5 Steps to a 5: AP Chemistry 2023 Elite

Student Edition John Moore

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-chemistry-2023-elite-student-editio
n-john-moore/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

5 Steps to a 5: AP Chemistry 2021 1, Elite Student

Edition John T. Moore

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-
chemistry-2021-1-elite-student-edition-john-t-moore/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Chemistry 2023 (5 Steps to a 5) John

Moore

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-
chemistry-2023-5-steps-to-a-5-john-moore/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Calculus AB 2023 Elite Student

Edition William Ma

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-calculus-
ab-2023-elite-student-edition-william-ma/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Calculus BC 2023, Elite Student

Edition William Ma

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-calculus-
bc-2023-elite-student-edition-william-ma/
5 Steps to a 5: AP Chemistry 2022 John T. Moore

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-
chemistry-2022-john-t-moore/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Chemistry 2024 John T. Moore

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-
chemistry-2024-john-t-moore/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Computer Science Principles 2023 (5

Steps to a 5), Elite Student Edition Julie Schacht Sway

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-computer-science-
principles-2023-5-steps-to-a-5-elite-student-edition-julie-
schacht-sway/

5 Steps to a 5: AP English Literature and Composition

2023 (5 Steps to a 5), Elite Student Edition Estelle M.
Rankin

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-english-
literature-and-composition-2023-5-steps-to-a-5-elite-student-
edition-estelle-m-rankin/

5 Steps to a 5: AP Physics 1 Algebra-Based 2023 (5

Steps to a 5), Elite Student Edition Greg Jacobs

https://ebookmass.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-
physics-1-algebra-based-2023-5-steps-to-a-5-elite-student-
edition-greg-jacobs/
Copyright © 2022, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 by McGraw Hill. All
rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States
Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database
or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
publisher.

ISBN: 978-1-26-448414-0
MHID: 1-26-448414-3

The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this
title: ISBN: 978-1-26-448356-3, MHID: 1-26-448356-2.

eBook conversion by codeMantra

Version 1.0

All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather

than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a
trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and
to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of
infringement of the trademark. Where such designations appear in
this book, they have been printed with initial caps.

McGraw-Hill Education eBooks are available at special quantity

discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions or for use in
corporate training programs. To contact a representative, please visit
the Contact Us page at www.mhprofessional.com.

McGraw Hill, the McGraw Hill logo, 5 Steps to a 5, and related trade
dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of McGraw Hill and/or
its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be
used without written permission. All other trademarks are the
property of their respective owners. McGraw Hill is not associated
with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
AP, Advanced Placement Program, and College Board are registered
trademarks of the College Board, which was not involved in the
production of, and does not endorse, this product.

TERMS OF USE

This is a copyrighted work and McGraw-Hill Education and its

licensors reserve all rights in and to the work. Use of this work is
subject to these terms. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act
of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the work,
you may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce,
modify, create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute,
disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it
without McGraw-Hill Education’s prior consent. You may use the
work for your own noncommercial and personal use; any other use
of the work is strictly prohibited. Your right to use the work may be
terminated if you fail to comply with these terms.

THE WORK IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” McGRAW-HILL EDUCATION AND

ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES AS TO
THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY OR COMPLETENESS OF OR RESULTS
TO BE OBTAINED FROM USING THE WORK, INCLUDING ANY
INFORMATION THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE WORK VIA
HYPERLINK OR OTHERWISE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY
WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. McGraw-Hill Education and its licensors do
not warrant or guarantee that the functions contained in the work
will meet your requirements or that its operation will be
uninterrupted or error free. Neither McGraw-Hill Education nor its
licensors shall be liable to you or anyone else for any inaccuracy,
error or omission, regardless of cause, in the work or for any
damages resulting therefrom. McGraw-Hill Education has no
responsibility for the content of any information accessed through
the work. Under no circumstances shall McGraw-Hill Education
and/or its licensors be liable for any indirect, incidental, special,
punitive, consequential or similar damages that result from the use
of or inability to use the work, even if any of them has been advised
of the possibility of such damages. This limitation of liability shall
apply to any claim or cause whatsoever whether such claim or cause
arises in contract, tort or otherwise.

Cross-Platform Prep Course

Single-User License Terms and Conditions
Access to the digital content included with this book is governedby
the McGraw Hill License Agreement outlined below. By using this
digital content you agree to the terms of that license.
DURATION OF LICENSE. Access to the Cross-Platform Prep
Course will expire one year from your initial login.
Your purchase of this McGraw Hill product, including its access
code through a retail store, is subject to the refund policy of that
store.
The Content is a copyrighted work of McGraw Hill and McGraw
Hill reserves all rights in and to the Content. The Work is © 2022 by
McGraw Hill.
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER. The user is receiving only a
limited right to use the Content for user’s own internal and personal
use, dependent on purchase and continued ownership of this Cross-
Platform product. The user may not reproduce, forward, modify,
create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute,
disseminate, sell, publish, or sublicense the Content or in any way
commingle the Content with other third-party content, without
McGraw Hill’s consent.
LIMITED WARRANTY. The McGraw Hill Content is provided on an
“as is” basis. Neither McGraw Hill nor its licensors make any
guarantees or warranties of any kind, either express or implied,
including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose or use as to any McGraw Hill Content
or the information therein or any warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness, currentness, or results to be obtained from, accessing
or suing the McGraw Hill content, or any material referenced in such
content or any information entered into licensee’s product by users
or other persons and/or any material available on or that can be
accessed through the licensee’s product (including via any hyperlink
or otherwise) or as to non-infringement of thirdparty rights. Any
warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, are disclaimed.
Any material or data obtained through use of the McGraw Hill
content is at your own discretion and risk and user understands that
it will be solely responsible for any resulting damage to its computer
system or loss of data.
Neither McGraw Hill nor its licensors shall be liable to any
subscriber or to any user or anyone else for any inaccuracy, delay,
interruption in service, error or omission, regardless of cause, or for
any damage resulting therefrom.
In no event will McGraw Hill or its licensors be liable for any
indirect, special or consequential damages, including but not limited
to, lost time, lost money, lost profits or good will, whether in
contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise, and whether or not such
damages are foreseen or unforeseen with respect to any use of the
McGraw Hill content.
 CONTENTS

Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
Introduction: The Five-Step Program

STEP 1 Set Up Your Study Program

1 What You Need to Know About the AP Chemistry
Exam
Background of the Advanced Placement Program
Who Writes the AP Chemistry Exam?
The AP Grades and Who Receives Them
Reasons for Taking the AP Chemistry Exam
Questions Frequently Asked About the AP Chemistry
Exam
2 How to Plan Your Time
Three Approaches to Preparing for the AP Chemistry
Exam
Calendar for Each Plan

STEP 2 Determine Your Test Readiness

3 Take a Diagnostic Exam
Getting Started: The Diagnostic Exam
AP Chemistry Final Practice Exam, Section I (Multiple
Choice)
Answers and Explanations for Final Practice Exam,
Section I (Multiple Choice)
 AP Chemistry Final Practice Exam, Section II (Free
Response)
Answers and Explanations for Final Practice Exam,
Section II (Free Response)
Scoring and Interpretation

STEP 3 Develop Strategies for Success

4 How to Approach Each Question Type
Multiple-Choice Questions
Free-Response Questions

STEP 4 Review the Knowledge You Need to Score High

5 Basics
Units and Measurements
Dimensional Analysis—the Factor Label Method
The States of Matter
Phase Diagrams
The Structure of the Atom
Oxidation Numbers
Nomenclature Overview
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
6 Stoichiometry
Moles and Molar Mass
Percent Composition and Empirical Formulas
Introduction to Reactions
Reaction Stoichiometry
 Limiting Reactants
Percent Yield
Molarity and Solution Calculations
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
7 Spectroscopy, Light, and Electrons
The Nature of Light
Spectroscopy and the Electromagnetic Spectrum
Beer-Lambert Law
Wave Properties of Matter
Atomic Spectra
Atomic Orbitals
Photoelectron (Photoemission) Spectroscopy (PES)
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
8 Bonding
Lewis Electron-Dot Structures
Ionic and Covalent Bonding
Molecular Geometry—VSEPR
Valence Bond Theory
Molecular Orbital Theory
Resonance
 Bond Length, Strength, and Magnetic Properties
Structure of Metals and Alloys
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
9 Solids, Liquids, and Intermolecular Forces
Structures and Intermolecular Forces
The Liquid State
The Solid State
Relationship of Intermolecular Forces to Phase Changes
Potential Energy
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
10 Gases
Kinetic Molecular Theory
Gas Law Relationships
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
11 Solutions
Concentration Units
Electrolytes and Nonelectrolytes
Colligative Properties
Colloids
Composition of Mixtures
Separation of Solutions and Mixtures Chromatography
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Questions
Answers and Explanations
Rapid Review
12 Reactions and Periodicity
AP Exam Format
General Aspects of Chemical Reactions and Equations
General Properties of Aqueous Solutions
Precipitation Reactions
Oxidation–Reduction Reactions
Coordination Compounds
Acid–Base Reactions
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
13 Kinetics
How Reactions Occur—Collision Model
Rates of Reaction
 Integrated Rate Laws
Reaction Energy Profile
Activation Energy
Reaction Mechanisms
Steady-State Approximation
Multistep Reaction Energy Profile
Catalysts
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
14 Thermodynamics
Energy Diagrams
Heat Transfer and Thermal Equilibrium
Calorimetry
Energy of Phase Changes
Introduction to Enthalpy of Reaction
Bond Enthalpies
Laws of Thermodynamics
Hess’s Law
Enthalpies of Formation
Thermodynamics and Equilibrium
Thermodynamic and Kinetic Control
Coupled Reactions
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
 Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
15 Equilibrium
Equilibrium Expressions
Magnitude of the Equilibrium Constant
Properties of the Equilibrium Constant
Calculating Equilibrium Concentrations
Representations of Equilibrium
Le Châtelier’s Principle
Solubility Equilibria
Common-Ion Effect
pH and Solubility
Free Energy of Dissolution
Other Equilibria
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
16 Acids and Bases
Acid-Base Equilibrium
Ka—the Acid Dissociation Constant
Kw—the Water Dissociation Constant
Molecular Structure of Acids and Bases
pH
Kb—the Base Dissociation Constant
Acidic/Basic Properties of Salts
Buffers
Acid–Base Reactions and Buffers
Titration Equilibria
 Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
17 Electrochemistry
Redox Reactions
Electrochemical Cells
Quantitative Aspects of Electrochemistry
Nernst Equation
Electrolysis and Faraday’s Law
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
Rapid Review
Additional Review and Applications
18 Nuclear Chemistry
Nuclear Reactions
Natural Radioactive Decay Modes
Nuclear Stability
Nuclear Decay Calculations
Mass–Energy Relationships
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Question
Answer and Explanation
 Rapid Review
19 Organic Chemistry
Hydrocarbons
Structural Isomerism
Common Functional Groups
Acid–Base Chemistry
Experiments
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Questions
Answers and Explanations
Rapid Review
20 Experimental Investigations
Experiment 1: Spectroscopy
Experiment 2: Spectrophotometry
Experiment 3: Gravimetric Analysis
Experiment 4: Titration
Experiment 5: Chromatography
Experiment 6: Determination of the Type of Bonding in
Solid Samples
Experiment 7: Stoichiometry
Experiment 8: Redox Titration
Experiment 9: Chemical and Physical Changes
Experiment 10: Kinetics
Experiment 11: Rate Laws
Experiment 12: Calorimetry
Experiment 13: Chemical Equilibrium—Le Châtelier’s
Principle
Experiment 14: Acid–Base Titrations
Experiment 15: Buffer pH
Experiment 16: The Capacity of a Buffer
 Common Mistakes to Avoid
Review Questions
Answers and Explanations
Free-Response Questions
Answers and Explanations
Rapid Review

