Amongst other Variorum Reprints:

Polnyj pravoslavnyj bogoslovskij enciklopediceskij slovar’

(1913) Russian edition

N. L. TUNICKIJ
Monumenta ad SS Cyrilli et Methodii successorum vitas
resque gestas pertinentia
Sergiev Posad 1918 edition

A. P. RUDAKOV
Ocherki vizantiyskoy kul’tuiy po dannym grecheskoy agiografii '
Moscow 1917 edition

v_ ,_ SREZNEVSKIJ collected studies

Slavjanskij perevod chroniki Simeona Logotheta
St Petersburg 1905 edition
and G. Ostrogorsky’s 1932 commentary
l
V. R. ROZEN
Imperator Vasilij Bolgarobojca '
St. Petersburg 1883 edition

I. E. TROITSKIJ
Arsenij i Arsenity
Serialized articles - St. Petersburg 1867-72

T. FLORINSKIJ
Juinye Slavjane i Vizantija vo vtoroj éetverti XIV veka
St. Petersburg»1882 edition

ANDRE] POPOV
Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevne-russkich
polemiceskich socinenij protiv latinjan (XI-XV v.)
Moscow 1875 edition

Variorum facsimile editions:

Bdinski Zbomik. Old Slavonic menologium A. D. 1360 1

Facsimile of the Ghent Ms 408 9

Cartulary A of the St John Prodromos Monastery

Facsimile of the Prague Ms XXV. C. 9 (605) y 1"

A Lexicon to the Glory of God (Greek-Russian 18th century) j

Facsimile of the Paris Ms suppl. grec 1117 l

.'~L'{___.

--_¢
 Dimitri Obolen sky

Byzantium and the Slavs

collected studies
with a preface by Ivan Dujcev

Professor D1m1tr1 Obolensky /1*

VARIORUM REPRINTS
London 1971
 CONTENTS

Preface

Acknowledgements

BYZANTIUM AND EASTERN EUROPE

I The Principles and Methods of Byzantine
Preface © 1971 Variorum Reprints Diplomacy 43-61
A etes du XIlé Congrés International d’Etudes
SBN 902089 14 5 byzantines, 1. Belgrade 1964

II The Empire and its Northern Neighbours 473-518

Published in Great Britain by Cambridge Medieval History, I V part I.
VARIORUM REPRINTS Cambridge 1966
21a Pembridge Mews London W11 3EQ
BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
Printed in Switzerland by
III Russia’s Byzantine Heritage 87-123
REDA SA
Revised version. Selection I1, ed. C. Hastings and
1225 Chéne-Bourg Geneva B. Nicltoll. London I954. (Original version in
o.».;/am Slavonic Papers, I. I 950)

IV Byzance et la Russie de Kiev 20-35

Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en
Europe Occidentale, XXIX. Paris 1959

V Original text and English translation of the

ninth chapter 56-63
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De A dministrando
Imperio. Revised edition. Dumbarton Oaks Center
for Byzantine Studies 1967
Commentary on the ninth chapter of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus’ De Administrando Imperio l6-6l
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando
Imperio, I1 Commentary, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins.
London 1962
VARIORUM REPRINT CS6
V1 Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow: A Study in
Ecclesiastical Relations 23-78
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, X1. Washington 1957

VII Byzantium and Russia in the Late Middle Ages 248-275

Europe in the Late Middle Ages, ed. J. R. Hale,
J. R. L. Higltfield and B. Smalley. London I965

VII Modern Russian Attitudes to Byzantium 61-72

Jahrbuch der Osterreiehischen Byzantinisclten
Gesellsehaft, XV. Graz-Ko'ln 1966 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CYRI L AND METHODIUS

IX Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Apostles of the Slavs 1-1 1 The author wishes to thank the original publishers of
the studies gathered together in this volume for their
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, VII. New York
1963 kind permission to reprint and Mrs. T. Flor-Henry for
compiling the index.
X The Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia 47-65
D.O.
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIX. Washington 1965

XI Cyrille et Méthode et la christianisation des

Slaves 587-609
La conversione al Cristianesimo nell’Europa dell’
alto medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro
italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo. Spoleto l 967

THE DUALIST MOVEMENT IN EASTERN EUROPE

XII The Bogomils 1-23
Eastern Churches Quarterly. October-December
I 945

XIII Le christianisme oriental et les doctrines

dualistes 643-651
Atti del convegno internazionale stll tema “L’Oriente
cristiano nella storia della eiviltd”. Rome 1964
 PREFACE

In a bibliographical note about Professor Dimitri Obolensky, published a

few years ago, it was stated that “his principal field of specialisation is the
medieval history of Russia and the Balkans”. This seems to me a description
of his work which is both too restricted and too imprecise. Professor
Obolensky’s studies deal, it is true, with the history of Russia and the Balkan
Slavs in the Middle Ages, but almost all of his studies also relate to the history
of Byzantium. His historical research can thus be said to lie mainly in the
field of Byzantinoslavica. To judge from their titles, some of his publications
appear to deal with specifically Byzantine problems: yet almost invariably he
seeks to bring out in them points of contact between Byzantium and the
medieval Slav world. In this way Obolensky has become one of the leading
representatives of a tendency which, during the past decade, has asserted
itself in Byzantine and medieval Slavonic studies: the tendency to consider
the history of the Southern and Eastern Slavs, that is of the Slav Orthodox
world, in relation to the Byzantine Empire, and to recognize the role played
by the Slavs in the internal life and international relations of Byzantium.
Byzantium was a complex historical phenomenon, and to ignore the role
played in its history by the Orthodox Slavs is to restrict it unduly, both
geographically and chronologically.
Obolensky’s first contributions to scholarship were in the field of religious
history, more particularly the history of heretical movements among the
Southern Slavs. In 1945 he published a brief study of the Bogomils (No. XII
in this volume), followed in 1948 by a major work (The Bogomils. A Study in
Balkan Neo-Manichaeism). The problems raised by the dualist movements
were to remain at the centre of Obolensky’s interests for some years to come.
He devoted several studies to this theme, notably an article on Bogomilism in
Byzantium, and another on the relationship of dualism to Eastern
Christianity, which formed the subject of a paper he gave at an international
conference held in Rome in the spring of 1963 under the auspices of the
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (No. XIII). These works rapidly established
him as an authority in this field. It was a fortunate choice which led him to
consider the idroblem of dualism, which is of interest not only to Slavists and
Byzantinists, but also to church historians, and to which he applied a rigorous
method of investigation coupled with an incomparable knowledge of the
relevant sources.
The study of the dualist movement in Byzantium and in the Slav world has
a long history: a copious bibliography on the subject appeared a few years
ago, compiled by Professor Herbert Grundmann (who died in March 1970)‘.
Much ink has flowed on the subject, in monographs and studies, both learned
and popular. By a fortunate coincidence, Obolensky’s monograph appeared at
the very time when the study of medieval heresies and of Bogomilism in
particular was becoming a veritable fashion, and the true nature of this

‘H. Grundmann, Bibliographie zur Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters (1900-1966,)

Rome, 1967, especially, pp. 23 ff.
 ii iii
historical phenomenon was consequently in danger of being misrepresented.
Obolensky succeeded in rising above the tendencies towards facile of their value as the corner-stone of modern scholarship in this field.
modernisation of medieval heretical movements and treated his subject with
In some of Obolensky’s studies the relations between Byzantium and the
asggeftfilgdngfiigged fiudgmelnt. In gltiew of the wealth of the available material countries of Eastern Europe are discussed in a more general context. At the
_b o comp ex an still unresolved problems, it was hardly international congress of Byzantine Studies, held in Ohrid in 1961, he
possi le to solve them all at once, and new evidence is constantly coming to
hght. Nevertheless, Obolensky’s book on the Bogomils was undoubted] one presented a paper (No.1 in the present volume) on “The Principles and
of the outstanding contributions to this field of scholarship and it wfilong Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy”. This was followed by a more
comprehensive survey of the Empire’s relations with its northern neighbours.
gifgiglglififinstaiiodagd (yvlorkhof reference and guide to the subject. More than (No.11) Since the northern borderlands of the Empire were mainly peopled
_ P_ P $6 y tin remains of lasting value, such as his conception by Slavs, this study, too, is concemed to a large extent with Slavonic history.
of the continuity of the duahst movements across time and space from the
3:1gilsltddlagis
1' t\i;/erecent I%t3S.
' cc_A detailed
- study of Bogomilism
- - as , , he wrote, The treatise De administrando imperio, compiled by Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus (913-59), is a source of prime importance for the
Obscu P s ern me_ievahsts to shed new light on the still somewhat understanding of the relations between Byzantium and the countries of
re problem of the historical connections between Asiatic Manichaeism Eastern Europe: it was hence highly appropriate that Obolensky should have
gs"(g1eT](%1Saligt mqvemefiits of Western Europe, particularly of Southern been entrusted with the task of analyzing the information on the Eastern
. _ _ nnec ion, i successfully established, would in its turn enable Slavs provided by the imperial author in the ninth chapter of his treatise. In a
Church histonans to regard the Bogomil sect as the first Euro ean link in th
thousand-year-long chain leading from Mani’s teaching in Mesgpotamia in thg commentary of some forty-five pages, packed with every kind of detail,
Obolensky has minutely studied the text of this long chapter and exhibited
thlld 999,291)’ I0 the Albigensian Crusade in Southern France in the its richness and value as a historical source (No. V). This chapter needed such
thirteenth . This continuity should not be overstressed: it must be set against a detailed and competent commentary; no better qualified scholar could be
;I:fi1glI};<EE1(¢;lS0{en€1ifionatl eiélperience and the changing pattern of history. Yet it found today to carry out this task than this Oxford historian, who combines
_ _ _ Y S 1_ 168 0 _ e underlying unity of the medieval world, As the the specialised knowledge of a Byzantinist trained in the West, the expertise
distinguished Italian medievalist, Professor Raffaello Morghen has pointed of a Slavist, and a devotion to his native Russian land. To these qualities he
out,’ the dualist heretical movements of the Middle Ages were based on a added a clear-sighted understanding of the problems involved and a mastery
particular interpretation of the New Testament. Thus there existed in the of the relevant historical sources. One of the controversial questions treated
‘(’;’g'fi(::1ieal9zfnI;:1"T°P° (P23 i0 some extent outside Europe) a great community of in his commentary is the conflict between the ‘Normanist’ and the
was anothe C8.IlO?lC y established Christian churches. But alongside it there ‘anti-Normanist’ schools concerning the origins and the early history of the
the South I greed ciplmrliliunity, formed of heterdox_ and heretical groups. For Russian state: he presents it in a clear and balanced manner, always seeking
link witherlg an _ e astern Slavs both communities provided an essential for the most reasonable solution. Constantine VIl’s references to historical
Christian“ fylafltgum. These Slav peoples received _their ‘Orthodox’ facts, proper names and geographical and technical terms have enabled
y rom yzantium, and administratively speaking their churches Obolensky to insert into his commentary what are in effect miniature
were but branches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople The heretical
treatises on these varied topics. One may cite as examples the pages devoted
movements, which developed so widely among the Slavs, also had their roots
1? Byzantium, and through Byzantium in the Orient. This conception is to the name ‘Russia’ in Byzantine sources, where the results of modern
research are summed up and accompanied by the author’s own
gFE]l3I(I)y apqarentsto the carefulreader of Obolensky’s writings on the history interpretations; the remarks concernings the monoxyla of the Russians, the
is C ngomi om; of the historical sources he used are Byzantine. Yet he names of several medieval Russian towns and tribes, the Slav and Norse names
he git ceirne ats muc with the Slavs as with Byzantium; as in his other works, of the Dnieper rapids, the geographical name exo Rosia, the pagan sacrifices
facts flI1h_S fim erritory common to both. By using Slav sources to elucidate of the Scandinavian Russians, the words polydia or gyra, etc.
Bul w ic C0élC6I;"t in the first place the history of the Southern Slavs - the
garians an t e Bosnians — Obolensky has also made a valuable With this commentary Obolensky entered the second phase of his scholarly
iziolngligution to the study of the Byzantine Empire and of medieval western work, which led him to study the history of medieval Russia, more
particularly Kievan Russia, and its relations with Byzantium. To this theme
he devoted a number of publications (No. VI deserves special mention). In
It can no longer be claimed, as it was a quarter of a century ago, that
1959 he published a brief and more popular study (No. IV) containing some
Bogomilism constitutes an unexplored, or half-explored, gold-mine”. If we of his basic views on the relations between Kievan Russia and Byzantium,
ST; ffllfily fflimlliar today with this “gold-mine” and we have exploited it well, relations which - quite rightly - he refuses to regard in the light of ‘a
s is ue in arge measure to the work of Professor Obolensky. There is struggle between Byzantine imperialism and Russian nationalism’. These
scarcely any serious recent work devoted to the problem of heresy which relations must indeed be considered solely in the light of contemporary
does not contain references to his writings. This is the most convincing proof medieval notions, with no attempt at modernisation. There existed, to be
 iv V

sure, a Byzantine ‘imperialism’ as well as a ‘nationalism’ inherent in the Empire’s territory in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was accompanied
outlook of peoples and states linked with the Byzantine Empire, but these by a widening of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople which
were categories of thought far removed from modern concepts. Obolensky still remained true to ‘the political vision which pervades the entire history of
rightly emphasises the need, when studying Russo-Byzantine relations, to the Byzantine body politic’. Professor Obolensky defines the attitude of the
keep in mind the notion of a ‘vast Byzantine oikoumene’ in which each Russians towards Byzantium as a ‘complex amalgam of attraction and
people and nation had its place clearly determined according to a carefully repulsion’. If, after the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-39, Muscovite
worked out hierarchical system. The incorporation of Kievan Russia into the Russia rebelled against Constantinople, accusing it of religious betrayal, it was
Byzantine oikoumene had, in Obolensky’s view, a much wider significance in the name of that most rigorous Christian Orthodoxy which Russia had
than is usually attributed to this event: it marked the path leading to Russia’s received in the past from Byzantium. With the conquest of Constantinople by
eventual integration into the European community, both from the cultural the Sultan Mohammed II at the end of May 1453, the Byzantine Empire
and the political points of view, and to its ‘emergence from its pagan ceased to exist as a political and military power; yet it survived as a spiritual
isolation’. In brief, the problems are considered here within a broader force: for the Orthodox peoples, above all the Greeks and the Southern Slavs,
framework: the attempt to place them against the background of European and later the Russians, acquired the spiritual and cultural heritage of
history is generally characteristic of Obolensky’s method in this particular Byzantium. The pages devoted by Obolensky to Russia’s Byzantine heritage
field. He considers the Byzantine Empire not in isolation, but as an integral are particularly illuminating in this respect.
part of Europe in the course of its historical development. And he concludes
that ‘Byzantium was in truth Russia’s gateway to Europe’, thus providing, A last group of studies, related to the mission of Cyril and Methodius,
incidentally, the most convincing ‘rehabilitation’ — if one were needed - of brings us back to Byzantine-Slav relations. Two of them (Nos. IX and"X)
the Byzantine Empire and the contribution made by its civilisation to the appeared in connection with the l.l00th anniversary of the
culture of Russia and of other Slav peoples. Cyrillo-Methodian mission to Great Moravia in 862-3. Here also Professor
Obolensky offers a number of new and suggestive interpretations. One need
Obolensky has not confined his attention to the earliest period in the but recall his assessment of the work of the two brothers from Thessalonica
history of Russo-Byzantine relations. More recently he has discussed these as a manifestation of “Christian universalism”, his discussion of the Byzantine
relations during the late Middle Ages (No. VII); he had earlier considered the attitudes to vernacular liturgical languages, and his perceptive observations on
Byzantine heritage in Russia during the period of ‘Byzance apres Byzance’ the fusion of the Pauline and Cyrillo-Methodian traditions in medieval Russia.
(No. III), and went on to examine the views held on Byzantium by Russian
historians from the seventeenth century to the present time (No. VIII). These It was highly desirable to assemble in one volume these scattered
studies contribute much to our understanding of the relations between Russia publications, in order to appreciate their author’s learning and to enjoy both
and Byzantium. The Empire in the late Middle Ages is shown to have been the qualities of his style and the lucidity of his thought.
interested in maintaining good relations with the Russian state not only for
economic reasons, but also because of its own precarious political and
military situation. Obolensky’s assessment of Byzantium’s position in the IVAN DUJCEV
Empire’s declining years deserves to be underlined: “The Byzantines”, he
writes, “still held two trump cards: the fascination exerted by the city of
Constantinople on the minds of the men of Eastern Europe; and the unifying
force of Orthodox Christianity, of which the Byzantines were regarded (at
least until 1439) as the most authoritative exponents, and whose
administrative centre and spiritual heart were in Constantinople”.(No. VII
pp. 251-2) These observations are equally applicable to the relations between
the Empire and the other Orthodox Slavs. The exceptional prestige enjoyed
by Byzantium and its civilisation in Bulgaria, reflected in the works of
Bulgarian writers of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century,
can be explained in precisely this manner. Euthymius of Trnovo, Gregory
Camblak and Constantine Kostenecki, among others, were dazzled by
Byzantium and its civilisation even in its state of political decadence. Here the
Ottoman threat played a decisive role: for these Slav writers Byzantium was
the Christian Empire, and the city of Constantinople the last rampart
between them and the victorious onslaught of Islam. The apparent paradox
emerges clearly from Obolensky’s pages: the gradual shrinking of the
Byzantium and Eastern Europe
 I

THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF BYZANTINE DIPLOMACY

It is scarcely surprising that the diplomacy of the Byzantine Empire

still awaits its historian. A full-length and comprehensive survey of this
subject -—invo1ving of necessity a study of the Empire’s relations with almost
every nation of Europe, with the whole of western and part of central Asia,
and with northern and eastern Africa as well —— would be indeed a formi-
dable undertaking. Attempts have been made to survey the whole field of
Byzantine diplomacy, but only briefly and sketchily: the most successful,
perhaps, are those of Charles Diehl and Louis Bréhier. For the rest, the
student must glean his information from the standard text-books of Byzan-
tine history, from the existing studies of the Empire’s relations with specific
foreign powers, and especially from monographs devoted to particular reigns
— for instance from Diehl’s book on Justinian I, from Runciman’s mono-
graph on Romanus Lecapenus, from Rambaud’s study of Constantine VII,
and from D. I. Geanakoplos’ recent work on the western policy of
Michael VIII. _
These studies, brief or partial, of Byzantine foreign policy have done
much to pave the way for some future scholar possessed with the necessary
knowledge and industry to attempt a comprehensive study of the Empire’s
diplomacy. Such a scholar would find, moreover, that much of the source
material relating to this subject has already been listed and analyzed with
admirable clarity: Professor D6lger’s Regesten and Professor Moravcsik’s
Byzantrinoturcica, for example, have amply supplemented and extended K.
Dieterich’s older, but still useful, compedium of Byzantine ethnology.
It seems to me, however, that more preparatory work must be done before
we can have any detailed and comprehensive account of Byzantine diplo-
macy as a whole — of its principles and methods, its ideals and techniques,
its failures and achievements; and that in the meantime more limited studies
of the Empire’s foreign policy in specific areas may well provide the most
fruitful starting point.
The aim of this paper is to attempt such a limited study in relation
primarily to one such area. From the spectacle of Byzantine diplomacy at
work, grappling with concrete problems, in this area during the course of
centuries, a general picture will, it is hoped, emerge which will be used

