Обсуждение:Россия

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

Rūs, occasionally Rūsiya , the Arabic rendering (and thence into other Islamic languages) of Eastern Slavic Poycb ( Rus ’). This was the designation of a people and land from which modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus’ derive.

The rapid ethnic, political and social evolution of this term and the people(s) which it denoted during the 3rd-4th/9th-10th centuries produced a series of temporally multi-layered, occasionally contradictory notices in the classical Islamic geographical literature. In contemporary Byzantine sources it appears as ‘Ρῶς (which may, indeed, be the source of the Arabic form, Barthold, Arabskie isvestiy̲a̲ o rusak̲h̲ ), cf. also ‘Ρωσσία, the name of the country derived from it and the infrequently noted form (pl.) ‘Ρούσιοι). Modern Russ. Rossiy̲a̲ (“Russia”) is taken from the Byzantine ecclesiastical usage. Al-Idrīsī, 914, mentions “Outer Russia” ( bilād al-rūsiyya al-k̲h̲ārid̲j̲iyya ). It is not clear if this usage has any relationship to the ἔξω ‘Ρωσία noted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the geographical contours of which are equally uncertain. The form Urus and its variants, found in a number of Turkic languages (e.g. Ḳaračay-Balḳar Orus , Nog̲h̲ay, Ḳazaḳ Oris , Čuvas̲h̲ Virăs ) goes back to the Arabic form. Mediaeval Latin sources record them as ( Annales Bertiniani , s.a. 838-9) Rhos ; (The Bavarian Geographer, 9th century) Ruzzi ; (Liudprand of Cremona, mid-10th century) Rusios ; (Thietmar of Merseburg, d. 1018) Ruscia ; Old Germ. Ruz , Riuz ; Old Swed. Ryds . Long-standing attempts to identify this ethnonym with the Hrōs mentioned in the 6th century Syriac ecclesiastical history of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor have generally (with the exception of some Soviet scholars) been rejected (see Łowmiański).

The origins of the Rūs

The origin and etymology of this term/ethnonym and thus, it is averred, the ethnic affiliations of the people or socio-mercantile group that first bore this name in the Islamic and other sources of the 3rd-4th/9th-10th century, are much debated. It has long been argued (cf. Thomsen) that Rus’ is the Slavic rendering of the Baltic Finnic term for “Swede”: Finn. Ruotsi , Est. Rootś , Vot. Rôtsi , Liv. R’uo̯t ’ š (but cf. Volga Finnic: Mari Ruš , Udm. Zuč , Komi-Perm. Roč “Russian” and Samoyedic [Nenets] Lūtsa , Lūsa “Russian”. There have been two centuries of occasionally heated discussion of this issue between “Normanists” (those favouring a Scandinavian origin of the Rus’ and by extension the Rus’ state) and their opponents, the “Anti-Normanists.” The Classical Normanist position, from the philological perspective, posits: Slav. Rus’ < Finn. Routsi < Old Norse roper , ropsmenn , ropskarlar “rowers, seamen” associated with the coastal region of Sweden, Roslagen (see Łowmiański, ¶8/619/1¶ and in Jenkins et al., Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio. Commentary . Historical evidence in support of the Scandinavian origin of the Rus’ is adduced from the account in the Annales Bertiniani , s.a. 838-9, of an embassy from the “Rhos Chacanus” (Ḳag̲h̲an of the Rus’) to Constantinople. Unable to return to their homeland because of nomadic pressure in the Western Eurasian steppes, the embassy was diverted to the Frankish court at Ingelheim. There, to the consternation of the Franks, it was discovered that the mysterious Rhos were, indeed, Swedes. A century later, Liudprand of Cremona appears to confirm this ethnic identification in noting in his listing of the northern peoples the “Rusios whom we call by another name the Northmen” ( Rusios , quos alio nos nomine Nordmannos apellamus). Elsewhere he further explains that there is a certain people established in the North whom, because of the characteristics of their physical appearance (a qualitate corporis) “the Greeks call Ρούσιος, Rusios, but we, however, because of their location call Northmen ( Nordmanni ).” On the basis of these and other connections made in contemporary sources with the Viking world, the formation of the Rus’ state is thus seen as part of that outpouring of Viking energy aimed initially at gaining control of vital international trade routes and ending in some instances as conquest and colonisation. The name Rūs does, indeed, figure in some accounts of Viking raids on Muslim Spain. Al-Yaʿḳūbī, s.a. 229/843-4, tells of the attack of the “Mad̲j̲ūs who are called Rūs” on Seville (Is̲h̲bīliyya). “Mad̲j̲ūs” [q.v.] was a term used rather broadly for pagans and more specifically for Zoroastrians and Norsemen. Al-Masʿūdī also mentions “a nation of the Mad̲j̲ūs” who, before the year 300/912-3, had raided Andalus. He identified them with the Rūs and posited the Pontic region as their starting point. Ibn Ḥawḳal, in his account of the destruction of the Ḵh̲azar cities at the hands of the Rũs in 358/968-9 (more probably several years earlier, this date represents the year in which Ibn Ḥawḳal first heard of these events), remarks that after their despoiling of K̲h̲azaria “they came at once to the land of Rūm and Andalus... ” He then refers to earlier expeditions, commenting that they, the Rūs, “are the ones who of old went to Andalus and then to Bard̲h̲aʿa.” He also notes that “the ships of the Rūs and Pečeneg Turks” sometimes attack Spain. This alliance of Rus’ and Pečenegs [q.v.], who were often at odds, while not unknown, is all the more remarkable in that it implies Pečeneg involvement in sea-borne expeditions. A most dramatic turn of events in Rūs activities in the Mediterranean occurred in 860, when the “Rhos” mounted an unsuccessful naval assault on Constantinople from which the Byzantines believed themselves to have been spared only through divine intercession. The Patriarch Photius (858-67, 878-86), an astute and well-informed statesman, referred to these invaders as an ἔθνος ἄγνωστον a hitherto “unknown people” (see Vasiliev). The Rūs who attacked the Byzantine capital appear to have come from Kiev (Vasiliev) rather than from Western or Northern Europe. Al-most a century later, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d. A.D. 959) in his De administrando imperio, written ca. 948-52, gives an account of how the Rus’ merchants travel from Novgorod to Kiev and then down the Dnieper and into the Black Sea to trade with Constantinople. The names of the Dnieper rapids are reported in both Rhos (‘Ρωσιστὶ) and Slavic (Σκλαβηνιστὶ). The “Rhos” forms are clearly Scandinavian.

G. Vernadsky proferred an Iranian origin: Rus < ¶ Alanic Ruk̲h̲s-As through a conjectured relationship of the Alans with the early (Eastern) Slavic tribal confederation of the Antes. The Varangians (Old Norse Vaeringi , pl. Vaeringjar , Rus’. Bapяƨ ( Varąg ) Mod. Russ. Bapяƨ (Varyag), Arab. Warank , Greek Βαράγγοι < várar “pledge, oath, guarantee” = “men of the pledge”, he argues, who in the 8th-9th century became the dominant force here, merged with this grouping and assumed their name. This dilution of strict Normanism has found few adherents. Anti-Normanists have countered with a variety of theories, both philological and historical. Perhaps best grounded are the Slavist Anti-Normanists who point to the presence of toponyms and hydronyms with the element rus-/ros- in the Eastern Slavic lands. These, in turn, may be associated with the Slavic or Balto-Slavic * rud /* rus “reddish, ruddy, blond” (e.g. Ukr. rusi̊y “blond”, Lith. raũsvas “red”, cf. Latin russus etc., see P. Rospond, Mavrodin). H. Paszkiewicz (The origin of Russia , 1954, repr. New York 1969, 143-4), a Normanist, suggested that this was the Slavic name of the Norsemen, so called because of their ruddy complexion.

Eastern Slavic sources do not help to clarify the situation. The later Kievan Rus’ tradition associates “Rus’” with the south, i.e. the Middle Dnieper Kievan region (cf. Hrus̲h̲evs’ki̊y, i). The Primary Chronicle (also called the Chronicle of Nestor ), however, in its introductory genealogical comments places the “Rus” among the peoples in Japheth’s part of the world, in this case the northern, Finnic ethnic groupings. Further on, it includes them in a listing of the “Varangians, Swedes, Normans ( Ourmane ), Gotlanders, Angles, Galicians, Italians ( Volŭk̲h̲va ), Romans, Germans, etc. Clearly, they are associated with the Germanic North. The Chronicler, often evincing a Byzantinocentric viewpoint, comments (PSRL, i, 17) that the Rus’ land began to be so-called at the time of the accession of the Emperor Michael III (852). In another passage (PSRL, i, 23) discussing Oleg’s conquest of Kiev, traditionally dated to 882, the Rus’ are again associated with the North: “he (sc. Oleg) had with him Varangians, Slovene (se. a tribe associated with Novgorod) and the rest who are called Rus’.” Elsewhere, however, the Chronicle (PSRL, i, 25-6), s.a. 898, notes the Polyane, the Eastern Slavic tribe most closely associated with Kiev, “who are now called Rus’” ( ni̊ne zovomay̲a̲ Rus ’). Still further on, the Chronicler attempts to explain these discrepancies thus (PSRL, i, 28): “the Slavic nation ( sloven ’ ski̊y y̲a̲zi̊k ) and the Rus’ ( rouski̊y ) are one; for it was called Rus’ from the Varangians ( ot Vary̲a̲g bo prozvas̲h̲asy̲a̲ Rous’yu ), but first they were Slavs, although they were called Polyane, nonetheless, they were of Slavic speech...”

In addition to philological argumentation and to the ethnographic and ethnogenetic data offered by our sources, the Normanist position is based largely on the Primary Chronicle’s “historical” account of the genesis of the Rus’ state. According to it, in 859 (the dating, at best, is off by several years), the Varangians “from across the sea” levied tribute on the Finnic Čyud’, the Novgorodian Slovene, the Finnic Merya and the Slavic Kriviči, while the Slavic Polyane, Severyane and Vyatiči to their south were tributaries of the K̲h̲azars. In 860-2, the Varangians were expelled, but the northern groupings proved unable to govern themselves. As a consequence, the Varangians, led by Ryurik, who settled in Novgorod, and his two brothers, Sineus and Truvor, were summoned to rule over them. Ryurik brought with him “the whole of Rus’.” From “these Varangians it was ¶ called the land of Rus’” (PSRL, i, 19-20). Two Varangian subordinates of Ryurik, Askold and Dir, then came to the south, taking Kiev. Al-Masʿūdī (d. ca. 345/956-7) in his Murūd̲j̲ . (iii, 64 = § 908), mentions the “king al-Dīr [Dayr], first among the kings of the Ṣaḳāliba.” The occasionally suggested identification of al-Dīr with the Varangian Dir is questionable. It is much more likely that, despite the similarity in names, al-Masʿūdī’s al-Dīr was a Central European Slavic ruler and his contemporary. With Ryurik’s death, sometime between 870-9, power was given to his kinsman, Oleg < helgi . Oleg is presented in the traditional narrative as the guardian of Ryurik’s son, Igor’. In 880-2, Oleg took Kiev, killing Askold and Dir. Another Rus’ tradition preserved in the Novgorodian First Chronicle (NPL, 107, 434), depicts Igor’ as the conqueror of Kiev, with Oleg merely as his general. The charismatic Oleg, about whom legends imputing prophetic abilities developed, has also been identified with the hlgw of the Geniza K̲h̲azar Hebrew document, the so-called “Cambridge” or “Schechter” document. This *Helgu, the “king of Rusia”, perished in the aftermath of an unsuccessful raid on Byzantium. According to the Primary Chronicle, Oleg, after taking Kiev then set about conquering the neighbouring Slavic tribes. In 907, he launched his first raid against Constantinople. Igor’, according to the Chronicle, began to rule in 913. There are, indeed, serious problems of chronology and questions regarding the identity of the personages involved. Pritsak, for example, posits a conflation of several Helgi/Olegs, real and mythical. Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that the account has some underlying historical basis.

The Anti-Normanists minimise the importance of the non-autochthonous elements. They contend that in the 6th-7th century there existed in the Middle Dnieper region the Polyane tribal union which took the name Ros or Rus deriving from a toponym or hydronym. Some support for this may be found in the “Bavarian Geographer”, an anonymous work composed before 821, which places the “Ruzzi” next to the “Caziri” (K̲h̲azars). The power of this Kievcentred state, according to Soviet Anti-Normanists, grew as reflected in the 838-9 embassy to Constantinople. The Swedes noted here, they suggest, were merely Vikings in Rus’ service. The tale of the summoning of the Varangians, they further argue, is mythical. Ryurik may have been a real figure, but his ethnic affiliation is unclear.

The Normanist vs. Anti-Normanist controversy cannot be resolved on the basis of the currently available written sources. Archaeological evidence, similarly, does not provide decisive proof. A recent assessment of the data from a Scandinavianist perspective concludes that the Rus’ were Scandinavians, but constituted only one element in a mixed population. The Vikings called Rus’ ѕvíрјοð hian mikla“Sweden the Great”, indicating an almost proprietary sense in an area of economic expansion and opportunity. The other Old Norse term for the region was Go̹rd/Gorðum in the 10th-11th century and Garðaríki , “kingdom of (fortified) towns or steads”, in the 12th-13th century.

