| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Helmet of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich? |
| 2023-05-07 |
| Direct Translation via Google Transate. Edited. Text posted on V Kontakte page of Evil Muscovite. Original source: Yanin V.L. About the original belonging of the so-called helmet of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. In the summer of 1808, the peasant woman Larionova, “being in a bush for plucking nuts, saw something luminous near a walnut bush in a tussock.” This “something” turned out to be an ancient gilded helmet, under which lay rolled chain mail. Since then, a hundred and fifty years have passed, during which a whole literature devoted to an unusual find has been created. A most interesting monument entered science, equally significant for researchers of political history and for researchers of Russian applied art of the pre-Mongolian period. The place of the find of the armor, discovered near the river. Koloksha near the village. Lykovo in the former Yuryev-Polsky district of the Vladimir province, in itself contributed to the interpretation of open objects. Their explanation was proposed by the first researcher of the helmet, President of the Academy of Arts A. N. Olenin, who established that the find was made at the site of the famous Lipitsa battle of 1216, described in detail in the annals. In the Battle of Lipitsa, the fate of the inheritance of Vsevolod the Big Nest was decided. Before his death, Vsevolod bequeathed the great reign of Vladimir not to his eldest son, Konstantin, but to his next son, Yuri, for which Konstantin "raised his eyebrows with anger at his brethren, and even more so at George." In 1216, Constantine, in alliance with the Novgorod army, led by Mstislav the Udaly, opposed the Grand Duke Yuri and another brother, Yaroslav, who were utterly defeated. The defeat was so cruel that the defeated princes, saving their lives, fled from the battlefield, leaving their weapons, in their shirts. The chronicler describes this tragic flight in this way: “Prince Yurya stood against Kostyantin and saw Yaroslavl, a regiment that ran away and that ran to Volodimer about noon on the fourth horse, and he suffocated three ... Yaroslav also ran alone to Pereyaslavl on five horses, and 4 suffocated." The find of armor abandoned on the battlefield was an excellent illustration of the chronicle story and, moreover, confirmed its complete authenticity. A. N. Olenin managed to substantiate the specific affiliation of the find. The armor could belong to one of the two princes - Yuri or Yaroslav. The first bore the baptismal name George, the second was called Theodore at baptism, which is recorded in the annals under 1190. This name is contained in a well-wishing inscription on the forehead of the Lipitsky helmet: “Great Archangel Michael, help your servant Theodore.” The artistic value of the helmet lies in its decoration. It is overlaid with gilded silver plates, on which images of saints, ornaments and figures of fantastic animals and birds are embossed. The central place on the brow of the helmet is occupied by a full-length figure of the Archangel Michael, made in the manner of the best examples of toreutics of pre-Mongolian times. Michael is depicted in the usual canonical pose, straight-faced, with a rod in his right hand and with a sphere in his left. On the edge of the plate with the image of Michael, the above inscription is applied. At the top of the helmet, around the spruce, there are four silver petals with half-length images of saints, forming a deesis tier. The central position on the front of the helmet, directly above the image of Michael, is occupied by a plate with the figure of the Almighty with titles on the sides, with the Gospel in his left hand and blessing with his right, in a groin nimbus decorated with arabesques. On the side surfaces of the helmet are images of holy warriors: to the left of the Almighty, the figure of St. Theodora with a sword, on the right - St. George with a spear. Saints hold shields in their hands; on the sides of the inscription denoting the names. Theodore, as required by the canons, is depicted with a beard. George is beardless. On the back plate is an image of St. Basil with a corresponding inscription. The top of the helmet is decorated with a chased silver strip, completely covered with heart-shaped hallmarks tied together with figures of birds, leopards and griffins enclosed in them. The upper part of the strip in the triangular spaces between the hallmarks is decorated with alternating images of flowers and leaves. Comparison of the artistic style of all these images with the style of other works of art of the pre-Mongol period has long led researchers to the conclusion that the closest analogies to the decoration of the helmet are found in the monuments of white stone carvings of the second half of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries, in particular in the reliefs of St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev Polsky, built in 1234. This