Test Bank for Pocket Guide to Public

Speaking, 6th Edition, Dan O’Hair,

Hannah Rubenstein, Rob Stewart
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-pocket-guide-to-public-speaking-6th-ed
ition-dan-ohair-hannah-rubenstein-rob-stewart/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Test Bank for Cengage Advantage Series Essentials of

Public Speaking, 6th Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-cengage-advantage-
series-essentials-of-public-speaking-6th-edition/

Test Bank for Dental Instruments A Pocket Guide, 4th

Edition: Boyd

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-dental-
instruments-a-pocket-guide-4th-edition-boyd/

Rhetorical Public Speaking 2nd Crick Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/rhetorical-public-speaking-2nd-
crick-test-bank/

THINK Public Speaking 1st Edition Engleberg Daly Test

Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/think-public-speaking-1st-
edition-engleberg-daly-test-bank/
Art of Public Speaking 12th Edition Stephen Lucas Test
Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/art-of-public-speaking-12th-
edition-stephen-lucas-test-bank/

Test Bank for Public Speaking: Strategies for Success

9th Edition Zarefsky

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-public-speaking-
strategies-for-success-9th-edition-zarefsky/

Test Bank for The Art of Public Speaking, 10th Edition

: Lewis

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-the-art-of-public-
speaking-10th-edition-lewis/

The Essential Elements of Public Speaking 5th Edition

DeVito Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/the-essential-elements-of-
public-speaking-5th-edition-devito-test-bank/

A Concise Public Speaking Handbook 4th Edition Beebe

Beebe Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/a-concise-public-speaking-
handbook-4th-edition-beebe-beebe-test-bank/
 7. The five canons of rhetoric are invention, adaptation, arrangement, timing, and delivery.
A) True
B) False

8. The contemporary term for any one of a variety of places used for discussing issues of
public interest is a public forum.
A) True
B) False

9. Unlike many forms of communication, public speaking is a skill you are born with.
A) True
B) False

10. Dyadic communication is between a speaker and a large, unknown audience.

A) True
B) False

11. The source, or sender, is the person who receives the message.
A) True
B) False

12. Creating, organizing, and producing the message is termed encoding.

A) True
B) False

13. The receiver decodes or interprets the message.

A) True
B) False

14. The audience's responses to a message are primarily nonverbal.

A) True
B) False

15. Interference with the message is known as noise.

A) True
B) False

Page 2
16. The channel is the content of the communication process.
A) True
B) False

17. Shared meaning is the mutual understanding of a message between speaker and
audience.
A) True
B) False

18. Being an audience-centered speaker means keeping the needs and values of your
audience in mind.
A) True
B) False

19. Benefits of public speaking do NOT include

A) learning practical skills and knowledge.
B) finding new ways to be an engaged citizen.
C) improving hand-eye coordination.
D) accomplishing professional and personal goals.

20. Which of the following is one of the five canons of rhetoric?

A) argument
B) delivery
C) persuasion
D) adaptation

21. Invention refers to

A) discovering evidence and arguments you will use to make your case.
B) organizing your ideas to suit your audience.
C) practicing the speech until it can be artfully delivered.
D) coming up with original gestures as a form of persuasion.

22. Communication between two people is called

A) mass communication.
B) small group communication.
C) dyadic communication.
D) public speaking.

Page 3
23. In this form of communication, the receiver is physically removed from the messenger,
and there is little or no interaction between the speaker and the audience.
A) mass communication
B) small group communication
C) public speaking
D) dyadic communication

24. Which of the following involves delivering a specific message to an in-person audience?
A) mass communication
B) dyadic communication
C) electronic communication
D) public speaking

25. All communication events include all the following EXCEPT

A) a source.
B) a message.
C) an electronic device.
D) a channel or medium.

26. Which of the following is the process of interpreting a message?

A) decoding
B) encoding
C) sending
D) channeling

27. Transforming ideas and thoughts into messages is called

A) encoding.
B) decoding.
C) receiving.
D) channeling.

28. The recipient of the source's message is

A) the encoder.
B) the channel.
C) the receiver.
D) the orator.

Page 4
29. The audience's response to a message is referred to as
A) shared meaning.
B) feedback.
C) the medium.
D) decoding.

30. When we refer to noise in the communication process, we are referring to

A) sounds that make it hard to hear the speaker.
B) any interference with the message.
C) the medium through which the message is sent.
D) speaking to a live audience rather than written communication.

31. Keeping the needs, values, attitudes, and wants of your listeners clearly in focus is being
A) audience-centered.
B) a receiver.
C) contextually aware.
D) a decoder.

Page 5
Answer Key
1. A
2. A
3. B
4. A
5. B
6. A
7. B
8. A
9. B
10. B
11. B
12. A
13. A
14. B
15. A
16. B
17. A
18. A
19. C
20. C
21. A
22. C
23. A
24. D
25. C
26. A
27. A
28. C
29. B
30. B
31. A

Page 6
1. Originally, the practice of giving speeches was known as ________ or oratory.

2. A form of communication between two people, such as a conversation, is ________

communication.

3. ________ is the process of interpreting a message.

