleight of hand and ... no fraud." What a pity that Baumgarten cannot hear the praise he deserves in dexterity!

If we take a look at his work on Olaf Tryggwison, an incredible heap of assumptions upon assumption is striking; in fact, nothing has been established for sure - neither the year of Olaf's birth, nor the year of his arrival in Novgorod, he was married to anyone, when and for how long he left and returned to Russia, etc., in a word, a solid porridge from " maybe" and "should think".

From the book Who's Who in the History of Russia author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

From the book Faces of the Epoch. From the origins to the Mongol invasion [anthology] author Akunin Boris

Baptism of Vladimir Vladimir was the youngest son of Prince Svyatoslav. The year of his birth has not been preserved by historical memory. But it is known for sure that in 969 Vladimir became the prince of Novgorod, and in 980 - of Kyiv. He conquered the Slavic tribes of the Vyatichi, Radimichi and Yotvingians,

From the book I treated Stalin: from the secret archives of the USSR author Chazov Evgeny Ivanovich

I am somehow even offended when a free, full of movement river is blocked by the efforts of some people. Then we were taken to Baikal. Baikal is, of course, a miracle. Transparent not only for its water, but also for distances, thin and delicate outlines of the coast, and especially blue silhouettes

From the book 100 great sights of St. Petersburg author Myasnikov senior Alexander Leonidovich

Palace of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich ("House of Scientists") Among the magnificent buildings of the Palace Embankment of the Neva - it is enough to name the Winter or Marble Palaces - this masterpiece is not lost. Moreover, he quite reasonably claims to be one of the most

From the book Great and Unknown Women of Ancient Russia author Morozova Lyudmila Evgenievna

Chapter 2. Two wives of Grand Duke Vladimir I After the death of Princess Olga in 969, according to sources, Svyatoslav sent his sons to reign independently, and he returned to Bulgaria. In the oldest annals, this issue is considered in great detail, since it was

From the book A complete course of Russian history: in one book [in a modern presentation] author Solovyov Sergey Mikhailovich

Korsun baptism of Vladimir (988) “And when a year had passed,” the chronicle writes, “in 988 Vladimir went with an army to Korsun, a Greek city, and the Korsunians shut themselves up in the city. And Vladimir stood on the other side of the city at the pier, at a distance of an arrow from the city, and

From the book Pre-Petrine Russia. historical portraits. author Fedorova Olga Petrovna

Baptism of Vladimir Vladimir was the youngest son of Prince Svyatoslav. The year of his birth has not been preserved by historical memory. But it is known for sure that in 969 Vladimir became the prince of Novgorod, and in 980 - of Kyiv. He conquered the Slavic tribes of the Vyatichi, Radimichi and Yatvingians, fought with

From the book History of the Russian Church. Volume 1. History of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir author Macarius Metropolitan

From the book Campaign "Chelyuskin" author author unknown

Surveyor J. Gakkel. Under what circumstances the ship perished. All the changes that took place during the winter in the ice surrounding the Chelyuskin later acquired a certain significance; each new crack, old or especially new, was reflected in the compression on February 13th. That's why

From the book The Establishment of Christianity in Russia author Braichevsky Mikhail Yurievich

CHAPTER IV THE BAPTISM OF VLADIMIR 988 During the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Russia achieved unheard-of greatness and power. No wonder his name is known not only in literary sources of domestic, but also foreign origin. Unfortunately, the thesis of a one-act baptism

From the book History of the Russians. Varangians and Russian statehood author Paramonov Sergey Yakovlevich

XVIII. About the death of Svetoslav, the son of Vladimir the Great We know almost nothing about this son of Vladimir the Great, all the more annoying if false information is spread about him.N. Baumgarten ("Orientalia Christiana", XVIII. 1930, 2) suggested (and then asserted) that Svetoslav was the son

From the book Native Antiquity author Sipovsky V. D.

Baptism of Vladimir, Kyivans and Novgorodians The Russian prince did not want to ask the Greeks for baptism as a favor, and besides, he apparently had some sort of scores with the Greeks. He set out with an army against Korsun, a rich Greek city on the Tauride Peninsula. Korsunians

From the book Native Antiquity author Sipovsky V. D.

To the story "The Baptism of Vladimir, Kyivans and Novgorodians" ... he apparently had some scores with the Greeks. - In 987, the Byzantine commander Varda Foka (nephew of the Emperor Nicephorus Foka) raised a rebellion in Asia Minor against Emperor Basil II. To deal with