The Islamic sources, while not providing the conclusive information needed to resolve these questions, shed some light on the early Rus’. Genealogical tradition, as reflected in the anonymous Mud̲j̲mal al-tawārīk̲h̲ , dated 520/1126, presents the eponymous Rūs as the brother of K̲h̲azar and the son of Japheth. Dissatisfied with his own place of abode, Rūs wrote to his brother and “asked for a corner of his country.” ¶ He obtained an island, difficult of access, with soggy soil and foul air. These and other themes are drawn from information that was part of the body of Islamic geographical literature of the 3rd-4th/9th-10th centuries (see below). Balʿamī, in his translation of al-Ṭabarī, s.a. 22/643, reports the words of S̲h̲ahriyār, the ruler of Darband/Bāb al-Abwāb [q.v.], to the commander of the Arab advance forces, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Rabīʿa, to the effect that he was “between two enemies the K̲h̲azar and the Rūs. These peoples are the enemies of the entire world and, in particular, of the Arabs.” This seems very early, indeed, for a Rus’ presence in this region. The K̲h̲azars, of course, were already an important factor in the North Caucasus. The pairing of the Rūs with them as enemies of the Islamic world has an anachronistic ring. Nonetheless, some scholars are willing to accept its historicity (cf. Lewicki, Źródła arabskie do dziejów słowiańszczyzny ; Togan, Ibn Faḍlān’s Reisebericht . Novosel’tsev cites several other references to the Rūs dating to the time of K̲h̲usraw I Anūs̲h̲irwān (531-79), e.g. in al-T̲h̲aʿālibī, who built fortifications against the “Turks, K̲h̲azars and Rūs.” These, too, are most probably anachronistic. The earliest reliable reference to Rūs in the Islamic sources is perhaps to be seen in the “mountain of the Rūs” from which the river drws flows, noted in al-K̲h̲wārazmī’s Ṣūrat al-arḍ ; Novosel’tsev).

One of the earliest and most important notices is found in Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih. writing probably ca. 272/885-6, on the “route of the Rūs merchants” who brought goods from Northern Europe/Northwestern Russia to Bag̲h̲dād. It interrupts a notice on the route of the Rād̲h̲āniyya [q.v.], a Jewish merchant company, which appears to have been supplanted by the Rūs. Noonan has recently suggested that the latter may have initiated these contacts as early as A.D. 800. A hoard of coins found at Peterhof, near St. Petersburg, contains twenty coins (Sāsānid, Arabo-Sāsānid and Arab dirhams, the latest dated to 189/804-5) with graffitti in Arabic, Turkic (probably K̲h̲azar) runic, Greek and Scandinavian runic (more than half the total). This may be viewed as evidence for the existence of the route described in Ibn K̲h̲urrradād̲h̲bih by the late 2nd/early 9th century (see T. Noonan, When did Rūs/Rus’ merchants first visit Khazaria and Baghdad ?). In Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih’s famous account, the Rūs are described as “a kind ( d̲j̲ins ) of the Ṣaḳāliba,” a sentence that has often been taken to indicate that they are a Slavic tribe. The Arabic is much more imprecise. The primary meaning of d̲j̲ins is “kind, type, variety, species.” The term Ṣaḳāliba (sing. Ṣaḳlabī < Gr. Σκλάβος) while often used to designate the Slavs, was also employed to denote the whole of the fair-haired, ruddy-complexioned population of Central, Eastern and North-eastern Europe. In mediaeval Greek and Latin, sclavus became synonymous with “slave” (the English word [< French esclave ] deriving ultimately from the ethnic designation). Our source further notes that these Rūs merchants “transport beaver hides, the pelts of the black fox and swords from the farthest reaches of the Ṣaḳāliba to the Sea of Rūm. The ruler of Rūm takes a tithe of them. If they wish, they go to the (ms. Oxford, Bodleian, Huntington 433, fol. 74b , ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale 2213, fol. 49a , ms. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 783, fol. 65a , see also Golden, Khazar studies), * tnys river (variously read/identified as the “Tanais” [Τάναїς] i.e. the Don (so De Goeje), yitil , i.e. Itil ( = Volga, see Lewicki, Źródla ) or Ti̊n ( = Don, see Marquait, or Siverski̊i Donets’, see Pritsak, An Arabic text on the trade ¶ route of the corporation qfar-Rūs in the second half of the ninth century), the River of the Ṣaḳāliba. They travel to K̲h̲amlīd̲j̲/K̲h̲amlīk̲h̲. the city of the K̲h̲azars whose ruler takes a tithe of them. Then they betake themselves to the Sea of Ḏj̲urd̲j̲ān and they alight on whichever of its shores they wish .... Sometimes, they carry their goods from D̲j̲urd̲j̲ān by camel to Bag̲h̲dād. Ṣaḳlab slaves translate for them. They claim that they are Christians and pay the d̲j̲izya .” Much has also been made of the Rūs use of “Ṣaḳlab” translators, attesting, it is argued, a common Slavic tongue. Although we do not know with certainty what language was used, it may well have been Slavic, the most practical lingua franca in Central and Eastern Europe. Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿḳūb [q.v.], the 4rd/10th century Jewish traveller, who journeyed to Central Europe and the Western Slavic lands, remarked that “the majority of the tribes of the North speak Ṣaḳlabī (most probably, here meaning Slavic) because of their commingling with them. Among them are the Germans (Ṭudishkī), Hungarians (Unḳalī), Pečenegs, Rūs and K̲h̲azars.” The Ḥudūd , has preserved the tradition that among the Rūs “lives a group of Slavs who serve them” (see below). There is no doubt that the, Rūs had very intimate ties with Slavic speakers and the Scandinavian-speaking element was certainly bilingual, if not completely slavicised by the late 10th century. Igor’s son, Svyatoslav (d. 972) already bears a Slavic name. There were, it might also be noted, Slavic colonies in caliphal territories that presumably could have also provided speakers fluent in Slavic and Arabic. A variant of Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih’s account, taken, perhaps, from a common source is found in Ibn al-Faḳīh. See also Pritsak, An Arabic text, and the earlier comments of Marquart, who suggest that the intellectual circle of Ibn al-Faḳīh’s father in Hamad̲h̲ān served as this common source. Here, the merchants in question are designated as Ṣaḳlab. After their arrival at the Sea of Rūm (most probably the Black Sea is meant here) and their payment of the tithe, they go to “Samkars̲h̲ of the Jews” (cf. *Samkarṣ of the Khazar “Cambridge” document = Samkerč = Tmutorokan’ /Ταματάρχα /Φαναγουρία; see literature cited in Lewicki, Zródła ). Then they turn towards the Ṣaḳāliba or they betake themselves from the Sea of the Ṣaḳāliba by this river, which is called the River of the Ṣaḳāliba, until they come to K̲h̲amlīk̲h̲...” Ultimately, their goods may go as far as Rayy. The identification of the various Ṣaḳlab waterways remains problematic. Al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ , remarks that the Rūs consist of “numerous peoples of diverse kinds. Among them are a kind ( d̲j̲ins ) called al-Lūd̲h̲ʿāna * al-Lūd̲h̲g̲h̲āna ) and they are the most numerous. They frequently visit, for the purpose of trade, the land of Spain [Andalus], Rome, Constantinople and the Ḵh̲azars.” The Lūd̲h̲ ʿāna / Lūd̲h̲g̲h̲ana have been identified with the Rūs grouping noted as al-Kūd̲h̲kāna by al-Masʿūdī in his Tanbīh , 141. These, in turn, have been viewed as garblings of al-Urdmāna (cf. Marquart, who, while noting this possibility, preferred to view this as a corruption of al-rāhdāniyya / al-rād̲h̲āniyya ; Minorsky, Kuda ezdili drevnie rusi̊ ?). Pritsak, following Kokovtsov, has suggested that the Lwznyw of the “Cambridge” document, taken from an Arabic-script source ( lūzniyū ) is a corruption of ( lūdmānī , see Golb and Pritsak) = Lo(r)dman = Nordman . Pritsak has, moreover, put forward an interesting thesis in explication of the Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih/Ibn al-Faḳīh notices. The Ṣaḳlab lands were primary sources for the slave trade (the “river of the Ṣaḳāliba” denoted the “river of Slaves” coming from the K̲h̲azar empire ¶ via the Volga and Don rivers). The two major companies involved in this trade on an international level were the Rād̲h̲āniyya/Rāhdāniyya (ca. 750) and the Rūs, who ultimately replaced them. Both were based in (southern) France (this is well-established for the Rād̲h̲āniyya, see Lewicki, Źródła , who associates the Rāhdāniyya mostly with trade in cloth). Kmietowicz, also places the Rād̲h̲āniyya “most probably in France, though they were equally connected with Spain.” He derives the term for this trading diaspora from raeda / rheda , the name for a type of vehicle, > veredarius “messenger, courier, traveling merchant.” The Rūs, according to Pritsak, were near Rodez: Rutenicis < Celto-Latin Ruteni / Ruti > Middle French Rusi , Middle Germ. Rūzzi (the source of Finnic Routsɩ ). Unlike the Rād̲h̲āniyya. Pritsak argues, who as Jews enjoyed religious neutrality in the Mediterranean, the Rusi were obliged to seek a northern point of entry into Eastern Europe and the Baltic zone. They integrated themselves into the Frisian-Scandinavian world and by the late 8th century, developed a “Danish” type “society of nomads of the sea.” Ryurik was the Frisian Danish king Rørik. The Slavic and “Rhos” (Scandinavian) languages noted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus were simply two of the linguae francae used by this trading diaspora (Pritsak, Origin ). While it might be noted that neither of the two passages make any reference to the slave trade, K̲h̲azaria, as is well-known from the Arabic geographical literature, was a major source of slaves entering the eastern Islamic world and the Rūs were deeply involved in this trade.

The evidence is highly circumstantial at best. Given the complexities of their conjectured origins, it may, nonetheless, not be amiss to view the Rūs at this stage of their development, as they began to penetrate Eastern Europe, not as an ethnos, in the strict sense of the term, for this could shift as new ethnic elements were added, but rather as a commercial and political organisation. The term was certainly associated with maritime and riverine traders and merchantmercenaries/pirates of “Ṣaḳāliba” stock (Northern and Eastern European, Scandinavian, Slavic and Finnic).

The Rūs Ḳag̲h̲anate

We have already noted that the Annales Bertiniani refer to the Rus’ ruler as Chacanus . This is the Turkic title Ḳag̲h̲an “emperor”. Kievan Rus’ tradition, although overwhelmed by Byzantine models, occasionally made use of the title in literature of the Christian age: e.g. the references to “our ḳag̲h̲an Vladimir” ( kagan nas̲h̲ Vladimir ) and “our ḳag̲h̲an Georgii” (Yaroslav) in the mid-11th century religioideological tract “The sermon on Law and Grace” [ Slovo o zakone i blagodati] of Metropolitan Ilarion (see Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede ) and the application of this tide to several figures in the Igor’ Tale (Slovo o polku igoreve). There is also the graffito in the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev which reàds “O Lord, save our ḳag̲h̲an” (spasi gospodi kagana nas̲h̲ego , Vi̊sotskiy). The Islamic geographers, based on traditions stemming from the 3rd/9th century, mention the k̲h̲aḳān rūs (Ibn Rusta /rūs-k̲h̲āḳān (Ḥudūd)/ k̲h̲āḳān-i rūs (Gardīzī, in Gardīzī/Barthold; Mud̲j̲mal al-tawārīk̲h̲ ). This tide could only have come to the Rus’, or more likely one grouping of them, through intimate contact (i.e. a marital tie) with one of the ruling, charismatic steppe dynasties. In all likelihood, this was the K̲h̲azar royal line. Such a tie is perhaps hinted at in the Islendingabóc with its references to “Yngve the King of the Turks” (see discussion in Golden, The question of the ¶ Rus’ Qaǧanate ). The location of this Rūs ḳag̲h̲anate has been and remains the source of much speculation. Equally unclear are the inception point and ultimate fate of this polity. Pritsak, Origin , suggests that the Rūs ḳag̲h̲anate was founded by a K̲h̲azar ruler who fled to the Rus’ ca. 830-40. He places the ḳag̲h̲anate in the Rostov-Yaroslav region of the Upper Volga. Smirnov, was of the opinion that it appeared only briefly, ca. 830, and was soon destroyed by the migration of the Ugro-Turkic tribal confederation that became the Hungarians in Danubian Europe. Since the latter were already on the Don by 838, cutting off the Rhos embassy from its return route from Constantinople and forcing its diversion to the Frankish lands, this would appear to have been a very short-lived political phenomenon. On the other hand, the sacral ruler described by Ibn Faḍlān in 309/921-2 (see below) certainly possessed many of the attributes of a holy Turkic Ḳag̲h̲an. The memory of this institution, in any event, endured into the Christian era of Rūs history, as we have seen, and could be summoned for ideological purposes.