4. The mutual understanding of a message between the speaker and the audience is called
______ _________.

5. ________ is the audience's verbal or nonverbal responses to a message.

6. ________, also called noise, is any physical, emotional, psychological, or environmental

barrier to communication.

7. Anything influencing the speaker, audience, occasion, or speech is called ________.

8. A clearly defined specific ________ ________ or goal helps the speaker maintain a
clear focus.

Page 7
Answer Key
1. rhetoric
2. dyadic
3. Decoding
4. shared meaning
5. Feedback
6. Interference
7. context
8. speech purpose

1. Discuss how public speaking skills relate to becoming a more engaged citizen.

2. List and describe three of the five canons of rhetoric.

3. Explain how the craft of public speaking uses conversational skills you already have.

4. Compare and contrast public speaking and writing: How are they similar, and how is
public speaking its own distinct discipline?

5. Discuss the shared characteristics of mass communication and public speaking.

6. List and describe one similarity and one difference between public speaking and small
group communication.

7. Give examples of interference in a public speaking situation.

8. Define what it means for a speaker to be audience-centered.

9. Why is it important for speakers to clearly define their goals?

Page 8
Answer Key
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Page 9
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
as democracies; they discussed their wants in popular assemblies or
folkmotes.” “The Slavs are fond of liberty,” writes the emperor
Mauricee; “they cannot bear unlimited rulers, and are not easily
brought to submission.” The same language is used also by the
emperor Leo.f “The Slavs,” says he, “are a free people, strongly
opposed to any subjection.” If the Byzantine historians do not speak
of the invasion of the Slavs into the limits of the empire during the
second part of the seventh century, it is because their migration took
at this time another direction: from the Carpathians they moved
toward the Vistula and the Dnieper.
During the ninth century, the
time of the founding of the first
principalities, the Dnieper, with
its numerous affluents on both
sides, formed the limit of the
Slavonic settlements to the east.
This barrier was broken only by
the Viatitchi, stretching as far to
the northeast as the source of
the Oka. On the north the Slavs
reached the great Valdai plateau
from which Russia’s largest
rivers descend, and the
southern part of the great lake
region, that of Ilmen.c
There is no indication that the
race is deficient in genius. It was
the Slavs who opened the way
to the west by two great
movements which inaugurated
the modern era—the
Renaissance and the
Reformation; by the discovery of
the laws that govern the
A Finnish Costume
universe, and the plea for liberty
of thought. The Pole Copernicus
was the herald of Galileo; the Czech, John Huss, the precursor of
Luther. Poland and Bohemia, the two Slav peoples most nearly
connected with the west by neighbourhood and religion, can cite a
long list of men distinguished in letters, science, politics, and war.
Ragusa alone could furnish an entire gallery of men talented along
all lines. There where remoteness from the west and foreign
oppression have made study impossible and prevented single
names from becoming widely known, the people have manifested
their genius in songs which lack none of the qualities inherent in the
most splendid poetry of the west. In that popular impersonal
literature which we admire so frankly in the romanceros of Spain, the
ballads of Scotland and Germany, the Slav, far from yielding the
palm to the Latin or the Teuton, perhaps excels both. Nothing more
truly poetical exists than the pesmes of Servia or the doumas of Little
Russia; for, by a sort of natural compensation, it is among the Slavs
least initiated into western culture that popular poetry has flowered
most freely.
In temperament and character the Slavs present an ensemble of
defects and qualities which unite them more nearly with the Latins
and Celts than with their neighbours the Germans. They are
characterised by a vivacity, a warmth, a mobility, a petulance, an
exuberance not always found to the same degree among even the
peoples of the south. Among the Slavs of purer blood these
characteristics have marked their political life with a mobile,
inconstant, and anarchical spirit which has rendered extremely
difficult their national existence and which, taken with their
geographical position, has been the great obstacle in the way of their
civilisation. The distinguishing faculty of the race is a certain flexibility
and elasticity of temperament and character which render it
adaptable to the reception and the reproduction of all sorts of diverse
ideas; the imitative faculty of the Slavs is well known. This gift is
everywhere distributed among them; this Slav malleability, peculiar
alike to Pole and Russian, is perhaps fundamentally but a result of
their historical progress and of their geographical position. But lately
entered in at the gate of civilisation, and during long years inferior to
the neighbouring races, they have always gone to school to the
others; instead of living by their own invention, they have lived by
borrowing, and the imitative
spirit has become their ruling
faculty, having been for them the
most useful as well as the most
widely exercised.
In the west the Slavs fell
under the influence of Rome; in
the east, under that of
Byzantium: hence the
antagonism which during long
centuries has set strife in the
midst of the two chief Slavonic
nations. United by their common
origin and the affinity of their
languages, they are, however,
separated by the very elements
of civilisation—religion, writing,
and calendar; therein lies the
secret of the moral and material
strife between Russia and
Poland—a strife which, after A Woman of Yakutsk
having nearly annihilated the
one, actually cost the other its
life; as though from the
Carpathian to the Ural, on those vast even plains, there was not
room at one time for two separate states.
In the northwest, on the banks of the Niemen and Dvina, appears
a strange group, incontestably of Indo-European origin yet isolated
amidst the peoples of Europe; harking back to the Slavs, yet forming
a parallel branch rather than offshoot—the Letto-Lithuanian group.
Shut away in the north by marshy forests, restricted by powerful
neighbours, the Lithuanian group long remained closed to all outer
influences, whether of East or West. Last of all the peoples of
Europe to accept Christianity, its language even to-day is the nearest
of European tongues to the Sanskrit. The bone of contention among
the Germans, the Poles, and the Russians, who each in turn
obtained a footing among them and left an influence on their religion,
they found themselves divided into Protestants, Catholics, and
Orthodox.
Mixed with Poles and Russians, menaced on both sides with
complete absorption, the Lithuanians and the Samogitians, their
brothers by race and language, still number in ancient Lithuania
nearly two million souls, Catholics for the most part; they formed the
majority of the population of Vilna and Kovno. In Prussia some two
hundred thousand Lithuanians constitute the representatives of the
ancient population of oriental Prussia, whose name is derived from a
people of that race which kept its language intact up to the
seventeenth century.
The second existing group of this family, the Letts, crossed
probably with Finns, number more than a million souls; they inhabit
chiefly Courland, Vitetesk and Livonia; but, converted, subjected,
and made slaves of by the Teutonic knights, they still live under the
dominion of the German barons of the Baltic provinces, with whom
they have nothing in common but their religion—Lutheranism. Like
the Finnish tribes outside of Finland, the Letts and Lithuanians,
scanty in number and widely scattered, are incapable of forming by
themselves a nation or a state. Out of this intermixture of races by
the assimilation of the ruder by the more civilised, was formed a new
people—a homogeneous nation. In fact, contrary to popular
prejudice there is in Russia something more than an intermixture of
diverse races—there is what we to-day call a “nationality”—as
united, as compact, and as self-conscious as any nation in the world.
Russia, notwithstanding all her various races, is yet no incoherent
mass, no political conglomeration or mosaic of peoples. She
resembles France in her national unity rather than Turkey or Austria.
If Russia must be compared to a mosaic, let it be to one of those
ancient pavements whose scheme is a single substance of solid
color edged with a border of diverse forms and shades—most of
Russia’s original alien populations being relegated to her borders
and forming around her a sort of belt of uneven width.
 It is in the centre of Russia that is found that uniformity of much
more marked among the Russians than among all other peoples of
Europe; from one end of the empire to the other the language
presents fewer dialects and less localisms than most of our western
languages. The cities all look alike; the peasants have the same
customs, the same manner of life. The nation resembles the country,
having the same unity, almost the same monotony as the plains
which it peoples.