STEP 5 Build Your Test-Taking Confidence

AP Chemistry Practice Exam 1
AP Chemistry Practice Exam 1, Section I (Multiple
Choice)
Answers and Explanations for Exam 1, Section I
(Multiple Choice)
AP Chemistry Practice Exam 1, Section II (Free
Response)
Answers and Explanations for Exam 1, Section II (Free
Response)
AP Chemistry Practice Exam 2
AP Chemistry Practice Exam 2, Section I (Multiple
Choice)
Answers and Explanations for Exam 2, Section I
(Multiple Choice)
AP Chemistry Practice Exam 2, Section II (Free
Response)
Answers and Explanations for Exam 2, Section II (Free
Response)

ELITE
STUDENT
EDITION 5 Minutes to a 5
180 Activities and Questions in 5 Minutes a Day
Appendixes
Pre-AP Diagnostic Exam
SI Units
Balancing Redox Equations Using the Ion-Electron
Method
Common Ions
Bibliography
Websites
Glossary
Avoiding “Stupid” Mistakes on the Free-Response
Section
Exam Resources
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
more advanced in civilisation than the former. By this enactment, a
Koblegian or a Varangian was compelled to take an oath where such
a test was required, but a Slavonian was exempted. It would
therefore appear, if the conclusion may be safely ventured upon, that
judicial combats, which formed the final appeal when a defendant in
a cause acquitted himself in the first instance by a solemn oath, were
not adopted amongst the Slavs, who were satisfied with a public
examination of facts, and an adjudication, without the sacred or the
physical test. It is sufficient, however, for the great uses of historical
inquiry, to know that a difference so remarkable between two
branches of the people was recognised and confirmed by law.
One of the most important declarations of the code was that which
divided the population into three classes—the nobles, the freemen,
and the slaves. Of these three, the slaves alone were left
unprotected. The freemen, who were fenced in from the
encroachments of the nobles, were composed of the citizens, the
farmers, the landholders, and hired servants. They were sub-
classified into centuries, each of which elected a head, who filled an
office equivalent to that of a tribune. The civil magistracy, thus
created, had a separate guard of their own, and were placed, in
virtue of their office, on an equality with the boyars. The city of
Novgorod, which maintained, under a nominal princedom, the spirit
of a republic, exhibited these municipal franchises in a more
complete form than any of the Russian cities; all of which, however,
possessed similar privileges, more or less modified according to their
relative importance, or the circumstances under which their charters
were granted. The chief of the Novgorodian republic was a prince of
the blood; the title of his office was that of Namestnick. He took no
share in the deliberations of the people, nor does it appear that he
even possessed a veto upon their decisions. His oath of instalment
bound him as the slave rather than the governor of the city; for it
pledged him to govern agreeably to the constitution as he found it; to
appoint none but Novgorodian magistrates in the provinces, and
even these to be previously approved of by the Posadnick or mayor;
to respect strictly the exclusive rights possessed by the citizens
sitting in judgment on their own order, of imposing their own taxes,
and of carrying on commerce at their own discretion; to interdict his
boyars from acquiring landed property within the villages dependent
on Novgorod, and to oblige them to travel at their private cost; to
discourage immigration; and never to cause a Novgorodian to be
arrested for debt. A princedom, accepted on such restrictive
conditions, was but the shadow of a sceptre, as the municipal union
of the legislative and judicial abundantly proved. The first officer was
the Posadnick, or mayor, chosen by election for a limited time; the
next was the Tisiatski, or tribune, who was a popular check upon the
prince and mayor; and the rest of the functionaries consisted of the
senate, the city assembly, and the boyars, all of whom were elective.
By the electoral system, the people preserved a constant guard over
the fidelity of their representatives in the senate, and their officers of
justice; so that, while the three grades propounded by law were kept
widely apart, and socially distinguished, the prerogatives of each
were rigidly protected against innovation from the other two. All that
this little republic required to render its security perfect, was liberty. It
was based upon a system of slavery, and sustained its dominion
more by fear than righteousness. Nor was it independent of control,
although all its domestic concerns were uninterruptedly transacted
within its own confines. It was an appanage of the grand princedom;
but on account of its fortunate geographical position on the northern
and northwestern frontiers, which were distant from the capital—a
circumstance that delegated to Novgorod the defence of those
remote boundaries—it acquired a degree of political importance that
preserved it for four centuries against the cupidity of the succession
of despots that occupied the throne. The removal of the seat of
empire from Kiev to Vladimir, and finally to Moscow, by drawing the
centre nearer to Novgorod, diminished its power by degrees, and
finally absorbed it altogether.
One of the enactments of the code of Iaroslav will show what
advances had been made towards the segregation of the people into
different orders, and how much the government partook, or was
likely to partake, of a mixed form, in which a monarchical, an
hereditary, and a representative estate were combined. It made the
prince the heir-at-law of every freeman who died without male issue,
with the exception of the boyars and officers of the royal guard. By
this regulation the prerogative of the crown was rendered
paramount, while the hereditary rights of property were preserved
unconditionally to the families of the nobles alone. A class of rich
patricians was thus formed and protected, to represent, by virtue of
birth, the interests of property; while commerce and popular
privileges were fully represented in the assembly of the elected
senators. The checks and balances of this system were pretty equal;
so that, if the constitution of which these outlines were the elements,
had been allowed to accumulate strength and to become
consolidated by time, it would at last have resolved itself into a liberal
and powerful form; the semi-savage usages with which it was
encrusted would have dropped away, and wiser institutions have
grown up in their stead.
So clearly were the popular benefits of the laws defined, that the
code regulated the maximum demand which the proprietor of the soil
might exact from his tenant; and it neither enforced taxation, nor
recognised corporal punishment, nor in the composition of a
pecuniary mulct admitted any distinction between the Varangians
and the Slavs, who formed the aristocracy and the democracy. The
prince neither possessed revenue nor levied taxes. He subsisted on
the fines he imposed for infractions of law, on the tributes he
received from his estates, on the voluntary offerings of the people,
and the produce of such property as had fallen to the private title of
the sovereignty. Even the tribute was not compulsory; it was rather a
right derived from prescription. The only dependence of the lords of
fiefs was in that they were compelled to render military service when
required to the grand prince; and it was expected that they should
come numerously attended, well armed, and provisioned. The tribute
was the mark of conquest, and was not considered to imply taxation.
But while the monarchical principle was thus kept within
proscribed limits, the power of the democracy was not sufficiently
curbed: over both there was a check, but the hands of the prince
were bound too tightly. His dominion was despotic, because he was
surrounded by men devoted to his will; but the dominion of the
people was boundless, because opinion was only in its rickety
infancy, and the resistance to the offending prince lay in the
demonstration of physical superiority instead of moral combination.
They never hesitated to avail themselves of their numerical
advantage. They even carried it to extravagance and licentiousness;
and so much did they exult in their strength, that they regulated the
hours at which the sovereign was permitted to enjoy relaxation,
punished the obnoxious heads of the church by summary ejectment,
and in several instances, taking the charter of law into their own
keeping, deposed their princes. The checks, therefore, established in
Iaroslav’s wise convention between the government and the
constituency were overborne by the rudeness of the times.
That the period had arrived when laws were necessary to the
settlement of the empire, was sufficiently testified by the
circumstances, external and domestic, in which the people were
placed. The adoption of Christianity had partially appeased the old
passion for aggression against Constantinople, which, having now
become the metropolis of their religion, was regarded with some
degree of veneration by the Russians. A war of plundering
Byzantium, therefore, could not be entertained with any prospect of
success. The extension of the empire under Vladimir left little to be
coveted beyond the frontiers, which spread to the east, north and
south as far as even the wild grasp of the lawless tribes of the
forests could embrace. To the west, the Russians had ceased to look
for prey, since Boleslav, by his easy conquest of Kiev, had
demonstrated the strength of Poland. Having acquired as much as
they could, and having next, in the absence of warlike expeditions
abroad, occupied themselves with ruthless feuds at home, they
came at length to consider the necessity of consulting the security of
possessions acquired at so much cost, and so often risked by civil
broils. This was the time for a code of laws. But unfortunately there
still existed too many remains of the barbarian era, to render the
introduction of legal restraints a matter easy of accomplishment. The
jealousy of Greek superiority survived the admission of the Greek
religion. The longing after power still inspired the petty chiefs; and
hopeless dreams of larger dominion wherewith to bribe the
discontented, and provide for the hirelings of the state, still troubled
the repose of the sovereign. The throne stood in a plain surrounded
by forests, from whence issued, as the rage propelled them, hordes
of newly reclaimed savages, pressing extraordinary demands, or
threatening with ferocious violence the dawning institutions of
civilisation. In such a position, it was not only impossible to advance
steadily, but to maintain the ground already gained.