1
46 Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 47

in the second half of the paper as a basis for an overall assessment of some The importance of the Caucasian sector to the Empire’s security was
of the principles and methods of Byzantine diplomacy. a matter of elementary geo-politics: for at the two extremities of this great
The area to which I shall, in the main, confine myself in the first isthmus separating the Black Sea from the Caspian the Graeco—Roman
part of this paper lay beyond the northern borders of the Empire. This, civilization of the Mediterranean met and frequently clashed with the west-
broadly speaking, was the region limited in the west by the plain of Hun- ward expansion of Asiatic powers: in the north with the nomads of Eurasia,
gary and in the east by the Caspian Sea. It stretches over the Carpathian pressing toward the Black Sea and the Danube; in the south with the great
Mountains, the south Russian steppe and the lowlands to the north of the powers of the Middle East, pushing toward Asia Minor and the Bosphorus.
Caucasus. It is bounded in the north by a semicircle extending over the Both these westward movements spelled constant danger to Byzantium, and
lower courses of the great Russian rivers — the Dniester, the Dnieper and the efforts of Imperial diplomacy in this sector were directed as much at achie-
the Don —- and whose tips come to rest on the middle Danube in the west ving a favourable balance of power in the lowlands north of the Caucasus,
and on the lower Volga in the east. It coincides exactly with the area of as to creating a bulwark against possible attacks of Persians, Arabs and Turks
which a geo-political description is given in the fcrty-second chapter of the through Asia Minor towards Constantinople itself. The close relationship
De Admzrnstrando Imperio; and the scrupulous care with which this region that always existed, in the strategy of the Empire’s generals, in the mind
is described therein is in itself sufiicient evidence of the importance it of its diplomatists and in actual fact, between Byzantium’s eastern and
possessed in the eyes of the Byzantine statesmen of the tenth century. northern fronts is nowhere more apparent than in the Caucasus sector.
And the basic aim of Byzantine policy in this sector was always the same:
In stressing the crucial importance to Byzantium of the lands that lay to build a chain of allied, or vassal, states from the lower Volga and the Sea
beyond the Empire’s northern borders Constantine Porphyrogenitus was
of Azov to Lake Van in Armenia. Their peoples could render the Empire
giving expression to a concern that underlies the whole history of Byzantine services consonant with their geographical position and military resources:
diplomacy. For it was from this area that issued that never-ending procession
in the sixth century, for instance, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea the
of tribes and nations which, in war and in peace, were irresistibly drawn
Zichi and the Abasgi could enable the Byzantine fleet to operate in Cau-
into the orbit of Byzantium, whose attacks and invasions fill the military
casian waters and could hold the left flank of the Empire’s north-eastem
records of the Empire, and whose fears, ambitions and lust taxed so severely
front; further south the Lazi and the Tzani guarded the approaches to the
the ingenuity of the statesmen in Constantinople. For a considerable part
northern coast of Asia Minor; the Georgians in the central Caucasus and
of its history the Empire was fighting to defend its frontiers - and often
the Alans further north stood guard over the Caspian Gates and could pre-
its very life — against the thrusts of the northern invader, of Hun and
vent the steppe nomads from Asia from striking south across this mountain
Bulgar, of Avar and Slav, of Russian and Pecheneg. The role played by
pass at Byzantine Asia Minor. All these Caucasian peoples were successfully
Byzantium in standing for a millenium and more as the guardian of Europe’s
wooed by the diplomacy of Justinian; the first four were converted to
eastern frontier against oriental expansion and northern attacks is now, indeed,
Christianity in the sixth century by Byzantine missionaries, and the new
widely recognized; but it is perhaps not always appreciated how much the
ecclesiastical organization set up in their lands proved a powerful means
preservation of civilization in Eastern Europe was due to the skill and resour-
of keeping them within the political orbit of East Rome. And the roads
cefulness of Byzantine diplomacy. And it was partly in response to the
and fortresses which the Byzantines built in these countries were the mate-
northern challenge that was forged, in the course of centuries, by steadfast
rial counterpart of the flattering but less tangible links which their rulers
faith and lucid thinking, by careful study and observation, by trial and error,
were induced to cement with the Imperial court of Constantinople. These
that Imperial diplomacy which surely remains one of Byzantium’s lasting
outposts of Byzantine influence in the Caucasus could also be of conside-
contributions to the history of Europe. The fact that Byzantium in its dea-
rable economic value to the Empire: thus the relations established by By-
lings with the barbarians generally preferred diplomacy to war is not sur-
zantium with the Turks of Central Asia between 568 and 576, which enabled
prising: for the East Romans, faced with the ever-present necessity of having
the Empire to import silk while circumventing the Persian control of the
to battle on two fronts — in the east against Persians, Arabs and Turks,
silk routes from China to the Black Sea, depended at least in part on the
in the north against the steppe barbarians and the Balkan Slavs —— knew
trade route that skirted the northern shores of the Caspian, crossed the
from personal experience how expensive in money and manpower is war.
central Caucasus range, reached the Black Sea coast of Abasgia, and con-
In considering the ways in which the statesmen of Byzantium endea- tinued by sea via Phasis to Trebizond.1
voured to meet the challenge presented to the security of the state by its The central Caucasus region retained its strategic value for the Empire
northern neighbours, it may be convenient to consider in turn the prin- until the second half of the eleventh century. The Alans, already described
cipal sectors in which these neighbours impinged on the strategic and diplo- by Procopius as ,,friends of the Romans from of old“,2 had become in the
matic position of the Empire. There were, it seems to me, three such sectors,
which served as the pivots of Byzantine diplomacy on the norther frontier: 1 Menander, fr. 21-22.
the Caucasus, the Crimea and the Danube. ” Bellum Persicum, II, c. 29, ed Teubner, pp. 291-2.

4 Rapports du XII“ Congres Intern. des Etudes byzantines, Ochridc 1961 3

48 Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 49

tenth century the linchpin of Byzantine dipiomacy in the Caucasian sector. capital of _Itil’ on the lower Volga were generally friendly and close; as the
They were converted to Christianity by Byzantine missionaries in the first Book of Ceremonies shows, in the diplomatic protocol of Byzantium the
half of that century. The Alans were held in high esteem in Byzantium, Khazar Khagan ranked among ncn Christian foreign rulers second only
and Constantine Porphyrogenitus stresses their usefulness in checking pos- to the Khalife of Baghdad. Once again — in the second half of the thirteenth
sible Khazar encroachments in the Crimea? Their ruler, who held the By- century — did the lands to the north of the Caucasus play their part in that
zantine title of éfioootmorfié» Was one of the three Imperial satellites of that balance of power which the Byzantine statesmen always sought to establish
period to be honoured as the Emperor’s ,,spiritual son.“‘ The importance in- the Pontic steppes: for, in accordance with the age-long traditions of
of Armenia — that bone of contention between Byzantium and the Arabs — Byzantine diplomacy in this sector, the alliance concluded by Michael VIII
was fully recognized by the Imperial diplomatists of the Macedonian period. with the Tatars of the Golden Horde was partly aimed at exerting pressure
Their policy of bestowing high-sounding titles on Armenian princes to upon a hostile neighbour of the Empire -— the Bulgarians.
ensure their political docility led to the annexation of part of the country In the central segment of the great semi-circle-that marked the effec-
by Basil II, and of the remaining part in 1064. But soon the battle of Mant- tive limits of Byzantium’s sphere of interest in the north, half-way between
zikert sealed the doom of Byzantine hegemony in Transcaucasia. its tips that rested on the middle Danube and the lower Volga, lay the second
At the northern extremity of the Empire’s Caucasian front lay a region sector of the Empire’s northern front. Until the early thirteenth century
of peculiar strategic importance: the lowlands between the lower Volga and the Byzantine possessions in the Crimea, above all the city of Cherson,
the Sea of Azov offered easy transit_ to nomadic invaders from Asia heading acted as the northern outpost of Byzantine diplomacy in the steppe: their
westward towards the Black Sea and the Danube, of southward to the Cau- importance was partly economic, for the Crimea provided Byzantium with
casus and beyond. The peoples who dwelt in this area, if they were friendly the raw materials of the hinterland -—- fish from the rivers of South Russia,
to the Empire and sulficiently powerful, could be counted on to guard the salt from the Azov region, furs and honey from the forests further north,
eastern extremity of the European ,,steppe corridor“ and, generally, to help and sold to the barbarians the manufactured articles of Byzantine industry.
preserve the balance of power along the whole length of the Empire’s north- Politically, Cherson and its neighbouring region, subject or vassal of the
ern front. The Byzantine statesmen were quick to realize the urgent need Empire, was an invaluable observation post, a watch-tower planted on the
of securing a strong ally in this sector: and on two occasions they succeeded very fringe of that barbarian world of south Russia which Byzantine diplo-
in this task. In the first half of the seventh century a powerful barbarian macy was ever anxious to influence and control. It was from the Crimea
kingdom arose in the triangle between the sea of Azov, the lower Volga and that ]ustinian’s government could follow the moves of the Hunnic tribes,
the northern Caucasus; known to the Byzantines as ,,Old Great Bulgaria“, encamped on both sides of the sea of Azov, and, by a timely bribe or by
its rise to power was undoubtedly due to East Roman support. Its ruler stirring up internal strife among them, ward off their attacks on the Balkans.
Kovrat had been brought up and baptized at the court of Constantinople, Thus, from Byzantine Crimea, could the Emperors pursue, towards the
and the spell cast upon him by his memories of the Imperial city served northern barbarians, the traditional Roman policy of ,,divide and rule“,
the Empire in good stead: Kovrat, a close friend of the Emperor Heraclius, or at least, when this proved impracticable, ,,weaken and watch“. And, true
his vassal, ally and godson, himself a patrician of the Roman Empire, offers again to the time-honoured methods of Roman diplomacy, Byzantium had
a striking example of a satellite ruler, faithfully guarding the interests of secured in that region, to counterbalance the Huns, a useful satellite, part
Byzantium in the north. This successful experiment was soon repeated by vassal and part ally -— the Crimean Goths. The security of the Empire’s
the Empire: for when in the middle of seventh century ,,O1d Great Bulgaria“ Balkan provinces depended as much upon the watchfulness of its agents
was displaced and conquered by the Khazars, the Byzantines transferred in the Crimea as upon the influence it wielded in the north Caucasian sector;
their support to the newcomers. And during the next two centuries the it is no wonder that Byzantium hung on to its Crimean outpost with grim
Khazar Empire, that most civilized and ordered of states created by the determination, struggling to preserve it from Khazar domination, attemp-
Turkic peoples in the early Middle Ages, remained Byzantium’s most con- ting, not always successfully, to canalize into lawful channels the traditions
stant and valued ally in the north. It is probable that in the eighth century of Greek municipal autonomy, which were always strong in Cherson. And
the Khazar alliance did much to save Byzantium from the Arab menace, in the late ninth century the wisdom of this policy of hanging on to the
for if the Khazars had not halted the northward thrust of Islam on the Cau- Crimea became forcibly apparent. The appearance of new barbarians on
casus, the Arabs might well have invaded the steppes of South Russia, the northem horizon forced the Empire hastily to build up a new balance
appeared on the lower Danube, and outflanked the whole Byzantine system of power in the steppes. The first of these new intruders were the Peche-
of defence. Though the interests of the two powers occasionally clashed - negs. This barbarous Turkic people was then threatening the whole western
notably in the Crimea —-relations between Constantinople and the Khazar section of the Empire’s northern front, from the sea of Azov to the Danube.
Byzantine diplomacy met this challenge by a policy of readjustment. For
3 DAI, c. 10, ll. the past two centuries it had relied, for preserving order in the steppes,
‘ De Cerimoniis, ed. Bonn., p. 688. mainly on the Khazars, but their power was fast declining; so, in the early
4*‘
4
5
 50 Dimitri Obolen sky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy g 51

tenth century, Byzantium turned to the Pechenegs. One has but to re-read the invasion by land, across the lowlands of Thrace; and we find that contrast
opening chapters of De Administrando Imperio to be persuaded of the crucial stressed as early as the second century BC by Polybius; his remarks on the
importance of the Pecheneg alliance to the Empire during that century. tragic exposure of the ancient Greek city of Byzantium to attacks from the
They show quite clearly that for Constantine VII alliance with the Peche- north-west are worth quoting, for they seem to be almost a prophecy of
negs is the corner-stone of Byzantine diplomacy in the north; for — as Con- the East Roman Empire’s relations with its northern neighbours. ,,As
stantine is at pains to explain to his son — if this alliance is kept, Byzantine Thra¢e“ -- Polybius writes -—- ,,surrounds the territory of the Byzantines
Crimea is safe, trade with Russia can flourish, and the Empire’s northern on all sides, reaching from sea to sea, they are involved in an endless and
enemies, Bulgars and Magyars and Russians, who tremble with fear before troublesome war against the Thracians, for it is not feasible, by making
the Pechenegs, will not dare to attack. ,,I conceive, then“, the Emperor preparations on a grand scale and winning one decisive victory over them,
writes, ,,that it is always greatly to the advantage of the emperor of the to get rid once for all of their hostilities; the barbarous nations and dynasts
Romans to be minded to keep the peace with the nation of the Pechenegs are too numerous. If they overcome one, three more worse than the first
and to conclude conventions and treaties of friendship with them and to arise and advance against their country. Nor can they gain any advantage
send every year to them from our side a diplomatic agent with presents by submitting to pay tribute and making definite contracts; for if they make
befitting and suitable to that nation“? It is understandable and significant any concession to one prince, such a concession raises up against them
that the responsibility for negotiating with the Pechenegs lay on the Governor five times as many foes. For these reasons they are involved in a never-
of Cherson. ending and troublesome war. For what is more dangerous than a bad neighbour,
The other factor which enhanced the importance of Byzantine Crimea and what is more dreadful than a war with barbarians? And besides the
in this period was the southward movement of the Swedish Vikings down other evils that attend on war, they have to undergo (to speak poetically)
the Russian rivers, and the foundation of the Varangian Russian principa- a sort of Tantalean punishment, for when they. . . have been rewarded by
lities along the Dnieper waterway. The attacks they launched from Kiev the production of an abundant and surpassingly fine crop, then_come the
in the century following their massive raid on Constantinople in 860 could barbarians, and having reaped part of the fruits to_ carry off with them,
be forestalled, if not prevented, by the intelligence bureau of the Gtpotrfiyég destroy what they cannot take away. The Byzantines can only murmur
of Cherson. ,,Behold“, the Chersonites informed the Emperor in 944, ,,the indignantly, and endure.“7 If for Polybius’ invading Thracians we sub-
Russians are coming in countless ships, and the ships have covered the stitue the northern foes of the Eastern Empire —- Huns, Slavs, Avars,
sea“.“ In vain the Russians sought to mop up this dangerous observation Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Russians and Cumans —- and it to the patient
post. Cherson, it is true, fell to the armies of Vladimir of Russia in 989: endurance of the ancient Byzantines we add the capacity for military resi-
but by a providential irony of fate, the city, so long a focus of missionary stance so marvellously displayed by their_ East Roman successors in_tl"ie
work among the pagans of the north, took her captor captive: for Vladimir’s city of Constantine, we shall have an admirable summary of the Empire s
coup de main resulted in his marriage to the Emperor’s sister and in the position on the Danubian front.
conversion of Russia to Christianity, and Cherson was returned to the It was in this Danubian sector -—— and in its southern extension ‘into
Emperor by the Russian ruler in exchange for his bride. Thus did the the Balkans -—- that Byzantine diplomacy met its most powerful and sustained
missionaries and diplomatists of East Rome gain for Christianity and for challenge. Byzantine policy in this sector was dominated_by the Empires
Byzantine civilization a territory which in size exceeded the Empire itself. relations with the Slavs. The story is as chequered and painful as Polybius
The third sector of Empire’s northern front was on the lower and remarks would lead one to expect. Its main episodes are prominently recorded
middle Danube, the ancient ,,limes Romanus“: and the Danube, in the true in the contemporary sources: ]ustinian’s attempts -— only partly SuC<I¢S8fu1
sense of the word, was much more of a ,,front“ than the Crimea or the -— to hold the Danube by an intricate web of defensive diplomacy; the
northem Caucasus. This too was a matter of geo-politics: for the lower efforts of his successors -— notably Iustin II and Maurice — I0 T@Pl9—¢e
Danube lies near the terminus of the ,,steppe corridor“, that immemorial ]ustinian’s balance of power by a policy of _str<-math 3831115‘ the Avar
highway for nomadic invaders from Asia: and for many of them, who had pressure on the Danube; Heraclius’ alliance_with the Serbs and the _Croa_ts
succeeded in avoiding the entanglements and traps laid for them by the against the Avars and his great victory against the northern barbarians in
Byzantine diplomats in the Caucasian and Crimean sectors, the Danube 626, offset by the continued and irresistible spread of the Slavs over the
proved no insuperable obstacle, and the road into the Balkans lay open. Empire’s Balkan provinces; the collapse of Byzantium s Danubian frontier
There is a significant contrast in the strategic position of Constantinople, between 6'7‘? and 681, the invasion of the Bulgars and the_ foundation of
which explains much in the medieval history of south—eastern Europe: the First Bulgarian Empire, which was several times to bring Byzantium
admirably protected from attack by sea, the city lies open to a chance to the brink of destruction; Byzantium’s dipl0mat1C C01111'¢¢1'-0ff@11$1V¢ north

5 DAI, c. 1. English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. " Polybius, IV, 45. Cited in an English translation by I. B. Bury (A History
' Povesf Vremennykh Let, s. a. 944. of the Later Roman Empifes H» L°11d0I1, 1339, PP- 11-42)-

(. 7
 52 Dimitri Obolensky
I
The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 53

and south of the Danube in the second half of the ninth century; the despe-
rate struggle with Symeon of Bulgaria who by his imperialist designs pre- the Oikoumene of which their Emperor was the sole legitimate sovereign.
Thi f course is a characteristically Roman idea, for the Romans had
sented the diplomatists of Byzantium with a challenge the like or which
1 S21 O uffered, from the egocentric illusion that their Empire embraced
they had never encountered; the uneasy equilibrium that followed, until
ztlhrieeabizriliszed world It was only natural that the Rhomaioi of Constantine’s
the victorious armies of John Tzimisces, tearing asunder what remained . . - -' '- ' ' lEmire.
of the First Bulgarian Empire, carried Byzantium’s northem frontier back city inherited this uncompromising belief _in the one Universa p
to the Danube; the rise of the Second Bulgarian Empire in the late twelfth Th A athias writing in the reign of Justinian, could state that the Em-
perblf-’s élominfons ,,embrace' the whole world“ ;8 and four Bcenturies latler
century; the struggle of the dying Empire against the imperial designs of . - ' t' e o i-
Stephen Dusan of Serbia, which in so many ways recalls Byzantium’s con- Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the standard auth<_>f1tYh°l;_l Yzag Ind P to
test with Symeon of Bulgaria four centuries earlier: such were, in the Da- tical theory compared the Emperor s power, in its r yt m an or er, _
nubian and Balkan sectors, the main phases of the Empire’s diplomatic the harmonious
. movement
- given to 'the Universe' by its Creator.”hoAnd
was this
the
and military resistance against its northem neighbours. doctrine of the one Universal _EmP1,Te> 1'ul6C_1 by the Erilpeliolidwb the B _
supreme
. legislator
. and the living law,' was intransigent
' yl e t h gz_koumene
Y
‘A’
¥
1! zantines till the last days of the EI1'1P11'¢- MP1‘? P5_11't1¢u1aT Y;_ ed O thodox
held to extend over all countries whose inhabitants pro esse_ r
From this picture of Byzantine diplomacy at work in the three sectors
of the Empire’s northern front -— tne Caucasus, the Crimea and the Danube ‘Ghsistianit and were bound in a sense not easily definable 111 Ififms Of
) -
I titutiogal law by a Common allegiance to the Emperor of Byzantium,
-— there emerges, it would seem, a certain constant and recognizable pattern.
flinssu reme heacf of the whole Christian world and God’s representative
To defend the borders of the Empire by nipping in the bud the attacks
of the barbarians, the é"9‘VY] of the steppes; to extend as far as possible the one earfh By the middle of the tenth century, as we see from The Book of
boundaries of the Empire’s political and cultural hegemony by creating Ceremonies the Byzantine diplomatic protocol had evolved with some pre-
beyond the frontiers a chain of satellite states, whose loyalty to Byzantium ' . ion this anotion of- an Oecumenical
cis - ' society,
'- an ordered hierarchy
d thof subor-
throne
was cemented by their acceptance of the religion and the political supre- dinate states, satellites revolving in obediept harrplggyvgguléonnnfignwealth
macy of the Emperor in Constantinople: these were surely the unchanging of the universal Autccrat in Constantinop e. _ m lace according to the
aims of East Roman diplomacy in the north. And I believe that there is each nation was theoretically assigned its paitic Q1" P > _ d b
no better way of testing the essential continuity of this diplomacy than to excellence of its culture, the degree of political independence enjoye y
compare the foreign policy of Justinian, as described by Procopius, with 't S ruler > the military resources he commanded,
1his - - and- the services
' hewhich
and
that of the Macedonian Emperors, as epitomized in the writings of Con- subjects could render to the Empgei T1111: BYZ(‘;é1STg£1i§[)€(31'};?)”";’ie‘,';€i1y and
stantine Porphyrogenitus; it is diflicult to resist the impression that Con- Professor Ostrogorsky and Professor o 861' av‘? _ h 1 L_ ’ Sk
stantine, for all his greater sophistication and, perhaps, a clearer grasp of which
. was . evoked with great eloquence by the Russian
° —- ss ' o alt; 1 aman.an2'1
aria
essentials, is a pupil of Justinian. For it was above all Justinian who deve- in 187 5,1” included the Orthodox Slav countries 136;" libof L-lhgse mum
Russia ; and, with scarcely anexception, the medieva rp erl_su_ ' Em ire
loped and bequeathed to his successors that conception of diplomacy as
an intricate science and a fine art, in which military pressure, political tries never questioned this vision of the one universa C istian P >
destined to foreshadow
. on
- -earth the Heavenly
- Kingdom» um“ the last
tu S meon days
intelligence, economic cajolery and religious propaganda were fused into
an almost irresistible weapon of defensive imperalism. And finally, to test
this continuity on a still deeper level, we may pass from the real of technique of Bulgaria led his armies against lpnztantincp brsh a Bulgarian Bowmsta
to that of first principles and ask ourselves the question: what did the East the title of Emperor’ he knew fun W€' t ‘at to es aotlto rival or to suPPlant
Romans understand by foreign policy? of his own was out of the question. his aim was n _ _ 1
Byzantium but to set himself up as Roman Emperor in Constantinop e.
It has often been stated that the Byzantine Empire, in its essential And the Byzantine Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, who exerted all his diplo-
features, was a synthesis of the three traditions of Rome, Hellenism and . . . ' v nture saw
matic skill in an attempt to persuade Symeon to abandciln this_ et d is T
Christianity. The Roman conception of law and govemment, the Greek this very clearly. Symeon’s claim to world domination
language, literature and philosophy, the Christian faith with its Jewish . - ' , el cgstéigait e.is remar-
J"
rarmzs, an unlawful revolt against the sovereégn Errgpfgor ost any length to
foundations — these, it may fairly be claimed, were the basic ingredients kable that the Patriarch, who was prepare to g fllm _al _ t_
that went into the making of Byzantine civilization. And it seems to me appease the Bulgarian ruler, refused to concede the one essenti p01I1 ,
possible to detect the influence of these same three traditions in the prin-
ciples of Byzantine foreign policy. For these principles were not just the
products of ad hoc decisions: they were rooted in the view held by the East B Cited in P. N. Ure, Justinian and His Age (Penguin Books, 1951) v- 248-
° De Cen'mom'i's, ed. Bonn, p.q5.
Romans of the nature and purpose of their Empire. The Byzantines believed 10 Slavyamky Sbornik, I (st. Petersburg, 1815). PP- 464-9-
that their Empire was, in principle, coextensive with the civilized universe,
11 P. G. cxi, 45-ss.
8 9
 54 ___g_ g Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Metliods of Byzantine Diplomacy jg 55