The Great Russians and the Little Russians

There are, however, two principal types, almost two peoples,

speaking two dialects and wholly separated from each other: the
Great Russians and the Little Russians. In their qualities and in their
defects they represent in Russia the eternal contrast of north and
south. Their history is no less diversified than their nature; the first
have their centre at Moscow, the second at Kiev. Stretching, the one
to the northeast, the other to the southwest, these two unequal
halves of the nation do not precisely correspond to the two great
physical zones of Russia. This is due partly to nature, partly to
history, which has hindered the development of the one and fostered
that of the other. The southern steppes, open to every invasion, long
arrested the expansion of the Little Russians, who for centuries were
shut up in the basins of the Dnieper, the Bug, and the Dniester; while
the Great Russians spread freely in the north and east and
established themselves in the enormous basin of the Volga; masters
of nearly all the forest regions and of the great Ural Lake, they took
possession of the Black Belt and the steppes along the Volga and
the Don.
The White Russian inhabits Mohilev, Vitebsk, Grodno, Minsk—a
region possessing some of the finest forests in Russia, but whose
soil is marshy and unwholesome. United politically with the Little
Russian, the two have been classed under the name Western
Russians. Subjected at an early date by Lithuania, whose dialect
became its official language, White Russia was with the greater part
of Little Russia united to Poland, and was for centuries the object of
strife between that nation and the Muscovite czars, from the effects
of which strife she still bleeds. Of the three Russian tribes this is
perhaps the purest in blood; but thanks to the sterility of the soil and
the remoteness of the sea, she has remained the poorest and least
advanced in civilisation.
The Great Russians are the most vigorous and expansive element
of the Russian nation, albeit the most mixed. Finnish blood has left
its traces in their physique; Tatar dominion in their character. Before
the advent of the Romanovs they formed alone the Muscovite
Empire, and their czars took the title “Sovereign of all the Russias”
long before Alexis, father of Peter the Great, justified this title by the
annexation of the Ukraine. Hence Great Russia, under the name
Muscovite, has been considered by certain foreigners the true, the
only Russia. This is an error; since the Great Russian, the product of
the colonisation of central Russia by the western Russians before
the invasion of the Tatars antidates the state and even the village of
Moscow. If, therefrom has emerged the Muscovite autocracy, it is
impossible to cut the ties that bind it to the great Slav republic of the
world whose name is still the active symbol of liberty—Novgorod.
Least Slav of all the peoples that pretend to the name, the Great
Russian has been the coloniser of the race. His whole history has
been one long struggle against Asia; his conquests have contributed
to the aggrandisement of Europe. Long the vassal of the Tatar
khans, he never forgot under Asiatic domination his European origin;
and in the farthest limits of Muscovy the very name Asiatic is an
insult to the peasant.
Conqueror over Asia, influenced morally and physically by all the
populations assimilated or subjugated by him in his march from the
Dnieper to the Ural, the Great Russian lost something of his
independence, his pride, his individuality; but he gained in stability
and solidity.
In spite of the obvious evidences of his mixed blood, the Great
Russian is in perfect harmony with the Caucasian race by the
exterior characteristics which distinguish it—his stature, his
complexion, the colour of his hair and eyes. He is apt to be tall, his
skin is white, his eyes are very often blue; his hair is usually blond,
light chestnut, or red. The long heavy beard so dear to the heart of
the moujik and which all the persecutions of Peter the Great failed to
induce him to dispense with, is in itself a mark of race, as nothing
could be smoother than the chin of the Mongol, the Chinese, or the
Japanese.
The Little Russians dwelling in the south have brown or dark
chestnut hair, and are of purer race, dwelling nearer to the Occident;
they pride themselves upon their comparatively unmixed blood, their
more temperate climate, their less dreary land; they are a more
imaginative, more dreamy, more poetic people than their neighbours
of the north. It is in Little Russia that the Zaparogians belong, the
most celebrated of those Cossack tribes which in the Ukraine or the
southern steppes played so important a rôle between the Poles, the
Tatars, and the Turks, and whose name will ever remain in Russia
the synonym of freedom and independence. Even to-day the
Zaparogian, with his liberal or democratic tradition, remains the more
or less conscious and avowed ideal of the majority of the Little
Russians. Another reason, in the history of the Ukraine, which
makes for democratic instincts in the Little Russians is the foreign
origin and denaturalisation of a great part of the higher classes
among the Poles and Great Russians. From this double motive the
Little Russian is perhaps more susceptible to political aspirations,
more accessible to revolutionary seduction than his brother of Great
Russia.
Of the Cossacks of to-day only those of the Black Sea
transplanted to the Kuban between the sea of Azov and the
Caucasus are Little Russians; the Cossacks of the Don and the Ural
are Great Russians.b