Iaroslav Dies (1054 A.D.)

Could the character of Iaroslav, the legislator,

[1054 a.d.] have been transmitted through his successors,
the good of which he laid the seeds, might have
been finally cultivated to maturity. But his wisdom and his virtues
died with him. Nor, elevated as he was in moral dignity above the
spirit of his countrymen, can it be said that he was free from
weaknesses that marred much of the utility of his best measures.
One of his earliest errors was the resignation of Novgorod to his son
Vladimir, who had no sooner ascended the throne of the republican
city, than, under the pretext of seeking satisfaction for the death of a
Russian who had been killed in Greece, he carried arms into the
Byzantine empire. The folly of this wild attempt was abundantly
punished in the sequel; fifteen thousand men were sacrificed on the
Grecian plains, and their chief hunted back disgracefully to his own
territories. Yet this issue of one family grant did not awaken Iaroslav
to the danger of partitioning the empire. Before his death he divided
the whole of Russia amongst his sons, making, however, the
younger sons subordinate to the eldest, as grand prince of Kiev, and
empowering the latter to reduce the others to obedience by force of
arms whenever they exhibited a disposition to dispute his authority.
This settlement, enforced with parting admonitions on his death-
bed, was considered by Iaroslav to present a sufficient security
against civil commotion and disputes about the succession. But he
did not calculate upon the ungovernable lust for power, the jealousy
of younger brothers, and the passion for aggrandisement. His
injunctions were uttered in the amiable confidence of Christianity;
they were violated with the indecent impetuosity of the barbarian
nature.
With the death of Iaroslav, and the division of the empire, a new
period of darkness and misrule began. The character of the
legislator, which influenced his own time, was speedily absorbed in
the general confusion. Iaroslav’s name was held in reverence, but
the memory of his excellence did not awe the multitudes that, upon
his decease, sprang from their retirement to revive the disastrous
glories of domestic warfare. Much as he had done for the extension
of Christianity, he had failed in establishing it in the hearts of the
people. He was an able theologian, and well acquainted with the
church ordinances, agenda, and other books of the Greek religion,
many of which he caused to be translated into the Russian
language, and distributed in copies over the country. So strong an
interest did he take in the cultivation of the doctrines of the church,
that he established a metropolitan at Kiev, in order to relieve the
Russian people and their priests from the inconveniences of
attending the residence of the ecclesiastical head at Constantinople,
and also with a desire to provide for the more prompt and certain
dissemination of the principles of faith. But the value of all these
exertions expired with their author. He did much to raise the fame
and consolidate the resources of the empire; but the last act of his
political career, by which he cut away the cord that bound the rods,
had the effect of neutralising all the benefits he meditated to
accomplish, as well as those that he actually effected, for his country.
His reign was followed by a period of savage anarchy that might be
said to have resolved the half-civilised world into its original
elements.k