againsf 3Y1'11¢0I1’8 imperialistic claims he soleitmly reiterated the funda- Rhomaios was his membership of the Orthodox Church and his allegiance to
menta t enet of byzantine
h ‘ ' ' '
political -
philosophy.. the Emperor’s authority,
i .
e wrote to Symeon, ,,stands above all earthly authority and alone on this the Emperor, the vicegerent of God. The barbarian, in principle, was now
earth was established by the King of all“.1” It is remarkable that even By the pagan, outside the Emperor’s direct jurisdiction. Once you accepted
zantium’ b" ' - . . . . . ‘ Orthodox Christianity you generally ceased, whatever your race and the
of the o?k.Z.§§.Z‘l,§§‘§§§m‘§s~‘“ §aS“”“ f“‘°P@*mP1191i1¥ accepted this notion
1_ f re in onstantinople. This is yust as evident in the
language you spoke, to be a barbarian. Writing of Kovrat, ruler of Old
Great Bulgaria in the seventh century, the contemporary chronicler Iohn
P0 193' 0 Stephen Dusan and_1n the title he assumed of Bocaikebg mil of Nikiu states: ,,After he had been baptized with life—giving baptism he
Q’ uroxporrcop
' Z epfiiou;
' xou.\ C l3oip.otvioig,
r as 1t
. 1S
. in
- Symeon’s ' designs,
_ And the
rulers of medieval Russia who, no less than those of Serbia and Bulgaria, overcame all the barbarians and heathens through virtue of holy baptism.“"
jealously guarded their political sovereignty and independence likewise The culture of this Bulgar Christian ruler may have been somewhat crude:
;€(III(i§EI11Slf1ii that theiEmperor in Constantinople -possessed supreinacy and but it is clear that, in Byzantine eyes, he was no longer a barbarian. Simi-
larly, in the late twelfth century the Christian Russians (to Xpl.C>'TLOtVL>£(.l)TOtTOV
It is true t£at1::1$;h1¢t1pn_over all Christian nations, including their own. oi “P80; Yévog), allies of Byzantium, are contrasted with the ,,barbarian“
of Constantino le Sue c (iSlI1gbyi:<9._1;§ of the fourteenth century the Patriarch and pagan Cumans."
the Emperor’s The Roman idea of the One Universal Empire and the Greek, or
and rsminded game t(bn%eyori:1i'tLle§
him of his Obli t_ fromthe t e iptychs
Duke of
of the
MOSCOW'fOr Causing
Russian Church,
M “ _ ga ions towards the oecumenical Emperor:
rather Hellenistic, concept of ,,barbarians“ were infused by the Byzantines
h» y son > he wrote to Basil I 0f M_oscow, »Y0u are Wrong in a metaphysical interpretation, borrowed from the tradition of Judaism and
' saying
' C we Christianity. The Byzantines believed that the political organization of
ave a Church, but an Emperor’. It is not possible for Christians to have
a Church and not .to have an Empire“. And the Patriarch makes it quite this world is part of God’s universal plan and is intimately bound up with
clea
Thlé th
Eilnt tehgrsovereigiity
' '
of tge Byzantine .
Emperor extends over Russia: the history of man’s salvation. As the universal organism of the Roman
» _ P - _1s appointe brzszleus and autokraior of the Romans -—-
Empire had providentially paved the way for the victorious advance of the
TO Wit, Of all Chr1stians“.13 But this revolt of the Russian sovereign against Christian faith, so were the Rhomaioi, dedicated to the service of Christ
the b
and ' ' -'
s‘1Z1c(éS[S)g:.I'lE1§)Sli(i '
Icif _thehOzkoumene - exceptional;
was quite ’ - . sen
and his by the Emperor Constantine, to reap where the First Rome had sown, and
to the Em emf CO , in_t e fiery last years of the Empire’s history, wrote to bring the Gospel to all the peoples of the earth. So the Pax Romana was
equated with the Pax Christiana, and the interests of the Empire coincided
_ P_ Hstantine I in these terms: ,,You have received your
great imperial sceptre. . . in order to establish all Orthodox Christianity in with the advancement of the Christian faith. It is easy to say that the By-
your realm and to render great assistance to our dominions of Russia and zantine missionary was the agent of East Roman imperialism. But it is
to all our religion.“14 perhaps not always realized how seriously most Emperors took their duty
of converting the barbarians. To test the effectiveness of Byzantine foreign
_ But the universality of the Empire was in fact, of course, a very relative

Of
there dwelt in outer darkness lligar 6 afflparteof the Byzamlne Ozkoumme’
policy in any given period, the work of the Christian missions is nearly
always a sure criterion. And there can be little doubt that the greatest period
in the history of Byzantine missions begins in the middle of the ninth cen-
The Byzantines Called them barb: Pagflll 8 W1» lesser breeds without the law. tury, when the Empire’s foreign policy, long on the defensive, and recently
word, and for the ancient Gr€{‘1ifl$,lI110Wbl5°¢P5°}P°c> Of course, is a Greek crippled by the Iconoclast crisis, regained the initiative in all three sectors
of the Northern front. This expansion of Byzantine culture in the north
the Hellenic
Greek. world
And the whose wa
Byzantines bogroof d1V1l111_g,
e thinking
alballansand
were pe9ple was
behaving Outside
un- led to the emergence, by-the beginning of the eleventh century, of a new
ancient Gregks b t _h h we t 1S concept of ,,barbarians_ from the community of European nations, with a nascent Christian culture and a
Hen _ _ , u wit t e new cultural emphasis it had acquired in the common allegiance to the Church and Emperor of East Rome. The leading
enistic age. In the remarkable mixture of races that made up the By- role in this peaceful conquest was played by the Byzantine missionary. In
ffhnggllgiognlgléettggrgarglsrigg Priflfifi févr any ethnic distinction between the the history of Byzantine missions there is surely no greater period than
the non-Greek langua8e ,, bat arian
' €‘.15yZantln€S, It lsdistinctive
-trlle’ .W0uld the sixties of the ninth century; in this single decade, the Khazar Khagan,
, but the true markSun
of can
the who favoured the Jewish faith, was induced to follow a policy of toleration
—

1' Ibid., 64. 1° The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. trans]. R. H. Charles, (London. 1916) p.197.
" Miklosich und Miiller, Acza Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani II 190-2 English
t
pl:-I1811.94_y6‘Ernest
b - and political
Barker, Social -- . Byzantium
thought m . (Oxford, 1957), 1' Nicetas Choniates,ed. Bonn. 691.
The distinction between ,,barbarian“ and ,,Christian“ was, however, not an ab-
1‘ Russkaya Istoricheskaya Biblioteka, VI, 577. solute one; Christian satellites of the-Empire are sometimes styled ,,barbarians“ in By-
1° Cf. th f h ' . . zantine sources, mainly, it seems, when they forgot their duty of obedience to the Em-
Desm-pm-0 S_ Soghléif C3 §3(fnnI;I°lrf‘g1;; term l3°‘Pl5°‘P<5<pmv0¢ by Paul the Silcntiary, peror: thus the Russians who attacked the Empire in 1043 are described by Psellos
as to Bo'cpBo_zpov. .. -roi'3ro cpfilovz Chronographie, ed. E. Renauld (Paris 1928), II, 8.

IO
I 1l
 56 Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 57

towards the Christians of his realm; Constantine and Methodius were sent be interesting to consider the meaning of several technical terms used by
to Moravia, there to implant among the Slavs of Central Europe a verna- Byzantine writers to describe the peoples thus associated with the Empire.
cular Christianity under Byzantine auspices; Bulgaria was converted to the Six of these seem particularly significant: €var:<>v8oi, 6n6<mov8oi, abnnaxoi,
Christian faith; and the Patriarch Photius, the instigator of all these missi- xorrhxoot, 1'i'rcw']xoo:. and 'n:p6Esvor..
ons, was able to announce that the Russians themselves had accepted baptism The term §vcmov8o¢_; (,,ally“; cf. o"rcov3oti = ,,a solenm treaty“) is in
and acknowledged the Emperor’s supremacy. a sixth century source significantly related to the word p.LO'60tp6p0c; (,,mer-
Such then, it may be suggested, were the principles which determined cenary“; oi. p.r.o~0o<p6p-at = mercenaries)!“ The term é’vcmov8oi was also
the_ foreign policy of the Byzantine Empire: a universalism derived from applied in the sixth century to the Crimean Goths,“ to the Lombards,” and
ancient Rome; a distinction between the Rhomaios and the barbarian, that to the Saracens on the south-eastern borders of the Empire ;”1 and in the
combined the Hellenistic idea of a common culture with the Christian notion early thirteenth century the Bulgarian ruler Kaloyaii was termed one of
of a common Church; and the Judaeo-Christian conception of the Chosen the évo-rcov8oi. of the Byzantine Emperor.“
People, the pre-ordained carrier of the true faith to all the corners of the ‘Tm’>ar:ov8oi (,,under a treaty“) is clearly synonymous with Ev-
earth. cmov8oi. The term is applied in the fifth century to the Thracian Goths,”
It is obvious that these principles, and especially the first, were often
in the sixth century to the Tzani.“ In a chrysobullon issued shortly after the
at variance _with observable reality. And yet, for all their attachment to theory,
conquest of the Empire of Samuel in 1018, Basil II stated that the country
the Byzantine politicians were no pedantic doctrinaires. How then did they
was now his 1§rc6cmov3ov.25 In the twelfth century the same word is applied
square the theory with the facts?
to the Russian prince of Galicia“ and to the King of Hungary.”
The main problem was, of course, to reconcile the Emperor’s uni-
versal sovereignty with the existence of barbarians outside his effective Eilugiaxoi (,,a1lies“) denoted the Heruli in the sixth century,” the Rus-
control._ The Byzantines, with their characteristically Greek tendency to sians in the eleventh,” and the Hungarians in the twelfth;3° in the same
rationalize phenomena, had to explain and justify these limitations of the century Manuel Cornnenus is said to have offered a GU[.L[.1.G.XlO(. to the prince
Emperor_’s power: the barbarian é'9v~q, they argued, may today be outside of Kiev,“ and in the early years of the thirteenth century Kaloyan of Bul-
the Empire’s hegemony, or in revolt against the authority of the auzokraror; garia is described as a ofiuuoqo; of Alexius III.”
but ideally and potentially they were still his subjects; if their lands remained The term xarfixooi (,,obedient“; cf. iron-omoiSt.>—,,to be subject“) was
outside the Ozkoumene, this was the result of God’s permissive will, of the somewhat less common; it is applied to the Tzani in the sixth century,”
divine Ozkorzomia, and some day they would bow down before their legiti- and to the Serbs in the twelfth.“ The two other terms, fircvfixooi (,,su bjects“)
mate sovereign. To induce them to do so was the unvarying aim of Byzantine and 1-cpéfievor. (,,public friends“), are used by the Patriarch Photius in his
diplomacy: and in several periods of the Empire’s history, when the autho- encyclical letter of 867 to define the relationship of the newly-converted
rity and prestige of Byzantium were on the ascendant, it must have seemed Russians to the Empire.“ The choice of the last two terms, both of which
to the statesman of East Rome that this universal mission was on the way go back to classical antiquity, is, I believe, significant: fmriptooi. was a word
to_ being fulfilled: such epochs of great diplomatic achievement were the
reigns of __Iustinian and Heraclius, the period that extends from the acces- 1° The ruler of the Utigurs was ]ustinian’s Evcmov8ov... xoti y_v.c6oq>6pov: Aga-
sion of Michael III in 842 to the death of Basil II in 1025, and the age of thias, Hisr., V, 24 (Bonn 332).
the Comnenian emperors. 1° Procopius, De aedificiis, III, 7, ed. Teubner, p. 101.
The methods employed by the Byzantine diplomatists to induce the ‘° Procopius, Bellum gothicum, III, 33, ed. Teubner, p. 444.
*1 Ibid., IV, ll; Bellum persicum, I, 17, ed. Teubner, p. 90.
barbarians to enter the Oikoumene, or at least to associate themselves with " Nicetas Choniates: Sathas, Bibl. gr. medii aevi, I, 95. This relationship is
it, varied greatly according to circumstances. The simplest —- and one fre- held by Nicetas to constitute a form of Soukelot.
quently used until the financial crisis of the late eleventh century -—- was ” Malchus, Bonn 237.
money. In the belief that every man has his price, the Byzantine govern- “ Agathias, Hist. V, 1 (Bonn 278). Procopius states that the Tzani were at’i1-6vop.or.
ments from Justinian to Basil H paid out considerable sums to ensure the (Bell. pers., I, 15). '
'5 Byz. Zeirschnft, II, (1893) 44; Seminarium Kondakovianum, IV (1931), 50.
loyalty of the Empire’s satellite peoples. In many cases this money was " Cinnamus, Hist., Bonn, 115.
undoubtedly tribute, extorted by the barbarians at the point of the sword. " Ibz'd., Bonn, 120.
But the _Byzantines_ themselves, characteristically enough, regarded these ’“’ Procopius, Bell. goth. II, 14, ed. Teubner, p. 208.
*9 Cedrenus, II, 465.
contributions, especially when they were periodic, as payments of the *° Cinnamus, 299.
beneficent Emperor for services the recipients had rendered, or would '1 Cinnamus, 235.
render, to ‘the Empire. Thus tribute itself became a means of associating " Nicetas Choniates: Sathas, Bibl. gr. medii aevi, I, 95.
the barbarians with the Oikoumene. The exact nature of this association *3 Agathias V, 1, Bonn 278.
cannot easily be defined in constitutional terms. But it would, I believe. “ Cinnamus, 236, 299.
*5 Photius, Epistolae, P. G. CII, 736 —7.

12 13
 58 Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 59

applied to the subject allies of Athens, while one of the meanings of npéievog protection of Justin I, he is said to have addressed the Emperor in these
was a citizen who had been nominated by a foreign state to be its friend. terms: ,,We wish thee to make us Christians like thyself, and we shall then
It seems to me that these six technical terms have, in their given con- be subjects of the Roman Empire.“3° The dependence of the new Christian
texts, much the same significance. The first three were earlier applied to satellites on Byzantium was often expressed in spiritual terms, the barbarian
the ,,foederati“ and ,,socii populi Romani“, autonomous subjects of the proselyte becoming the Emperor’s ,,spiritual son“. And this dependence
Roman Empire who, by virtue of a treaty (foedus) concluded with Rome, was further strengthened by the work of the Byzantine missionary clergy,
guarded her frontier in exchange for a regular subsidy, imperial protection who by their own teaching and through the collections of Byzantine Canon
and the right of self-government. The ,,foederati“ are explicitly identified Law which they brought to the new converts abroad, spread the notion
with the 1'mécmov8oi in a fifth-century sourceg“ and it seems that in of the universal sovereignty of the basileus.
the sixth century the ,,foederati“ came to be called o15p.;iaXoi.3"’ It would Byzantine ecclesiastical diplomacy, in certain periods at least, showed,
perhaps be unwise, in view of the linguistic traditionalism of the Byzan- no less then its secular counterpart, a genius for combining a programme
tines, to attach too much significance to the recurrence of these technical of Imperial hegemony with a policy of concessions to the national aspira-
terms. Yet such was the continuity of Romano-Byzantine institutions that tions of Byzantium’s satellites. A curious instance of this policy of conces-
it seems by no means impossible that the Byzantines still thought of their sions is provided by the evidence of an agreement, concluded between the
satellites in terms of Roman administration; and that the position within authorities of Byzantium and Russia, according to which the primates of the
the Oikoumene of these satellites, theoretically subject to the Emperor, inde- Russian Church were to be appointed alternately from among Byzantine and
pendent in practice, may to some extent be understood in the light of the Russian candidates.” But the most effective of all instruments used by By-
Roman conception of ,,foederatio“, which expresses the status of the Em- zantine missionaries in Eastern Europe was the Slavonic liturgy and trans-
pire’s subject-allies. In this manner Byzantium could safeguard its universal lations of the Scriptures with which Cyril and Methodius provided the
claims, without being obliged to press them too far; while the ,,barbarians“, Moravian Slavs in the second half of the ninth century. This vernacular
gaining a new prestige from their legal association with the Empire, could tradition enabled the Empire’s Slavonic converts in Eastern Europe -—- the
preserve their political autonomy. Bulgarians, the Russians and the Serbs — to build up their Christian life
The association of the ,,barbarians“ with the Empire was further under Byzantine auspices without fear of losing their cultural autonomy;
expressed by the bestowal upon their rulers of titles taken from the hierarchy and though this policy of linguistic liberalism was to suffer a temporary
of the Byzantine court. The purpose of such titles was threefold: to flatter eclipse in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, the legacy of Cyril and
the vanity of the Imperial satellites; to bind them to the Empire by a rela- Methodius, perhaps the greatest of Byzantine missionaries, enabled the
tionship of dependence; and to signify the particular rank occupied by the Slavs to assimilate something of that cosmopolitan universalism which, in
given ruler and his people within the Oikoumene. The significance of this their finest and noblest hour, the Church and Empire of East Rome preached
Herrschertitulatur has often been discussed by Byzantinists; it need only to the newly converted nations of Europe.
be pointed out here that the highest of all titles in the hierarchy dependent
on the supreme authority of the Baoikeog xoti. asmpa-mp -r6'iv ‘Poijiaioiv -—- that This work of Byzantine envoys abroad was supported, and indeed
of simple Beetles; -— was granted several times by Byzantium to foreign made possible, by the diplomatists at home. No effort was spared to impress
rulers: to Charlemagne in 812; to Peter of Bulgaria in 927; probably, as the barbarian rulers, or their ambassadors who travelled to Constantinople,
Professor Ostrogorsky has demonstrated, to Symeon of Bulgaria in 913; and with the power and majesty of the Roman peace. The officials of the Ministry
possibly, as I have argued elsewhere,38 to Vladimir of Russia around 989. of Foreign Affairs —— the Master of Ceremonies, the Master of the Oflices
'1h=:se concessions of Imperial diplomacy, sometimes accompanied and, later, the Logothete of the Course, knew how to combine an elaborate
by bestowals of Byzantine brides and Byzantine insignia (including crowns), mise-en-scene with the requirements of military security. If the foreign
were reinforced by the work of East Roman missionaries. For the most ambassadors came from a powerful nation, strict security measures were
powerful instrument of Byzantine universalism was the Orthodox Christian enforced. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who knew so well what he describes
faith which united the barbarian proselytes to the Rhomaioi by membership as the ,,ravening greed and brazenly submitted claims of the tribes of the
of the same Church and by direct allegiance to the Emperor, head of the North“, and the fondness of their rulers for Byzantine princesses, urged
Christian Oikoumene. When the King of the Caucasian Lazi sought the that they be not allowed to see too many riches of Constantinople or to
lii""IIIi1—-.-M

3° Malchus, Bonn 237: 'r<Iiv i'ir:oorc6v8o.w I"6t-Boiv, oil; Si] xai. q>ot8spo'r-rouq ol 3° Iohn of Nikiu, cited by A. Vasiliev. Justin the First, (Cambridge, Mass.,
'Pcop.oti.'oz. mdtofiotv. Cf.: ,,Griechisch entspricht dem foederatus €vo11:ov8og“: Th. 1950), p. 260.
Mommsen, Rdmisches Staatsrecht, III (Leipzig, 1887), p. 654. ‘° This agreement has escaped the notice of historians owing to the accidental
3’ L. Bréhier, Les Institutious de l’Empz're Byzantin (Paris, 1949), p. 337. omission of a crucial passage from the Bonn edition of Nicephorus Gregoras’ History.
”° Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale, no. 29 See D. Obolensky, ,,Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow“, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XI
(Paris, 1959), pp. 28-33. (1957), PP. 23-78.