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANISATION

It is extremely difficult to draw an approximately correct picture of

the life of the Russian Slavs even in its barest outlines. Among the
widely scattered tribes there was hardly more than one element
tending towards union—that of language. Frequent contact with the
populations living on their borders and wedged in between them,
must of itself have produced considerable modifications in their
mode of life.
The entire social organisation of the early Slavs, like that of all
other Aryan and non-Aryan peoples, was based upon kinship or
descent from a common ancestor.a Even in the Varangian period we
can discover traces of this primeval organisation in clans among a
few tribes. In time of peace these clans were in the habit of meeting
together in order to discuss common affairs. The chroniclerh uses
the expression “came together” when he wants to speak of decisions
taken in common. This practice seems to have been known to all
Slavonic peoples. Among the Russian Slavs these folkmotes were
known under the name of vetché, and they remained to the end of
their existence a necessary part of the political institutions, not only
in the northern city republics, Novgorod and Pskov, but also in nearly
all the principalities of Russia, with the exception of one of the latest
founded, Moscow.
Among these tribes we also find native princes or clan chieftains
(kniaz), and it is also certain that as early as the ninth century there
were among the Russian Slavs private owners of tracts of land who
occupied an advantageous position as compared with the great bulk
of the members of the community, and from whom the latter nobles
(boyars) were descended. But on the whole the village community
formed the nucleus of the entire political and economic organisation
of the eastern or Russian Slavs. It was a world complete in itself,
self-sufficient and independent both economically and juridically. The
community was the possessor of the soil, which was periodically
redistributed among its component members; the separate
patriarchal families, and the assembly of the heads of the families
was the body that judged and decided all things pertaining to the
community. It is thus that we are to understand the apparently
contradictory reports of the Byzantine writers, who say, on the one
hand, that the Slavs know of no government and do not obey any
individual, and on the other hand speak of a popular government that
has existed from ancient times, that discusses all things in common,
and that has many petty princes at its head.
 It is self-evident that a government adapted to the requirements of
a village community must assume a different character as soon as
the settlement gains in extent and assumes the character of a city.
And cities grew up quite early in northern and southwestern Russia.
Toward the end of the ninth century Kiev had a wide fame as a large
and populous city. Constantine Porphyrogenitus also knows of
Novgorod, Smolensk, Linbetch, Tchernigov, Vishgorod, and Vititchev;
in the time of Igor more than twenty cities can be named. The
question as to the origin of Russian cities has called forth much
debate and an extensive literature.
The chief difficulty lies in a proper understanding of the so-called
Bavarian geographer, a writer of the ninth or tenth century, who
counts, in his description of the northern Slavs, some twenty peoples
with more than 3,760 cities. These latter he calls now civitates, now
urbes, without indicating that there is any distinction of meaning to
be attached to these terms, so that we are left to conclude that both
names denote settlements. The present consensus of opinion as to
those old Russian cities is as follows:
The old word grad, (now gorod, city) denoted any space
surrounded by a palisade or earthworks. Thus there were wooden
and earthen cities built for protection in time of war, and every
community had its city. But in the regions that offered a natural
protection by their inaccessible and swampy character the need for
these cities was not so urgent, so that the wooded and marshy north
had fewer cities than the open south. Numerous remains of these
ancient earth piles enable us to recognise the position and wide
extension of these old Slavonic settlements. Sometimes they are
circular in form, others consist of a double angular trench with
outlying earthworks. These are to be distinguished from the wooden
cities, which were originally built for trading purposes, and only later
were fenced in and enclosed, so that they could also serve for
protective purposes. They were built in favourable situations,
adjacent to some trade route. The more complex social relations that
grew up in them demanded a more thorough organisation of social
and political life, for which the village community did indeed furnish
the basis, but which, in the long run, was found to be inadequate.
The questions of general interest to the city were settled in the first
place by the vetché, which greatly resembled the village gathering of
the family elders.
But the need of a power which should decide all questions that
might arise while the vetché was in abeyance, was more pressing in
the cities, and favoured the development of the power—originally
very limited,—of the kniazes or princes, who were elective and
whose dignity was neither hereditary nor lifelong. The prince did not
even have a permanent military following: his dignity was of a purely
personal nature. It is certain that not he but the vetché had the power
to make laws. Our information concerning the political organisation
of the earliest period of Russian history is very scanty, and we know
more of what it lacked than of what it possessed. What strikes us
most is the absence of a military organisation. In times of danger,
those who could defend themselves took up arms, the remainder
fled to places of safety.
Nor can we discern with certainty any social differentiation into
classes. On the other hand we know that a thriving trade was being
carried on in the ninth century along the route which led from the gulf
of Finland through Lake Ilmen to the Dvina and down the Dnieper to
the Black Sea and thence to Greece. The oldest wooden cities lay
along the famous route of the Varangians to the Greek Empire, along
which amidst many dangers, the raw products of the north were
exchanged for the finished commodities of the south. It is owing to
these dangers that the trader had also to be a warrior, and it is into
those ancient trade relations—peaceful intercourse enforced by
warlike means—that we are to look for the most important arms of
the old Russian state. Who discovered this trade route? We see no
compelling reason to deny the honour to the Slavs, although it is
established beyond doubt that even before the middle of the ninth
century the Northmen reached Byzantium along this route. On the
other hand, the marauding and trading expeditions which were
carried on by Russians in the tenth century and earlier to the sea of
Azov, the Caspian, and further still to the Caucasus and the shores
of Persia, emanated from Scandinavians, and not from Slavs.
 RELIGION