FOOTNOTES

[2] According to recent computations the Russian Empire

covers an area of 8,660,000 square miles—about one sixth of the
land surface of the globe.
[3] [This treaty was not so favourable to the Russians as the
one concluded with Oleg—a result, evidently, of the former defeat.
Another point of importance is that it makes mention of Russian
Christians, to whom there is no allusion in the treaty of 911. From
this we may conclude that Christianity had spread largely during
this interval.g]
[4] [According to another Ms., Constantine, son of Lev.]
 [5] Ex. XXI, 17.
[6] [In the original Nestor always calls thus the sister of the
emperors.]
[7] [An antiquarian inquiry instituted by Catherine in 1794
resulted in proving that Tmoutarakan was situated on the isle of
Taman, forming a key to the confluence of the sea of Azov with
the Black Sea.k]
 [8] A copper coin, of the value, as near as we can ascertain, of
about 4½d. of English money.
 CHAPTER II. THE PERIOD OF THE
PRINCIPALITIES
THE CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

The period extending from the year of

[1054-1224 a.d.] Iaroslav’s death (1054) to the year of the
appearance of the Tatars (1224) is one of the
most troublous and confused epochs in the history of Russia. As the
Scandinavian custom of partition continued to prevail over the
Byzantine idea of political unity, the national territory was constantly
divided.
The princely anarchy of oriental Europe finds a parallel in the
feudal anarchy of the Occident. Pogodine enumerates for this period
sixty-four principalities which enjoyed a more or less protracted
existence; two hundred and ninety-three princes who during these
two centuries contended over Kiev and other Russian domains;
eighty-three civil wars in which the entire country was concerned.
Foreign wars helped to augment the enormous mass of historical
facts. The chronicles mention against the Polovtsi alone eighteen
campaigns, while these barbarians invaded Christian territory forty-
six times.
The ancient names of the Slav tribes have entirely disappeared, or
are preserved only in the names of towns—as, for instance, that of
the Polotchanes in Polotsk; that of the Severians in Novgorod-
Seversk. The elements in the composition of Russia were thus rather
principalities than peoples. No more is said of the Krivitchi or of the
Drevlians; we hear only of Smolensk or of Volhinia. These little
states were dismembered at each new division among the children
of a prince; they were then reconstituted, to be again divided into
appanages. In spite of all these vicissitudes, however, some among
them had an uninterrupted existence due to certain topographical
and ethnographical conditions. Setting aside the distant principality
of Tmoutorakan, established almost at the foot of the Caucasus in
the midst of Turkish and Circassian tribes and counting eight
different princes, the following are, from the eleventh to the thirteenth
centuries, the principal divisions of Russia:
(1) The principality of Smolensk, which occupied the important
territory which is in a manner the central point of the orographic
system of Russia; it comprises the old forest of Okov, where the
three greatest rivers of Russia, the Volga, the Dnieper, and the
Dvina, have their rise. Hence the political importance of Smolensk,
which is attested by the many wars undertaken against her; hence
also her commercial prosperity. It is noticeable that all her towns
were built on some one of the three rivers; all the commerce of
ancient Russia thus passed through her bounds. Besides Smolensk
it is necessary to cite Mozhaisk, Viasma, and Toropets, the capital of
a secondary principality, the domain of two famous princes—Mstislav
the Brave and Mstislav the Bold.
(2) The principality of Kiev, which was Rus—Russia in the strict
sense of the term. Its situation on the Dnieper, the proximity of
Greece, the fertility of its Black Lands, long assured to this state the
supremacy over all other Russian principalities. To the south it was
bordered by the Nomad tribes of the steppe. Against the inroads of
these tribes the princes of Kiev were obliged to construct frontier
fortresses; though frequently they ceded them lands and took them
into their pay, constituting them into veritable military colonies. The
principality of Pereiaslavl was a dependency of Kiev; Vishgorod,
Bielgorod, Tripoli, and Torlshok were at different times constituted
into appanages for princes of the same family.
(3) The two principalities of
Tcheringov with Starodub and
Lubetz and of Novgorod-
Seversk with Putivl, Kursk and
Briansk, which extended along
the tributaries flowing into the
Dnieper from the left—the Soj
and the Desna swelled by the
Seim. Tcheringov, extending
towards the upper Oka, had thus
one foot in the basin of the
Volga; its princes, the Olgovitchi,
were the most redoubtable rivals
of those of Kiev. As for the
princes of Seversk, they were
ceaselessly occupied with wars
against their dangerous rivals on
the south, the Polovtsi. It is the
exploits of a prince of Seversk
against these barbarians which
form the subject of a chanson de
geste—The Song of Igor.
Laplander
(4) The duplex principality of
Riazan and Murom, another
state whose existence was
maintained at the expense of ceaseless war against the nomads.
The principal towns were Riazan, Murom, Pereiaslavl-Riazanski, on
the Oka; Kolomna, at the junction of the Moskva with the Oka; and
Pronsk, on the Pronia. The upper Don bounded it on the west. This
principality was established in the midst of Finnish tribes—the
Muromians and the Meshtseraks. The warlike character and the rude
and coarse habits attributed to the people of the principality
doubtless resulted not less from the assimilation of the aborigines by
the Russian race than from the continuous brutal strife of the
inhabitants with the nomads.
(5) The principalities of Suzdal—with their metropolitan towns of
Tver, Suzdal, Rostov, Iuriev-Polski, and Vladimir on the Kliasma; of
Iaroslavl and Pereiaslavl-Zaliesski—which were established on the
Volga and the Oka, in the densest of the northern forests,
surrounded by Finnish tribes—Mouromians, Merians, Vesses, and
Tcherimisses. Though situated at the extreme limit of the Russian
world, these principalities nevertheless exercised great influence
over it. We shall see their princes now reducing Novgorod and the
Russia of the lakes to a certain political dependence, the
consequence of a double economical dependence; then victoriously