14 15
60 Dimitri Obolensky The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy 61

contemplate the beauty of Greek women.“ Rather were they to be pointedly its prestige among the victims of this diplomatic game of chess. When Va-
shown the smartness of the troups and the height of the city walls." But lentinus, envoy from Justin II to the Turks of Central Asia, presented his
in Constantinople itself, the envoys would generally be treated to a splendid credentials to the Kliagan, he was met by an explosion of rage; putting
reception. Historians are fond of citing Liutprand’s famous description of his hands to his mouth, the Turkish sovereign exclaimed: ,,are you not
an Imperial audience in the palace — the immense throne which by some those Romans, who have ten languages, and one deception? . . . As my ten
hidden mechanism could suddenly levitate to the ceiling, with the Emperor fingers are in my mouth, so you use different languages to deceive some-
upon it; the gilded tree with singing birds of bronze; the mechanical lions times myself, sometimes the Avars, my slaves. You flatter all peoples and
which roared and beat the ground with their tails.“ But one may be per- you entice them with artful words and a crafty soul, you are indifferent
mitted to wonder how far, to impress the barbarians, the Byzantines really to those who fall headlong into misfortune, from which you yourselves
needed all this paraphernalia, which must have struck even the less sophisti- derive benefit.“ ,,A Turk“, he added in stinging rebuke, ,,neither lies nor
cated envoys from abroad as a little childish. For their greatest asset was deceives“.4" On occasion the traditionalism of Byzantine foreign policy could
their City, protected by God, with all its glory. Its palaces and churches lapse into archaistic romanticism. Ernst Stein has pointed out that Justi-
could provide far more effective means of propaganda. The Byzantine poet nian’s failure to protect adequately the Danube frontier can be partly explai-
Paul the Silentiary describes a scene he saw in the atrium of St. Sophia: ned by his obsession with classical reminiscences: his wars with Persia,
a group of Africans was being shown round -— and so impressed they were with the memories of Marathon and Salamis, and his reconquest of Roman
with the beauty and majesty of Rome, symbolized by Justinian’s Church, lands offered more appeal than a border warfare on the Danube against
that they submitted of their own free will to the Church and Emperor of miserable barbarians :43 and for this failure, Justinian’s successors paid dearly.
Byzantium.“ And four centuries later there comes from a Slav source the As we look closer into the history of Byzantine diplomacy we may
exact counterpart to this suggestive scene: when the envoys of the Russian detect in its methods a curious duality: a mixture of conservatism and elas-
prince Vladimir, sent abroad to test the different religions of the earth, ticity, of overbearing pride and extreme open—heartedness, of aggressive
returned home, they are said to have made this report to their pagan sove- Imperialism and political generosity. This duality is particularly apparent
reign: ,,We came to the Greeks [i.e. to the city of Byzantium] and they led in the attitude of Byzantium to the Slav language: in the ninth and tenth
us to where they worship their God [i.e. into St. Sophia] and we knew not centuries the Empire actively encouraged its Slavonic proselytes to build
whether we were in heaven or on earth; for on earth there is no such beauty up their own cultural life on vernacular foundations; in the following cen-
or splendour . . . we know only that in that place God dwells among men, turies a policy of hellenization and cultural oppression was initiated. It is
and their service is more beautiful than that of other nations: for we cannot perhaps difficult to decide which was the normal, and which the aberrant,
forget that beauty“.45 tendency; possibly both were always in existence. But it is worth reminding
* ‘k
ourselves that a policy of cultural liberalism and enlightened generosity
it
was the hall-mark of the Emperors of the Macedonian house; and of these
To attempt an overall estimate of the achievements and failures of Basil I and Basil II were perhaps the greatest.
Byzantine diplomacy on the basis of the fragmentary picture sketched in There can be no doubt that, on an overall view, Byzantine diplomacy
this paper would, no doubt, be hazardous. But a few tentative suggestions was outstandingly successful. By saving the Empire many times from
may be advanced in conclusion. In the first place, it would be wrong to invasion and destruction, by attracting so many of the pagan éfflwj into the
idealize this diplomacy. Not all the northern barbarians appreciated that orbit of Graeco—Roman civilization, by gaining for Christendom and for
ingenious and elaborate mythology by which the Byzantines justified the Europe so many lands in the Balkans and to the north of the Black Sea,
claims of their Emperor to exercise universal jurisdiction. When Bayan, this diplomacy was a factor of major importance in European history. As
Khagan of the Avars, demanded of Justin II the surrender of Sirmium, such, it is a subject not unworthy of further study. Nor has its influence on
he cynically mocked the Emperor’s rights of adoption: if the Emperor was our cultural inheritance been negligible: for the nations of Eastern Europe
his father, he asserted, let him grant him what was due to a son.“ Moreover, received much of their education in foreign policy from the statesmen of
the art of instigating one barbarian tribe against another, in which Byzantine Byzantium; the East European sovereigns of the Middle Ages learnt much
-diplomatists excelled, and the treachery with which the Empire sometimes from their masters; while some at least of the traditions of Byzantine diplo-
acted towards its erstwhile allies, were not always calculated to enhance macy were passed on to the West through the intermediary of Venice. And
g-
in the world to-day, a foreign policy that could combine in so outstanding
41 See A. Rambaud, L'Empz're Grec au dixiéme siécle (Paris, 1870), p. 304. a degree an uncompromising belief in the truth of its own values with an
“‘ Ibid. ability to negotiate with its opponents, may have its relevance as well.
" Antapodosis, cap. V. _
“ Descriptio Magnae Ecclesiae seu Sanctae Sophiae, ed. Bonn, lines 983-990.
“ Povest’ Vremennykh Let, s. a. 987. " Menander, fr. 43.
“ Menander, fr. 28. “ Histoire du Bas Empire, II, 310.

16 Actes du Xlle‘ Congrés Inteniational d’Etudes byzantines, l. Belgrade 1964.

 II

THE EMPIRE AND ITS NORTHERN

NEIGHBOURS, 565-1018

The Empire’s relations with the countries of the north during the four
and a half centuries between the death of Justinian I and the con-
quest of the First Bulgarian Empire by Basil II are marked by three
The two maps relevant to the next study are to be main characteristics. In the military annals of Byzantium this was
found at the end of this volume. an heroic age, during which, with few intermissions, the Empire
fought to defend its frontiers—and sometimes its very life—against
the ever-recurring thrust of the northern invader, of Avar and Slav,
of Bulgar and Magyar, of Russian and Pecheneg} Secondly, in
these centuries was forged, in reply to the northern challenge, by
steadfast faith and lucid thinking, by careful study and observa-
tion, by trial and error, that essential weapon of East Roman policy
—the imperial diplomacy which remains one of Byzantium’s lasting
contributions to the history of Europe. Finally, it was in this period
that the Byzantine statesmen became fully aware of the importance
of the North in the Empire’s system of security; and a study of the
relevant sources-—accounts of military missions, ambassadors’ re-
ports, handbooks of military strategy, confidential guides to foreign
policy, academic histories and monastic chronicles—reveals their
growing preoccupation with the area that lay immediately beyond
the northern border of the Empire. This, broadly speaking, was the
area limited in the west by the Hungarian plain and in the east by the
Caspian Sea; it stretched over the Carpathian Mountains, the South
Russian steppe, and the lowlands to the north of the Caucasus, and
was bounded in the north by a. semi-circle extending over the lower
course of the great Russian rivers—the Dniester, the Dnieper and the
Don—and whose tips came to rest on the middle Danube in the west and
on the lower Volga in the east. It was from the periphery of this semi-
circle that issued the never-ending flow of tribes and nations which, in
war and in peace, were irresistibly drawn into the orbit of Byzantium,
whose attacks and invasions fill the military records of the Empire, and
whose fears, ambitions and lust for conquest taxed so severely the
ingenuity of the statesmen in Constantinople. And within this semi-
circle, the encounter of Byzantium with its northern neighbours was
particularly felt in three sectors which served as the pivots of the Em-
pire’s policy in the north: the Danube, the Crimea and the Caucasus.
1 The ‘Patzinaks’ of the Greek sources.
II II
474 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Justinian I’s frontier policy 475
"I I. -— i .._.-__¢- ~— - up um *i—"r '~" 'n

The importance of these three sectors had become fully apparent the lower Volga and the Sea of Azov, at the northern extremity of
during the reign of Justinian; it was this Emperor above all who this sector, could, if they were friendly and sufficiently powerful, be
developed and bequeathed to his successors a conception of diplo- counted upon to guard the eastern end of the European ‘steppe
macy as an intricate science and a fine art, in which military pressure, corridor’ and generally to help preserve the balance of power along
political intelligence, economic cajolery and religious propaganda the whole length of the Empire’s northern front. Here too, by his
were fused into a powerful weapon of defensive imperialism. A brief alliance with the Sabiri on the western shores of the Caspian and with
survey of the Empire’s position along its northern frontier in the the Utigurs on the eastern coast of the Sea of Azov, Justinian pointed
closing years of his reign is thus a fitting introduction to the policy the way to his successors.
of his successors. In the central segment of the semi-circle that marked in the sixth
The significance of the Caucasian sector for the Empire’s security century the effective limit of Byzantium’s sphere of interest in the
was a matter of political geography: for at the extremities of this north, half-way between its tips which rested on the middle Danube
great isthmus separating the Black Sea from the Caspian the Graeco- and on the lower Volga, lay the second pivot of the Empire’s northern
Roman civilisation of the Mediterranean met and clashed with the front. During the whole period covered by this chapter Byzantine
westward expansion of Asian cultures: in the north, with the nomads possessions and dependencies in the Crimea.—above all the city of
of Eurasia, moving to the Black Sea and the Danube; in the south, Cherson (the ancient Xepo6v17oog)—-acted as the northern outpost of
with the occupiers of the Iranian plateau, pushing towards Asia the Empire’s diplomacy in the steppe; their importance was partly
Minor and the Bosphorus. Both these westward movements spelled economic, for the Crimea provided Byzantium with the raw materials
constant danger to Byzantium; and the effort of the imperial diplo- of the hinterland-—fish from the rivers of South Russia, salt from the
macy in this sector was directed as much towards achieving a favour- Azov region, furs and honey from the forests further north—and sold
able balance of power in the lowlands north of the Caucasus, as to to the barbarians the manufactured articles of Byzantine industry.
creating a bulwark against possible attacks of Persians and Arabs Politically, Cherson and its neighbouring region, subject or vassal of
through Asia Minor towards Constantinople itself. The basic aim of the Empire during the greater part of the period under review, was
Byzantine policy in this sector was always the same: to build up a an invaluable observation post, a watch-tower planted on the very
chain of allied, or vassal, states from the lower Volga and the Sea of fringe of that barbarian world of South Russia which Byzantine
Azov to Lake Van in Armenia. Their peoples could render the Empire diplomacy was ever anxious to influence and control. It was from
services consonant with their geographical position and military re- the Crimea that Justinian’s government could follow the moves of
sources: on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, the Zikhi and’ the the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs, encamped on both sides of the Sea of
Abasgians could help the Byzantine fleet to operate in Caucasian Azov, and, by a timely bribe or by stirring up internal strife among
waters and thus hold the left sector of the Empire’s north-eastern them, divert their attacks from the Balkans. It was from Byzantine
front; further south, along the coast, the Lazi and the Tzani guarded Crimea that his successors were able to pursue towards the northern
the approaches to the northern coast of Asia Minor; the Georgians barbarians the traditional Roman policy of ‘divide and rule’, or at
in the central Caucasus and the Alans further north on the Terek least, when this proved impracticable, ‘weaken and watch’. And,
stood guard over the Pass of Darial and could prevent the Eurasian true again to the time-honoured methods of Roman diplomacy,
nomads from striking south at Byzantine Asia Minor. All these Byzantium had secured in the mountains of southern Crimea, as a
Caucasian tribes were successfully wooed by the diplomacy of Justin- counterbalance to its enemies in the steppe, a useful satellite, half
ian; the first four were converted to Christianity in the sixth century vassal and half ally, the Crimean Goths. The security of the Empire’s
by Byzantine missionaries, and the new ecclesiastical organisation set Balkan provinces, as later events were so frequently to confirm, de-
up in their lands was to prove, on the whole, an effective means of pended as much upon the watchfulness of its agents in the Crimea as
keeping them under the political influence of East Rome. And the upon the influence it wielded in the north Caucasian area.
roads and fortresses which the Byzantines built in these countries The third sector of the Empire’s northern front was on the lower and
were the material counterpart of the flattering though less tangible middle Danube; and this section of the limes Romanus was, in the
links which their rulers were induced to form with the imperial court military sense, much more of a ‘front ’ than the Crimea or the north-
of Constantinople. The tribes which inhabited the steppe land between ern Caucasus. This too was a matter of geography: for the lower
 476 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 The Slavs. The Avars 477

Danube lay near the terminus of the ‘steppe corridor’, that im- arrived in the north Caucasian region at the close of Justinian’s reign,
memorial highway taken by nomadic invaders from Asia; and for in headlong flight from their erstwhile subjects, the Central Asian
many of them, who had succeeded in avoiding the entanglements and Turks.1 Through the intermediary of the Alans they sought the
traps laid for them by the Byzantine diplomats in the Caucasian and Empire’s protection, and in 558 concluded a foedus with East Rome,
Crimean sectors, the Danube proved no insuperable obstacle, and the promising to submit to the Emperor and to fight his enemies. Jus-
road into the Balkans lay open. The contrast in the strategic position tinian could not but welcome this chance of easing the pressure on
of Constantinople, admirably protected from attack by sea, but open the northem front, believing, as Menander saw it, that ‘whether the
to a chance invasion by land across the plains of Thrace—already Avars are victorious, or whether they are defeated, in either case the
observed by Polybius1—provides a constant and tragic background Romans will profit ’.2 The Avars played their part as imperial foetleratt
to the medieval history of the Balkans. Justinian had seen his only too thoroughly: by 561 they were on the lower Danube, having
Danubian frontier constantly threatened and frequently overrun by subjected in their westward advance the Sabiri, the Utigurs, the
Kutrigurs and Slavs. The Slavs, whose incursions into the Balkans Kutrigurs and the Antes of Bessarabia. Their relations with the
had started in the reign of his predecessor Justin I and increased in Empire now entered a new and more critical phase. Their requests to
strength throughout the sixth century, had expanded from their be allowed to cross the Danube and to settle in the Dobrudja were
European homes north of the Carpathians and were then divided into studiously ignored by Justinian: thus was created the first of the
two main groups: the Sclaveni, north of the middle and lower Danube, many bones of contention between Byzantium and the Avars.
and the Antes (or Antae), further east, between the Carpathians and Justin II inherited this increasingly tense situation. A few days
the Donets.2 The havoc wrought by the Slavs in the Balkans, described after his accession he received an Avar embassy in the palace. The
by Procopius,“ was a harbinger of worse things to come. Justinian’s Emperor, determined to abandon Justinian’s humiliatmg ‘policy of
fortifications and skilful diplomacy could not compensate for the lack buying off the northern barbarians? haughtily rejected their request
of soldiers. It has been suggested that the Emperor’s failure to for tribute.‘ The Avars, meanwhile, had become entangled in the
protect adequately the Danube frontier can be partly explained by affairs of Central Europe: as allies of the Lombards they defeated the
his obsession with classical reminiscences: his wars with Persia, which Gepids, seized their lands in Dacia and Eastern Pannoma (667) and,
evoked memories of Marathon and Salamis, and his reconquest of on the departure of the Lombards to Italy in the following year,
Roman lands, offered more appeal than border warfare on the Danube occupied the whole of the Hungarian plain. The establishment of the
against barbarians.‘ Whether this is so or not, his successors were Avars as the dominant power in Central Europe, lords of an empire
certainly left to deal with the problem of the Balkans. that stretched from Bohemia to the lower Danube and from the
Justinian’s death in 565 ushered in a new period in the history of 1 A number of modern authorities identify the Avars who migrated to Europe with
the Empire’s Danubian frontier: for the next sixty years Byzantine the Juan-juan of the Chinese: J. B. Bury, History of the Pater R0maTg.E113"P'é’:,_II
policy in this sector was conditioned by the Avar threat. The Avars, (London, 1923), pp. 314-16; G. Vemadsky, Ancient Russia, pp. 178- , - 9111,
op. cit. II, pp. 541-2. In the view of some scholars, the distinction made by Theo-
whose hordes included, it would seem, Mongol and Turkic tribes, had phylactus Simocatta (Hist. vrl, caps. 7-8, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 256 ff.)
between the ‘true Avars ' (the Jnan-juan) and the ‘pseudo-Avars (who aloi_ie
1 See the remarks of Polybius on the exposure of the ancient Byzantium to attacks migrated to Europe) rests on somewhat fragile foundations: see V. Minorsky, Hudud
by land, Hist. Iv, 45 (ed. T. Biittner-Wobst, Leipzig, 1889, pp. 57-8). at-‘/llam (London, 1937), pp. 447-8; R. Grousset, L’emp'tre des steppes (Paris, 1939),
1* The origin, ethnic character and geographical distribution of the Antes still pp 226-7 For a different view, see E. Chavannes, ‘Documents sur les Tou-Kiue
raise some puzzling questions. The main contemporary authorities are Jordanes, occidentaux’, Sbornik Trudov Orlchonslcoj Elcspeditsij, VI (St Petersburg, 1903),
Getica, v, 32-7 (MGH, Auct. ant. v, 1, pp. 62 ff.) and Procopius, History of the Wars, 229-33- C A. Macartney, ‘On the Greek sources for the history of the Turks in the
VII, 14, 22-30 and VIII, 4, 9 (ed. J. Haury, Leipzig, 1905, pp. 354 ff.) who regard them sixth century’, BSOAS, xi (1943-6), 266-75; see also H. W. Haussig, ‘Tl;p0Ptl1Yl?]1;?9
as Slavs, ethnically and linguistically related to the Sclaveni. The former locates them Exkurs iiber die Skythischen Volker , B, xxnr (1963), 275-462; A. K0 au z, ie
along the Black Sea coast, between the Danube and the Dniester, and as far as the Awaren’, Saeculum, v (1954), 129-78.
Dnieper; the latter mentions them in the region of the Donets, north of the Sea of I Excerpta dc legationibus, ed. o. do Boor, 1 (Berlin, 1903). P- 443- _ _
Azov. Several different tribes were originally ruled by a non-Slav, possibly Iranian, 1 On Justin II’s new policy towards the barbarians see E. Stein, Studsen zur
minority, but slavicised, at least in Bessarabia, by the sixth century. See G. Ver- Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches, vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus II und
nadsky, Ancient Russia (New Haven, 1944), pp. 104-8, 155-60 and passim; F. Tiberius Constanti-nus (Stuttgart, 1919), pp. 33- . _ _ _ _
Dvornik, The lllaking of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949), pp. 279-82. ‘ On the Avar embassy of 565 see Menander, op. cit. p. 446 and the vivid description
1‘ Hist. of the Wars, VII, 29, 1-3 (op. cit. p. 423). of Corippus, In laudem Iustini, III, lines 231-407 (MGH, Auct. ant. III, 2, pp. 143-7).
‘ E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, II, p. 310. or. H. Howorth. ‘The Ava-rs’. JR-48. XXI. 4 £1889)» 732-4-
 478 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Central Asian Turks and the silk routes 4'79
. _ T _ .