similarity initially served to confirm the attribution of the helmet proposed by A.N. Olenin. The currently accepted date of the Lipitsky helmet is based on the following three facts: 1) the coincidence of the find site with the site of the Lipitsky battle; 2) annalistic evidence of the hasty flight of the defeated princes, who abandoned their armor; 3) the coincidence of the Christian name of Yaroslav - Theodore - with the name of the benevolent formula of the helmet. I note that the decisive role in determining the date belongs to a combination of all three circumstances, since not only the battle of 1216, but also the battle of 1177 took place on the Lipitsky field, and not only Yaroslav, but also many other princes of the pre-Mongolian time could be called Fedor. The combination of these three circumstances seemed so convincing that the overall composition of the images was never used to verify the dating of the helmet. Meanwhile, it is quite well known that the interpretation of the deesis compositions of ancient Russian artifacts can be extremely important for understanding such monuments as a whole. The deesis tier, which usually includes images of Christ, the Mother of God, John the Baptist, the archangels Michael and Gabriel, was often changed by the customer: additional figures with a special meaning were introduced into it. Desis is, according to Google, a tripartite icon of the Eastern Orthodox Church showing Christ usually enthroned between the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist. The deesis of the Lipitz helmet seems unusual. There are no images of Mary and John in it, only Michael is left of the archangels, whose image is transferred to the forehead of the helmet. The figures of Theodore, George and Basil are arranged in the order in which Mary, John and an additional figure are placed in ordinary deesis. Such a deesis can be either a complex patronal depiction of the wearer of the helmet, or an image evoked by the specifics of the helmet as part of military armor. Consider first the second assumption. The transfer of the figure of Archangel Michael to the forehead of the helmet seems to indicate that the main idea of the composition was an appeal to the patron saints of military leaders. The same idea could be emphasized in the text of the inscription. The images of Saints Theodore and George in this case are quite appropriate, since both saints are warriors. However, having accepted such an interpretation of the composition, we will not be able to explain the presence of the image of St. Basil, whose symbolism has nothing to do with either war or battles. Let's return to the first assumption about the personal-patronal nature of the composition of the helmet. In Russian pre-Mongolian monuments, two variants of such images are known. In the first case, the idea of personal patronage is expressed, so to speak, in its purest form, by depicting the namesake saint, the guardian angel, or two saints, the namesake of the owner of the thing and his father. We constantly meet with such a device on pre-Mongolian princely seals, as well as in deesis images, expanded by the introduction of one saint into them. The central position in the deesis composition is occupied by the figures of Theodore and George. The combination of these figures, apparently, directly indicates that the owner of the helmet was called Feodor Georgievich. Such a prince, however, the chronicle does not know, just as, however, it does not know Prince Georgy Feodorovich. But the prince, who combines both of these names in his name, is well known in Novgorod sphragistics. Small lead bullae discovered in Novgorod have come down to us in the amount of four copies, bearing on one side the image of St. Theodore, and on the other - St. George. Despite the absence of annalistic indications, we have an excellent opportunity to accurately determine the identity of these seals, the basis for which are the peculiarities of the use of the Christian name George in pre-Mongolian Rus', which, however, have been preserved in everyday life to this day. The name George penetrates into Rus' along with the adoption of Christianity and initially does not have a permanent correspondence to any pagan Slavic name. Like the names Dmitry, Theodore, Mikhail, etc., it could be combined with any Slavic name. In particular, during the baptism of Rus', Yaroslav Vladimirovich received this name. However, in the future, the name George gets a narrower use, in the form of "Gyurgiy" it acquires a completely worldly sound, and its bearers do not have a middle name. For the first time this form appears at the very end of the 11th century. in the name of Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky. Only very rarely is the name Georgiy combined with the second, worldly, name Igor, which is close to him in sound, as was the case in the names of Igor Svyatoslavich, the hero of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. The peculiarities of the use of the name George greatly simplify the work of identifying princely