The location of the Rūs lands

The tradition represented by Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī and others (cf. al-Maḳdisī, Mud̲j̲mal , Marwazī; al-Ḳazwīnī; Ibn Iyās, in Seippel; al-Bākuwī, see also discussion in Zak̲h̲oder. place the Rūs on an island of three days’ journey in widt̲h̲ in a lake (or a sea). It is densely wooded, damp, soggy and possessing foul, unhealthy air. Gardīzī (or rather his sources), followed by al-Maḳdisī, puts the island’s population at 100,000. Ibn Iyās and al-Bākuwī comment that the island is a “fortress” that protects them from their enemies. Some scholars are inclined to place this island in the north. Novgorod, it might be remembered, in Scandinavian tradition was termed Hólmgarðr “Island-Garth” (Barthold, Arab. izvest .; Novosel’tsev). Other suggestions include Aldeigjuborg, North-east Rus’, Kiev, Tmutorokan’ and the Taman peninsula (see literature in Golden, Question ). Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn Mubārakg̲h̲āh, simply notes that they live on islands. This, however, may refer to a later time period. For example, al-Dimas̲h̲ḳī, says that they have islands in the “Sea of Māyuṭas” (text has the corrupted form “Mānīṭas” = Maeotis, the Sea of Azov). Al-Nuwayrī, terms the Black Sea the “Sea of the Rūs”, adding that the Rūs “inhabit the islands in it”. Al-Masʿūdī, who is uncertain of the geography involved and is perhaps referring to the situation in his day, comments regarding the Rūs who raided Spain that they “reach their country from a gulf ( k̲h̲alīd̲j̲ “bay”? “canal”?) which meets the Sea of Uḳyānus, (but) not through the gulf in which are the bronze lighthouses. In my opinion—but God knows best—this gulf is connected to the Sea of Māyuṭas and Bunfas and this people is the Rūs...” A more northerly orientation can be assumed from Ibn Ḥawḳal’ s comment that the honey, wax and beaver furs brought to the Islamic world from K̲h̲azaria actually come from the region around Rūs and Bulg̲h̲ār. Indeed, some of the prized fur animals are only found “in these northern rivers which are near Bulg̲h̲ār, Rūs and Kūyāba” (see below). Al-Idrīsī, gives us some idea of the distances involved, informing us that “from Bulg̲h̲ār to the first border of Rūs is 10 days’ journey. From Bulg̲h̲ār to Kūyāba it is about 20 days’ journey.” The anonymous author of the Ḥudūd , probably reporting the situation close to his own time (372/982) places the Rūs territory west of the “mountains of the Pečenegs.” To its south is the river Rūtā (? Dūnā?), to the west are the Ṣaḳāliba and in the ¶ north are the “Uninhabited Lands.” In contrast to the forbidding depiction of the island of the Rūs, the Ḥudūd views the Rūs habitat as “extremely favoured by nature with regard to all the necessities (of life).” Indeed, Ibn Rusta, seemingly contradicting his remarks about the Rus’ island but obviously referring to a different grouping of Rūs and perhaps conflating earlier and later traditions, notes that they have many towns. The “island” theme, in any event, most probably referred to only one grouping of Rūs.

By the late 9th century, there were three urban-territorial units associated with the Rus’. The Ḥudūd, following the tradition also found in al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and Ibn Ḥawḳal (a mélange of these and other traditions are also recorded in al-Idrīsī), notes three subdivisions of the Rūs, each based on an urban centre: (1) Kūyābā ( = Kiev, cf. the [Qjyōb̲] of the 10th century K̲h̲azar Kievan letter, Golb and Pritsak, the Κίοβα/Κίαβα noted by Const. Porph., who mentions that the city is also called Σαμβατάς, the meaning of which is unclear (Pritsak, op. cit., 44, derives this term from Balkan Latin sambata “Saturday”, the principal market day. He further suggests that Kiev is based on the name of the K̲h̲azarian vizierial family of K̲h̲wārazmian origin Kūya ( < * kaoya “peculiar to the Iranian sacred ruling dynasty Kaway + -āwa ”). This form arose in the late 9th century), and the Cuiewa of Western sources (Thietmar of Merseburg). Old Norse knew it as Kœnugarðr “Boat-Gart̲h̲”. This is the southernmost of the Rūs lands (“nearest to the Islamic lands”). It is also closest to and bigger than Bulg̲h̲ār. A Rūs king resides in Kūyābā. (2) Ṣalāwiyya ( Ṣalāba in the Ḥudūd). Barely commented on by al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī (who says that it is the farthest from them) and Ibn Ḥawḳal, the Ḥudūd remarks that it is a “pleasant town from which, whenever peace reigns, they go for trade to the districts of Bulg̲h̲ār.” Only Ibn Ḥawḳal notes the presence of a king in it. Al-Idrīsī says that it is on the top of a mountain. The Ṣalāwiyya are clearly the Slovene of the Lake Il’men region and Novgorod. The latter was actually founded ca. 930, the earlier “Novgorod” is perhaps to be identified with the “Ryurikovo gorodis̲h̲če”, to the south which contains some Scandinavian finds (Clarke and Ambrosiani). It continued to have a strong trade orientation towards the Finno-Ugric forest peoples, competing here with Volga Bulg̲h̲aria up to the Mongol conquest. (3) Art̲h̲āniyya (< *Rothania? Ruthenia?) whose city is Ārt̲h̲ā (n) (Ḥudūd: ʾ rtāb , recte was noted for its secretiveness and inhospitality (killing all strangers who enter). Yet they actively engaged in trade bringing their goods to the outside world. According to al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and Ibn Ḥawḳal, they exported black sable, black fox, beaver pelts, lead and mercury (see also al-Idrīsī, 917-18). The Ḥudūd also ascribes to them the production of “very valuable blades and swords which can be bent in two, but as soon as the hand is removed they return to their former state.” Al-Idrīsī locates it four days’ travel from both Kūyāba and Ṣalāwa. Art̲h̲ān(iyya) is probably to be located near the Volga or in the Volga-Oka mesopotamia (hence some efforts have been made to identify them with one or another Finno-Ugric people, cf. Swoboda). It might be noted in this connection that Arabo-Jewish documents refer to the Volga as Art̲h̲ā and the furs imported from there were termed art̲h̲ī (Goitein). It is unclear which, if any, of these centres may be identified with the Rūs Ḳag̲h̲anate.

Al-Idrīsī gives the names of a large number of cities in “Rūsiyya” and its immediate envirions: Lūbas̲h̲a (Lyubeč), Zāḳa (Sakov), Sklāhī, G̲h̲alīsiyya (Galicia, Halič), Snūblī, Turūbī (Turov), Barazlāw ¶ (Pereyaslavl’), Qnw (Kanev?), ʾIskī, Mūlsa, Kāw (on the Danābrus/Dnieper = Kiev?), Brzūla, Usiyya, Brāsānsa, Lūd̲j̲g̲h̲a. Armn, Mrtūrī, at the mouth of the river Danast/Dnestr (some of these are discussed in Lewicki, Polska i kraje sa̹siednie w świetle Ksieͅgi Rogera geogrqfa arabskiego z xii w . al-Idrîsî’ego , and Beylis.

Relations with neighbours

The Islamic sources paint a picture of largely bellicose relations with their neighbours. The Ḥudūd reports that “they war with all the infidels who live round them, and come out victorious.” Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī and al-Maḳdisī, note the Ṣaḳāliba as the principal victims. The Rūs come by boat, capture them and send them off to the slave markets of K̲h̲azarān and Bulg̲h̲ār. They also take their foodstuffs since they have no cultivated fields of their own. Gardīzī adds that many Ṣaḳāliba agree to take service with the Rūs, working as servants (confirmed by the Ḥudūd, loc. cit.: “among them lives a group of Slavs who serve them”). It has often been assumed that these were the Ṣaḳlabī servants who functioned as translators for the Rūs merchants who came to Bag̲h̲dād noted in Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih (see above). How these translators acquired Arabic, if this was, in fact, the language to which they translated, is unclear. Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿḳūb remarks that the commerce of the Ṣaḳāliba “frequently comes by land and sea to the Rūs and Constantinople.” The Ṣaḳāliba in question here are probably the Western Slavs. That same author, 5, reports that the Rūs also attack the Pruss (Burūs), crossing over to attack them in ships “from the West.” These would appear to be Rūs operating in the Baltic. Prior to the 10th century Rūs and Ṣaḳāliba were to be found in the K̲h̲azar military service and as the servants of the K̲h̲āḳān, living in the K̲h̲azar capital. The K̲h̲azar judiciary made provisions for its ethnically variegated subject population. There were seven judges, two each for the Jews, Muslims and Christians and “one for the Ṣaḳāliba and Rūs who render judgment according to pagan judicial principles ( bi-ḥukm al-d̲j̲āhiliyya ), the judgment of reason” (al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ ; al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī). Al-Masʿūdī, Tanbīh , mentions groups of Rūs, who like the Armenians, Bulgarians (Burg̲h̲ar) and Pečenegs, had entered the Byzantine military service. By the late 10th century, Rūs contingents, whose assistance, unlike the free-lance mercenaries already found in Byzantine service, had been requested by Constantinople, were used to suppress domestic rebellions in Anatolia (see below). Rūs-Pečeneg relations (the Pečenegs entered the Pontic steppe, driving out the Proto-Hungarian tribal union in the late 3rd/end of the 9th-beginning of the 10th century) were very complex. In 915, the first of a number of Rus’-Pečeneg “peaces” were arranged, but by 920, Igor’ had launched a campaign against the nomads. Thereafter, the periods of hostility largely overshadowed the periods of more pacific interaction. As a consequence, Ibn Ḥawḳal’s statement, that the Pečenegs are the “fighting power” ( s̲h̲awka ) of the Rūs and their allies ( aḥlāf )” seems quite remarkable, as does also his statement (see above) that Rūs and Pečeneg ships attacked Spain. Minorsky, Kuda ezdili , suggested a very different sense of this passage, translating s̲h̲awka as “thorn” and emending aḥlāf to ak̲h̲lāf “opponents.” This seems closer to the general tenor of Rus’-Pečeneg relations. Although the Pečenegs had ceased to be a threat to the Kievan state and had largely been driven into the Byzantine borderlands by the Rūs and Ḳi̊pčaḳs by his day, al-Idrīsī made note of the warfare of these nomads on ¶ Rus’ and Byzantium. He also was aware of the internecine strife that had become increasingly characteristic of Rus’ domestic politics, commenting that the Rūs “have wars and constant dissension with their own kind ( maʿa d̲j̲insihim ) and with lands that are close to them” (904, 960). Allusions to similar problems may be seen in the statement of the Mud̲j̲mal that “they do not favour one another.” Ibn Rusta and Gardīzī, however, using notices that go back to an earlier era, stress their unity, cf. Ibn Rusta: “if a people ( ṭāʾifa ) goes to war against them, they all go on campaign. They are not disunited, but are as one hand against their foes until they defeat them.” He also comments that they are less fearless in combat when fighting on foot rather than from ships, their favoured mode of warfare. These two authors also note their use of “swords of Solomon” ( al-suyūf al-sulaymāniyya ), which were similar to “Frankish” blades, but less ornate. They appear to have been produced in the land of Salmān in K̲h̲urāsān (see Lewicki, Źródła ).

Government

We have already noted the reports of the Muslim geographers regarding the Rūs Ḳag̲h̲an. Of our written sources, it is only Ibn Faḍlān, however, who appears to have actually encountered Rūs in Volga Bulg̲h̲aria, during his sojourn there in 309/921-2. It is from him that we gain a detailed description of a Rūs ruler. It is not made clear if this ruler was the Ḳag̲h̲an; our source merely refers to him as the “king.” According to Ibn Faḍlān, he resides in a castle, surrounded by his retinue of 400 select warriors who die when he dies. Each of them has a slave-girl to serve them. The king sits on a jewel-encrusted throne (al-Ḥanafī, in Seippel, Fontes , calls it a golden throne) along with 40 slave-girls, with whom he sometimes has public sexual intercourse. The king does not normally step down from the throne, even for the performance of natural functions. If he leaves the throne, his feet are not permitted to touch the ground. A horse is brought up to the throne and he mounts upon it from there. In addition, “he has a deputy who commands the armies, attacks the enemy and stands in his place before his subjects.” This is clearly a description of a sacral king, in many respects similar to that of the K̲h̲azar Ḳag̲h̲anate (except for the sexual licentiousness), with its holy Ḳag̲h̲an and the S̲h̲ad / beg / yilig who ran the actual affairs of government. If this notice is not a contamination from the notice on the K̲h̲azar Ḳag̲h̲an which immediately follows it in the text, it may be viewed as a significant piece of evidence in support of the thesis of the K̲h̲azar origins of the Rūs Ḳag̲h̲anate. Ibn Faḍlān, however, never refers to the Rūs ruler as “k̲h̲āḳān.” This special retinue or comitatus (perhaps the body referred to as “one group of them who practise chivalry” in the Ḥudūd), may be a variant of the Scandinavian hirð (Rus’. grid ’ “warrior, princely bodyguard”, Fasmer; Jones).