Alps to the steppes of South Russia and was centred in the Theiss
bassy ’ headed by
. .Zemarchus ’ journeyed- to Silzibul’s capital
- in the1
(Tisza) valley, drastically altered the balance of power along
Ektag mountain in the Tekes valley, in the 63.Sl36I‘I1.T18I1 Séiaprlll.
Byzantium’s northern frontier. It was not long before the
During the next few years relations between Byzantium an e
supreme ruler of the Avars, the Khan Bajan, a ruthless conqueror Turks were friendly and close, to judge at least from the numerous
and an able diplomatist, showed where his true ambitions lay. The
embassies that travelled between Constantinople and Central Asia.
city of Sirmium on the lower Sava, the key to the Byzantine fortifica-
But in 576 the situation altered dramatically. When thefiyziantéfie
tions in northern Illyricum, had, in the confusion of the Lombard- envoys, headed by Valentmus, presented their credentia s qh e
Gepid war, eluded his grasp. And now, with a clear perception of its
Khan Tourxath,2 Silzibul’s son and successor, they were met $1 kjafi
strategic importance, combining force with diplomacy, Bajan con-
explosion of rage. Placnig his fingers 111 h18 II1011lJh, fiheh 111' ts
centrated on this objective. But Sirmium stood firm, and in 574 a
sovereign exclaimed: “Are you not those Rflmans, ° ave $1
treaty was concluded between Byzantium and the Avars, Justin II
tongues, and one deceit? . . .As my ten fingers are now in my 311011 t ,
undertaking to pay a yearly tribute of 80,000 nomismata.1
so you have many tongues, using one to deceive me, afinpt 61‘ 3
At this stage Byzantium’s relations with the Avars were suddenly
deceive the Varchonites [i.e. the Avars], my slaves. You a er an
entangled with the Empire’s diplomatic activity on the North Cau-
deceive all peoples with cunning words and treacherous .1I1l56I1l3,
casian front. In 568 there arrived in Constantinople an embassy from
indifferent to those who fall headlong into misfortune, from which you
the Central Asian Turks (the T’ou Kiue of the Chinese), whose
yourselves derive benefit.’ ‘ It is strapge and unnatural , 13* a"1L1§dtl1l11
Empire stretched from Mongolia to Turkestan and was now expand-
stinging rebuke, ‘for a Turk to lie. Bitterly. reproache dW1 . e
ing westwards towards the Northern Caucasus ; the envoys brought
alliance which their Emperor had concluded with the hate enemies
Justin II peace proposals from Silzibul,2 Khan of the western branch
of the Turks, the Avars, ‘slaves that had fled from their masters , the
of the T’ou Kiue. The Turks, and their vassals, the Sogdians, con-
Byzantine envoys barely escaped with their lives; the alliance be-
trolled the eastern sector of the silk route from China to Europe; the
tween the Empire and the Turks, which had lasted for eight years,
western sector, leading to Byzantium, crossed Persian territory. The
was abruptly terminated ;3 and in the. same year (573) E 'I]‘3urkisli
Turks were as interested in the silk trade as the Byzantines: the
army, moving westwards from the Caspian Sea, capture ht pg yzan
former, aspiring to the role of commercial intermediaries between
tine city of Bosporus in the Crimea and threatened t e mplre S
China and Byzantium, sought an outlet to the south-west; the East
whole defensive system in the penmsula. _
Roman government now saw in the Turks a means of circumventing
The collapse of the Turko-Byzantine alliance was probably due ‘as
Persian control of the silk routes from China to the Black Sea, which
much to the new turn the Empire’s diplomacy was talk/Eng 01; 11:8
had so often in the past threatened to make the Empire economically
north-eastem front as to its activity onthe Danube. enan. or S
dependent on its traditional enemy. To the realisation of this joint plan
frank reporting affords us a suggestive glimpse of the moral indigna-
the Sassanid Empire was the main obstacle; and it seems that the
tion which the methods of this diplomacy so often provoked among
agreement concluded in Byzantium between Justin II and the Turks
its victims in the Eurasian steppe. The Turks, it may be surmlfled.
provided—next to a clause relating to the silk trade—for a military
had come to realise that the Byzantine statesmen were losing interest
alliance against Persia. ‘It was thus ’, Menander observes, ‘that the
in so distant an ally; and the agreement which the Empire, two ygars
Turkish nation became friends of the Romaioi.’3 A Byzantine em-
previously, had concluded with the Avars they chose to regar as
1 DR, 34. a hostile act.
1 On the different forms of this name, see J . B. Bury, ‘The Turks in the Sixth - ' 1-, ' f om Silzibul’s capital to Constanti-
Century’, EHR, xii (1897), 418, n. 2. ;}:;,1]:yzg?t1%9 ?\?v(g1;)1:vgl’Z:;are‘ l1lIilz1ai’1(1);i1jIsIf<ea.%j',a rdiplomatija i torgovlja selkom v
1 Menander, op. cit. I, p. 452. Some historians believe that the Byzantine govern-
ment, while expressing ‘benevolent interest’ in the Turkish proposals, was unwilling v-vrr We, vv. as 1 (19-in. 184-214-
to commit itself to a formal alliance in 568: N. H. Baynes, OMH, II, pp. 269-70; 1 E. Chavannes, Documents, pp . 235-7 - _
S. Vailhé, ‘Projet d’alliance turco-byzantine au VIe siecle’, E0, XII (1909), 206-14; 1 The form T0llp€O.90$‘, which occurs in a sixteenth-century manus.criptAof Menander
C. Diehl and G. Marcais, Le monde oriental do 395 it 1081 (Paris, 1944), pp. 128-9. Yet in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge (0- 3- 23= rpwfifie es rm; <>r5°<>" {nor
Mevdvspov, if. 3-5) is preferred by G. Moravcsik to the habitual Tovpfavfiost
Menander seems to imply that the Turkish offer of dpaixpia was accepted by the Emperor ;
and an agreement about silk may be inferred both from the embassy’s terms of Geschichte der Onoguren’, Ungarische Jahrbucher, X (1930), 63; B3/Za"t'm°3W'61°“,
reference and from the fact that ten porters carrying this commodity accompanied II, p. 328 (2nd ed.).
1' Menander, op. cit. I, PP- 20543-
 480 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018
Avar and Slav attacks on the Empire 481

thTfber1us_(578f32), whose realism led him to prefer negotiation to the Empire’s position on the Danube during the decade from 592 to
e intransigent imperiahsm of his predecessor, tried to use the Avars
602. In 591 the successful completion of the Persian war enabled him
to bring his seasoned troops back to Europe. Priscus, his greatest
the Danubian frontier P 8. t alansagging
pr9Vedthroughout
a treacherolis any: commander, was entrusted with the double task of maintaining the
reign and between 578 rag inually_ Tiberius’ Danube as a frontier line against the Avars and stopping the incur-
combining With invasio n f)Sl Var ra1ds’&1temE'mng and fileqmimtly sions of the Slavs. The latter were still able to launch, under the
and Greece auspices of the Khan, a massive attack against Thessalonica in 597 .1
Balkans bi 2the
John of Ensho
Slavs adm’ Bweada havo?
i P5gi11Sth6S0I'1ll)6S m Thiace’
formidable lyncum
invasion of the But on the whole Priscus was remarkably successful, crossing the
Constantino le and Danube to subdue the Slavs and recapturing Singidunum from the
were Still atléhe tinieh 8»;_'1ng't.earnt
n' ‘1 ey reached the Long
to fight better than Wan Outside’,
the Romans Avars. In 600 a treaty between Byzantium and the Avars fixed
land 3 Man f th 0 wrring (584) in possession of the conquered
the Empire’s frontier on the Danube, Maurice undertaking to increase
_ - y 0 em remained on imperial territory, and the first
important Slav settlements in Thrace, Macedonia and Northern the tribute.” But in 601 Priscus was across the Danube and, carrying
Greece undoubtedly date from this time. The position was no less the war into the enemy’s territory, inflicted a crushing defeat on
perilous northern Illyricum, where the Avar threat to Sirmium Bajan’s forces on the Theiss. Not since the days of Justinian had the
was growing. To Ba]an’s demand to surrender the city Tiberius arms of Byzantium won such a triumph in Europe.“
replied that he would sooner give one of his daughters to the Khan But Maurice’s successes on the Danube were soon undone. In 602
the Emperor’s order that the troops were to winter beyond the Danube
E1fi:;1;:>;»;?;>sH;l;§ fiigllsress of l:11:10W:I1 free will. ‘But Baj an, who knew
provoked a mutiny. The rebellious army marched on Constantinople,
bluffed'»and
and after_ _ a giocculilli seized the city and proclaimed their leader Phocas Emperor. Phocas’
fended eggs 0 wowith theSirmium,
years ]?erS'1an W-air’ was not tode-
inadequately be
disastrous reign (602-10) marks a turning point in the history of the
t provision , was surrendered on the Emperor’s orders
o the Avars (582)! Empire’s northern frontier. The limes on the lower Danube and on
En)17Vi_th the key to the northern Balkans now in Avar hands, the the Sava, held—albeit imperfectly and precariously—by Justinian’s
. pire for the next ten years was forced on to the defensive. In vain three successors, now collapsed, and the barbarians surged over the

€;d.J2;.E?€£;?.’ 33.21:? 15*?“ to Pry 01*

and it seems the Pelo Bu S1 (1?4), Thrlwei Macedonia, Greece’
by Balkans. The three-pronged attacks of the Avaro-Slav hordes to-
wards the Adriatic, the Aegean and the Bosphorus in the reigns of
Phocas and Heraclius led to a permanent occupation by the Slavs of
during the next few polmesh ltfii , were raided anq partly overrun Illyria, Dalmatia, Macedonia and Thrace. Salona was sacked (0. 614),
Slavs - 6 But M&1lI‘ice’g years y e Avars and their Thessalonica was attacked several times and then in 617 the
gemus succeeded to some extentBlibwots’ the
in restoring
Avars reached the suburbs of Constantinople itself.‘ It was then,
1 Cf. DR, 46.
are* Iistzgotiryefipiglaéryoqlosrcis(andsecondary
Th 1; . . dealing
authorities , with _ these Invasions
_ in all probability, that the Slavs, spreading south irresistibly, settled
0944-5 - g , rigine et e nom des Croates et des Serbes’, B, xvn in large numbers in Greece and the Peloponnese, forming indepen-
8 H ), 104-10, and by A. Bon, Le Peloponnese byzamtin (Paris 1951) pp 31 2
' t. l. -
‘ M?‘;:naI61ii0erV;;)2fi,t -
t;ez.i8s.111. lgaygig SrIr£1t;1I(Oxfo1rld, $860),' PP. 432-3.
’ ' _ ' P. Charanis (‘The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settle-
9 - . , , - , , . ; ' t I , ments in Greece ’, DOP, v (1950), l39—66; ‘ On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements
(1889), 744.9; L, Hauptmann’ .Les mpports des ogvo;-aniin he Avqrs , JRAS, xx: in Greece during the Middle Ages’, BS, x (1949), 254-8). The source references and
Avares pendant la seconds moitié du VIe siecle ’ B I\f(1927 B8)m1?3c7 97% slgvlis at 168 other works on this controversial topic are cited in A. Bon, Le Péloponnése byzantin,
‘Invasions t - t. d _' ' ,_' 0 _ Z. - - 611181‘ 9, pp. 32—5. See also P. Charanis, ‘On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus’,
VIII» Biécli‘-?’,l21gfac<l:(ic1is( 13?: ),leisgiiiiims dem“ 1“ fi“ “°1éP°q“° I-'°mem@ wsqww BZ, xLv1 (1953), 91-103.
1 Miracula S. Demetrii, MPG, CXVI, 1284-93; A. Tougard, De Phistoire profane dam
pp.‘ 749452.
Theoph. Simoc 9* tt 9» , I, Gaps , -J='_5 , ed. C. de Boor, pp. 48-52; I-Ioworth, op, cu,
,
lea Actes grecs des Bottandistes (Paris, 1874), pp. 88 if. The Avaro-Slav army is
° Much learned controversy has been arou d b th ‘ here said to have arrived before the city walls on Sunday 22 September, in the reign
. t t ' of Maurice. This gives two possible dates—586 and 597; opinion is divided as to
of Monemvasia, confirmed by a tenth-centurgeschdliunf 31'aA:ir1aIint Hi‘ gm Chmmcle
echoed in a letter of the Patriarch Nicholas III (1084-1111 th Ets'0 aesarea and which of these years is to be accepted. ' DR, 131.
and the Slavs conquered and settled the Peloponnese anclthaat dnl 585 the Avars ° The chronology of Maurice’s Avaro-Slav wars of 592-602, -as reconstructed
- s I1
grgolld and the eastern part of the peninsula remained in Byzantine hg’nd:Ialf11ra}i?tltila1z, from the evidence of Theophylactus Simocatta, remains confused and controversial.
ate . Th e re 1'ia b'l' ‘ ' evidence
i ity of tiiis ' - strongly and convincingly
is . . supported by See the bibliography in Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 75, n. 2.
‘ N. H. Baynes, ‘The Date of the Avar Surprise’, BZ, xx]: (1912), 110-28.
31 CMHIVI
 482 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Heraclius’ frontier policy 483
_ 1 1 _

dent qommunities (Sclavinioe) ‘over which the Byzantine authorities Byzantium must have provided some measure of stabilityin the chaos
Zvepe Iorfinearly two centuries incapable of exercising effective con- which the Avaro-Slav invasions had brought into the Balkans.
I‘0 . 23 they ravaged Crete. Without much exaggeration Isidore The desire to keep the Avars in cheek was also, it seems, a prime
of Seville could write that at the beginning of Heraclius’ reign ‘the factor in Heraclius’ diplomacy on the Empire’s north-eastern, Cau-
Slaggfitoolk away Greece from the Romans ’.1 The supreme crisis came casian, front. The collapse of the alliance with the T’ou Kiue and the
:1 b _W en 3’ Va?’ Avar horde, Bllpported by Slavs, other northern Turkic threat to the Crimea in the eighth and ninth decades of the
ar arians and-ineffectually—by a Persian army encamped on the sixth century had, moreover, made it necessary for Byzantium to
Asian side of the Bosphorus, hurled itself for ten days at the acquire a strong and reliable ally in this sector. In 619 Heraclius
;1§fe;ce;s_of Clllonstantinople. The courage of the garrison, inspired by received in Constantinople the visit of a ‘Humiic ’ ruler, had him
t. e a mar; Sergius, and the naval victoi'y gained by the Byzan- baptised at his own request together with his retinue, and before
mes over t e Slavs, saved the city. The Khan abandoned the siege, sending him home granted him the title of patricius} His subjects
and the Avars, badly defeated, withdrew to Pannonia? Never again were undoubtedly the Onogurs, a people of West Siberian origin,
did they seriously threaten the Empire. belonging to the Bulgaric (West Turkic) linguistic group, who had
Though incapable of stemming the flow of Slavs into his Balkan lived since the fifth century between the Sea of Azov and the North-
provinces, Herachus could at least, to prevent further Avar invasions ern Caucasus? About 635 Kovrat, ruler of the Onogurs, rose against
a'tt‘_3mPt to Btabfllse the northern frontier by diplomatic means. This the Avars and drove them out of his country; whereupon he con-
pohcy was attended with a measure of success. About 623 the Slavs cluded an alliance with the Emperor and was made a patrician in his
of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia were liberated from the yoke of turn.“ Kovrat, John of Nikiu tells us, had been baptised as a child
Ellie Avars £:ybSamo, who. founded a short-lived realm stretching from and brought up at the court of Constantinople where he became a
W 9 u_PP€_1‘ dc to the middle Danube. VVhether or not Samo’s revolt life-long friend of Heraclius.‘ Kovrat’s loyalty served the Empire in
rias 1i1_1;_1g:Fe d y Herachus diplomacy, there is no doubt that the good stead. His kingdom, known to the Byzantines as ‘Old Great
8° °_ 15 mg Om, by Weakenmg the power of the Avars on the eve Bulgaria’ era/laui. Bovhyapia if peydhq), which stretched from the
of their assault on Constantinople, served the interests of Byzantium Caucasus to the Don, and perhaps as far as the Dnieper, successfully
Of more lasting significance were the measures taken by Heraclius. withstanding the Avars in the west and the Turks in the east, acted
probably soon after 626, to relieve the Avar pressure on the middle until Kovrat’s death in 642 as the guardian of the Empire’s interests
Danube and in Illyricum. Constantine Porphyrogenitus tells us that in the North Caucasian sector.‘
the Emperor called in the Croats against the Avars. The Croats who
Kime from ‘HVVhite Croatia’ north of the Carpathians, defeated the Byzantine State, p. 94, n. 3), F. Dvornik (in DAI, II, pp. 94-101, 114-16), and B.
f varszvalfipe ed them from Illyricum, and, together with the Serbs Ferjancié (Vizantijskij Izvorij za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, 11, Belgrade, 1959,
pp. 37-58).
tliloni _ ll? S‘5:'b_1& ! Were then settled by Heraclius as subjects of 1 Nicephorus, Opusc. hist. p. 12 (ed. C. de Boor).
Cre tmpire in t eir present homes in the Balkans, The Serbs and the “ G. Moravcsik, ‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’, Ungar. Jahrbilcher, X (1930),
oa s were subsequently converted to Christianity by migsignarjeg 53-90, and the bibliography in Byzantinoturcica, I, pp. 65 ff. (2nd ed.).
sent from Rome on Heraclius’ orders;3 and these new subjects of 3 Nicephorus, op. cit. p. 24. The Onogur ruler who visited Heraclius in 619 was
probably Kovrat’s uncle Organa (Orchan).
‘ The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. R. H. Charles (London, 1916),
1 0h"°""'°°"i MPL, Lxxxiii, 1056. p. 197. Kovrat is certainly identical with Kurt, who according to the eighth-century
' Ohronicon Paschale, I, .719fi'. CSHB ;Theo ' list of Old Bulgar rulers reigned for sixty years, i.e. according to V. Zlatarski (Istorija
(B4 9- de Boer); G60I'gepIBisides, (Bellttm) AvGT1:0I:J1:?::1eI:£J.C"l’TO—-"Cosyr(agg:§g[)’;p££'1%_1iii, na bitlgarslcata divriova prez srednite vekove (Sofia, 1918), I, 1, pp. 84-96, 353-82) from
;’;?:1;"a<Zi‘fl-"I‘1 gpgpggzgaus Igygigvitlivgefisg of the siege: Hepl 'r¢?av iifléwv ’ABdpwv (A. Mai, 584 to 642. Cf. S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930),
pp. 272-9.
Iatorija = Fontes Historihe Bul ti ' ' VLSP 423 H‘; see also Izvm W Bmqarrakata ‘ K. M. Sctton has tried to prove that ‘some time after 641-2 ’ the Onogur Bulgars
siege
8 Dde Constantin
_ . op 1 e_par les Avares
g "we,et VI’les 0Slaves
an 1960' pp‘ 41-55;
en 626’, and
B, xxiv F' Banhé’
(1954), ‘Le
371-95). ‘under, conceivably, one of the sons of Kovrat, or under some other lieutenant,
e
Constanffgffgfggggz gnfifgrgé' <:;1PB- 1:11. §2. D_AI, I, pp. 146-co. The reliability
. . . of attacked and captured Corinth’ (‘The Bulgars in the Balkans’, SP, xxv (1950),
502-43; ‘The Emperor Constans II and the capture of Corinth by the Onogur
seventh century has been the subwir fmlgmtlon of the Croatgaml the' Serbs in the Bulgars’, ibid. xxvii (1952), 351-62). His arguments have failed to convince the
resolved. However scholars a ‘-1 _J°° 0 _& l0ng controversy wh1ch_is still not finally
present writer. Cf. their criticism by P. Charanis, ‘On the Capture of Corinth by the
stantiall )’ true - See, th 6 di~==-<=118810ns
lie mcreaslpg y mchned
of this problem by to
G. accept fins account
Otrogorsky (Historyasofsub-
the Onogurs’, SP, xxvil (1952), 343-50.
31-2
 484 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Foundation of the Bulgarian state 485