intervening in the quarrels of the Russia of the Dnieper. The
Suzdalians were of the same character as the Riazanians—rude and
warlike. The characteristics of a new nationality were already
noticeable among these two peoples. That which differentiated them
from the Kievans and the Novgorod-Severskans, who, like
themselves, were occupied in the great struggle against the
barbarians, was that the Russians of the Dnieper, sometimes
mingling their blood with that of their enemies, became fused with
Turkish tribes, nomadic and essentially mobile, while the Russians of
the Oka and the Volga united with Finnish tribes, agricultural and
essentially sedentary. This difference between the two foreign
elements which entered into the blood of the Slavs, without doubt
contributed to that marked difference in character between the two
branches of the Russian race. During the period from the eleventh to
the thirteenth centuries, as colonization advanced, from the basin of
the Dnieper to the basin of the Volga, the divisions of Little Russia
and Great Russia were formed.
(6) The principalities of Kiev, Tchernigov, Novgorod-Seversk,
Riazan, Murom, and Suzdal, which formed the marches of Russia on
the borders of the steppe with its devastating hordes—constituting its
frontier states. On the confines of the northwest, opposite the
Lithuanians, the Letts and the Tchuds, the same rôle devolved on the
principality of Polotsk, occupying the basin of the Dvina, and on the
republican principalities of Novgorod and Pskov on the lakes of
Ilmen and Petpus. The principality of Minsk was attached to that of
Polotsk. It was situated in the basin of the Dnieper and, owing to that
circumstance, its possession was frequently disputed by the grand
princes of Kiev. The towns of Torzhok, Volok-Lamski, Izborsk, and
Veliki Luki belonged to Novgorod; at times they were the capitals of
individual states.
Southwestern Russia comprehended (1) in the fan-shaped
territory formed by the Pripet and its tributaries—Volhinia, with
Vladimir in Volhinia, Lutsk, Turov, Brest, and even Lublin, which is
unquestionably Polish; (2) in the basins of the San, the Dniester, and
the Pripet—Galicia proper, or Red Russia, whose ancient
inhabitants, the white Croats, seem to have originated in the
Danubian Slavs. Its principal towns were Galitch, founded by
Vladimirko about 1444; Peremishl; Terebovlia, and Svenigorodka.
The near neighbourhood of Hungary and Poland contributed to these
two principalities distinctive characteristics, as well as a more
advanced civilisation. In the epic songs Galicia, the land of the hero
Dvorik Stepanovitch, is a country of fabulous wealth. The Narrative
of the Expedition of Igor gives an exalted idea of the power of its
princes: “Iaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia,” cries the poet addressing
one of them, “high art thou seated upon thy golden throne! With thy
iron regiments thou guardest the Carpathian mountains, thou
shuttest the gates of the Danube, thou barrest the way to the king of
Hungary; at will thou openest the gates of Kiev, and thine arrows
reach far into the distance.”

THE UNITY OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

The disposition of these fifteen or sixteen principalities confirms

what has been previously stated concerning the essential unity of the
configuration of the Russian soil. None of the river-basins forms a
closed or isolated region; no line of heights establishes between
them barriers or political frontiers. The greater number of the
Russian principalities belonged to the basin of the Dnieper, but
pushed their limits everywhere beyond. Kiev, with Pereiaslavl, is the
only one strictly confined within it; but Volhinia puts the basin of the
Dnieper in communication with those of the Bug in the south and of
the Vistula; Polotsk connects it with the basins of the Niemen and
the Dvina, Novgorod-Seversk with that of the Don, Tchernigov and
Smolensk with that of the Volga. Between these principalities, water-
courses everywhere establish communications. Russia, though
divided into appanages, was already making toward a great united
empire. The lack of cohesion among nearly all the states and their
frequent dismemberments prevented their becoming actual
nationalities. The principalities of Smolensk, of Tchernigov, of Riazan
never possessed that definite historical existence so characteristic of
the duchy of Brittany or the county of Toulouse in France, the
duchies of Saxony, Swabia, or Bavaria in Germany.
The interests of the princes and their ambition to provide an
appanage for each of their children, necessitated at the death of
every sovereign a fresh distribution of Russian territory. Yet a certain
cohesion was evident in the midst of these vicissitudes. There was
visible a unity of race and language, the more marked,
notwithstanding differences of dialect, in that the Russian Slavs,
excepting in the southwest, were surrounded everywhere by entirely
dissimilar peoples—Lithuanians, Tchuds, Finns, Turks, and Magyars.
There was also unity of religion; the Russians were differentiated
from nearly all their neighbours in that, in contradistinction to the
Slavs of the west, the Poles, Czechs, and Moravians, they
represented a distinct form of Christianity, acknowledging no tie with
Rome and rejecting Latin as the church language.
There was also a unity of historical development, since hitherto the
Russian Slavs had all followed the same destiny, had equally
accepted Greek civilisation, submitted to Varangian conquest, and
pursued in common certain great enterprises, such as the
expeditions against Byzantium and the wars with the nomads. There
was finally political unity, as among all—in Galicia as in Novgorod, by
the Dnieper as in the forests of Suzdal—the same family sat upon all
the thrones. All the Russian princes were descended from Rurik,
from St. Vladimir, and from Iaroslav the Great. The civil wars which
desolated the country affirmed anew this unity. No state in Russia
could regard the rest as outsiders, when the princes of Tchernigov
and Suzdal were seen to take up arms solely to decide which among
them was the eldest—which held the right to the title of grand prince
and to the throne of Kiev. There were descendants of Rurik who
governed successively the most distant states in Russia, and who,
having reigned at Tmoutarakan on the straits of Ienikale, at
Novgorod the Great, at Toropetz in the country of Smolensk, finished
by obtaining recognition of their right to reign over Kiev.b