The Ḥudūd remarks that a tithe is taken on their “booty and commercial profits.” Gardīzī, however, states that their king collects this tax from merchants. Legal disputes are first brought to the “k̲h̲āḳān” who renders a decision (Ibn Rusta; Gardīzī, see also al-Maḳdisī). If one of the disputants disagrees with the verdict, the king orders that they engage in a ceremonial sword fight. Whoever has the sharper sword and succeeds in chipping the blade of the other is declared the winner. Ibn Rusta adds, however, that “their companions come and stand armed. The two fight and whosoever of the two is more powerful than the other becomes the arbiter in his case as he ¶ wishes.” A later report, from the 8th/14th century author Nad̲j̲m ad-Dīn al-Ḥarrānī (in Seippel, Fontes ), states that “they do not obey a king or any law ( s̲h̲arīʿa ).” There is a very distinct tradition found in al-Marwazī which is repeated and slighdy mangled in ʿAwfī. The former remarks that the Rūs king is called Walādimīr ( bi-walādimīr ). In ʿAwfī this was transformed into “Būlād̲h̲mīr” (Kawerau; Barthold, Novoe musul’manskoe izvestiye o russkik̲h̲ ). This, of course, is a reference to Volodimir/Vladimir I (972-1015), who brought about the conversion of Rus’ to Orthodox Christianity. Curiously, Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih. who gives the tides of the various rulers of interest or importance (including those of the Ṣaḳāliba), makes no mention of the Rūs ruler.

Economy

The initial picture presented is that of mobile, urban-based traders/raiders. Ibn Rusta reports that the Rūs “possess no real estate property ( ʿaḳār ), nor villages, nor cultivated lands.” He subsequendy notes, however, that they have many towns. Rather than engaging in agrarian pursuits, “their profession is trade ( tid̲j̲āra ) in sable, grey squirrel and other such furs which they sell to purchasers. They take the value of the goods in gold and fasten it to their belts.” This strong mercantile emphasis is noted by the other Muslim authors, who universally speak of their involvement in extensive trading relations with their immediate neighbours, the K̲h̲azar empire and Volga Bulg̲h̲aria (through which their goods reached the Islamic lands), Byzantium, Spain and Central Europe (al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī; al-Masʿūdī, Murud̲j̲ ). Ibrāhīm b. Yaḳūb reports that Rūs and Ṣaḳāliba traders come to “Farāg̲h̲a [Prague] from Karākūʾ [Kraków]” for trade. Kiev’s importance as a major commercial centre continued and is reflected in later Muslim sources. Thus al-Idrīsī comments that Muslim merchants from Armenia come to Kiev. This finds confirmation in contemporary Georgian sources (e.g. the journey of the “great merchant Zankan Zorababeli” of T’bilisi who was sent off to Rūs on a diplomatic-marital mission ca. 1184 “by relays of horses”, K’art’lis ts’k̲h̲ovreba ), using an already well-established route. The importance of this region for trade with the Islamic world would appear to be supported by considerable numismatic evidence (Islamic dirhams first begin to surface in what became Russia and the Baltic region ca. 800; on this see Noonan, Why dirhams first reached Russia : the role of Arab-Khazar relations in the development of the earliest Islamic trade with Eastern Europe ). The volume of this trade seems to have exceeded that of their commercial relations with Byzantium. Al-though Sawyer ( Kings , 123-6) cautions that the presence of these dirhams does not necessarily constitute evidence of a great volume of trade, nor need they have reached these areas solely by trade, Ibn Faḍlān (see below) gives direct evidence of goods being exchanged for Islamic coins. The Rūs, it may be concluded, at least in the early stages of their history, were largely merchant middlemen and on occasion pirates. They produced nothing of their own, but raided, extorted/collected tribute or traded for furs and other commodities of the Northern forest zone which they then brought to the Mediterranean or the Islamo-Central Asian world either directly or through yet other middlemen, Volga Bulg̲h̲aria or Ḵh̲azaria. However it was obtained, the volume of Islamic coinage entering Rus’ declined in the late 10th century and had largely stopped by 1015. The causes of this change, much debated, remain unclear. Local sources of precious metals were not unknown. Thus, ¶ al-Masʿūdī ( Murūd̲j̲ ) mentions silver mines in Rūs territory more or less equal to the silver sources in the Pand̲j̲hīr mountains in K̲h̲urāsān.

Personal appearance and clothing

Ibn Rusta describes the Rūs as possessed of “long bodies, a (good) visage and fearlessness.” Our sources (Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī) stress their personal neatness; some are clean-s̲h̲aven, others braid or plait their beard. Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and Ibn Ḥawḳal attribute this personal fastidiousness to their mercantile pursuits. Ibn Rusta further remarks that they treat their slaves well. This, too, could be viewed as an indication of a higher cultural level. Their clothing is made of linen (Gardīzī) and they wear arm bands/bracelets of gold. Their trousers, according to Ibn Rusta and the Ḥudūd , are made out of 100 cubits of (cotton) fabric, which they gather in at the knee and fasten there. They also wear “woollen bonnets with tails let down behind their necks” (Ḥudūd). Al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and Ibn Ḥawḳal report that they wear short coats. Ibn Faḍlān, however, who remarks that they are as tall as date palms, blond and ruddy, says that they do not wear short coats or caftans but a kisāʾ (a cloak, see Dozy, Supplément , ii, 476). He goes on to note that each of them carries an axe, a sword and a knife from which they are never parted. Their women are bedecked with various gold and silver ornaments in displays of ostentation commensurate with their husband’s wealth.

Customs and religion

Our sources are impressed with the spirit of independence and enterprise inculcated among the Rūs from birth. Ibn Rusta, followed by Gardīzī, al-Maḳdisī and the Mud̲j̲mal , reports that “when a baby boy is born to one of them, he sets before the baby boy a drawn sword and places it between his hands and says to him ‘I leave you no goods as inheritance. You have nothing except what you may acquire for yourself by this, your sword.’” Marwazī (in Kawerau) adds that the daughter receives her father’s inheritance, while the son is given a sword and told “your father acquired his wealth by the sword, imitate and follow him.” This same sense of rugged individualism was reflected in their treatment of the ill. Ibn Faḍlān remarks that “when one of them falls ill, they pitch a tent for him, in a secluded place away from them, and they cast him away there. They place with him quantities of bread and water” and leave him alone until he either recovers or dies. Transgressors were dealt with harshly. Thieves, this same source informs us, were hung by the neck from stout trees until dead and then left to rot.

This same author was quick to note their human frailties. He appears to contradict, at least in part, the report of their personal neatness noted above, declaring them the “dirtiest of God’s creations” because of their lack of personal hygiene. To this failing were added inordinate suspicion and covetousness. Ibn Rusta and Gardīzī report as an example, in this regard, that they go out to perform their natural functions only when accompanied by several friends to stand guard. Otherwise, a man on his own would be killed. So great is their distrust and perfidy that if one acquires even a little wealth “his brothers and friends who are with him crave it, try to kill him and dispossess him of it” (Ibn Rusta). How much of this is accurate and how much travellers’ tall tales highlighting the greed of the “barbarian” is difficult to gauge. It is highly doubtful, however, that the Rus’ could have been as effective a commercial and ¶ military force as they were, given such a state of bellum omnium. Ibn Faḍlān was also shocked by their lack of modesty (engaging in sexual intercourse with their slave-girls while their friends looked on).

This same source has much to say about their beliefs. When ships arrive, he reports, they each come out bearing bread, meat, onions, milk and wine. They proceed to a long piece of wood planted in the ground on which has been carved the face of a man. It is surrounded by smaller idols and other long pieces of wood planted into the ground. They prostrate themselves before the large image, which they address as “Lord” and announce what goods they have brought. They conclude their devotions by saying “I want you to provide me with a merchant who has many dīnārs and dirhams, who will buy from me everything that I want him to buy, and he will not contradict me in what I say.” If business is good, more offerings are made. In especially good circumstances, sheep and cattle are slaughtered, much of which are consumed, at night, by dogs. Ibn Faḍlān, occasionally adopting a mocking tone and anxious to display their ignorance to his readers, reports that nonetheless, he who made the offering says “my lord is satisfied with me and has eaten my gift”.

According to the tradition preserved in the accounts of Ibn Rusta and Gardīzī, their shamans or “medicine men” ( aṭibbāʾ / ṭabībān ), enjoyed a very high status. They could pass judgment on the king and govern them. They could select as sacrifice to their gods whomsoever they pleased, human and animal. These unfortunates were hung by the neck until dead. The commandments of their “medicine men” must be carried out (Ibn Rusta; Gardīzī). We have relatively brief descriptions of their funerary customs in Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī and the Ḥudūd . Ibn Rusta reports that “when one of their important people ( d̲j̲alīl minhum ) dies, they dig him a grave, like a spacious house, and place him in it. Together with him, they place his personal clothing ( t̲h̲iyāb badanihi ), gold bracelets which he wore, much food, vessels with drink and gold money also. They bury with him in the grave the wife that he loved (best). She, after this (sc. his burial) is still alive. They seal up the door of the grave and she dies there.” Al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ , also note that they cremate their dead, together with their wife or slave-girl, horses and finery. Al-Masʿūdī further adds that “when the wife dies, the husband is not cremated. If one of the unmarried men dies, he is married after his demise, and the women request that they be cremated (with him) so that they may, according to their own thinking, enter among the souls of paradise.” Ibn Faḍlān, however, provides us with one of the most extraordinary, ethnographically detailed depictions of the funeral of a Rūs chief. The customs were related and explained to him on a number of occasions (“they told me of the things they did with their chiefs at their death, the least of which is cremation”). He also appears to have witnessed one such spectacular funeral. The deceased was placed in a grave over which a roof was erected. He remained there for 10 days while new clothing was fashioned for him. When a great man dies they ask his household “who of you will die with him?” Those who answer in the affirmative are duty-bound to fulfill this commitment. The majority of those who agreed to do so were slavegirls. One of the slave-girls was then given this honour. The deceased was to be taken out of his grave and placed in a special structure on a boat which was taken out of the river and mounted on a kind of wooden holding frame. The corpse, because of the cold was remarkably well-preserved. An old woman ¶ called the “angel of death,” was now put in charge. The deceased was placed in the special structure. Food (bread, meat, onions) was placed before him. A dog was sacrificed, cut in half and thrown on the boat. Two cows were also sacrificed (as well as other animals). The slave-girl who was to die with her master then had sexual intercourse with her master’s relatives or boon companions and she was given copious amounts of wine so that she became dullwitted ( taballadat ). The men outside began to strike their shields with wooden sticks in order to drown her cries as she was strangled. A close relative of the deceased man, completely naked, set fire to the wood under the boat. The sacrificed slave-girl was placed beside her master. In response to Ibn Faḍlān’s questions, one of the Rūs explains their views: “You Arabs are stupid. You take the most loved and distinguished among you and dump them in the earth. The earth consumes them (as do also) insects and worms. But we cremate them in fire, in the flick of an eye, and he enters Paradise immediately.” A small burial mound was then set up on the site in which the boat was burned. A large piece of k̲h̲adang wood was placed on the spot and the deceased’s name was written on it as well as that of the king of the Rūs. This k̲h̲adang wood was especially associated with the Rūs lands (see Ṭūsī, ʿAd̲j̲āʾib al-mak̲h̲lūḳāt ). The corpses of slaves were simply abandoned to dogs and birds of prey.

Although Art̲h̲a/Art̲h̲āniyya was famous for its inhospitality to strangers, killing all outsiders who came to it (al-Iṣṭak̲h̲rī and al-Ḥarrānī), the other areas of Rūs’ were not. Ibn Rusta says that they were generous to their visitors. They were ferocious, however, in exacting revenge ( Mud̲j̲mal ).