Shortly after Kovrat’s death ‘ Old Great Bulgaria ’ broke up under the southern extremity of the Dobrudja plain, the Sublime Khan and
the blows of the Khazars who in the middle of the seventh century his military aristocracy of Onogur Bulgar boyars ruled over a popula-
struck westward from the lower Volga to the Sea of Azov. In the tion of Slav immigrants who, in the course of time, assimilated their
scattering of tribes that followed, two branches of the Onogur people conquerorsgl from this gradual fusion of Bulgars and Slavs the First
salvaged enough of their national heritage to play a significant part Bulgarian Empire was born.
in the destinies of Eastern Europe. The one, it seems, migrated north- It was not long before this new Balkan state began to loom large
ward and, settling by the junction of the middle Volga and the Kama, in the policy "and destinies of Byzantium. In the burst of diplomatic
built up a powerful trading state, the kingdom of the Volga Bulgars, activity which took place along the Empire’s northern front at the
which became in the tenth century a northern outpost of Islam} The turn of the century, its three main sectors——the north Caucasian, the
other group, led by Kovrat’s son Asparuch (Isperich),2 left their homes Crimean and the Balkan—linked within an intricate web of power
in the North Caucasus region, moved westwards across the Pontic politics, jointly affected the fate of Constantinople itself. In 695
steppes and appeared on the Danube delta. But southern Bessarabia Justinian II was dethroned and exiled to Cherson. A few years later,
proved only a temporary resting place: doubtless anxious, like the hoping to regain his throne and fearing the loyalty professed by. the
Avars a century earlier, to exchange the hazards of the steppe for the Chersonites to Tiberius III, he fled to Khazaria. The Khan received
security of cis-Danubian Dobrudja, Asparuch’s Bulgars began in Justinian with honour and married him to his sister, the Khazar
the eighth decade of the seventh century to push further south. It was princess being baptised as Theodora, a name which, with its patent
the traditional policy of Byzantium to welcome potential allies on the allusion to her more celebrated namesake, doubtless symbolised
north bank of the Danube, but to oppose their crossing of the river the Khan’s ambitions for the restoration of his brother-in-law to
by every means; so in 680 Constantine IV rushed his armies to the the throne of the Romans. Soon, however, an embassy from Con-
Danube. But the victorious Bulgars swept through Moesia and the stantinople demanding Justinian’s extradition made him change his
Dobrudj a, occupying the imperial lands between the Danube and mind. Warned by his wife of his imminent arrest, Justinian fled from
the Balkan Mountains. Byzantium bowed to the fait accompli: in 681 Khazaria to the mouth of the Danube. The final scene of the drama
Constantine IV concluded peace with the Bulgars and undertook to was enacted in the Balkans. The exiled Emperor appealed for help
pay them an annual tribute, thus accepting perforce the existence of to Tervel, Asparuch’s successor; and in the autumn of 705 Tervel’s
an independent barbarian state on imperial territory?’ The collapse army of Bulgars and Slavs appeared before the walls of Constan-
of the Empire’s Danubian frontier, which the Slav invasions had tinople. The city fortifications proved impregnable, but Justinian
already brought about in the first half of the century, was now at last slipped in unobserved, and in the panic that ensued regained his
acknowledged by the Byzantine government. Asparuch had carved throne. The timely, though hardly disinterested, services of the Bul-
himself a kingdom that stretched from the Dniester to the Haemus gar Khan were not forgotten: seated by the Emperor’s side, Tervel
range, a limpet that was to cling to the Empire’s flank for more than was invested by him with the dignity of Caesar? The event was a
three hundred years and was to become in the ninth and tenth centuries notable one, for next to the imperial dignity the rank of Caesar was
one of the great powers of Europe. From his new capital of Pliska, at the highest in the hierarchy of Byzantium. No barbarian ruler had
1 The origin of the Khazars, who in the late sixth and early seventh centuries were ever risen so high, and the Bulgarians were not soon to forget that
subject to the Western Turks, is still a matter for debate. Cf. D. M. Dunlop, The their Khan had received, as an associate of the imperial majesty, the
History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954), pp. 3-40; W. B. Henning, ‘A Fare-
well to the Khagan of the Aq-Aquataré.ii', BSOAS, XIV (I952), 501-2. homage of the people of East Rome? But in Byzantine eyes the
3 The form ‘Isperich' occurs in the List of Old Bulgar Rulers; the Greek form i Contrary to V. Zlatarski, op. cit. I, 1, pp. 142-5, who argued that the Slavs entered
’/lcmapoiix (‘Aspar-liruk’ in Armenian: see H. Gregoire; B, xvii (1944-5), 115, n. 34) into a contractual agreement with Asparuch, I. Dujéev has convincingly shown
is used here, as the more familiar. (‘Protobulgares et Slaves’, Sam. Kond. X (1938), 145-54) that they were actually
“ Theophanes, pp. 356-9 (ed. C. de Boor); N icephorus, Opusc. hist. pp. 33-5 subjugated by the Bulgars. _ _
(ed. C. de Boor). Theophanes places all these events, the Bulgar ‘Landnahme’ and 1 There is some doubt as to where this ceremony took place. According to Nice-
the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire, in A.M. 6171 = A.D. 679-80: so phorus (p. 42) it was in Tervel’s camp outside the city walls. The Suda, on the other
V. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, 1, pp. 146-8; S. Runciman, op. cit. p. 27 ; but J. Kulakovsky hand, states that Tervel addressed the people of ‘Byzantium in the palace of the
(Istorija Vizantii, III,p. 249) had already drawn attention to a piece of evidence (Mansi, Clirysotriclinus (more precisely, in the Bacnhucrj: S uidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, 1, p. 459).
xi, 617) which shows that the war still continued during part of 681. Cf. G. Ostro- 3 Nicephorus, Opusc. hist. p. 42 states thatJustinianTép,8e,\w. . .1|’p0UKUV€z060.L 015v aiii-Q»
gorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 113, n. 5. 51:6 -roii )ia.o|7 e':ce'/\eue.
486 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Byzantine alliance with the Khazars 487

ceremony of 705 had a different significance: Tervel’s title carried no the Khazars played a not unimportant role in the foreign trade of
power with it, and could indeed be regarded as a sign of his recogni- Byzantium; for by supplying Constantinople with gold from the
tion of the Emperor’s supreme and universal authority.1 Urals and with raw silk from China, they helped the Empire to re-
Justinian’s adventures on the northern shores of the Black Sea adjust its economy after the loss of Syria and Egypt to the Arabs} In
illustrate the struggle that took place in the late seventh and early spite of occasional clashes in the Crimea, relations between Constan-
eighth centuries between Byzantium and the Khazars for the control tinople and the Khazar capital of Itil in the Volga delta were friendly
of the southern Crimea and of the straits of Kerch. The Turkic threat and close. In 733 Leo III married his son, the future Emperor Con-
to the Crimea which led to the fall of Bosporus in 576 was removed stantine JV, to the Khan’s daughter; christened Irene, the Khazar
by the dissensions that weakened the Empire of the T’ou Kiue and by princess introduced her national dress, the tzitzalcicm, into the court
the rise of the Old Great Bulgaria; by the end of the sixth century of Constantinople.”
Byzantine authority had been restored in Bosporus. But the Em- The Byzantine statesmen would have been false to the time-
pire’s whole position in the peninsula was once again challenged by honoured traditions of East Roman diplomacy if they had not
the westward expansion of the Khazars, who were in possession of the attempted to sanctify and consolidate this political alliance by con-
city by the end of the seventh century. The intrigues of Justinian II, verting the Khazars to Christianity. It is, however, remarkable that
and even more the three largely unsuccessful expeditions which, upon their missionary efforts in Khazaria seem to have derived some
his restoration, he sent to the Crimea to punish the Greek cities for impetus from the iconoclast movement. For on the one hand Con-
their former conspiracy against him, threw the Byzantine possessions stantine V’s (741-75) persecutions of the iconophiles caused a mass
in the peninsula into the hands of the Khazars: by about 705 Cherson exodus of Orthodox monks from Constantinople and the central pro-
as well was controlled by the Khan, and the revolution of 71 1 which vinces to the outlying regions of the Empire, notably to the Crimea,
led to the assassination of Justinian was organised in the Crimea with a fact which strengthened the influence of Byzantine culture in
Khazar support. Cherson, Bosporus and Gothia and enhanced the role of the peninsula
The Khazar pressure on the Crimea relaxed about this time, and as a missionary outpost. On the other hand, the East Roman authori-
Cherson seems to have remained under Byzantine sovereignty after ties, while persecuting the defenders of the images nearer home,
711. Circumstances were drawing Byzantium and the Khazars appear to have used them in the Crimea to propagate Christianity
closer together. The Byzantines had long since realised their useful- among the peoples of the North? Christianity certainly spread to
ness in the Empire’s strategy on the north Caucasian front. Heraclius, Khazaria in the eighth century,‘ partly from the Crimea,5 and the
on the eve of his great ofiensive against the Persian Empire in 627, Byzantine authorities must have actively encouraged this develop-
had concluded a military agreement with them. And in the first half ment. And it is not unreasonable to suppose that the list of eight
of the eighth century the common threat of Islam cemented that bishoprics subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, forming the
alliance between Byzantium and the Khazars which was an essential ‘Eparchy of Gothia’ administered by the Metropolitan of Doros (the
factor in the Empire’s diplomacy for the next two hundred years. chief city of the Crimean Goths), and covering a territory that ex-
During this period the Khazar Khanate, that most civilised and tended from the Crimea to the lower Volga and the Caucasus—a list
ordered of states created by the Turkic people in the early middle contained in C. de Boor’s Notitia Episcopatuum—-embodies a project,
ages, centred on the territory between the lower Volga, the northern
Caucasus and the Sea of Azov, remained Byzantium’s most constant 1 See the remarks on the Khazaro-Byzantine trade by S. Runciman, in Cambridge
and valued ally in the north-east. It is probable that in the eighth Economic History, II, pp. 91-2.
’ G. Moravcsik, ‘Proischoidenie slova -r§¢-rljcimov’, Sam. Kond. Iv (1931), 69-76.
century the Khazar alliance did much to save Byzantium from the * F. Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantin at de Méthode cues de Byzance (BS,
Arab menace, for had the Khazars not halted in the Caucasus Suppl. I, 1933), pp. 159-60.
the northward thrust of Islam, the Arabs might well have invaded the ‘ The Life of St Abo of Tiflis, describing conditions in Khazaria in the second half
of the eighth century, states: ‘in terra illa. . .multae sunt urbes et pagi, qul secundum
Pontic steppes and, appearing on the lower Danube, have outfianked Christi legem secure vivant’ (P. Peeters, ‘Les Khazars dans la Passion de S. Abo de
the Empire’s whole defensive system in the north. At the same time Tiflis’, AB, LII (1934), 25 ff., cf. F. Dvornilc, op. cit. pp. 158-9, 163-5). _
° Cf. Menologion Basilii II Impera-toris, JPIPG, CXVII, 181; Synazcarium ecclesiae
1 This may be implied from the statement of Theophames (ed. C. do Boor, p. 374) Constantinopolitana-e, ed. H. Delehaye, Propylaeum ad AASS Novembrzs (Brussels,
that Tervel in 705 undertook vie-c‘:-vis Justinian -rrdwa zirraxofiew Kai. avvrpéxew. 1902), col. 263.
488 The Empire’s Northern Neighbonrs, 565-1018 Slavs in the Balkans and the Peloponnese 489

conceived by the Byzantine authorities in the middle of the eighth reinforced by the creation on the borders of Thrace of the Bulgar
century, to set up a missionary Church over the length and breadth kingdom which was showing, under Tervel and his successors, an
of the Khazar Empire} There is no evidence, however, that this vast assertiveness that augured ill for the future.
ecclesiastical network was ever put into operation. In the second Yet in this dark period of Balkan history that extends from the
half of the eighth century the progress of Christianity in Khazaria was death of Maurice (602) to Irene’s accession to power (780) Byzantine
curtailed by the rival propaganda of Judaism and Islam. The former influence did not vanish from the peninsula. In the cities of eastern
especially was gaining ground; medieval Hebrew sources, whose re- Greece and on the rugged east coast of the Peloponnese the Greek
liability is still a matter of dispute, date the first success of Judaism population held on, and was indeed reinforced by emigration from the
in Khazaria about 730-40 when some of its tenets are said to have interior, and this, together with the cultural inferiority of the Slavs
been adopted by the Khan Bulan.2 While recognising the contro- at that time and their inability to form strong political groups
versial nature of this problem, the present writer believes that the in this region, made possible the work of rehellenisation and
conversion of the ruling circles of Khazaria to Judaism took place in reconquest} This work began in the second half of the seventh
gradual stages and that their final acceptance of the Mosaic law was century, with the campaigns of Constans II (in 658) and Justinian II
delayed until the ninth century.“ The failure to convert the Khazars (in 688-9) against the Slavs of Macedonia; the creation of the
to Christianity did not, on the whole, affect the friendly relations imperial themes of Thrace (between 680 and 687) and of Hellas
between Byzantium and its northern ally. Meanwhile the attention (between 687 and 695)’ marks the result of this first serious counter-
of Byzantine statesmen was shifting increasingly to the Balkan offensive against the Slavs since the reign of Maurice. But its
sector. effects were limited, and it was not until the late eighth century that
In the century between 650 and 750 the situation in the Balkans the tide in the southern part of the Balkans began to turn against the
had, from the standpoint of the Empire, much deteriorated. Almost Slavs. In 783 Irene’s chief minister Stauracius marched through
the whole peninsula was occupied by the Slavs, the Greek population Greece and the Peloponnese, subduing Slav tribes; the establishment
being temporarily either submerged or pushed back to the coastal of the Peloponnesian theme at the end of the century was possibly a
regions along the Black Sea and the Aegean. Thus most of Greece, result of this expedition.” The real turning point in the history of the
and practically the entire Peloponnese, were for nearly two centuries Peloponnese, however, was under Nicephorus I (802-1 1) whose forces
outside Byzantine control while to the north lay an endless expanse suppressed a large-scale revolt of the Slavs round Patras (805) and
of Slav territory, stretching continuously from the Adriatic, the settled Christian communities in various parts of the peninsula. The
Aegean and the Black Sea to the Baltic.‘ And this vast barbarian process ofabsorption and hellenisation of the Slavs in Greece and in the
world, pressing down on Byzantium from all sides, had been Peloponnese was now well under way. By the middle of the ninth
1 G. I. Konidares, ‘AZ p.1]'rpo1rci/\ets‘ Kai dpxtsmoxorral. 1-013 oixovpevtxofi warptapxelov xai century Byzantine authority was restored throughout most of these
1) -rcifcs ad-I-div. Temte und Forschungen zur byzant.-neugriechischen Philologie, no. 13
(1934), p. 100. This is the interpretation given to the ‘Gothic Eparchy’ by
1 Of the immense literature of unequal value that has accumulated since the days
V. Moéin (‘ ’E1-rapxia Fo'r6ias v Khazarii v VIII-m veke’, Trudy I V-go Sjezda
of Fallmerayer (d. 1861) on the controversial question of the Slav settlements in Greece
Russlcich Akademiéeskich Organizacij za granicej, I, Belgrade, 1929, 149-56); Mo§in’s
the most important works are cited in A. Bon, Le Péloponnése byzantin, p. 30, n. 1.
conclusions were accepted by G. Moravcsik (Zur Gesch. der Onoguren, pp. 64-5),
Bon himself provides a cautious and balanced analysis of the problem (pp. 27 ff.).
A. Vasiliev (The Goths in the Crimea, pp. 97-104), and to alarge extent by F. Dvornik
See also Lemerle, ‘Invasions et migrations’, op. cit. 301-4.
(Les légendes, pp. 160-8). For different views see G. Vernadsky, ‘The Eparchy of
1 As G. Ostrogorsky has convincingly shown (‘Postanak tema Helada i Peloponez:
Gothia’, B,xv (1940-1), 67-76, and V. Laurent, ‘L'érection de la métropole d’Athenes
Die Entstehung der Themen Hellas und Peloponnes’, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog
et le statut ecclésiastique de l’Illyricum au VIIIe siécle‘, EB, I (1943-4), 59.
Instituta Srpske Akademije Naulca, XXI, 1 (1952), 64-77), the theme of Hellas was
' See D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars, pp. .116-70.
limited to the eastern part of Central Greece.
° See below: pp. 492-3.
3 The Peloponnesian theme used to be considered to have been created after the
‘ There are two classic texts showing the predominance of the Slavs in the Pelo-
Byzantine victory over the Slavs at Patras (805). But, as Ostrogorsky has pointed
ponnese in the eighth century: (1) Constantine Porphyrogenitus states that in 746-7
out (loc. cit. pp. 71-3; History of the Byzantine State, p. 172, n. 2), the existence of this
e'o9)la.,3¢.591] 5€ rrfioa 1) xcfipa, oral. -yéyove Bcipflapog (De thematibus, p. 91, ed. A. Pertusi);
theme before 805, restricted no doubt to the eastern part of the peninsula, can be
for the term e'a0/\aBa':9-q see A. Bon, Le Péloponnése byzantin, p. 29, n. 1; (2) between
clearly inferred both from the De administrando imperio, cap. 49, DA1, I, p. 228,
723 and 728 Willibald, Bishop of Eichstatt, on his way to Palestine stopped at
5), and from the Chronicle of Monemvasia (ed. N. Bees, Bv{a.vrls, I (1909), 68 f.).
Monemvasia, a city he locates ‘in Slawinia terra’ (Vita S. Willibaldi, M GH, Script.
For a more cautious interpretation of the evidence see R. J . H. Jenkins, in DAI, II,
xv, 1, p. 93). pp. 184-5.
490 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Conquests of Krum of Bulgaria 491

lands, and what was left undone by the imperial strategi and tax- laid waste the environs of the city and stormed Adrianople, trans-
collectors was later completed by the East Roman missionaries. porting its inhabitants, numbering, it was said, ten thousand, to his
Before this reconquest of Greece and the Peloponnese had begun own dominions north of the Danube. But the following spring, as he
the Empire made a desperate, and almost successful, effort to regain was preparing a huge assault on Constantinople, Krum burst a
Moesia from the Bulgars and restore its northem frontier to the blood-vessel and died (April 814).
Danube. For some twenty years (756-75) Constantine V strove to The Empire had had a narrow escape. But the balance of power
conquer Bulgaria. He cleverly exploited the country’s social weak- in the Balkans had radically altered. Bulgaria, a country which fifty
ness by fanning the constant antagonism between the boyar aristo- years before had seemed on the verge of extinction, was now one of
cracy and the Slavs, and in a series of nine campaigns, mostly the great military powers of Europe. Byzantium’s northern line of
successful, which usually combined—in the time-honoured fashion- defence was seriously undermined, since the border fortresses in
land attacks through Thrace with naval expeditions to the Danube, Thrace—Sardica, Develtus, Mesembria and Adrianople-had been
he routed the Bulgarian armies again and again. But even his victory either destroyed or crippled by Krum. But fortunately for the
over the Khan Telets at Anchialus in 763-—the greatest of his reign- Empire, Krum’s aggressive policy was abandoned by his successors.
did not subdue the country. Constantine’s death on his last cam- In 815-16 the Khan Omortag concluded a thirty years’ peace with
paign (775) left the Empire stronger in the Balkans than it had been Byzantium: the frontier between the two realms was to run along
since the reign of Maurice; but Bulgaria, though crippled and ex- the Great Fence of Thrace from Develtus to Macrolivada, and thence
hausted, was still on the map, its ruling classes bitterly hostile to northward to the Balkan Mountains, thus coinciding with the bound-
Byzantium. ary established exactly a century before by the treaty between Tervel
The vitality of the Bulgarian state and its powers of recovery were and Theodosius III. Save for a few frontier clashes, the Empire and
demonstrated when Krum, the mightiest of its early rulers, became Bulgaria were to remain at peace with one another until the end of
Sublime Khan in the opening years of the ninth century. The destruc- the century. The new policy could not fail to strengthen Byzantine
tion of the Avar Empire by Charlemagne had enabled the Bulgarians influence in Bulgaria, and together with men and ideas from Con-
to annex eastern Pannonia, and Krum became the sovereign of a stantinople, and partly through the thousands of Greek prisoners
realm that stretched from northern Thrace to the northern Carpath- whom Krum had settled in his realm, Christianity was beginning to
ians and from the lower Sava to the Dniester and adj oined the Frank- spread in the country. The authorities, and especially the boyars who
ish Empire on the Theiss. He was long remembered with terror by regarded Christianity as an insidious form of Byzantine imperialism,
the Byzantines. The aggressive policy of Nicephorus I towards Bul- were understandably alarmed. So Omortag, largely it seems for poli-
garia set Krum on a campaign of devastation: in 809 he captured tical motives, persecuted his Christian subjects. But the progress of
Sardica (the modern Sofia) and in July 811 gained his most celebrated the new ideas which, under the cloak of the thirty years’ peace, were
triumph: the Byzantine army was trapped by the Bulgarians in a spreading from Byzantium to Bulgaria could not be arrested for very
defile of the Balkan Mountains and slaughtered almost to a man. long by these reactionary measures.
Nicephorus himself perished in the fray, and from his skull Krum Meanwhile, with peace restored in the Balkans, the East Roman
made a goblet, lined with silver, out of which he drank with his government was free to devote its attention to the other sectors of
boyars. This was a terrible blow to the Empire’s prestige: not since the Empire’s northern front. The emergence of Bulgaria as a major
the death of Valens on the field of Adrianople in 378 had an Emperor power, and the uncertain situation in the Pontic steppes, more than
fallen in battle. The triumphant Khan swept into Thrace, captured ever required a favourable balance of power in the Crimea and north-
Develtus and Mesembria (812) and in July 813, having routed an- ern Caucasus; yet all was not well in these areas: Byzantine Crimea,
other Byzantine army, arrived before the walls of Constantinople. and especially Cherson, was restive under imperial control, and if the
But ‘the new Sennacherib ’1 was impressed by the fortifications of the Empire was not to lose its invaluable outpost in the north, the local
city and opened negotiations. In the meeting that followed with the traditions of Greek municipal autonomy had to be diverted into
Emperor Leo V on the shore of the Golden Horn Krum barely lawful channels. Khazaria, moreover, on whose friendship the Byzan-
escaped a Byzantine plot to murder him; breathing vengeance he tine statesmen had so long depended, now threatened, owing to the
1 Theophanes, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), p. 503. progress of Judaism in the land, to elude their grasp. During the
 492 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Missionary work among the Khazars 493