THE THEORY OF SUCCESSION

If the question be asked why

the Russian state continued
undivided throughout the two
hundred years of the Varangian
period, our answer is that it was
due solely to the fact that during
the greater part of this period the
grand princes left one son and
heir. Whenever the case was
otherwise, as after the death of
Sviatoslav and Vladimir, the
brothers straightway entered
upon a struggle for mastery that
did not terminate until all but one
were destroyed. That one then
became undisputed master, for
no one dared dispute the
possession of power with the
descendants of Rurik.
The theory of succession in
the Rurik family was as follows:
the grand prince of Kiev was
lord paramount of Russia. He
disposed of all vacant
A Koriak principalities, and was supreme
 judge and general; but each of
his brothers had, according to his seniority, the right of succession to
the throne. The death of every elder brother brought the younger
ones a step nearer to that goal. The order of advance was from
Smolensk to Pereiaslavl, from Pereiaslavl to Tchernigov, from
Tchernigov to Kiev. But none could attain to the highest dignity, save
him whose father had held it before him. Sons of a father who had
died before reaching the goal were excluded from Kiev and were
confined to the possessions in their hands at the time of their father’s
death. The technical Russian term for those members of the Rurik
family who were excluded from the highest dignity was Isgoi, and the
attempts of the Isgoi to break through the law of exclusion have had
no small share in the bloody and desolate history of Russia during
the period upon which we now enter. But another factor contributed
to the same end. The power of the grand prince was not so
predominant as to enable him to enforce his will and put down
disobedience. His position was based on the idea of patriarchal
power, and was respected by the princes only when it was to their
advantage. To maintain himself he had to resort to the expedient of
making coalitions with some of the princes against the others, and
the sword was the final arbiter between the grand prince and his
nominal vassals.c Accordingly the whole of Russia was always
divided in its support of the claims of this or that candidate. The civil
wars which ensued were after all but family quarrels.a