The Rūs Caspian raids and the fall of K̲h̲azaria

It was undoubtedly the lucrative trade routes of the Volga that first drew the Rūs to Eastern Europe. The Rūs both traded with and raided the Islamic lands. As early as the era of the ʿAlid al-Ḥasan b. Zayd (250-70/864-84 [q.v.]), leader of the Zaydī S̲h̲īʿī principality in Ṭabaristān, the Rūs attempted to raid the region. A second raid took place in 297/909-10, aimed at Ābaskūn [q.v.]. A third raid took place in 299/911-12 and a fourth one, according to al-Masʿūdī “sometime after 300/312” (Dorn, Aliev, Minorsky; slightly different dates in Barthold and Pritsak). At the outset of this last raid the Rūs in return for being allowed passage through K̲h̲azar lands in order to raid the Caspian coasts, offered half of the spoils to the K̲h̲azar ruler. The raid caused much devastation, especially in the regions of Bard̲h̲aʿa, al-Rān, Baylaḳān, Ād̲h̲arbayd̲j̲ān, S̲h̲irwān and the city of Bākuh. The Rūs then returned to the Volga estuary. Here they were attacked, apparently with the acquiescence of the K̲h̲azar ruler, by K̲h̲azar Muslims (the Ursiyya and others), as well as some Christians, desirous of revenge. According to al-Masʿūdī, those that escaped were finished off by the Burṭās and Volga Bulg̲h̲ars. An even more ferocious eruption of the Rūs into the Caspian Islamic lands took place in 332/943-4. In that year Bard̲h̲aʿa [q.v.] was again a target. It was taken and the Rūs settled in, showing every intention of remaining for some time, but remained there only for some months. The Ḵh̲azar-Byzantine entente by this time had come to an end. The Rūs now figured prominently in actions that were overtly hostile to K̲h̲azaria. According to the “Schechter” document, when the K̲h̲azar ruler Joseph, responding to Byzantine persecutions of Jews under the emperor Romanus I (920-44), “did away with many Christians” in his realm, Romanus retaliated by inciting “Helgu ¶ [/Oleg, see above], king of Rusia” against K̲h̲azaria. “Helgu” was forced to flee by sea where he and his men perished. The Letter of the Ḵh̲azar ruler, Joseph, to Ḥasday b. S̲h̲aprut, the Jewish courtier of the Spanish Umayyads, reports, ca. 960, that the K̲h̲azars were continually at war with the Rūs. “If I left them (in peace) for one hour, they would destroy the entire land of the Ishmaelites up to Bagdad” (Kokovtsov). The main confrontation appears to have taken place in 354/965. The immediate causes for the Rūs assaults on K̲h̲azaria are not elucidated in our sources. Given the ongoing hostilities reported in the Letter of Joseph, however, Byzantine involvement in inciting revolts within the K̲h̲azar sphere of influence, the Rūs attempts to gain unrestricted passage through the K̲h̲azar-controlled Volga route to the Caspian, these may be easily conjectured. K̲h̲azaria was a fading power. The Rūs formed an alliance with the Og̲h̲uz Turks and together they advanced on K̲h̲azaria. The Primary Chronicle has a very laconic notice reporting only that in 6473/965 the Rūs ruler, Svyatoslav (d. 972) attacked the K̲h̲azars and “took their city and Bela Veža” ( = Sarkel, a var . lect . says only that Bela Veža was captured). Al-Muḳaddasī reports two accounts that he “heard.” According to the first, K̲h̲azaria was attacked by al-Maʾmūn of D̲j̲urd̲j̲ān who captured the K̲h̲azar ruler. He subsequently heard that “an army from Rūm, called Rūs, conquered them and took possession of their land.” Miskawayh writes that in 354/965 “news came to the effect that the Turks had invaded the territory of the Khazars. The latter invoked the aid of the people of Khw ārazm, who declined saying: You are Jews; if you want us to help you, you must become Muslims. They all adopted Islam in consequence with the exception of their king.” Ibn al-At̲h̲īr has, basically, the same report, adding, however, that after the K̲h̲wārazmians drove off the Turks (the Og̲h̲uz), the K̲h̲azar ruler converted to Islam as well (see Golden, The migrations of the Oğuz , 77-80). Ibn Ḥawḳal, who learned of these events in 358/968-9, paints a picture of large-scale devastation. The dating of the events described in Ibn Ḥawḳal has been the subject of some debate, some scholars placing them in 358/968-969, the year in which our source first heard of the Rūs raid (Kalinina, Svedeniy̲a̲ Ibn K̲h̲aukaly̲a̲ o pok̲h̲odak̲h̲ Rusi vremeni Svy̲a̲toslava , who, following Marquart and Barthold, Arab. izvest ., does not believe that Volga Bulg̲h̲aria was affected by the raids). There is no reason, however, to doubt Ibn Ḥawḳal, who had first-hand information. In addition, the Rūs and their Og̲h̲uz allies followed a similar pattern 20 years later, in 985, when they attacked Volga Bulg̲h̲aria, the first in boats, the second by land (PSRL, i, 84). A distant echo of these events is found in al-Idrīsī, writing in the mid-6th/12th century, who says of the Rūs who neighbour “on the land of the Unkariyya (Hungarians) and Maḳad̲h̲uniyya; they have at present, at the time that we were writing this book, conquered the Burṭās, the Bulg̲h̲ār and K̲h̲azars, taken away control of their lands and nothing remains of these people except the name in (their former) lands.” This, of course, is inaccurate for his day since the Burṭās and Volga Bulg̲h̲ars were still very much on the scene.

There are references to Rūs activities in Bāb al-Abwāb/Darband found in the Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Bāb . In 377/987, the amīr Maymūn called in the Rūs to help him against local chiefs. The Rūs came with 18 ships but uncertain of their reception, sent only one in to reconnoitre the situation. When these men were massacred by the local population, the Rūs went on to ¶ Masḳaṭ, which they looted. Rūs professional soldiers appear to have already been on the scene. Thus in 379/989, this same Maymūn is reported to have refused the demand of the Gīlānī preacher, Mūsa al-Tūzī, to turn over his Rūs g̲h̲ulāms to him for either conversion to Islam or death. Maymūn’s attempt to have a counterbalance (Rūs g̲h̲ulāms) to the local population ultimately failed, for he was driven from the city and forced to surrender the g̲h̲ulāms (Minorsky, Sharvān ). He returned in 382/992. In 421/1030, the Rūs raided the S̲h̲irwān region, but were then induced, with “much money,” to aid the ruler of Gand̲j̲a, Mūsā b. Faḍl, in suppressing a revolt in Baylaḳān. “The Rūs then quitted Arrān for Rūm and thence proceeded to their own country” (see ibid.). One of the variant mss. of this source (see idem, Studies in Caucasian history), using only the Top Kapi ms. 2951 of Müned̲j̲d̲j̲im-Bas̲h̲i̊’s D̲j̲āmiʿ al-duwal , which contains extracts from the Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Bāb, says that in 422/November 1031, the Rūs “came a second time and Mūsā set forth and fought them near Bakūya. He killed a large number of their warriors and expelled them from his dominions.” This was followed in 423/1032 by a Rūs raid into S̲h̲irwān, joined now by the Alans and Sarīr. They were defeated, in 424/1033, by local Muslims who “wrought great havoc” among them (Minorsky, Studies, and idem, Sharvān). It is unclear to which Rūs grouping these raiders may have belonged. Pritsak, Origin , suggests that they operated out of a base near the Terek estuary and had their principal home in Tmutorokan’. He also conjectures that shortly thereafter, the Rūs, operating in the Caspian, may have provided some military assistance to the Og̲h̲uz in a power struggle in K̲h̲wārazm. K̲h̲āḳānī tells of a Rūs raid ca. 569/1173 or 570/1174. These Rūs appear to have been Volga pirates who came in 73 ships. At the same time, although it is unclear if their actions were coordinated, the Ḳi̊pčaḳs [q.v.] attacked Darband and went on to take S̲h̲ābarān as well. The S̲h̲irwāns̲h̲āh, Ak̲h̲sitan/Ag̲h̲sartan I turned to the Georgian king, Giorgi III (d. 1184), for aid. Together they defeated both the Rūs and the Ḳi̊pčaḳs. The Georgian sources, however, only mention attacks of the K̲h̲azars of Darband. Completely anachronistic, of course, is the tale of Alexander’s wars against the Rūs found in Niẓāmī’s Iskandar-nāma . The Rūs king, called Ḳnṭāl, is presented as the ruler of the Burṭās, K̲h̲azars, Alans and (W)īsū (Vepsi).

Later sources offer little new historical or ethnogeographical information regarding the Rūs, being largely compilations based on the earlier sources. We have a brief description of the Mongol conquest of Rus’ in D̲j̲uwaynī, lacking in specific details. Other sources, e.g. D̲j̲ūzd̲j̲ānī, merely note them in passing.

There are occasional references to the “Rūs”, here designating the Russians/Muscovites, in later Ottoman-Ṣafawid era Islamic sources, e.g. kanāz Iwān (Russ. kny̲a̲z’ Ivan = Ivan IV “the Terrible”), mentioned in a discussion of Russo-Crimean Tatar relations s.a. 980/1572-3, in Hasan Rūmlū, 584-5. The Crimean Tatars had raided and burned Moscow in 1571, but another raid the following year was repulsed. Ottoman materials for the history of the later Eastern Slavic peoples have been relatively little investigated (cf. Ewliyā Čelebī’s comments on the Rūs-i̊ menḥūs “inauspicious Rūs” Ukrainian Cossacks).

The conversion of the Rūs

The Islamic and Arabic-writing Christian authors provide useful data on the conversion of the Rūs to ¶ Orthodox Christianity. In 987, the Byzantine emperor Basil II (976-1025) was faced with the revolts of Bardas Sclerus and Bardas Phocas. The latter, having double-crossed Sclerus, with whom he briefly joined forces, proclaimed himself emperor on 17 D̲j̲umādā 377/14 Aylūl 1298/14 September 987, as we are informed by Yaḥyā of Antioch (d. ca. 1066). Basil, now desperate, sent to the Rūs, “even though they were enemies,” for assistance. The Rūs ruler, Volodimir/Vladimir, agreed to send troops in return for a marital alliance. He was to marry Basil’s sister. Volodimir also agreed to convert to Orthodoxy and, with him, his people, who were without any religion or religious law. Basil subsequently sent him a metropolitan and bishops. When the wedding arrangements were settled, the Rūs troops were sent and they helped to put down the revolt. Essentially similar accounts are given by Abu S̲h̲ud̲j̲āʿ al-Rūd̲h̲rāwarī [q.v.] (d. 1095), al-Makīn, al-Dimas̲h̲ḳī and Ibn al-At̲h̲īr (see Rozen and Kawerau; Ibn al-At̲h̲īr dates these events to 375/985-6). Some of the 6,000 Rūs troops sent to aid Basil remained in Byzantine service, forming the nucleus of the famous “Varangian Guard” (see V.G. Vasil’evskiy). The Rus’ tradition relates only that Volodimir, who had long been considering the adoption of a monotheistic religion and had examined Islam, Judaism and Christianity, was already inclining towards the latter in its Orthodox form. Islam he rejected because of its prohibition on alcohol, remarking that “for Rus’, drinking is a joy, we cannot exist without it” (PSRL, i, 84 ff.). In 988 he marched on Byzantine Crimea, taking Chersones/Korsun’. With this he now forced Basil and his brother Constantine into a marital tie. Their sister Anna was sent to Volodimir, who in return agreed to convert himself and his people to Orthodoxy (PSRL, i, 109 ff.). The two accounts do not necessarily contradict each other. Volodimir may well have used his excursion to the Crimea to insure that he received his Byzantine princess.

Another Islamic tradition, however, depicts the Rūs as first converting to Christianity and somewhat later to Islam. Marwazī, who mentions that their ruler is called Walādimīr (see above) relates that after they “entered Christendom,” their new faith “sheathed their swords” and prevented them from acquiring wealth by their customary means (warfare). They were reduced to poverty. They were then drawn to Islam, which allowed them to engage in holy war. They dispatched an embassy, consisting of four relatives of the king, to K̲h̲wārazm. The K̲h̲w ārazms̲h̲āh sent an Islamic scholar to instruct them and they converted to Islam (Kawerau, also found in ʿAwfī/Barthold, placing this event in 300/912).

Writing systems

Ibn Faḍlān speaks of wooden grave markers on which the Rūs inscribed the name of the deceased and that of the Rūs king. Similarly, al-Nadīm writes that one of his informants “believes that they have writing inscribed in wood, and he showed me a piece of white wood with an inscription on it.” This may perhaps be a reference to writing on birchwood bark, well known in later Kievan Rus’. The Byzantine missionary Constantine (Cyril), before his famous mission to the Slavs of “Moravia” journeyed, ca. 860, to the K̲h̲azar empire. According to the Vita Constantini , in the Khersonese he found a Psalter and book of the Gospel written in the Rus’ or Rus̲h̲ script ( ros’ki̊ [ rous’ki̊mi , rous̲h̲kimi ] pismeni̊ pisano ). He also encountered someone who spoke this language and found that he could understand him. Indeed, he quickly began to read ¶8/627/2¶ and speak this tongue (Grivec et al.; Istrin). Since, Constantine/Cyril was bilingual, in Greek and Slavic, it could only have been the latter tongue, whose writing system he was able to assimilate so quickly. Needless to say, there is much debate over the significance and indeed historicity of this passage. The existence of calendrical and other types of markings among the Eastern Slavs by the 2nd-4th centuries A.D. is posited by some Russian scholars (Ri̊bakov). The use of a “proto-Cyrillic” alphabet based on Greek, which was already employed in Danubian Bulgaria, is also suggested for Pre-Christian Rus’ (Istrin). The oldest Cyrillic monument dates to 863 (from Preslav, Bulgaria). The earliest writings in Cyrillic in Rus’ are dated to the early 10th century. There is still some debate over whether Constantine/Cyril invented the “Glagolitic” alphabet, itself perhaps derived from a Greek or Cyrillic base, but quite different in appearance from “Cyrillic”, or the script that now bears his name.

---

Bibliography 1. Primary sources (including translations).

Collections of Sources. S.D. Goitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish traders, Princeton 1973, 69

Labuda, Źródła skandynawskie i anglosaskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny [“Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon sources for the history of the Slavs], Warszawa 1961,187

T. Lewicki, Źródła arabskie do dziejów Słowiańszczyzny [“Arab sources for the history of the Slavs], Wrocław-Kraków-Warszawa 1956, 1969, 1977, i, 127, 132-7, ii/1, 76-7, 82-3, ii/2, 139

P. Kawerau, Arabische Quellen zur Christianisierung Ruβlands (Marburger Abhandlungen zur Geschichte und Kultur Osteuropas, 7), Wiesbaden 1967, 14-41, 46-7

A.P. Novosel’tsev, Vostočni̊e istočniki o vostočni̊kh slavy̲a̲nakh [“The eastern sources on the eastern Slavs”], in V.T. Pashuto, L.V. Čerepnin, Drevnerusskoe gosudarstvo i ego meždunarodnoe značenie [“The ancient Rus’ state and its international significance”], Moscow 1965, 362-5, 373, 403

A. Seippel, Rerum Normannicarum fontes arabici, Oslo 1928, 108, 113

B.N. Zak̲h̲oder, Kaspiyskiy svod svedeniy o vostočnoy evrope [“The Caspian codex of information on Eastern Europe”], Moscow 1962-7, ii, 78-80.