gfiigtlilegf Tlleophilllg, h0WeVeI‘, the Empire’s position in these sectors Terek, he engaged in theological disputations with Jewish rabbis
by improve . About the. year 833 the Khazar Khan sent who held a dominant position at the Khazar court. But Constantine’s
an cl; assy to the Emperor, asking for engineers to build a fortress ninth-century biographer, while depicting the Khan and his subjects
on t e lower Don; whereupon the spatharocanclidatus Petronas as monotheists and people of the Book, clearly implies, in the present
Camateriis, escorted by a squadron of the imperial navy Went on writer’s opinion, that their final conversion to Judaism had not yet
Th eophilus
' ’ orders to Khazaria- by way of Cherson. After’ building
. . taken place} This inference could be reconciled with the earlier dates
the fortress of Sarkel for the Khazars he returned to report to the
I at which Hebrew and Islamic sources set the conversion of the
gmperor on the situation in the Crimea. On Petronas’ advice, Khazars to Judaismz by supposing that some of the Klians had
the<:>1pli(.;1lus i;.isedbCherson and its surroundings into an imperial adopted Jewish monotheism between 730 and 860, without, however,
t d Pe, rec su ordinated to the central government, and appoin- submitting to all the requirements of the Mosaic law.“ It seems
Ie etronas its strategus, with authority over the local magistrates 1 significant that the earliest reference to the Khazars practising cir-
t . . _ ’
seems clear that the building of Sarkel and the establishment of cumcision and observing ‘all the traditions of Judaism ’ dates from
the theme of Cherson were due to the same cause—the pressure of about 864-6,4 and it is thus difficult to escape the conclusion that the
unidentified barbarians on the lower Don.“ The Cherson-Sarkel axis ruling circles of Khazaria formally accepted the Mosaic law soon
which may well have included a chain of fortifications up the Don‘; after Constantine’s mission.5
thus served both as an inner line of defence for the Khazar Khanate But if Constantine’s embassy was no great success on the religious
whose sphere of influence extended by then to the Dnieper and the plane-—some two hundred conversions and an ambiguous declaration
Oka, and as a pivot of Byzantium’s strategic position in the steppes from the Khan of his sympathy for Christianity were the measure of
between the lower Volga and the Danube. Common problems of his missionary achievement at Samandar—-politically he seems to
mi itary security had once again confirmed the traditional alliance have secured his object. The alliance between Byzantium and Kha-
between the Empire and the Khazars. zaria was reaffirmed, and the Khan wrote to Michael III, professing
The role played by the Khazar alliance in the Empire’s diplomacy his readiness to serve the Empire whenever he was needed.“ The
plijcamg eigen more apparent in the reign of Michael III. Probably at exact nature of the ‘services’ which the Empire required from the
e_e11h °d359, & Byzantine embassy left Constantinople for Kha- Khazars in 860-1 is not known, but it is safe to assume that Con-
zaria, hea ed by a young pI'16Sl3. from Thessalonica, named Constan- 1 The Khazar envoys to Constantinople about 860 openly professed monotheism:
ine, w o was accompanied by his elder brother, the monk Methodius. see Vita Constantini, cap. 8: Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses : Fontes, ed.
Their route lay through Cherson, where Constantine spent the winter F. Grivec and T. Toméic (Zagreb, 1960) (Radovi Staroslavenskog Instituta, IV), p. 109;
F. Dvornik, Les légendes, p. 358. Moreover, the Khan himself told the Byzantine
and prepared for his mission by learning Hebrew. At the Khan’s envoys: ‘we differ from you on this point alone: you glorify the Trinity and we
residence, which seems to have been then at Samandar on the lower 3
worship one God, having received the Books’ (Vita Constantini, cap. 9, ed. Grivec
and Tomsic, p. 112; Dvornik, op. cit. p. 361). Yet the same Khazar envoys said to
pp.i C
1 $131; _ P01'ph_$r.,
, De administrando
. . , _ cap. 42, DAI, 1, pp. 182-4, and II,
imperio, the Emperor: ‘the Jews exhort us to embrace their faith and their traditions, but
the Saracens on the other hand. . .urge us to accept their beliefs’ (ibid. cap. 8, ed.
* The identity of the barbarians who threatened the Kl '
C . . _ _ iazars and Byzantine Grivec and Toméic, p. 109: Dvornik, op. cit. p. 358).
Sriqioa in the fourth decade of the ninth century is a matter of considerable dispute.
* About 730-40 (‘The Hebrew Correspondence’; see above: p. 488, n. 2); in the
cy itzes-Cedrenus (II, pp. 129-30, CSHB) states explicitly and Theo hane C
reign of Hamlin-ar-Rashid (768-809) (Mas‘udi, Les prairies d’or, trans. C. Barbier
t'im19'tu8(P- 122» CSHB) by implication that they were the Pechene Itli) h S on’ de Meynard, II, Paris, 1863, p. 8).
been pointed out (J .Marquart, Osteuroprfiische und ostasiatische Strei e (Lelshi 0vi3’i§r'
3 This partial conversion to Judaism seems to be implied in a passage of the Life
p. 28) that in 833 the Pechenegs were still east of the Volga- furihermldr g’ ),
of St Abo of Tijlis, where the Khazars are described as being in the late eighth century
archeological work has shown that Sarkel was situated on the ’left bank ofiihresnt
‘agrestes hornines. . .qui legem nullam liabent, nisi quod unum Deum creatorem
(M. Artanionov, ‘Sarkel’, Sovetskaja Archeologija, VI (1940), 130-67): ‘Khazafiskaqbl
norunt' (P. Peeters, op. cit. p. 25).
Krepost Sarkel’, Acta Arch. Acad. Sc. Hungaricae, vii (1956) 321-41) a d thl"
must mean that it was built against attacks from the West Those sclloln hm
* ‘ una gens . . .[Gazari] circumcisa est, et omnem Judaismum observat.’ Druthmar,
Expositio in Matthaeum, MPL, cvi, 1456.
reject the statement of Scylitzes-Cedrenus believe in the inaih that the ba {bra O
5 The present writer cannot hence, without the above qualifications, accept
in question were either the Magyars (C. A Macartne Th M r imam’
F. Dvornik’s statement (Les lége-ndes, p. 171) that the Khazars already professed
Ninth Century (Cambridge, 1930) pp 74-5) dr the Russian V;(ing:g](3‘/Tara ig the
A H. ' ' _ ‘ . . ury, Judaism at the time of Constantine’s mission, and agrees, with the same qualifications,
istory of the Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 414-18; F. Dvornik, Les légerules
with the conclusions of G. Vernadsky (‘The Date of the Conversion of the Khazars to
ppa. 112-4; A. Vasiliev, The Goths in the Crimea, pp. 109 st). ’ Judaism’, B, xv (1940-1), 76-86); for a different view see Dunlop, op. cit. pp. 195-6.
Cf. J. Marquart, loc. cit.; J. B. Bury, op. cit. p. 416,
‘ Vita Const. cap. 11, trans. F. Dvornik, Les légendes, p. 370.
 494 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Southwarcl migration of the Vikings 495

stantine’s mission was connected with a new danger that threatened watershed of the East European plain. In the second half of thlq
Byzantium from the north and must be viewed in the light of the eighth century, drawn by the extensive trade that flourished, throng
Empire’s policy in that region during the seventh decade of the ninth the intermediary of the Volga Bulgars and the Khazars, betweenkt to
century. The remarkable achievements of this policy, which were to fur and slave dealers of the northern forests and the ‘luxury mar ehs
leave a permanent mark on the history of Europe, were perhaps due of Baghdad, they began to go down the Volga to Itil, and ‘over t E
to three main factors: to the vigour and initiative which, after the Caspian to the lands of the Caliphate. Somewhat 18-1561'» 111 Beale
barbarian invasions of the post-Justinian period and the iconoclast of fresh markets and easier plunder, the Vikings explored the shorttler
crisis, Byzantine diplomacy was now able to display beyond the
routes to the warm and rich countries of the South: probably byh 9
Empire’s northern frontier; to an unprecedented expansion of the early ninth century, sailing down the Donl and the Dniester, t ey
Church’s missionary work, now linked closer than ever to the aims of reached the Black Sea. Towards the middle of the ninth century
East Roman diplomacy, which made the seventh decade of this began the third and most significant stage in the southward expan-
century one of the greatest in the history of Byzantine missions; and sion of the Swedes: by moving up the rivers of the eastern l.B&l§ll:-:-
to the fact that in this period the religiou and cultural influence of the Neva, the western Dvina, and the Niemen—and by draggigg _e11'
the Empire was able to strike out beyond the traditional perimeter ships over portages that lay beyond» the V9*1'a*n_€“m3 (as the uéslan
of Byzantium’s northern front and, thrusting deep into eastern and
Swedes came to be known in eastem Eur0Pe) d1S°°Ver°d ‘he Dmeper
central Europe, to gain the allegiance of a substantial part of the
which flowed into the Black Sea; and the whole of this elaboraélf
vast Slav world. network of rivers, lakes, portages and seas Wl110l1' led from gcanksz
The story of this achievement begins on 18 June 860, when a fleet
navia to the Bosphorus, the ‘route from the Varangians to the reeth
of two hundred Viking ships, coming from the Black Sea, sailed into
of the Russian Chronicle, becamein the second half of the century dg
the Bosphorus and turned against Constantinople. The city’s posi-
true Swedish Austrvegr, the classic highway f0!‘ the _81'ea't Eiftern "‘ d
tion was serious indeed: the Byzantine fleet was probably in the
venture? Along this waterway, 011 te1'1'1l5°1'Y _mh9*b1‘fed by 1 ‘fins and
Mediterranean, fighting the Arabs, the army and the Emperor were
eastern Slavs, the Varangians founded their trading co 011168 8-I1
campaigning in Asia Minor. The suburbsand the coastline were defence-
carved out their military kingdoms. By the middle of ‘the century
less against the savage depredations of the barbarians. Inside the in- an important ‘Russian’ settlement, ruled by the Vikmg Ryllflk,
vested city the Patriarch Photius urged the people to faith and
existed in Novgorod. Some time between 850 and 860 two Varangians
repentance. The strong fortifications once again saved Constantinople;
from Novgorod, Askold and Dir, went dovgn the Dmeper 8.111113
and probably before the Emperor hastily brought his army back, the captured the city of Kiev from the Khazars. This was Ian gvteh
invaders raised the siege and withdrew to their homes in the north}
of considerable importance: for when the Vikings rep ace B
The violent emergence of these Vikings-—known to the Byzantines as
Khazars as overlords of the middle Dnieper valley, the. strong
‘P¢?is,2 to the Slavs as Rus’ and to the Arabs as Ri'is3—on the horizon
oriental influences to which the eastern Slavs in this regipip 1:26
of East Rome was the outcome of a century-long process of expansion
for centuries been subjected suffered a sharp setback, If V6 _
which led the Scandinavians, mostly Swedes from Upland, S6derman-
lure of Byzantium, the fabulous Mikligariir, that deflected t e grill
land and East Giitland, to sail up the Baltic rivers over the great
gian ships from the Volga and the Caspian to the Dmeper an
. . - - 1) dA as raises some controversial
1 The two homilies preached by Photius on this occasion, for all their rhetorical
lbrfhe V"_1[‘{l1ng c01on1:avlr1i'cllt?eff1l’elsllel\?;rei‘ha1?Nlkling bhhdgehad very probably reached
exaggeration, give a vivid impression of the city’s anguish in the summer of 860: pro ems’ .6 presen - ' h d t t the view of
Muller, FHG, v, 1, pp. 162-73; see the translation and commentary by C. Mango, the Azov 1‘9g10I'1 by bl; early nintlg7c:8eiir'l'gi)ry.,nl(;uli»\’If('§Igi£1r1S 31a:1‘the°l€'c‘:::men built an
The Homilies of Photius (Cambridge, Mass., _1958, pp. 74-110). Cf. the brief but clear
Vemaldsldy (ldncbggrfululzlfgte ‘thisarea: see the full discussion in Mosin, ’V9-1'.l°18°'
analysis of the sources in G. Laelir, Die Anfctnge des russischen Reiches (Hist. Stud. 189
Berlin, 1930), pp. 91-5, and the very full account of A. A. Vasiliev, The Russian orga‘ll’i"S€:r0;’1"10s’pSlacia
russ ] I » x (1931) ' 109-as ’ 343-'19. 07
501-37; ‘Nsbslo R11Bi- N°1'm“'“Y
Attack on Constantinople in 860 ( Cambrid ge , Mass. , 1946).
3 The presence in Constantinople of an embassy from the Swedish Rhos is attested
as early as 839: Anmiles Bertiniani, M GH , Script. I, p. 434. Cf. A. Vasiliev, op. cit.
" = on 1» 1-
vostocnoj EV1‘0P°', B5‘, 111 (1931), _33_58' 285'?’

a The Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest Vremennych L65)»

'

-_ - l b S H
. - -

pp. 6-13. V . Adrianova-Peretc (Moscow-Leningrad.

_ 1950)»
. I» PP- 18'195~ Eng“s’%;rZ’5B'Tg.
0 _ _ 13 'wili

* For the Arabic sources on the Rfis see V. Minorsky, ‘Rfis’, Encycl. of Islam, iii, Cross and o. P. Slherbowitz-\/Vetzor (g3)@1?b:;dsg;j(/)1:;f»:l-飧3)£ePgngliBh translation
1 181-3. be subsequently cited as The Russian rim 3!
of 1953 as ‘Cross-Sherbowitz’.
 496 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 111ission to the 1|/Ioravian Slavs 497

Black Sea, was a premonition and a cause of that irresistible attrac- l arian Khan Boris. Rastislav also requested
tion which the city of Constantine was to exert on the minds of the Mibhlaaell ITIIlC‘l»0t8l3i1(:l’.3 a missionary capable of teaching Christianity
Russians for many centuries to come. It was Askold and Dir who led h‘ le in their own Slavonic tongue. Hitherto the Christian
the Russian campaign on Constantinople in 860, and it can scarcely to ls P60? M ' had been German missionaries and servants of
be doubted that the expedition was launched from Kiev.1 preachelsklnh Era’V<1al*’or' a Slav-speaking clergy dependent on Con-
The Byzantine response to the Russian attack, whose failure they ztlalnfihaoplbs Ragtlglav believed, would help him preserve his inde-
ascribed to the protection of the Mother of God, was swift and pendence and ensure a more rapid progress of Chrlstlaglty 11131113 11-”‘:fi:
characteristic. It is highly probable that the main political object of The Moravian proposals were favourably received_1n yztm. 1l1}I1- _
Constantine’s mission to Khazaria in 860-1 was to concert with the F1-a,n_ko-Bulgarian pact, which threatened to bring Carolingian in-
Khan on a joint policy against the Russians, the common enemy of t the ver doors of Constantinople, could not but alarm so
Constantinople and Itil. This diplomatic encirclement of Kiev was fluenqe 0 d di lbmatist as the Emperor’s chief minister, Bardas;
followed up by an attempt to convert the Russians to Christianity. $i(li)ill:1flIi:ePa:riaiPch Photius must have foreseen that Byzantine in-
Soon after 860 ambassadors from the Rhos were baptised in Constan- fluence in Moravia would provide a means of exerting pressqrqéinége
tinople,2 and in 867 the Patriarch Photius was able to announce that Bulgarians and of bringing them too into the Christian o .E (Z
the Russians, who formerly surpassed all peoples in cruelty, had now Moravo-Byzantine alliance was concluded, and early in 863 an t_as
accepted Christianity and were living under the spiritual authority of Roman embassy left for central Europe, headed by Constan ine,
a Byzantine bishop as ‘subjects and friends ’ of the Empire.“ Finally, accompanied once again by his brother Methodius. .
in the reign of Basil I, possibly about 874, the Russians concluded a The two brothers were natives of Greek Thessalonica and well ac-
treaty with Byzantium and an archbishop was sent to them by the quainted with the Slavonic language of the hinterland. Consrlantme
Patriarch Ignatius.4 The scantiness of the sources does not allow us was also an unusually gifted philologist: before embarking on igilnew
to follow the fate of this first Byzantine ecclesiastical organisation on mission he invented an alphabet for the. use of the Moravian avst;
Russian soil; it is natural to suppose that its centre was at Kiev and This first unequivocally attested Slavomc script, identified by mos
that it was engulfed in the pagan reaction that swept over South modern authorities as Glagolitic, was 9-_da'Pted_1"° ‘_1’d1a"e°" of s0_u”hem
Russia later in the century. Yet the bridgehead which Byzantine Macedonia. By gradually translating into this dialect the Scriptures
Christianity had secured beyond the Pontic steppes was never and liturgy of the Christian Church Constantine and Methodius
completely destroyed. created a new literary language, known as Church Slavomc, wlncl}
It is an impressive sign of the vision and resourcefulness which the became in the course of time the sacred idiom of a large section o
Empire’s foreign policy had acquired by the seventh decade of the the Slavs and the third international language of EHI'0PB- ‘H16 twti
ninth century that while the missionaries of Photius and Ignatius brothers began their work in Moravia by translating the liturgica
were labouring to convert the Slavs and their Viking overlords on the offices into Slavonic: it seems that at first they used only the Byzan-
middle Dnieper, the cultural and political influence of Byzantium was tine rite but in the course of time also adopted and translated the
able to strike out equally far to another region of the North. In 862 Roman lnass.1 Their activities, which included the training of_ the
there arrived in Constantinople an embassy from Rastislav, prince of clergy of Rastislav’s new Slav Church, were viewed with open hostihty
the Moravian Slavs. Its purpose was twofold: the Moravians, whose by the Frankish clergy in Moravia who regarded them not only as
realm stretched from Bohemia to the Theiss and from the Carpathians dangerous innovators in matters of faith—for the Roman Cl1lJI0l1,l1I1
to the middle Danube, desired to form an alliance with Byzantium to whose jurisdiction Moravia lay, did not favour the use of veiliinacu pr
counteract the coalition recently made against them by Louis the liturgies—but also, no doubt, as agents of Byzantme imperia sm. 1:;
1 The much-debated question as to whether the Russian attack of 860 was launched
the winter of 867-8 Constantine and Methodius travelled to Rome a
from Kiev or from the Azov region is discussed by A. Vasiliev (op. cit. pp. 169-75), the invitation of Pope Nicholas I, and were received by l'l1S SHOOBSSOI‘
whose arguments in favour of Kiev seem to the present writer convincing.
1 Theoph. Cont. cap. 33, p. 196 (CSHB).
1 Photius, Epistolae, MPG, CII, 736-7 (rd 'PcIig. . .§v iirrrjxdwv e'av'roi.’rs xai rrpofévwv
1
R°““’“ "ms in "‘°m'm’
1-offer. . . . e’-yxaraorvfaavres). ization (Boston, 1956), pp.Bee F' Dvormm
84-5. 16§—7= F- Th?
Grlvec»‘wit °" giant-in zhtnd Method ' Lehrer
‘ Theoph. Cont. cap. 97, pp. 342-3. Cf. DR, 493. der Sluuen (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp. 119-34-
3? CMH IV!
 498 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 The Church in Bulgaria 499

