There was a picket of mighty warriors.
Ilia Muromets was their leader,
Dobrynia Nikitich the younger — his deputy,
There was also Alesha the parson’s son.”
These and other lines of the heroic epic were created chiefly in the 10th — 11th centuries in the southern lands of Kyivan Rus’. The text was transmitted orally from person to person over a period of nearly a thousand years and has reached us by unknown routes. Despite the semi-fairytale plots, the depicted events are unquestionably based on real facts, and the main legendary characters portray historic personalities of different periods of the Kyivan Rus’ era brought together by folk imagination. Some of them, like Illia Muromets, the most beloved hero of the legends, left their traces in people’s memory only.
Information about other figures may be traced also through written sources. From them we learn that among the Rus’ strong men killed in the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223 was Alesha Popovych. It is not difficult to recognize Prince Vseslav Polotsky in the legendary character of Volkhv (the Magus) Vseslavievych, and the Polovtsian Khan Tugorkan — in Zmii (Serpent) Tugarin. The magnificent banquets of Prince Volodymyr the Beautiful Sun are mentioned in the chronicles, and Dobrynia Nikitych turned out to be the uncle of Prince Volodymyr Sviatoslavych.
Volodymyr’s origins on his mother’s side were cloaked in mystery — if not for his contemporaries then for succeeding generations. He was not only from the house of Riuryk but also the son of a bondswoman, a “robychych,” as the proud Rohnida claimed.
According to the Hypatian copy of the chronicle The Tale of Bygone Years, when Sviatoslav was leaving on a military expedition in 970, after Olha’s death, “he placed Yaropolk in Kyiv and Oleh — in Derevy. At this time the people of Novgorod came to plead for a prince: “If you don’t come to us, we will find a prince elsewhere.” And Sviatoslav said: “Whom do you want to come to you?” Both Yaropolk and Oleh refused. And Dobrynia said: “Ask Volodymyr.” For Volodymyr was [born] of Malusha, Olha’s alms-maid, Dobrynia’s sister, and their father was Malko Liubchanyn, and Dobrynia was Volodymyr’s uncle. And the people of Novgorod said to Sviatoslav: “Give us Volodymyr.” And the people of Novgorod took Volodymyr. And Volodymyr went with Dobrynia, his uncle, to Novgorod, and Sviatoslav went to Pereiaslavets.”
The information mentioned in this chronicle entry is unique, as none of the other historical sources mention Volodymyr’s mother or her relatives. But this entry gives rise to more questions than answers. Many scholars have tried to read something new in the hidden and unspoken message of those laconic lines. One of the problematic words in this chapter is “alms- maid.” It is translated in different ways: sometimes as “the one who enjoys favor,” sometimes as “the servant who gives alms.” In the Laurentian copy of the chronicle Malusha is mentioned as Olha’s “kliuchnytsia” (bondswoman). It may be concluded that Dobrynia’s status was the same, and Volodymyr was a concubine’s son.
According to the chronicle, at the beginning of his rule Volodymyr had hundreds of concubines. But after the prince’s death only the legitimate sons of his wives competed for the Kyivan throne (the names of the contenders are listed in the chronicle). None of them was a concubine’s son, as he could not claim the title. Proof of this is Yaroslav Osmomysl’s ill-fated attempt to make Oleh, his lover’s son, the heir to his throne of Halych. Beyond all doubt, Sviatoslav had numerous concubines. But the chronicle limits the number of Sviatoslav’s sons (and Olha’s grandsons) to three persons only: Yaropolk, Oleh, and Volodymyr. This fact suggests that Malusha was another of Sviatoslav’s wives.
In this case, what was her possible background? We may assume that Sviatoslav married a bondmaid to whom he had taken a liking. But one fact contradicts this assumption: Dobrynia came to Novgorod with the young Volodymyr as the regent, the ruler of this second most important of the Rus’ lands. It seems most unlikely that the noble boyars of Novgorod would tolerate being subordinated to a kinless parvenu who had reached the top simply because of his sister, no matter who she was — a prince’s wife or a concubine. To have a position like that Dobrynia had to be at least a boyar’s son.
It is also unlikely that Malko Liubchanyn could have been deemed worthy of mention by the chronicler if he were a serf. For this he would have had to be a well known figure, which explains why the chronicler did not bother to give any details about Liubchanyn. The names of lesser known people were usually followed by some personal details: a warlord, somebody’s uncle, a teenager, or a serf. Studying these questions, Prozorovsky, a 19th-century Russian historian, came to the conclusion that Dobrynia and Malusha were both Prince Mal Drevliansky’s children. Their father had led an uprising of the Derevlianians against Ihor in 945. Malko Liubchanyn was the new name of the former Derevlianian prince whom Olha was supporting in Liubech.