Arabic Sources. Anon., Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Bāb, see excerpts in Minorsky, Sharvān, and Studies

Bākuwī, Kitāb Talk̲h̲īṣ al-āt̲h̲ār wa-ʿad̲j̲āʾib al-Malik al-Ḳahhār, ed. Z.M. Buniy̲a̲tov, Moscow 1971, facs. 67a, Ru. tr. 104

Dimas̲h̲ḳī, Cosmographie de Chems ad-Dīn Abou Abdallah Mohammed ed-Dimachqui, ed. A.F. Mehren, St. Petersburg 1866, 263

Ibn al-At̲h̲īr, Beirut 1965-6, viii, 411-15, 565, ix, 43-4

Ibn Faḍlān: Z.V. Togan, Ibn Faḍlān’s Reisebericht (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Bd. xxiv/3, Leipzig 1939, 36-43/86-98; = ed. S. Dahhān, Damascus 1389/1959-60, 60, 149 ff., 152-66; Kniga Ak̲h̲meda Ibn-Fadlana o ego putes̲h̲estvii na Volgu v 921-922gg. [“The book of Aḥmad ibn Faḍlān about his journey to the Volga in 921-922”], facs. ed. and Russ. tr. A.P. Kovalevskiy, Khar’kov 1956; Ibn al-Faḳīh, ed. De Goeje, 270-1; Ibn Ḥawḳal, ed. Kramers, i, 15, ii, 92, 392-8; Ibn K̲h̲urradād̲h̲bih, ed. De Goeje 16-17, 154; Miskawayh, Tad̲j̲ārib al-umam, ed. H.F. Amedroz, tr. D.S. Margoliouth, in Eclipse of the ʿAbbasid caliphate, Oxford 1914-21, ii, 62-7, 209, v, 67-74, 223; Ibn Rusta, ed. De Goeje, 145-6; Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿḳūb, T. Kowalski (ed. and tr.), Relacja Ibrâhîma ibn Jaʿḳûba z podróży do krajów słowiańskich w przekazie al-Bekrîego (Pomniki dziejów Polski, seria II, t. 1), Kraków 1946, 3, 5, 7/52

al-Idrīsī, Kitāb Nuzhat al-mus̲h̲tāḳ fī ik̲h̲tirāḳ al-āfāḳ: Opus ¶ geographicum sive “Liber ad eorum delectationem qui terras peragrare studeant”, ed. A. Bombaci et al., Leiden 1970-84, 912-14, 917, 919-20, 955

Idrīsī: T. Lewicki, Polska i kraje sasiednie w świetle Ksiegi Rogera geografa arabskiego z xii w. al-Idrīsī’ego [“Poland and neighbouring lands in light of the Book of Roger, an Arab geographer from the 12th century, al-Idrīsī”], Kraków 1945, Warsaw 1954

Iṣṭak̲h̲rī, ed. De Goeje, 225-6, 229

Ḳazwīnī, Āt̲h̲ār al-bilād wa-ak̲h̲bār al-ʿibād, Beirut 1389/1969, 586

K̲h̲wārazmī, Das kitāb Ṣūrat al-Ard des abū Ga’far Muhammed ibn Musa al-Ḫuwārizmī, ed. H. von Mžik (Bibliothek arabischer Historiker und Geographen, iii), Leipzig 1926, 136

Maḳdisī, al-Badʾ wa ’l-taʾrīk̲h̲, ed. Cl. Huart, Paris 1899-1919, iv, 66-7

Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ al-d̲h̲ahab, ed. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, ed. and tr. Ch. Pellat, Beirut 1966-89, i, 354-5 = § 404, ii, 9 = § 449, 11 = § 451, 14-15 = §§ 454-5, 18-26 = §§ 458-61

idem, Tanbīh, ed. De Goeje, 140-1

Muḳaddasī, ed. De Goeje, 361, ed. M. Mak̲h̲zūm, Beirut 1408/1987, 286

Nadīm, Fihrist, ed. M. al-S̲h̲uwaymī, Tunis 1406/1985, 105, tr. B. Dodge, New York-London 1970, i, 37

Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab, Cairo 1342/1923, 247

T̲h̲aʿālibī, Histoire des rois des perses, ed. and tr. H. Zotenberg, Paris 1900, repr. Tehran 1963, 611

Yaʿḳūbī, Buldān, ed. De Goeje, 354

Yaḥyā al-Anṭakī: V.R. Rozen, ed. and tr., Imperator Vasiliy Bolgaroboytsa. Izvlečeniy̲a̲ iz letopisi Y̲a̲k̲h̲’i Antiok̲h̲iyskogo [“The Emperor Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. Excerpts from the chronicle of Yaḥyā of Antioch”], St. Petersburg 1883, text 20-4, tr. 21-5, comm. 194 ff.

Armenian sources. Movsēs Dasxurançi, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, tr. C.F.J. Dowsett, London 1961, 224.

Byzantine Sources. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, Engl. tr. RJ.H. Jenkins (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae, vol. 1), Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1967, 56, 58.

Georgian Sources. K’art’lis Ts’k̲h̲ovreba [“History of Georgia”], ed. S. Ḳauk̲h̲ch’is̲h̲vili, T’bilisi, 1955, 1959, ii, 17, 36-7.

Hebrew Sources. N. Golb, O. Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century, Ithaca, N.Y. 1982, 114-21, 129, 139-42

P.K. Kokovtsov, Evreysko-Ḵh̲azarskay̲a̲ perepiska v X veke [“The Jewish-K̲h̲azar correspondence in the 10th century”], Leningrad 1932, 122-3 n. 25.

Latin Sources. Annales Bertiniani, Annales de Saint-Bertin, ed. F. Grat, J. Vielliard and S. Clément, Paris 1964, 30

Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis in Liudprandi Episcopi Cremonensis Opera, 3rd ed. J. Becker, in Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarium ex Monumentis Germanicae Historicis separatim editi, Hanover-Leipzig 1915, repr. Hanover 1977, i, 11, v, 15.

Old Slavic Sources. F. Grivec et al. (eds.), Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses, fontes (Radovi staroslavenskog instituta, iv), Zagreb 1960, 109

T. Lehr-Spławiński (ed. and tr.), Żywoty Konstantyna i Metodego (obszerne), Poznań 1959.

Old Russian Sources. Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis, ed. L. Müller, Wiesbaden 1962, 13, 100, 103, 129, 143

Novgorodskay̲a̲ pervay̲a̲ letopis’ stars̲h̲ego i mlads̲h̲ego izvodov, ed. A.N. Nasonov, Moscow-Leningrad 1950

Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey, St. Petersburg/Leningrad-Moscow 1846-

Slovo o polku igoreve, ed. D.S. Lik̲h̲ačev, Moscow 1982, 143

S.A. Vi̊sotskiy, Drevnerusskie graffiti sofii kievskoy, in Numizmatika i epigrafika, iii (1962).

¶ Persian Sources. ʿAwfī, W. Barthold, Novoe musul’manskoe izvestiye o russkik̲h̲ [“A new Muslim notice on the Russians”], in Akademik V. V. Bartol’d Sočineniy̲a̲, Moscow 1963-73, ii/1, 805-9

Bayhaḳī, Taʾrīk̲h̲-i Masʿūdī, ed. ʿA.A. Fayyāḍ, Mas̲h̲had 1391/1971, 601

Abū ʿAlī Muḥammad Balʿamī, Tard̲j̲uma-yi Tārīk̲h̲-i Ṭabarī, ed. M.D̲j̲. Mas̲h̲kūr, Tehran 1337/1947-8, 336

D̲j̲uwaynī, ed. Ḳazwīnī, i, 224-5 tr. Boyle, Manchester 1958, i, 268-70

D̲j̲ūzd̲j̲ānī, Ṭabaḳāt-i Nāṣirī, ed. W.N. Lees, Calcutta 1864, 406, Ṭabaḳât-i Nâṣirī, tr. H.G. Raverty 1881, repr. New Delhi 1970, ii, 1169

Gardīzī/Barthold, V.V. Bartol’d, Izvlečenie iz sočineniya Gardizi Zayn al-Ak̲h̲bār [“An excerpt from the work of Gardīzī, the Zayn al-ak̲h̲bār”], in Sočineniy̲a̲, viii, 23-62

Ḥasan-i Rūmlū, Aḥsan al-tawārīk̲h̲, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī, Tehran 1357/1938, 584-5

anon., Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, tr. V.F. Minorsky, London 1937, repr. with additions 1970, 159, 181-2, 422, 432

K̲h̲āḳānī, Dīwān-i K̲h̲āḳānī-yi S̲h̲irvānī, ed. ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Rasūlī, Tehran 1316/1898-9

Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn Mubāraks̲h̲āh, Taʾríkh-i Fakhruʾd-Dín Mubáraksháh, ed. E. Denison Ross, London 1927, 42

anon., Mud̲j̲mal at-Tawārīk̲h̲, Tehran 1939, 101-2, 421

Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd Ṭūsī, ʿAd̲j̲āʾib al-mak̲h̲lūḳāt, ed. M. Sutūda, Tehran 1386/1966, 312.

2. Secondary literature. S. Aliev, O datirovke nabega rusov, upomyanuti̊kh Ibn Isfandiyarom i Amoli [“On the dating of the raid ofthe Rus’ mentioned by Ibn Isfandiyār and Āmulī”), in A.S. Tveritinova (ed.), Vostočni̊e istočniki po istorii narodov y̲u̲go-vostočnoy i tsentral’noy evropy, ii, Moscow 1969, 316-21

W. Barthold (V.V. Bartol’d), Akademik V. V. Bartol’d, Sočineniy̲a̲, Moscow 1963-73, see his Arabskie izvestiy̲a̲ o rusak̲h̲ [“Arabic notices on the Rus”], ii/1, 810-58

idem, Mesto prikaspiyskik̲h̲ oblastey v istorii musul’manskogo mira [“The place of the Caspian districts in the history of the Muslim world”], ii/1, 651-772

V.M. Beylis, Al-Idrisi (XII v.) o vostočnom pričernomor’e i y̲u̲go-vostočnoy okraine russkik̲h̲ zemel’ [“Al-Idrīsī (12th century) on the eastern Black Sea and southeastern borderland of the Russian lands”], in Drevneys̲h̲ie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR, 1982, Moscow 1984, 208-28

I. Boba, Nomads, Northmen and Slavs, The Hague-Wiesbaden 1967

P.G. Bulgakov, Kniga putey i gosudarstv Ibn K̲h̲urdadbek̲h̲a (K izučeniy̲u̲ i datirovke redaktsii) [“The book of the routes and kingdoms of Ibn K̲h̲urdād̲h̲bih. Towards the study and dating of its redaction”], in Palestinskiy Sbornik, iii (lxvi) (1958), 127-36

H. Clarke and B. Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking age, New York 1991

M. Fasmer (Vasmer), Etimologičeskiy slovar’ russkogo y̲a̲zi̊ka [“Etymological dictionary of the Russian language”] tr. O.N. Trubačëv, 2nd ed., Moscow 1986-7, i, 458, iii, 522-3

B. Dorn, Caspia. Über die Einfälle der alten Russen in Tabaristan, nebst Zugaben über andere von ihnen auf dem Kaspischen Meere und in den anliegenden Ländern ausgeführte Unternehmungen, St. Petersburg 1875, 5-6

P.B. Golden, The migrations of the Oğuz, in Archivum Ottomanicum, iv (1972), 45-84

idem, Khazar studies (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, xxv), Budapest 1980

idem, The question of the Rus’ Qağanate, in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, ii (1982), 77-97

idem, Aspects of the nomadic factor in the economic development of Kievan Rus’, in I.S. Koropeckyj (ed.), Ukrainian economic history. Interpretive essays, Cambridge, Mass. 1991, 58-101

H. Ḥasan, Falakī-i S̲h̲irwānī: his times, life, and works, London 1929, 36-9

M.S. Hrus̲h̲evs’ski̊y, Istoriy̲a̲ Ukraïni̊-Rusi̊ [“History of Ukraine-Rus’”], i, 3rd ed., Kiev 1913, repr. Kiev 1991

V.I. Istrin, 1100 let slavy̲a̲nskoy azbuki [“1100 years of the Slavic alphabet”], 2nd ed., Moscow 1988, ¶ 19

R.J. Jenkins et al. (eds.), Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio. Commentary, London 1962, 22-3

G. Jones, A history of the Vikings, rev. ed. Oxford 1984, 76 n. 1, 152-3, 211, 246-7, 248 n. 3

T.M. Kalinina, Svedeniya Ibn K̲h̲aukaly̲a̲ o pok̲h̲odak̲h̲ Rusi vremeni Svy̲a̲toslava [“The information of Ibn Ḥawḳal on the campaigns of the Rus’ of the time of Svyatoslav”], Drevneys̲h̲ie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. Materiali̊ i issledovaniy̲a̲ 1975g., Moscow 1976, 90-101

F. Kmietowicz, The term ar-Rād̲ānīya in the work of Ibn Ḫurdād̲beh, in Folia Orientalia, xi (1969), 163-73

F. Kruze (Kruse), O proisk̲h̲oždenii ry̲u̲rika [“On the origin of Ryurik”], in Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshčeniy̲a̲, ix (1836), 47-73