seals bearing the image of this saint. The absence of a second name among the princes Georgiev allows us to significantly narrow the circle of Novgorod princes - possible owners of a seal depicting Saints Theodore and George. Such owners may be those Novgorod princes who were Yury or Yuryevich. There are very few of them. Yuri Andreevich was the name of the Novgorod prince of 1173-1175, the son of Andrei Bogolyubsky, and later the Georgian king and co-ruler of Tamara. Rostislav Yurievich was the name of the Novgorod prince of 1137-1139 and 1140-1141, the eldest son of Yuri Dolgoruky. Finally, Mstislav Yuryevich was the name of the Novgorod prince of 1154-1157, the youngest son of Yuri Dolgoruky. The seal depicting Saints Theodore and George must have belonged to one of these three princes. Consider the possibilities of each. Yuri Andreevich cannot be the owner of this seal; on his bulls there should be an image of Saints George and Andrew. Such seals are well known and have come down to us in at least six copies. Rostislav Yurievich cannot be the owner of our seal, since his Christian name was Nikolai. Seals of Rostislav with the image of the princely sign and St. Nicholas are also known in Novgorod sphragistics. Only Prince Mstislav Yurievich remains, whose Christian name is unknown. On the other hand, in the Novgorod sphragistics there are no other seals with the image of George, except for those listed. Therefore, only Mstislav can be attributed with seals depicting Saints Theodore and George, thus establishing that Mstislav was called Theodore in baptism. If we interpret the main images of the Lipitsky helmet as personal patrons, then, based solely on formal features, it should be considered that this helmet did not belong to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, but to his uncle Mstislav Yuryevich. How, then, in this case, to explain the placement of the figure of Basil in the deesis composition as well? It turns out that with such an interpretation, the depiction of Basil in the deesis is more than natural. It not only does not contradict the proposed attribution of the object, but also perfectly confirms the assumption that the helmet belonged to Mstislav Yurievich. Vasily was the baptismal name of Mstislav's grandfather, Vladimir Monomakh. The deesis of the helmet turns out to be personal and patronal and depicts the patron saints of the owner of the helmet: Mstislav-Theodore, his father, Yuri-George Dolgoruky, and his grandfather, Vladimir-Vasily Monomakh. However, having interpreted the images of the helmet using the method described above, we are faced with a new contradiction. The fate of Mstislav is well known. This prince could not lose his helmet on the Lipitsky field. Expelled from Novgorod in 1157, he again tried to settle there in 1160 with the assistance of his brother Andrei Bogolyubsky, but failed. In 1162, he was expelled by Andrei from the Suzdal volost and retired with his brothers and mother to Constantinople, where he received land from Emperor Manuel, he never returned to Rus' and, apparently, died in Byzantium. According to Google a volost is (in tsarist Russia) a peasant community consisting of several villages or hamlets. Thus, he could not participate either in the Battle of Lipitsa in 1177, or in the Battle of Lipitsa in 1216. His only son Yaroslav, who had the opportunity to appear on the battlefield in his father's helmet, could not participate in these battles either. In 1177, he was in alliance with the winner of the battle, Vsevolod, but did not participate in the battle. By 1216 he was no longer alive. The persuasiveness of A. N. Olenin's argument cannot be destroyed by a new definition of the belonging of the helmet. His argumentation also resolves the above contradiction. Apparently, the helmet was indeed lost in 1216 and its last owner was Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. However, it was not made for him, but much earlier, between 1149 and 1162, for Yaroslav's uncle, Mstislav Yurievich. Under the indicated years, this prince is mentioned in Russian chronicles. From the armor of the family arsenal, Yaroslav could use any suitable helmet, and the choice of his uncle's armor can be explained by the coincidence of the Christian names of Yaroslav and Mstislav: both of them were called Theodore. A. N. Olenin's explanation turns out to be only half correct. As evidence of important political events, the Lipitsky helmet is a monument to the battle of 1216 and an excellent confirmation of the chronicle text about the flight of the defeated princes. As a historical and artistic monument, it does not belong to the art of the early 13th century. and turns out to be half a century older than the date with which it is always associated. Being a work of art of the middle of the XII century. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #1 Great historical detail. Hard to get past a start of: "peasant woman seeking nuts in the bush finds a shiny helmet" |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2023-05-07 12:38 |