Relying on information from the chronicles and later studies on this question, one can give a broader and more likely interpretation of the chronicle entry for the year 970. While Olha was alive, Sviatoslav had no reasons to distribute the Rus’ land among his young sons. Leaving on numerous military expeditions, he was certain that the government was in his mother’s reliable and devoted hands. There were now two groups of mutual adversaries left in Kyiv — the Varangians (Scandinavians) headed by Sveneld, and the Slavs led by Dobrynia. Sveneld, who was the most influential warlord in Ihor’s time, could — during the prince’s long absence — try to seize power in Kyiv and thus in all of Rus’. Dobrynia also sought revenge against the Varangians, because it was Sveneld who had crushed the Derevlianians’ uprising in 945. Therefore, Mal’s son had every reason to consider Sveneld his personal enemy, and he linked all his hopes with Volodymyr.
The victory of either of the sides jeopardized Sviatoslav’s status. In this complicated situation the prince of Kyiv made a decision worthy not only of a military leader but of a mature and experienced statesman. To neutralize both adversaries he opted for some decentralization in his absence. It’s worth mentioning that in 970 Sviatoslav was no older than 30, so there was no question of his sons’ independent reign. Real power was in the hands of the regents. Taking into consideration the mighty potential of the Varangian party, Sviatoslav appointed their representative as a regent for his elder son Yaropolk in Kyiv (later Sveneld took the regency).
To avoid a military confrontation between Sveneld and Dobrynia and to prevent the latter from separatist plotting against Kyiv, the prince did not send Mal’s legitimate heir (Volodymyr or Dobrynia) to the Derevlianians, but appointed his second son Oleh to rule there. But the regency for Oleh was given not to the Varangians but to the Derevlianian boyars. Consequently, Oleh (Volha Sviatoslavych of the legends) became an active leader of Derevlianian interests. Sviatoslav’s attention to the land of the Derevlianians attests to their leading role in the Slavonic party.
According to the chronicle, Sviatoslav did not intend to let Novgorod, the second most important and distant of the Rus’ lands, out of direct subordination to Kyiv. Only the Novgorod representatives’ threat to find another prince (not from the house of Riuryk) to rule made Sviatoslav change his mind. Granting Riuryk’s own ancestral lands to Dobrynia and Volodymyr was a demonstration of Sviatoslav’s great trust in Mal’s son and a great honor. But Sviatoslav’s main achievement was limiting the Varangians’ influence in the northern part of Rus’.
We can only assume what was going on in Novgorod at that time because the chronicler described only events in Rus’ (which meant only the Kyiv lands). Behind the brief lines of the chronicle we can see Sveneld’s efforts to exacerbate relations with the Derevlianians. He sought a pretext to defy Sviatoslav’s will and grounds for seizing the Derevlianians’ land; he organized provocations.
Finally, the Derevlianians’s patience wore thin. In 975 Oleh killed Sveneld’s son Lot, who was hunting in his gaming lands. In the war that followed in 977 the Derevlianians were defeated, Oleh was killed, and Yaropolk “inherited his land.”
Dobrynia and Volodymyr did not assist the Derevlianians in their war, although they must have understood that war was inevitable after Lot’s death. Dobrynia may have been bound by his oath to Sviatoslav to recognize Yaropolk. Dobrynia did not want to be the first to break the promise, or Sveneld’s victory may have been so quick that he was simply unable to react. He may have been waiting for Yaropolk and Oleh to exhaust each other, so that he could then direct the course of events according to his desires.
However, the latter assumption is less likely, as Novgorod appeared unprepared to repel Sveneld, and both Dobrynia and Volodymyr had to flee to Scandinavia. Had events in Novgorod proceeded according to Sveneld’s scenario, only Yaropolk, out of all of Sviatoslav’s sons, would have remained alive. If he had died, the ruling Riuryk dynasty might have been substituted by that of Sveneld — the young princes had no heirs yet. Was Sveneld counting on this?
When they were escaping to Scandinavia, Dobrynia and Volodymyr almost certainly emptied Novgorod’s treasury, nor did they waste their time overseas. As a result, within three years, Sveneld, a highly experienced wolf, was caught by surprise. Shortly after their arrival in Novgorod, Dobrynia and Volodymyr celebrated their victory in Kyiv. This attests to both the thoroughness of their preparation for the march to “the mother of Rus’ cities” and their military capabilities. A significant role was also played by the lack of popular support for the pro-Varangian government and the popularity of Dobrynia and Volodymyr, who eventually became legendary heroes.
There was also a dark side to their triumph: their road to power led through the treacherous assassination of Yaropolk. These dramatic events ushered in a new era in the history of Kyivan Rus’, in which there were two key figures — Volodymyr and Dobrynia.