CIVIL WARS

Iaroslav left five sons. To Iziaslav, the oldest,

[1055-1069 a.d.] he gave Kiev; to Sviatoslav, Tchernigov; to
Vsevolod, Pereiaslavl; to Viatcheslav,
Smolensk; and to Igor, Vladimir in Volhinia. The order in which they
are given here represents the order of their respective dignities and
their position in the line of succession. Two of the brothers did not
long survive their father. In 1056 Viatcheslav died, and Igor, in
accordance with the law of succession, moved to Smolensk, where
he too died in 1060.
 About this time a new wave of migration set in from Asia towards
the south-Russian steppe—the Turkish tribe of the Polovtsi. In 1055
Vsevolod of Pereiaslavl concluded peace with them by bribing them
to retire into the steppe. In 1061 he suffered a defeat at their hands,
but they did not follow up their success and again retired into the
steppe. The civil wars, however, which soon broke out, were to bring
them back as an ever-menacing plague to the Russian population.
Among the minor princes, who
were excluded from the
succession, was Vseslav of
Polotsk, a descendant of St.
Vladimir. He had helped his
uncles in a war against the
Torks, a tribe kindred to the
Polovtsi, and expected a reward
in an accession of territory.
Being disappointed, he
determined to help himself. First
he ravaged the territory of
Pskov, but being unable to take
that city, he invaded the territory
of Novgorod, and it seems that Sviatoslav
for a while he was master of the
city. His bold procedure
compelled his uncles Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, and Vsevolod to unite
against him; but, though beaten by their superior forces, he could not
be expelled from the north. The uncles thereupon resorted to
treachery. They proposed to him a friendly meeting under a
guarantee of his personal security and liberty, which they confirmed
by an oath upon the cross. But when he had reached the vicinity of
Smolensk, beyond the Dnieper, he was surprised, captured, and
brought to Kiev, where he was imprisoned. At this juncture the
Polovtsi made another of their raids and defeated the united forces
of the brothers, so that Sviatoslav was obliged to take refuge at
Tchernigov, while Iziaslav and Vsevolod fled to Kiev. There they
intended to await the nomad hordes behind the walls of the cities,
sacrificing the open country to the invaders. But the citizens of Kiev
thought differently. At a stormy meeting of the vetché it was decided
to take up arms, and when Iziaslav refused to lead them against the
enemy they liberated Vseslav from his confinement and made him
their prince (1068). Iziaslav was obliged to flee to Poland, where he
found a champion in Boleslav the Bold. Menaced in front by the
Poles, and suspicious of his uncles in his rear, Vseslav thought
himself obliged to flee to Polotsk, leaving the Kievans to the
vengeance of Iziaslav (1069). The events of two generations
previous, when Boleslav the Brave captured Kiev for Sviatopolk,
were now to be repeated. The Poles demeaned themselves as
masters and committed many excesses. The Kievans bore it for a
year; then exasperated, fell upon the Poles, who were scattered in
their various quarters, and compelled Boleslav to evacuate the city.
After protracted fighting and negotiations, Polotsk was finally
restored to Vseslav, and the old order seemed re-established, when
the two brothers of Iziaslav became suspicious of his designs and
suddenly appeared before Kiev. Iziaslav now fled for the second
time, Sviatoslav became grand prince, while Vsevolod advanced to
the principality of Tchernigov.
Iziaslav left nothing unattempted to regain his
[1075-1078 a.d.] position. He had escaped with his treasure into
Poland, but Boleslav was unwilling to renew his
former adventure. The German king Henry IV, whom Iziaslav met at
Mainz in January, 1075, was more favourably disposed and sent an
embassy to Sviatoslav; but it accomplished nothing. Iziaslav also
entered into negotiations with pope Gregory VII, to whom he sent his
son Iaropolk. The pope hoped to be able to annex Russia to the
western church, and even went so far as to grant it to Iaropolk as a
fief from the holy see.
But meanwhile Sviatoslav died (1076) and Vsevolod, a man
whose mild character did not exclude the possibility of a peaceful
settlement, became grand prince. Boleslav now lent troops to
Iziaslav (1077), and though Vsevolod marched against him with an
army of his own, yet they soon came to terms. Iziaslav was to be
reinstated grand prince for the third time, while Vsevolod was to
retire to Tchernigov, in return for which he was secured in the
succession. Thus Iaropolk’s plans came to naught, and with them
the hope of a reunited church.
However, Vseslav of Polotsk did not yet give up his ambitious
designs. Foiled in his attempt on the throne of Kiev, he tried to create
an empire for himself in the Russian north, and it required three
campaigns of the south-Russian princes to annul his plans. It was
during these wars that Vladimir Monomakh, son of Vsevolod and
son-in-law of King Harold of England, first distinguished himself,
though not in a glorious manner. He was the first Russian prince to
engage in a domestic quarrel the Polovtsi, with whose aid he
ravaged the city and principality of Polotsk. Vseslav died in 1101 as
prince of Polotsk, and his memory lived long after him in the
traditions of the people, by whom he was regarded as a sorcerer.
The Song of Igor tells how he accomplished in one night a march
from Kiev to Tmoutorakan, and how he could hear at Kiev the ringing
of the church bells at Polotsk.
Russian dynastic conditions had now been restored to the legal
order, and there seemed nothing left to disturb the tranquillity. But
the cupidity of the grand prince soon brought on new dissensions
among the members of the house of Rurik. Viatcheslav and Igor died
at an early age, leaving minor sons whom their uncle refused to
provide with appanages. They therefore tried to gain their right by
force. Boris, a son of Viatcheslav, temporarily got hold of Tchernigov,
but being unable to maintain himself in that city he fled to
Tmoutorakan, the last refuge of all the discontented. There he was
soon joined by his brother Gleb, who was expelled by Iziaslav from
Novgorod, and by another brother from Volhinian Vladimir, both of
whose appanages were divided among the sons of Iziaslav and
Vsevolod. In the civil war which followed, the nephews at first had
the advantage and captured Tchernigov; but they were defeated in a
decisive battle fought near that city on the third of October, 1078.
Both the grand prince Iziaslav and Boris fell, and Oleg was obliged to
flee once more to Tmoutorakan.

Vsevolod
 Iziaslav was succeeded by Vsevolod, whose
[1078-1093 a.d.] reign (1078-1093) was even more unfortunate
than his brother’s had been. He too favoured his
own sons and those of Iziaslav at the expense of his other nephews
and in consequence the sons of Sviatoslav and Igor and of his
nephew Rostislav waged against him unremitting warfare with the
aid of the Polovtsi and Chazars, who wasted the country. Vsevolod’s
attempt in 1084 to conquer Tmoutorakan, the breeding-place of
revolts, failed miserably. Finally even Iaropolk, the son of Iziaslav,
who had received so many favours from his uncle, revolted against
him and was assassinated during the war. In those days of turmoil
and confusion, even old Vseslav ventured forth once more from
Polotsk and plundered Smolensk. The grand prince was ill most of
the time at Kiev and the conduct of his affairs lay in the hands of his
son Vladimir Monomakh.

Sviatopolk

Vsevolod died April 13th, 1093, leaving two sons, Vladimir

Monomakh, who held Tchernigov, and Rostislav, who held
Pereiaslavl. He was succeeded by Sviatopolk, the second son of
Iziaslav, who was the rightful successor after the death of his brother
Iaropolk, who, it will be remembered, was assassinated. Monomakh
could easily have made himself grand prince, for he was the most
popular of the princes and gained great fame in his campaigns
against the Polovtsi, whom he defeated twelve times during the reign
of his father; but he was anxious to avoid violating the law of
succession and thus inviting civil war.
Sviatopolk’s reign began with a violation of the law of nations by
imprisoning ambassadors of the Polovtsi, who had come to negotiate
a treaty with him. In retaliation the nomads invaded the country, and
with so great a force that Vladimir and Rostislav, who had come to
the aid of the grand prince, advised him to purchase peace from the
enemy. He paid no heed to them, but the event soon justified the
prudence of their counsel. In the battle of Tripole, fought on May
23rd, 1093, the Russians sustained a disastrous defeat. Rostislav