E. Kválen, The early Norwegian settlements on the Volga, Vienna 1937

H. Łowmiański, Zagadnienie roli normanów w genezie państw słowiańskich [“The question of the role of the Normans in the genesis of the Slavic states”], Warsaw 1957, Russ. tr. Rus’ i normanny [“Rus’ and the Normans”], Moscow 1985, 283

J. Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Leipzig 1903, 343-5, 350, 352, 355 ff., 385 ff., 474-5

V.V. Mavrodin, Proisk̲h̲oždenie russkogo naroda [“The origin of the Russian people”], Leningrad 1978

V.F. Minorsky, Khāqānī and Andronicus Comnenus, in BSOAS, xi (1945), 555-78

idem, Studies in Caucasian history, London 1953, 11-12, 76-7

idem, A history of Sharvān and Darband, Cambridge 1958, 9/31-2, 19/45, 21-47, 111

idem, Kuda ezdili drevnie rusi̊? [“Where did the ancient Rus’ go?”], in Vostočni̊e istočniki po istorii narodov y̲u̲go-vostočnoy i tsenral’noy evropi̊, ed. A.S. Tveritinova, Moscow 1964, 19-28

T.S. Noonan, Ninth-century dirham hoards from European Russia: a preliminary analysis, in A.R. Hands et al. (eds.), Viking-age coinage in the northern lands, Oxford 1981, 47-117

idem, Why dirhams first reached Russia: the role of Arab-Khazar relations in the development of the earliest Islamic trade with Eastern Europe, in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, iv (1984), 151-282

idem, Khazaria as an intermediary between Islam and Eastern Europe in the second half of the ninth century: the numismatic perspective, in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, v (1985), 179-204

idem, When did Rūs/Rus’ merchants first visit Khazaria and Baghdad?, in Archivum eurasiae medii aevi, vii (1987-91), 213-19

N.V. Pigulëvskay̲a̲, Imy̲a̲ ‘‘rus’” v siriyskom istočnike VI b. n.e. [“The name ‘Rus” in a Syriac source of the 6th century A.D.”], in Akademiku B.D. Grekovu ko dny̲u̲ semidesy̲a̲tiletiy̲a̲, Moscow 1952, 46-8

N.Y̲a̲. Polovoy, O mars̲h̲rute pok̲h̲oda Russkik̲h̲ na Berdaa i Russko-K̲h̲azarskik̲h̲ otnos̲h̲eniyak̲h̲ v 943 g. [“On the route of the expedition of the Rus’ against Bard̲h̲aʿa in 943”], in Vizantiyskiy vremennik, xxv (1961)

O. Pritsak, An Arabic text on the trade route of the corporation of ar-Rūs in the second half of the ninth century, in Folia Orientalia, xii (1970), 241-59

idem, The origin of Rus’, Cambridge, Mass. 1981, 23-8, 44, 182, 442-4, 450-1

S. Rospond, Pochodzenie nazwy Rus’ [“The origin of the name Rus’”], in Rocznik Slawistyczny, xxxviii/1 (1977), 35-50

A.V. Riasanovsky, The Embassy of 838 revisited: some comments in connection with a “Normanist” source on early Russian history, in Jahrbücher für die Geschichte Osteuropas, x/1 (1962), 1-12

B.A. Ri̊bakov, Russkie zemli na karte Idrisi 1154g. [“The Russian lands on the map of Idrisi of 1154”], in Kratkie soobs̲h̲čeniy̲a̲ instituta istorii material’noy kul’tury, xliii (1953), 1-44

idem, Kievskay̲a̲ Rus’ i Russkie kny̲a̲žestva xii-xiii vv. [Kievan Rus’ and the Rus’ principalities], Moscow 1982, 165 ff.

idem, Yazi̊čestvo drevney Rusi [“The paganism of ancient Rus’”], Moscow 1987

P.H. Sawyer, Kings and Vikings. Scandinavia and Europe A.D. 700-1100, London-New York 1982, 123-6 ¶8/629/2¶

A.A. S̲h̲ak̲h̲matov, Drevneys̲h̲ie sud’by russkogo plemeni [“The ancientmost fortunes of the Russian tribe”], Petrograd 1919

P. Smirnov, Volz’ki̊y s̲h̲lyak̲h̲ i starodavni Rusi̊ [“The Volga route and the ancient Rus’”], Kiev 1928, 132-45

A. Stender-Petersen, Zur Rus-Frage, in his Varangica, Aarhus 1953

W. Swoboda, ʾArû-ʾArîsû-al-Artâniya, in Folia Orientalia, xi (1969), 291-6

V. Thomsen, The relations between ancient Russia and Scandinavia and the origin of the Russian state, Oxford-London 1877

P.P. Toločko, Drevny̲a̲y̲a̲ Rus’ [“Ancient Rus’”], Kiev 1987, 15-20, 31-5

V.G. Vasil’evskiy, Vary̲a̲go-russkay̲a̲ i vary̲a̲go-angliyskay̲a̲ družina v Konstantinopole xi i xii vekov, in Trudy V. G. Vasil’evskogo, St. Petersburg 1908, repr. The Hague-Paris 1968, i, 176-401

A.A. Vasiliev, The Russian attack on Constantinople in 860, Cambridge, Mass. 1946

G. Vernadsky, Ancient Russia, New Haven 1943, 107, 147, 278

idem, The origins of Russia, Oxford 1959, 33, 53, 65, 78, 174-5

A.P. Vlasto, The entry of the Slavs into Christendom, Cambridge 1970.

(P.B. Golden)

Cite this page

Golden, P.B., “Rūs”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0942>

Резван

Росси́я — государство в Восточной Европе и Северной Азии.

История ислама в России

В середине 7 века первые отряды мусульман пришли на территорию Азербайджана и в 642-43 годах дошли до города Дербент (современный Дагестан). С Северного Кавказа и Дагестана ислам распространился по Волге.

Коран в Российской Империи

История изучения и переводов Корана в России неразрывно связана с двумя факторами. Во-первых, вековое противостояние с мусульманскими государствами Поволжья и Северного Причерноморья, военная и политическая борьба с Османской империей предопределили преобладание жанра полемической религиозно-политической публицистики в качестве основного в корпусе русскоязычной
 литературы об исламе и Коране в частности. Во-вторых, для обеспечения лояльности завоёванных территорий с мусульманским населением требовалась объективная информация об исламе.

В течение нескольких столетий основными источниками знаний об исламе и Коране служили переводы с греческого, латинского, польского антиисламских трактатов и исторических трудов. Искажённые сведения о Коране, пророке Мухаммаде, об основных догма
тах ислама в целом были пронизаны религиозной нетерпимостью и служили идеологическим основанием борьбы с Высокой Портой и
 её вассалами. После взятия Казани армией Ивана Грозного в 1552 году Россия стала утверждаться 
в своём превосходстве над мусульманскими
 соседями. В работах Андрея Курбского 
(1528—1583) можно увидеть бо́льшую осведомленность об исламе. В XV
—XVII веках в среде татар, состоявших на 
службе у литовских князей был осуществлён и первый перевод
 Корана с арабского на славянский язык, а
 именно на белорусский.

Выписка из Указа Петра I на имя Синода от 18 июля 1722 г. о немедленной присылке в Астрахань
.

К концу XVII века появилось первое 
сочинение на русском языке, посвященное Корану. Оно было написано для Петра I и его брата Ивана. Переводчик посольского приказа С. И. Гадзеловский выполнил перевод с польского языка трактат
а православного полемиста Иоанни
кия Галятовского (ум. в 1688 г.) «Alkoran Macometov Nauka heretycka y zydovska y poganska napelniony. Od Koheleta Chrystusowego rosproszony y zgromadzony…» («Алкоран Магометов от Когелета Христова, 
разрушенный и ни во что обращенный»). Перевод сохранился в рукописи. По инициативе Петра I были снаряжены научные экспедиции для собирания восточных рукописей, надписей и монет. В 1716 году по его приказу был напечатан 
первый перевод Корана на русский язык, выполненный неизвестным переводчиком. Перевод, авторство которого приписывалось то Дмитрию Кантемиру, то Петру
 Посникову, был осуществлён с французского перевода, который принадлежал дипломату и востоковеду Ан
дре дю Рие (15807-1660?). Перевод назывался «Алкоран о Магомете, 
или Закон турецкий», он включал пере
вод авторского предисловия Sommaire de la
 Religion des Turks, повторил и умножил ошибки дю
 Рие. Через несколько лет труд дю Рие был переведён на русский язык врачом, философом и дипломатом Петром Посниковым (конец XVII — первая треть XVIII в.). Рукописи этого перевода сохранились в БАН в Санкт-Петербурге и МГАМИД в Москве.

Титульный лист книги «Алкоран о Магомете, 
или Закон турецкий».

Петр I поручил князю
 Дмитрию Кантемиру (1673-1723) составить
 подробное изложение содержания Корана и жизнеописания пророка Мухаммада ﷺ. В 1722 году в Санкт-Петербурге 
был опубликован переводной (с ла
тыни) труд Дмитрия Кантемира «Книга систима, 
или Состояние Мухамеданския религия». 
Возможно, рукопись именно этой книги 
Петр I срочно требовал к себе в Астрахань 
специальным письмом от 18 июля 1722 года. Рост русских интересов
 на Востокe в XVIII веке вызвал появление целого ряда сочинений об исламе и Коране, пользовавшихся большой
 популярностью и неоднократно переиздававихся. К концу XVIII века в русских периодических
 изданиях доволь
но часто стали появляться как переводные
 так и оригинальные материалы об исламе.

Во время правления Екатерины II Российская империя одержала победы
 в воинах с Турцией, присоединила Крым и
 другие области с мусульманским населением, что потребовало срочных мер по организации 
управления ими и умиротворению населения. В манифесте от 
марта 1775 года "О высочайше дарованных
 разным сословиям милостях по случаю заключения
 мира с Портою Оттоманскою», а также в грамоте от 1783 года, выданной по
 случаю присоединения Крыма, появились ряд положений, обеспечивавших и регулировавших
 права мусульман на территории империи. 
Открылись народные училища с преподаванием татарского, персидского, арабского 
языков. Позднее в ряде университетов были
 введены востоковедные дисциплины, в том
 числе занятия по чтению и комментированию отдельных частей Корана. В XVIII—XIX веках в работах ряда 
студентов и преподавателей Казанской духовной академии Коран по
прежнему оставался «лжеучением», противоречившим христианской вере, религией 
давнего и жестокого противника Российской 
империи.

В 1722 году, была организована первая в России типография с передвижным арабским шрифтом. В 1787 году в типографии Академии наук в Санкт-Петербурге по приказу Екатерины II был издан полный арабский текст Корана для бесплатной раздачи «киргизцам». По своему качеству книга превосходила все европейские издания того времени. Она существенно отличалось от европейских
 прежде всего тем, что носило мусульманский
 характер. Текст Корана был подготовлен и снабжён комментариями муллы Усмана Ибрахима. Его печали специально отлитым для этой цели арабским шрифтом, который воспроизводил почерк одного из самых знаменитых мусульманских каллиграфов того времени. Он был лучшим из всех арабских шрифтов, существовавших тогда в Европе. Попав в Европу, оно отчасти даже вытеснило старые и редкие издания А. Хинкельмана и Л. Марраччи. Это издание Корана было затем повторено в 1789, 1790, 1793, 1796 и 1798 годах и послужило основой для всех последующих изданий текста Корана в XIX веке.

Указом от 15 декабря 1800 года были сняты
 ограничения на публикацию в России исламской религиозной литературы. В 1801 —
1802 годах отлитый в Петербурге арабский 
шрифт был передан в первую мусульманскую типографию, открытую в Казани. С 1802 
по 1859 г. было опубликовано до 150 тыс. экземпляров полного 
текста Корана. Так называемые казанские Кораны получили 
широкое хождение и неоднократно воспро
изводились на Востоке. Одним из достижений издателей была публикация в издании
 1857 г. наряду с основным текстом в редакции Хафса коранических вариантов (аль-кираат), воспроизводящих традицию «семи
 чтений».

В 1790 году был опубликован перевод известного русского литератора, ученого и переводчика М. И. Верёвкина (1732—1795). Как и предыдущие переводы, перевод Верёвкина был сделан с французского перевода дю Рие. Переводу М. И Верёвкина суждено было сыграть важную роль в истории русской литературы. М. И. Верёвкин сумел придать своему 
переводу высокие литературные качества. Он вдохновил А. С. Пушкина на создание в 
1824 году поэтического переложения фрагментов тридцати трёх сур («Подражание Корану») и в ряде других
 произведений поэта (например, «Пророк»). Интерес А. С. Пушкина к Корану во многом
с вязан с противоречивыми тенденциями в
оценке ислама европейскими романтиками.
 Творения А. С. Пушкина способствовали
 заметному росту интереса к Корану в самых широких кругах русских читателей. Кораном интересуются П. Я. Чаадаев, Л. Н. Толстой, В. С. Соловьев. Переводчик восточной
 поэзии М. Л. Михайлов (1829 — 1865) опубликовал фрагменты Корана в стихотворном переводе.

Перевод Верёвкина.

В 1792 году в Петербурге появился перевод поэта А. Колмако
ва (ум. 1804), сделанный с английского перевода 
Дж. Сэиля (1697—1736). Труд 

Дж. Сэиля вышел в Лондоне в 1734 году, выдержал 5 изданий и помимо русско
го была переведён на немецкий и фран
цузский языки. Он был основан главным образом на комментариях Аль-Байдави, аз-Замахшари и тафсире аль-Джалялейн.

