Introduction

Abstract

The publication of I. Ia. Froianov's 1974 book, Kievan Rus': Essays in Socioeconomic History, evoked little public stir. This fact would probably not surprise the casual Western reader who picked up the book. To a historian of medieval Europe, for example, Froianov's work would seem to be a mildly interesting but unexceptional study of the early period of Russian history. In the style so familiar to historians, the author analyzes the historical sources for the period under discussion, argues against earlier interpretations, and thereby develops his own conclusions. In the context of Soviet scholarship on early Russia, however, Froianov's 1974 book was as important for its methodology as for its conclusions. This 158-page monograph published by Leningrad State University in a small, inexpensive edition seriously challenged the standard Soviet interpretation of Russia's early history and the Soviet historical profession that had elucidated and defended such an interpretation. I know of no genuine "reviews" of the book in the Soviet periodical press;1 perhaps a decision was made not to call attention to the work. When Leningrad University issued Froianov's second volume, Kievan Rus': Essays in Sociopolitical History, in 1980 in an edition more than twice the size of the first volume's printing, however, the Soviet historical establishment reacted publicly and vehemently. Froianov's two books (which are excerpted here) were castigated for showing no understanding of the results of Soviet scholarship, for misreading and misusing the historical sources, and particularly for arguing that Kievan Rus' was not a feudal state. The attacks on Froianov's scholarship were vicious and often ad hominem. They clearly transcended what one might expect from a simple academic rivalry between a "Moscow school" of historians of early Russia and a "Leningrad school" for which Froianov was the spokesman.