The religious conceptions of

the Russian Slavs were but little
developed. All other Aryan
peoples, including the western
Slavs, excel them in this
respect. There was neither a
distinct priestly class, nor were
there images of the gods, nor
were there distinct types of
gods. The Arabian travellers
almost unanimously ascribe sun
worship to the eastern Slavs,
and Byzantine writers before the
ninth century tell of a belief in a
supreme being who rules the
universe. It is now generally
accepted that this supreme god
was called Svarog and was a
personification of heaven and
light, while sun and fire were
regarded as his children. Perun,
the thunder god, and Veles, god
of herds, both mentioned by the
oldest chronicler, must be
brought in relation to the sun.
But it is highly probable that Native of Yakutsk
these two gods were taken over
by the Slavs from their
Varangian rulers. Water also was regarded as sacred, and, like the
forest, it was filled with animate beings which must be propitiated
with sacrifices, since they had relations to human beings. Water, fire,
and earth were related to death. The russalki, shades of the dead,
swam about in the water, and the bodies of the dead were given up
to the flames in order to make easier their passage to the realm of
the dead (rai). The slaves, as well as the wife and the domestic
animals were burned on the funeral pyre, and cremation was
preceded by a feast and games in honour of the dead. But burial
also was common.g
We find the Russian Slavs about the middle
[862 a.d.] of the ninth century split up into numerous
tribes, settled on the soil and engaged chiefly in
hunting and agriculture. A continental people, everywhere confining
itself to the inland country, leaving the sea-borders to non-Slavonic
tribes. Politically they were in the midst of the transition from the clan
organisation to the village community, without any central authority,
without any military organisation, and but little able to resist the
inroads from north, south, and east, of populations who lived by
plunder.a The primitive condition of their political organisation, their
extreme subdivision into tribes and cantons, the endless warfare of
canton with canton, delivered them up defenceless to every invader.
While the Slavs of the south paid tribute to the Chazars, the Slavs of
Ilmen, exhausted by internecine conflicts, decided to call in the
Varangians. “Let us seek,” they said, “a prince who will govern us
and reason with us justly. Then,” continues Nestor,h “the Tchud, the
Slavs (of Novgorod), the Krivitchi, and other confederate tribes said
to the Varangian princes: ‘Our land is great and has everything in
abundance, but it lacks order and justice; come and take possession
and rule over us.’”

THE VARANGIAN PERIOD (862-1054 A.D.)