XIX век

В 1859 году на средства архиепископа Казанского Георгия был издан «Полный 
конкорданс Корана, или Ключ ко всем словам
и выражениям его текстов для руководства к 
исследованию религиозных, юридических,
исторических и литературных начал сей книги». Автор книги — «патриарх русского ориентализма», создатель казанской школы
 востоковедов, первый декан факультета 
восточных языков Санкт-Петербургского 
университета, при
нявший христианство в 1821 году от шотланд
ских миссионеров Мирза Мухаммад ‘Али Гаджи Касим-оглы (Александра
 Касимовича) Казем-Бека (1802—1870) посвятил работе над «Конкордансом» более 25 лет (с 1834 года). Особенностью и достоинством подхода А. Казем-Бека над подобными работами является то, что он построен не по этимологическому принципу — словарные гнезда расположены в простом 
алфавитном порядке, весьма удобном для не
арабистов, и содержат все контексты употребления. А. Казем-Бек был обвинён со стороны мусульманских ортодоксов в 
попытках пропаганды ислама за православный счёт, из-за чего ему пришлось публично 
разъяснять характер и важность своего труда. В 1855 году А. Казем-Бек за свой 
труд был удостоен
 персидского ордена Льва и Солнца первой 
степени.

В 1864 году вышел в свет последний 
перевод Корана на русский язык, выполненный не с оригинала. Перевод 
принадлежал перу К. Николаева и был сде
лан с французского перевода известного востоковеда и дипломата А. Б. Казимирского. Перевод А. Б. Казимирского 
сохранял популярность во Франции
 вплоть до 20-х годов XX века. Перевод К. Николаева
, обладавший высокими литературными достоинствами, во второй половине XIX века выдержал 5 изданий.

Во второй половине XIX века в России складываются имеющие мировое значение рукописные коллекции Азиатского музея Петер
бургской Академии наук, Публичной 
библиотеки и т. д. Они включали значительное количество первоклассных рукописей Корана. В 1863 году И. Ф Готвальдом
 (1813-1897) в Казани, а затем в 1881 году В. Ф. Гиргасом (1835 — 1887) в Санкт-
Петербурге 
были составлены и опубликованы словари к 
Корану. и, наконец, в 70-х годах XIX века в России 
были сделаны два первых перевода 
Корана на русский язык непосредственно с арабского. В 1871 году вольнослушатель 
Восточного факультета Петербургского университета генерал Д. Н. Богуславский (1826—1893) завершил перевод, отличавшийся высокой точностью и незаурядными литературными достоинствами. После
 публикации в 1878 году перевода
 Г. С. Саблукова (1804-1880) Д. Н. Богуславский решил от
казаться от издания своей работы. Перевод Г. С. Саблукова явился важнейшим достижением «казанской школы» 
исламоведения, представите
ли которой охотно пользовались европейскими исследованиями, причём критический пафос западных исследователей 
ещё более усиливался в русских переработка
х. Помимо перевода Корана Г. С. Саблуков в 1879 году выпустил указатель к Корану («Приложения»), а через четыре года после смерти автора, был опубликован и его обзорный
 труд о Коране. Миссионерская заданность коранических штудий Г. С. Саблукова
 особенно ярко проявилась во второй части 
его работы «Сведения о Коране, законоположительной книге мохаммеданского веро
учения», которая была посвящена рассмотрению «внутренних качеств Корана». Переводы XIX века по большей части восходили к мусульманской традиции и поэтому воспроизводили понимание Корана, характерное для эпохи того или иного мусульманского 
экзегета или группы авторов. Так, например, труд Г. С. Саблуко
ва был основан на сочинениях, популярных
в татарской среде, так как для 
успеха миссионерской деятельности важно было иметь адекватное представление о "татарском
 исламе». Перевод Д. Н. Богуславского основывался 
главным образом на турецком сочинении 
«Тафсир аль-Мавакиб» Исма‘ила Фарруха
 (ум. в 1840 г.), который в свою очередь использовал в качестве основы персидский
 «Тафсир Хусейни» Хусейна Ва‘иза (ум. в
 1505 г.).

Вторая половина XIX века — период резкого усиления влияния России на Среднем 
Востоке и в Центральной Азии. В 1868 году к Российской империи был присоединён Туркистанский края. В состав империи влилось многомиллионное мусульманское население, сохранившее многовековую традицию толкования Корана. Власти пытались обеспечить полноценное участие 
мусульманских подданных в жизни империи. Неоднократно обновляются как процедура, так и
 текст судебной 
и воинской присяги для мусульман на Коране. Например, в правилах от 1892 г. отмечалось, что
 «самый Коран, в знак благоговения, должен
 быть положен на пелену из чистой шелковой 
материи и поставлен на налой или столик,
 вышиною по крайней мере в аршин».

Большой размах получила в Российской империи мусульманская печать. Типографии с арабским шрифтом существовали в восьми городах империи. По подсчетам востоковеда А. Б. Халидова, с 1787
 по 1917 год в Российской империи вышло 172 издания Корана, более 
ста изданий отдельных сур (сувар мин
 аль-Куран), 
191 издание подборок сур (хафтиак). Широко издавались также 
молитвенники, своеобразные обереги (догалык), основанные на магических заклинаниях и Коране. Власти неоднократно принимали меры к 
усилению цензуры мусульманской печати,
 периодически запрещали публикацию книг по толкованию Корана, запрещался ввоз книг из-за границы и т. п. В 1905—1907 годах активно обсуждался проект
в ведения государственной монополии на 
мусульманские издания. В 1911—1914 годах предпринимались попытки перевода Корана на татарский и азербайджанский языки.

В 
1899 году мусульманская община Санкт-Петербурга читала Коран в ходе специальной службы, 
организованной по поводу смерти брата Николая II — Великого князя Георгия (1871 —
1899). Одновременно Коран 
становился знаменем многочисленных анти
русских выступлений, начавшихся в Сред
ней Азии в 1916 году и продолжавшихся в районах проживания мусульман вплоть до
 1931 года.

На рубеже веков появляются работы в области коранистики А. Ф. Шебунина (1867-?), В. В. Бартольда (1869—1930), А. Е. Крымского
 (1871-1941) и др. С учебными целями А. Е. Крымским
 (1905 г.) был издан комментированный перевод ряда коранических сур. Русский поэт И. А. Бунин пытался перевести
 отрывки из суры аль-Анам (Скот) и выбрал коранические строки эпиграфами для 
целого ряда стихов.

Коран в СССР

После революции 1917 года больше
вики приняли решение о возвращении 
мусульманам ряда святынь в Оренбурге, Каза
ни, в Средней Азии и на Кавказе. В декабре 1917 года в ходе
 съезда мусульман в Петро
граде по прямому указанию В. И. Ленина мусульманской общине был
 возвращен «Коран Османа», который был вывезен из Самарканда в 1869 году и хранивлся в 
Санкт-Петербургской публичной библиотеке.

В конце 1920-х годов в СССР развернулась антирелигиозная кампания. Коран попал список книг, подлежавших
изъятию из массовых библиотек. В ходе а
теистической пропаганды «разоблачался» и Коран. В ряде областей стало
 небезопасным не только держать в доме печатный или рукописный текст Корана, но и любую
 книгу, написанную в арабской графике, что 
привело к массовой гибели рукописей.


В 1921—1930 годах акаде
мик И. Ю. Крачковский (1883—1951) подготовил рабочий перевод Корана, комментарии к которому 
дополнялись вплоть до смерти автора. Рассматривая Коран как памятник 
определённой эпохи и среды, Крачковский попытался
 избежать влияния традиционных толкований
 и поставил задачу создать адекватный литературный перевод. Он стремился искать объяснения малопонятным местам текста в самом Коране и опирался на материалы современной Корану 
языковой среды. Работа И. Ю. Крачковского над переводом совпала с началом кризиса советского 
исламоведения, связанного с тем, что методы анализа Корана и подход
 к нему определялись в
первую очередь задачами атеистической пропаганды. Перевод был опубликован через 12 лет после смерти Крачковского и начиная с 1986 года многократно переиздавался. Он не был подготовлен автором 
к печати и, по существу, является публикацией архивных материалов, сохраняя в ряде
 случаев форму подстрочника. По характеру подход
а к тексту перевод И. Ю. Крачковского в
 наибольшей степени близок французскому 
переводу Р. Бляшера (опубликован в 1949 —
1950 гг.) и немецкому переводу Р. Парета
(опубликован в 1963—1966 гг.).

В русле атеистических
 задач 1930-х годах 
несколько московских ученых во главе с
 Е. А. Беляевым выдвинули гипотезу о создании Коране группой лиц. Н. А. Морозов предпринял попытку
 объявить X —XI века временем возникновения, а XIV век (эпоху султана Осма
на I) — временем фиксации Корана. Подход советских коранистов опирался во многом на гиперкрити
ческие работы таких западных востоковедов, 
как Л. Каэтани, Г. Вейль, X. Хиршфельд.
 Воинственно-атеисти
ческий и вульгарно-
материалистический характер работ 30-х годов сближаются с идеалистическим и подчеркнуто
 миссионерским подходом в сочинениях представителей
 казанской миссионерской школы.

В этом отношении труд И. Ю. Крачков
ского, исследования В. В. Бартольда, этнографические
 штудии И. Н. Винникова, статьи К. С. Кашталевой (1897 —
1939) по терминологии Корана резко выделялись на общем
 фоне. Попытки преодоления наиболее одиозных
 крайностей этого подхода были предприняты, в частности, И. П. Петрушевским. Сочинения коранического круга изучались в
первую очередь с лингвистическими целями.
 Вплоть до начала 90-х годов продолжали 
активно публиковаться имевшие лишь самое
 отдаленное отношение к науке работы авто
ров занимавших воинственно-атеистическую позицию (Л. И. Климович, С. И. Джаббаров, А. В. Авксентьев, Р. Р.
Мавмонтов и др.).

Начавшийся в начале 1980-х годов новый этап в изучении ислама и Корана в
 СССР был связан с осознанием на официальном уровне обходим
ости адекватного анализа процессов и событий на Ближнем и Среднем Востоке. Ряд решений руководства страны позволили подготовить и опубликовать ряд 
коллективных работ и монографий, достойно продолживших русскую академическую традицию.

С середины 
1980-х годов увеличилось количество изданной мусульманской литературы. Массовым тиражом были переизданы переводы И. Ю. Крачковского и 
Г. С. Саблукова, впервые был издан перевод Д. Н. Богуславского. Так как продажи Корана приносили хороший доход, их изданием занимались государственными и 
частными издательствами, совместными 
предприятиями. В 1990—
1991 годах перевод
 Г. С. Саблукова выдержал пять переизданий.

В этот же период вновь были созданы переводы М.-Н. Османова, В. М. Пороховой, анонимный перевод движения Ахмадия, основанные на мусульманской традиции. Т. А. Шумовским 
предпринята попытка создания стихотворного перевода. Исламские
 пропагандистские центры в Саудовской Аравии, Турции, Иране, Пакистане, финансировали 
издание и распространение на территории 
России переводов на русский и 
национальные языки современных тафси
ров, специальных
 учебных пособий. Для бесплатного распространения арабского текста Корана среди верующих в Россию ввезены сотни тысяч 
экземпляров книг. В изданиях арабского текста Корана 1923 и 1956 года использовался
 текст старых казанских изданий, который в 1960 году 
был заменен текстом официального каирского издания 1919—1928 годов.

Современная история

В 2013 году районный суд Новороссийска признал экстремистской смысловой перевод Корана на русский язык Эльмира Кулиева. По мнению экспертов, в переводе Кулиева содержатся «высказывания, утверждающие преимущество одной группы людей над другой по признаку религии, положительно оценивающие враждебные действия по отношению к немусульманам». В декабре того же года Краснодарский краевой суд отменил решение районного суда Новороссийска. В ноябре 2015 года Государственная дума РФ приняла закон, запрещающий признавать содержание Библии, Корана, Танаха и Ганджура, а также цитат из них экстремистскими материалами.

С конца XX века в России ежегодно проводятся российские и международные конкурсы чтецов и хафизов Корана. Представители России становились победителями и призёрами международных конкурсах чтецов и хафизов Корана, проводившихся в зарубежных странах.

Помимо переводов Корана на русский язык, в России осуществлялись и осуществляются переводы Корана на языки коренных мусульманских народов России. Имеются переводы Корана на аварский, башкирский, даргинский, ингушский, татарский языки.

Литература

• Резван, Е. А., Коран в России // Ислам на территории бывшей Российской империи. Энциклопедический словарь. — М. : «Восточная литература
» РАН, 1998. — Вып. 1. — С. 47-58. — 159 с. — ISBN 5-02-018047-5.
• Грязневич П. А. Коран в России (изучение, переводы и издания) / Ислам: Религия, общество, государство. Сборник статей. Отв. редакторы П. А. Грязневич и С. М. Прозоров. М.: Наука. ГРВЛ, 1984, 76-82.
• Гаврилов Ю. А., Шевченко А. Г. Коран в России: переводы и переводчики // Вестник Института социологии. 2012. № 5. С. 81-96