To the elements that have obtained a permanent foothold on the

soil of modern Russia and affected the Slavs in a greater or less
degree, a new one must now be added in the Varango-Russians.
The brave inhabitants of Sweden and Norway, who were known in
western Europe under the name if Northman or Normans, directed
their first warlike expeditions against their Slavonian and Finnish
neighbours. The flotillas of the vikings were directed to the shores of
the Baltic, and austrvegr—the eastern route—was the name they
gave to the journey into the country of the Finns and Slavs on the
gulf of Finland and further inland. Gardar was the name they gave to
the Slavo-Finnish settlements, Holmgardar was their name for
Novgorod, Kaenungardar for Kiev. Mikligardar, for Constantinople,
shows that the Normans first learned to know that city through the
eastern Slavs. The Slavs, on the other hand, called those
Scandinavians by a name given to them by the Finns—Rus. The
Scandinavians who sent their surplus of fighting men to Russia and
were destined to found the Russian state, lived—as we learn from
the form of the names that have come down to us—in Upland,
Södermanland, and Östergötland, that is, on the east coast of
Sweden north of Lake Mälar. In these lands and throughout the
Scandinavian north, men who were bound to military chiefs by a vow
of fidelity were called vaeringr (pl. vaeringjar, O. Sw. Warung), a
name changed by the eastern Slavs into variag. It was these Russo-
Varangians who founded the state of Old Russia.g
At the call of the Slavs of Novgorod and their allies, three
Varangian brothers, Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor (Scand. Hrurekr,
Sikniutr, Thorwardr), gathered together their kindred and armed
followers, or drujina, and established themselves on the northern
frontiers of the Slavs: Sineus to the northeast, on the White Lake;
Rurik, the eldest, in the centre, on Lake Ladoga near the Volkhov
River, where he founded the city of Ladoga; and Truvor to the
northwest, at Izborsk, near Lake Pskov. The year 862 is usually
assigned as the date in which the Varangians settled in Russia, and
it is the official year for the founding of the Russian empire; but it is
more probable that they had come before that date.
Shortly after their settlement the two younger
[865-907 a.d.] brothers died and Rurik became sole chief of all
the Varangian bands in northern Russia and
assumed the title of grand-prince. He now became so powerful that
he was able to subject Novgorod, which he made the capital of an
empire stretching from the lakes in the north to the sources of the
Dnieper in the south.a The country drained by that river was also
occupied by Varangians, but independently of Rurik. Two chiefs by
the name of Askold and Dir (Scand. Höskaldr and Dyri) wrested Kiev
from the Chazars and ruled over the Polians, the most civilized tribe
of the eastern Slavs. In 865 they led against Byzantium an
expedition which consisted of at least two hundred ships, and
according to Venetian accounts of three hundred and sixty ships, to
which would correspond an army of about fourteen thousand
warriors. A tempest arose and destroyed the fleet in the sea of
Marmora. The barbarians attributed their disaster to the wonder-
working virgin, and it is reported that Askold embraced Christianity.
This expedition has a two-fold importance: (1) it gives us the first
certain date in Russian history; and (2) it introduced the seeds of
Christianity into Russia. In the following year, 866, the patriarch
Photius established a bishopric at Kiev.
After the death of his brothers Rurik reigned till his death in 879,
when he was succeeded, not by his son Igor (Scand. Ingvarr), but by
the eldest member of his family Oleg (Scand. Helge). In 882 he set
out from Novgorod with an army composed of Varangians and the
subject Slavo-Finnish tribes—Tchuds, Merians, Vesians, Ilmen
Slavs, and Krivitchi—sailed down the upper Dnieper, took Smolensk,
freed the Radimichi and the Severians from the yoke of the Chazars
and incorporated them in his empire, and finally reached Kiev.
Askold and Dir were then got rid of by an act of treachery, and Kiev
was made the capital of an empire embracing nearly all the eastern
Slavs.

The Treaty with Constantinople

But Kiev was only one of the stages in the southward progress of
the Varangians. The great city of the east, Constantinople, was the
glittering prize that dazzled their eyes and was ever regarded as the
goal of their ambition. Accordingly, in 907, Oleg sailed with a fleet of
two thousand boats and eighty thousand men, and reached the
gates of Constantinople. The frightened emperor was obliged to pay
a large ransom for the city and to agree to a treaty of free
commercial intercourse between the Russians and the Greeks. A
particular district in the suburbs of the city was assigned as the place
of residence for Russian traders, but the city itself could be visited by
no more than fifty Russians simultaneously, who were to be unarmed
and accompanied by an imperial officer.ga
 Oleg’s Varangian guard, who seem to have been also his council,
were parties with him to this treaty, for their assent appears to have
been requisite to give validity to an agreement affecting the amount
of their gains as conquerors. These warriors swore to the treaty by
their gods Perun and Volos, and by their arms, placed before them
on the ground: their shields, their rings, their naked swords, the
things they loved and honoured most. The gorged barbarian then
departed with his rich booty to Kiev, to enjoy there an uncontested
authority, and the title of Wise Man or Magician, unanimously
conferred upon him by the admiration of his Slavonic subjects.

The First Written Document of Russian History (911 A.D.)

Three years after this event, in 911, Oleg sent

[911-913 a.d.] ambassadors to Constantinople to renew the
treaty of alliance and commerce between the
two empires. This treaty, preserved in the old chronicle of Nestor, is
the first written monument of Russian history, for all previous treaties
were verbal. It is of value, as presenting to us some customs of the
times in which it was negotiated.
Here follow some of the articles that were signed by the
sovereigns of Constantinople and of Kiev respectively:
II. “If a Greek commit any outrage on a Russian, or a Russian on a
Greek, and it be not sufficiently proved, the oath of the accuser shall
be taken, and justice be done.
III. “If a Russian kill a Christian, or a Christian kill a Russian, the
assassin shall be put to death on the very spot where the crime was
committed. If the murderer take to flight and be domiciliated, the
portion of his fortune, which belongs to him according to law, shall be
adjudged to the next of kin to the deceased; and the wife of the
murderer shall obtain the other portion of the estate which, by law,
should belong to him.
IV. “He who strikes another with a sword, or with any other
weapon, shall pay three litres of gold, according to the Russian law.
If he have not that sum, and he affirms it upon oath, he shall give the
party injured all he has, to the garment he has on.
V. “If a Russian commit a theft on a Greek, or a Greek on a
Russian, and he be taken in the act and killed by the proprietor, no
pursuit shall be had for avenging his death. But if the proprietor can
seize him, bind him, and bring him to the judge, he shall take back
the things stolen, and the thief shall pay him the triple of their value.
X. “If a Russian in the service of the emperor, or travelling in the
dominions of that prince, shall happen to die without having disposed
of his goods, and has none of his near relations about him, his
property shall be sent to Russia to his heirs; and, if he have
bequeathed them by testament, they shall be in like manner remitted
to the legatee.”
The names of Oleg’s ambassadors who negotiated this treaty of
peace, show that all of them were Northmen. From this we may
conclude that the government of the country was as yet wholly in the
hands of the conquerors.

THE REIGN OF IGOR

Igor, the son of Rurik, who was married to a Scandinavian

princess named Olga (Helga), was nearly forty years of age when he
succeeded Oleg in 913. He ascended the throne under trying
circumstance, for the death of the victor revived the courage of the
vanquished and the Drevlians raised the standard of revolt against
Kiev; but Igor soon quelled them, and punished them by augmenting
their tribute. The Uglitches, who dwelt on the southern side of the
Dnieper, contended longer for their liberty against the voyevod
Sveneld, whom Igor had despatched against them. One of their
principal towns held out a siege of three years. At last they too were
subdued and made tributary.
Meanwhile new enemies, formidable from their numbers and their
thirst for pillage, showed themselves on the frontiers of Russia: these
were the Petchenegs, famous in the Russian, Byzantine, and
Hungarian annals, from the tenth to the twelfth century. They were a
nomad people, of the Turcoman stock, whose only wealth consisted
in their lances, bows and arrows, their flocks and herds, and their
swift horses, which they managed with astonishing address. The
only objects of their desires were fat pastures for their cattle, and rich
neighbours to plunder. Having come from the east they established
themselves along the northern shores of the Black Sea. Thenceforth
occupying the ground between the Greek and the Russian empires,
subsidised by the one for its defence, and courted by the other from
commercial motives—for the cataracts of the Dnieper and the
mouths of the Danube were in the hands of those marauders—the
Petchenegs were enabled for more than two hundred years to
indulge their ruling propensity at the expense of their neighbours.
Having concluded a treaty with Igor, they remained for five years
without molesting Russia; at least Nestor does not speak of any war
with them until 920, nor had tradition afforded him any clue to the
result of that campaign.
The reign of Igor was hardly distinguished by
[920-944 a.d.] any important event until the year 941, when, in
imitation of his guardian, he engaged in an
expedition against Constantinople. If the chroniclers do not
exaggerate, Igor entered the Black Sea with ten thousand barks,
each carrying forty men. The imperial troops being at a distance, he
had time to overrun and ravage Paphlagonia, Pontus, and Bithynia.
Nestor speaks with deep abhorrence of the ferocity displayed by the
Russians on this occasion; nothing to which they could apply fire or
sword escaped their wanton lust of destruction, and their prisoners
were invariably massacred in the most atrocious manner—crucified,
impaled, cut to pieces, buried alive, or tied to stakes to serve as
butts for the archers. At last the Greek fleet encountered the Russian
as it rode at anchor near Pharos, prepared for battle and confident of
victory. But the terrible Greek fire launched against the invaders
struck them with such dismay that they fled in disorder to the coasts
of Asia Minor. Descending there to pillage, they were again routed by
the land forces, and escaped by night in their barks, to lose many of
them in another severe naval defeat. By the confession of the
Russian chronicles, Igor scarcely took back with him a third part of
his army.
 Instead of being discouraged by these disasters, Igor prepared to
revenge them. In 944 he collected new forces [which included a
large number of Scandinavians collected for this special purpose by
Igor’s recruiting agents], took the Petchenegs into his pay, exacting
hostages for their fidelity, and again set out for Greece. But scarcely
had he reached the mouths of the Danube when he was met by
ambassadors from the emperor Romanus, with an offer to pay him
the same tribute as had been exacted by Oleg. Igor halted and
communicated this offer to his chief men, whose opinions on the
matter are thus reported by Nestor: “If Cæsar makes such
proposals,” said they, “is it not better to get gold, silver, and precious
stuffs, without fighting? Can we tell who will be the victor, and who
the vanquished? And can we guess what may befall us at sea? It is
not solid ground that is under our feet, but the depths of the waters,
where all men run the same risks.”
In accordance with these views Igor granted peace to the empire
on the proposed conditions, and the following year he concluded
with the emperor a treaty, which was in part a renewal of that made
by Oleg.[3] Of the fifty names attached on the part of Russia to this
second treaty, three are Slavonic, the rest Norman.
Igor, being now advanced in years, was
[948 a.d.] naturally desirous of repose, but the insatiable
cupidity of his comrades in arms forced him to
go to war. From the complaints of his warriors it appears that the
Russian, like the German princes, furnished their faithful band with
clothing, arms, horses, and provisions. “We are naked,” Igor’s
companions and guards said to him, “while the companions of
Sveneld have beautiful arms and fine clothing. Come with us and
levy contributions, that we may be in plenty with thee.” It was
customary with the grand prince to leave Kiev every year, in
November, with an army, and not to return until April, after having
visited his cities and received their tributes. When the prince’s
magazine was empty, and the annual contributions were not
sufficient, it became necessary to find new enemies to subject to
exactions, or to treat as enemies the tribes that had submitted. To
the latter expedient Igor now resorted against the Drevlians.
Marching into their country he surcharged them with onerous
tributes, besides suffering his guards to plunder them with impunity.
His easy success in this rapacious foray tempted him to his
destruction. After quitting the country of his oppressed tributaries, the
thought struck him that more might yet be squeezed out of them.
With this view he sent on his army to Kiev, probably because he did
not wish to let his voyevods or lieutenants share the fruit of his
contemplated extortions, and went back with a small force among
the Drevlians, who, driven to extremity, massacred him and the
whole of his guard near their town of Iskorost.i

THE REGENCY OF OLGA

Olga, Igor’s widow, assumed the regency in the name of her son
Sviatoslav, then of tender age. Her first care was to revenge herself
upon the Drevlians. In Nestor’s narrative it is impossible to separate
the historical part from the epic. The Russian chronicler recounts in
detail how the Drevlians sent two deputations to Olga to appease her
and to offer her the hand of their prince; how she caused their death
by treachery, some being buried alive, while others were stifled in a
bath-house; how she besieged their city of Iskorost and offered to
grant them peace on payment of a tribute of three pigeons and three
sparrows for each house; how she attached lighted tow to the birds
and then sent them off to the wooden city, where the barns and the
thatched roofs were immediately set on fire; how, finally, she
massacred part of the inhabitants of Iskorost and reduced the rest to
slavery.
But it was this vindictive barbarian woman that was the first of the
ruling house of Rurik to adopt Christianity.d We have seen before
how Christianity was planted in Kiev under the protection of Askold
and Dir, and how the converts to the new religion were specially
referred to in the commercial treaty between Oleg and the Byzantine
emperor. There existed a Christian community at Kiev but it was to
Constantinople that Olga went to be baptised in the presence of the
patriarch and the emperor. She assumed the Christian name of
Helena, and after her death she was canonised in the Russian
church. On her return she tried also to convert her son Sviatoslav,
who had by this time become the reigning prince, but all her efforts
were unavailing. He dreaded the ridicule of the fierce warriors whom
he had gathered about himself. And no doubt the religion of Christ
was little in consonance with the martial character of this true son of
the vikings. The chronicle of Nestor gives the following embellished
account of Olga’s conversion:a

Nestor Tells of the Baptism of Olga

In the year 948 Olga went to the Greeks and came to Tsargorod
(Constantinople). At that time the emperor was Zimischius,[4] and
Olga came to him, and seeing that she was of beautiful visage and
prudent mind, the emperor admired her intelligence as he conversed
with her and said to her: “Thou art worthy to reign with us in this city.”
When she heard these words she said to the emperor: “I am a
heathen, if you wish me to be baptised, baptise me yourself;
otherwise I will not be baptised.” So the emperor and patriarch
baptised her. When she was enlightened she rejoiced in body and
soul, and the patriarch instructed her in the faith and said to her:
“Blessed art thou among Russian women, for thou hast loved light
and cast away darkness; the sons of Russia shall bless thee unto
the last generation of thy descendants.” And at her baptism she was
given the name of Helena, who was in ancient times empress and
mother of Constantine the Great. And the patriarch blessed Olga and
let her go.
After the baptism the emperor sent for her and said to her: “I will
take thee for my wife.”
She answered: “How canst thou wish to take me for thy wife when
thou thyself hast baptised me and called me daughter? for with the
Christians this is unlawful and thou thyself knowest it.”
And the emperor said: “Thou hast deceived me, Olga,” and he
gave her many presents of gold and silver, and silk and vases and
let her depart, calling her daughter.