adrian II. They could scarcely have chosen a more propitious Pope for a Patriarch. Determined to make full use of this opportunity
moment to plead their cause before the Holy See- for the work of to subject the Bulgarian Church to the Holy See, Nicholas I at once
11195‘? Byzantine missionaries in Moravia had suddenly become a sent two bishops to Bulgaria and composed a reply to a list of 106
crucial factor in the ecclesiastical politics of Euro e owin t th questions which Boris had sent him.1 This shrewd and sagacious
remarkable change that had befallen the relatidhsl betwieii) this document shows that Boris was concerned at the social effects of the
Empire and Bulgaria. clash between the new Christian and the old Bulgarian traditions in
OI;-1111apeace that prevailed between Byzantium and Bulgaria during his realm, that his understanding of Christianity was still rudiment-
ness of fihe P35? was en angered after his death (83 1) by the assertive- ary, but that he was prepared to exploit the rivalry between the
annexed cznt lglagiang Wl1O10G0l1p16d Sardica £tI1d.Pl1illpp0P01ig and Eastem and Western Churches to gain as much independence and
b ra ‘ace onia, and by the pro-Fraiikish policy followed prestige as possible for his own Church. Boris’ request for a Patri-
f y the Khan Boris (852-89) at the begimiing of his reign. In 864 arch was, however, adroitly side-stepped by the Pope: for the time
fieggnighlghgz Boris would carry out his promise ‘to accept Christianity being, the Khan was told, he would have to content himself with an
and sent hi 131%: elourt, the Emperor moved his army to the frontier archbishop. But since Byzantium had grudged him even a bishop,
_ s ee a ong the Black Sea coast. The Khan was forced to Boris considered that he had got the better deal out of Rome and
gqlpitulatez he undertook to renounce the Frankish alliance, to receive swore to remain for ever the faithful servant of St Peter.
_ 1St1&111tY fl‘0111 Constantinople and-—at least in the Byzantine read- Such was the situation when Constantine and Methodius arrived in
ing of the facts—to submit himself and his people to the Emperor’s Rome. The Papacy, after its triumph over the Byzantine Church in
. 2 . . . .
hIn the qalme ‘year Boris was baptised,“ being christened Bulgaria, now seemed in a good position to regain the whole of
_ _ Oneur 0 is imperial godfather. A revolt of the boyars Illyricum from the Patriarch of Constantinople and to impose its
against his decision to enforce baptism on all his subjects was ruth- spiritual authority over the Slav world. The Slavonic liturgy was no
1ess_1Y $11PP1'eBSed, and the triumph of Byzantine Christianity in Bul- doubt a break with traditional Roman practice; yet as a means of
garia seemed assured. The Patriarch Photius wrote a long and evangelising the Slavs it commended itself, particularly as it was
carefully worded ltttel‘ to Boris, explaining the doctrines of the enthusiastically supported by two Slav rulers in central Europe,
Church and the duties of a Christian ruler.‘ The Khan howe Rastislav of Moravia and Kocel of Pannonia. And so the new Pope
not altogether satisfied by this learned disquisition' how wzzrhdvfs Hadrian II gave his unqualified approval to the work of Constantine
:"::I<1)aI;1i<I>111<;>11:-3;; recogilfition of Byzantine supremacy with his desire to and Methodius and publicly authorised the use of the Slavonic liturgy.
arch underel‘ s ‘own country? A separate ecclesiastical hier- After Constantine’s death in Rome in February 869 (he died as a
aue £1106 t ac garian Patriarch, or at least under a bihop owing monk under the name Cyril), Methodius was sent back by the Pope
dilefnmw bot °n:fif111t111°P1e, Seemed to provide a solution to his to central Europe to set up a new Slav Church in Pannonia and
disa Unites oigh tlils rgatter Photius was ominously silent. And so, Moravia. A few months later, however, he was back in Rome. Again
the airman a\l’\:1 _ 826 reeks, Boris turned to his former ally, Louis his visit to the Pope coincided with an event of European importance
Bul aria. at: th In requested him to send a bishop and priests to which was causing a great stir in Rome; and again the cause of this
g , e same time he sent an embassy to Rome asking the stir was the unaccountable behaviour of Boris of Bulgaria.
In the course of the past three years Boris had realised that the
1 Ac
by 842.
d‘
is t P. M ' "
ri a an
_= --
I
respa was part of the Bulgarian realm
Pope had no intention of allowing him to manage his own ecclesi-
astical affairs. Meanwhile, the full resources of Byzantine diplomacy
frniogzo: Gelgriéqplgi N[O1l;:;3hu}:.,O'TI;tI.1gC)£4'}}£iP;i1'gC(;L
:O|l8éBO'A ... ‘X 1 I (I€?t.‘:.g‘-£3-I‘!.Ig));'O'.1'1'€CI’6(lL
\r 1 1'9",, Barn./\ciA Kai ¢Pwl-batons‘ were being marshalled in an attempt to detach Bulgaria from Rome.”
e date of Boris’ baptism—864 and not V’ Z1 1-, ki .. 1 Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, MPL, oxix, 978-1016; Fontes Historiae
31) and s. Runciman (First Bulgarian E’mpire,’pElSlO4) bziizlfed ’iitT€,’,,,,I’ 2; 13." E7; Bulgaricae, VII (1960), 60-125. Cf. I. Dujcev, ‘Die Responsa Nicolai I. Papae ad
by A. Vaillant and M. Lascaris (‘La date de la conversion deb Bul '65 a ls 6 Consulta Bulgarorum als Quelle fiir die bulgarische Geschichte’, Festschrift zur
Etudes Slaves, xiii (1933), 5 ff.). gares ’ Revue des Feier des Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchivs, I (Vienna, 1949), pp. 349-62.
4 , _ - . _
C11 6, Fontes Historiae Bulgaricae, VIII (Sofia, 1961), 59-99, Cf, 1 ‘Graeci. . .diversa requirunt ingenia, munera post munera numerosa mittentes,
I. Dujcev, ‘Au lendemain de la ' d ,. . . et sophistica ei argumenta creberrime proponentes’: Anastasius Bibliothacarius,
Méhmges dz Science Religiejuse, vfI‘;I1(’i‘;1:’fi’1121111_I;5‘.1P1e bulgare, leP1tre do Photiugn MPL, cxxviii, 20.
32-2
 500 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018
Achievements of Cyril and Methodius 501
In February 870 the last session of the anti-Photian Council in
sign of the appeal which Byzantine Christianity, in its vernacular
Constantinople was attended by a Bulgarian embassy which asked the
Slavonic form, retained in what had been in the ninth century a dis-
assembled Fathers on behalf of their ruler whether his Church should
tant outpost of the East Roman missions.
be subject to Rome or Constantinople. A special conference of the
It may be assumed that Methodius’ work in Moravia and Pan-
eastern Patriarchs’ representatives, summoned under the Emperor’s
nonia enjoyed at least the moral support of his sovereign Basil I. The
chairmanship to deal with this doubtless not unprepared intervention,
value of the Slavonic liturgy as a means of evangelising the Slavs and
and from which the protesting papal legates were excluded, decided
of attracting them into the political orbit of Byzantium was certainly
that Bulgaria should return to the jurisdiction of the See of Constan-
appreciated by this Emperor} whose policy towards the Balkan Slavs
tinople. Boris naturally accepted this decision, the Roman clergy
was marked by high statesmanship and crowned with remarkable
were expelled from his country, and an Archbishop consecrated by
success. Thus the Serbian tribes in the valleys of the Tara, the Lim
the Patriarch Ignatius was sent to Bulgaria}
and the Ibar, together with the piratical Narentani on the Adriatic
The news of Boris’ defection, or at least a warning that it was im-
coast, were forced to acknowledge the Emperor’s sovereignty and to
pending, probably arrived in Rome while Methodius was still there; it
accept Christianity, but were left some political autonomy. In
seemed hardly calculated to inspire the Pope with confidence in the good
878 through its agent, the Croatian prince Zdeslav, the Empire
faith of the Slavs. But once again Hadrian II proved himself a states-
strengthened its hold over Dalmatia. And though in the following
man: he appointed Methodius Archbishop of Pannonia and Legate of
year the Croats accepted the ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Roman
the Holy See to the Slavonic nations, extending his diocese to the Bul-
See, the political and cultural influence of East Rome, ably furthered
garian frontier and thus hoping, with the help of the Slavonic liturgy,
by Basil I and clothed in the attractive garb of the Cyrillo-Methodian
to link the Slavs of central Europe still closer to Rome. But Metho-
vernacular tradition, remained paramount in the Balkans.
dius’ work in his new archdiocese was crippled by the continued
It was in Bulgaria, however, that the legacy of Cyril and Methodius
opposition of the Frankish clergy who considered that his Slavonic yielded its greatest dividends and was saved for Europe and the
policy impinged on their own rights. For two and a half years they
Slavs. The Byzantines were careful in 870 to avoid repeating the
kept the Archbishop a prisoner in Germany; and under their influence
mistake that had thrown Boris into the arms of the Papacy, especially
the Papacy, after the death of John VIII, lost interest in the Slavonic
since Pope John VIII was making desperate attempts to regain his
liturgy. About 882, at the invitation of the Emperor Basil I, Methodius allegiance. The Archbishop of Bulgaria, though a suffragan of the See
journeyed to Constantinople, where he was received with honour and
of Constantinople, was granted a measure of autonomy.” Yet, as
affection. Two of his disciples, armed with the sacred books in Sla- Boris must have realised, it was only by acquiring a native clergy and
vonic, remained in Byzantium as an instrument of further missionary
the Slavonic liturgy and letters that his people could safely continue
work among the Slavs and Methodius’ last gift to his fatherland.
to assimilate Byzantine civilisation without prejudice to their cultural
In 885 Methodius, powerless against the intrigues of the Frankish
and political independence. And so, when the disciples of Methodius,
party, the hostility of the new Moravian ruler Svatopluk and the
on their expulsion from Moravia, travelled down the Danube valley
indifference of Rome, died in Moravia, his work among the Slavs of
and arrived in Bulgaria, they were enthusiastically received by Boris.
central Europe on the brink of ruin. His principal disciples, including
Clement, one of their leaders, was sent to Macedonia about 886, where
his successor Gorazd, were sentenced to perpetual exile. Yet the
he laboured among Boris’ Slav subjects for thirty years, converting
Slavonic liturgy and the Slavo-Byzantine culture which St Cyril and the pagans, establishing the Slavonic liturgy of the Byzantine rite,
St Methodius had implanted north of the Danube and on both sides building churches and training large numbers of Slav-speaking
of the northern Carpathians did not vanish from these lands for
priests. On Clement’s appointment as bishop in 893, his companion
another two centuries. In Bohemia, and possibly in southern Poland,
Naum, who had founded a school of Slavonic letters at Preslav in
their influence can be traced well into the eleventh century,2 a sure
north-eastern Bulgaria, joined him in Macedonia. Thanks to St
1 As his treatment of a group of Methodius’ disciples who were sold into slavery
1 On Boris’ dealings with Rome and Constantinople see F. Dvornik, The Photian
by the Moravians and redeemed by a Byzantine envoy in Venice shows: see S.
Schism (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 91-131, 151-8, and see above: chs. IV and x.
Runciman, op. cit. p. 125.
3 Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 18-22, 124-9,
' V. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, 2, pp. l45~5l; G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine
249-53; The Slavs, Their Early History and Civilisation, pp. 170-4.
State, p. 208, n. 1.
6
502 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Symeon of Bulgaria 503

Clement and St Naum Macedonia became a renowned centre of two Byzantine merchants to secure the monopoly of the Bulgarian
Slavo-Byzantine culture, and its chief city of Ochrida became the trade and to transfer the market to Thessalonica, where they im-
metropolis of Slavonic Christianity. At Ochrida and Preslav, during posed heavy taxes on Bulgarian goods.1 Symeon thought this an
the next few decades, much Byzantine literature was translated into outrage. He promptly invaded Thrace, defeated a Byzantine army
Slavonic: liturgical hymns, Greek patristic works, Byzantine chron- and advanced towards Constantinople. The peace which, save for a
icles and encyclopaedias, stories of Troy and of Alexander the Great, few minor encounters, had reigned in the Balkans for the past eighty
were made accessible to the Slavs in the Cyrillic script} The literary years was at an end. Leo VI, whose best troops were in Asia, resorted
wealth that accumulated during this ‘first golden age’ of Bulgarian to the traditional method of imperial diplomacy: he sent an embassy
literature, which included some original creations, was to nourish to Bu1garia’s northern neighbours the Magyars, who then inhabited
throughout the middle ages the religious and intellectual life of the the steppes between the lower Dnieper and the lower Danube, to
Russians, the Serbs and the Rumanians?‘ persuade them to attack Symeon in the rear. This Finno-Ugrian
This cultural work was further stimulated when Boris’ third son people, considerably mixed with and influenced by Turkic elements,
Symeon succeeded to the throne (893) after his father had emerged had in all probability formed part of Kovrat’s Onoguric realm; they
from the monastery to which he had retired four years earlier, to had remained east of the Maeotis as subjects of the Khazars and in
depose his elder son Vladimir, whose pagan excesses had endangered the course of the ninth century had moved westward across the Don
the state. Symeon seemed peculiarly well fitted to continue his and the Dnieper. Ferried across the Danube by the Byzantine fleet,
father’s work: like Boris, he combined a devotion to Byzantine the Magyars raided north-eastern Bulgaria, inflicting several defeats
culture with an enthusiasm for Slavonic letters; much of his youth on Symeon’s armies (895). But Symeon was capable of outplaying the
had been spent in Constantinople, where, so Liutprand was informed, East Romans at their own game: he opened negotiations with the
he became proficient in ‘the rhetoric of Demosthenes and the syl- Empire, arrested the Byzantine ambassador Leo Choerosphactes and,
logisms of Aristotle ’, earning the nickname of hemiargos, the half- entangling him in a semi-ironic correspondence in which both parties
Greek ;3 and on his return to Bulgaria he actively sponsored the quibbled about words and punctuation} called in the Magyars’
literary movement. His new capital of Preslav he intended to make eastern neighbours, the Pechenegs. This Turkic people had recently
a second Constantinople; the splendour of its churches and palaces, been driven westward from their homes between the Emba and the
we are assured by a contemporary Bulgarian writer, defied descrip- Volga by the Uzes and had reached the Dnieper. Doubtless bribed
tion ; and in the royal palace sat Symeon ‘in a garment woven with by Symeon, they now combined with the Bulgarians to plunder the
gold, a golden chain round his neck, girt with a purple girdle covered lands of the Magyars. Finding on their return from Bulgaria their
with pearls, and wearing a golden sword’.‘* homes occupied by the fearsome Pechenegs, the Magyars had no
The imperial diplomatists, in observing the progress of Byzantium’s option but to migrate fLu'ther west: so they crossed the Carpathians
northern proselyte, could congratulate themselves on the dividends and in 895 entered the Pannonian plain. By 906 they had destroyed
which the Slav policy, devised by Photius and Basil I and carried out the Moravian realm and founded the medieval kingdom of Hungary.
by Cyril and Methodius and their disciples, was yielding in Bulgaria. Symeon, meanwhile, invaded Thrace and routed the Byzantines at
But in 894 these achievements were compromised by the carelessness Bulgarophygon (896). Peace was then concluded and the Empire
of the Emperor Leo VI. An intrigue at the imperial court enabled undertook to pay Bulgaria a yearly subsidy.
The events of these three years had seriously undermined the
1 The Cyrillic script which, except in Croatia and Dalmatia, rapidly supplanted the
Glagolitic, is considered by most present-day authorities to have resulted from an
Empire’s position in the Balkans. A hostile and ambitious Symeon
attempt by Methodius’ disciples in Bulgaria to adapt Greek uncial writing to the now stood at the gates of Thrace, and the Slavs of Serbia and of
Slavonic tongue. The question of the relative priority of Glagolitic and Cyrillic may, .the coastal region of Dyrrachium were falling under his influence.
however, still be considered an open one. For an attempt to argue the priority of
Cyrillic, see E. Georgiev, Slavjanslcaja pi-smennost do Kirilla i Mefodija (Sofia, 1952). 1 See G. I. Bratianu, ‘ Le commerce bulgare dans l’Empire byzantin et le monopole
* Cf. M. Murko, Geschichte der dlteren aiidslawischen Litteraturen (Leipzig, 1908), de Pempereur Léon VI a Thessalonique’, Sbornilc Nilcov: Izvestija na Bdlgarskoto
pp. 57 fi‘.; B. Angelov and M. Genov, Stara bitlgarska literatura (Sofia, 1922). Istorideslco Druiestvo, XVI—XVIII (1940), 30-6.
* Antapodosis, lib. III, cap. 29 (ed. I. Bekker, p. 87). ' G. Kolias, Léon Choerosphactes (Athens, 1939 = Texte und Forschungen zur
‘ John the Exarch, Sestodnev, ed. R. Aitzetmiiller, Dos Hexaemeron des Exarchen byzant.-neugriechischen Philologie, XXXI); Fontes Historiae Bulgaricae, VIII (1961),
Johannes, I (Graz, 1958), p. 195. 175-84; cf. V. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, 2, pp. 302-12.
504 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 The Kievan state. Symeon of Bulgaria 505

Further north, between the Danube and the Don, the Pechenegs had Oleg was certainly the founder of the Kievan realm. A wave of
emerged as a disturbing factor in the steppes. In one respect only did paganism swept over the Dnieper region during his reign and the
these new barbarian invasions offer some prospect of relief: hitherto predatory lust of the Vikings revived. In 907, with an amphibious
Byzantium had been hemmed in by a solid mass of Slavs, stretching host of Varangians and Slavs, Oleg appeared before Constantinople;
from Thrace and Macedonia to the Baltic Sea; the coming of the after laying waste the suburbs of the city, he retired, and in 911
Magyars to Pannonia, the result of Symeon’s diplomacy, had driven a treaty was signed between the Russians and the Empire} The
a wedge into the centre of the Slav world, for ever precluding the preferential treatment it accorded the Russian merchants in Con-
formation of a united Slav empire and decisively halting any further stantinop1e2 seems to have ensured Byzantium against new attacks
expansion of Bulgaria into centralEurope. from Kiev for the next thirty years. The commercial relations
Menacing clouds were gathering in Leo VI’s reign in another sector established in 911 mark a further stage in the gradual assimilation
of the north. The Christian missions planted in Russia by Photius and of the Vikings into the East European world. But so long as the
Ignatius had fallen upon evil days. About 882 the Varangian Oleg, Varangian rulers of Kiev were pagan, and regarded their capital
sailing south from Novgorod, captured Kiev from Askold and Dir.1 largely as a stepping-stone on the road to more alluring horizons, the
The whole of the waterway from the gulf of Finland to a point in Russians remained a potential threat to both Cherson and Byzantium.
the lower Dnieper some hundred miles north of the rapids2 was now Leo VI’s diplomacy at least succeeded in keeping the peace with
united for the first time under a single Viking ruler, round Kiev, the Bulgaria after 896. But the Emperor’s death in 912 precipitated a
capital of the new Russian state. The notorious controversy between war with Symeon which lasted for eleven years, brought the Empire’s
the ‘Normanist’ and the ‘an-ti-Normanist’ schools of historians as to power in the Balkans to the brink of ruin, and presented the Byzan-
whether the ninth-century Russian state was a Scandinavian creation tine statesmen with a challenge the like of which they had never yet
or the product of earlier Slavonic or oriental traditions shows few experienced. Symeon, meanwhile, was waiting for a chance to further
signs of abating;3 in the present writer’s opinion, it can no longer be his ambitions at the expense of a weakened Empire. The Byzantines
doubted that the Slavs in the Dnieper basin had been taking an active seemed to be playing into his hands: his envoys, sent to renew the
part in the political and commercial life of the Iranian and Turkic treaty of 896, had been brutally insulted by the Emperor Alexander.
overlords of the steppe for centuries before the Viking era; and that And after Alexander’s death in June 913, the Empire, nominally
a pre-existing Slav land-owning aristocracy and merchant class re- ruled by a delicate child, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and precari-
mained the mainstay of the country’s territorial stability and ously governed by a regency council under the Patriarch Nicholas
economic growth under its Scandinavian overlords. But it is equally Mysticus, was rent by a severe internal crisis. Symeon at the head
clear that it was the Vikings who united the scattered tribes of of a large army invaded Thrace and appeared in August before
Eastern Slavs into a single state based on the Baltic-Black Sea Constantinople. Like Krum exactly a century before, he was daunted
waterway, to which they gave their ‘Russian’ name.‘ In this sense by the fortifications and resolved to negotiate.
1 The Russian_Primary Chronicle, ed. Lichacev, I, p. 20; trans. Cross-Sherbowitz, The nature and result of these negotiations, concluded at a meeting
pp. 60-1. The First Novgorod Chronicle, on the other hand, attributes the capture of between Symeon and the Patriarch Nicholas,“ are obscure and con-
Kiev jointly to Igor, Ryurik’s son, and to Oleg, Igor playing the leading role:
Novgorodskaja Pervaja Letopis, ed. A. Nasonov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), p. 107. ‘ The Old Russian text of the treaty is preserved in the Russian Primary Chronicle,
' On the Dnieper rapids and their Scandinavian and Slav names cited in the De ed. Lichacev, I, pp. 25-9; trans. Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 65-8. The historicity of Oleg’s
administrando imperia (cap. 9), see DAI, 1, pp. 58-60, and D. Obolensky in DAI, II, raid on Constantinople, frequently denied in recent years, has been convincingly
pp. 38-52. established by Ostrogorsky (‘L’expédition du Prince Oleg contre Constantinople en
3 For the history of this controversy, see V. Mosin, ‘Varjago-russkij vopros’, 907 ', Sem. Kond. XI (1940), 47-62) and by A. Vasiliev (‘The Second Russian Attack
Slavia, x (1931), 109-36, 343-79, 501-37; A. Stender-Petersen, Varangica (Aarhus, on Constantinople’, DOP, v1 (1951), 163-225, where the relevant literature is
1953), pp. 5-20; H. Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia (London, 1954), pp. 109-32; exhaustively reviewed).
DAI, II, pp. 20-3. ' The Russians were granted total exemption from customs, were allotted a special
4 For a classic exposition of the ‘Normanist’ view, see V. Thomson, The Relations residence in the suburban quarter of St Mamas, and received free board for six
between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia and the Origin of the Russian State (Oxford, months, a period twice as long as the normal limit of residence allowed to foreign
1877). The ‘anti-Normanist’ theory is now chiefly championed by Soviet historians: merchants in Constantinople.
see, in particular, B. D. Grekov, Kievskaja Rus, 4th ed. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1944), ' On the question of whether this meeting took place within or outside Constanti-
pp. 250 ff.; V. P. Susarin, ‘O sust-nosti i formach sovremennogo normanizma’, nople the Byzantine tradition is as ambiguous as in the case of Tervel’s investiture
Voprosy Istorii, VIII (1960), 65-93. (see above: p. 485, n. 2); Georgius Monaohus (pp. 877-8, CSHB) and Theophanes
506 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Symeon’s imperial ambitions 507

troversial. It is practically certain, however, that Symeon was then before the Empress Zoe seized control of the government in Constan-
promised that one of his daughters would marry the Emperor Con- tinople; the Patriarch’s influence declined and the plan of a marriage
stantine and it is possible that he obtained from the Byzantine govern- alliance was conveniently forgotten. Baulked in his immediate am-
ment on the same occasion the title of ‘Emperor of the Bulgarians’ bition, Symeon invaded Thrace and Macedonia. In vain did Nicholas
(filaoiilezls Bov)\ycipwv).1 It is probable in any case that Symeon’s great urge him to desist from aggression: Symeon’s retort was to demand
ambition, which was to haunt him for the rest of his life, took shape that the Byzantines recognise him as their Emperor} Zoe’s govern-
as early as 913. The promised position of Basileopator, as the Em- ment, determined to crush him, sent an army into Bulgaria. On
peror’s father-in-law, offered power in Constantinople and seemed to 20 August 917, by the Achelous river near Anchialus, it was utterly
point the way to the very throne of the Empire. The title of ‘ Emperor routed by Symeon; the Bulgarians swept into Thrace, and at
of the Bulgarians ’—if it was ever granted—was at best a makeshift: Catasyrtae, not far from Constantinople, gained another victory.
for Symeon was too well grounded in the Byzantine doctrine of Symeon, whose dominions now extended from the Black Sea to the
sovereignty to imagine for a moment that there could ever be two Adriatic and from Sirmium to the neighbourhood of Thessalonica,
Empires in the Balkans; by its nature the Empire was universal and was master of the Balkans.
its only centre was Constantinople. It was not a national Bulgarian In the dark days between 917 and 919, when the fate of the Empire
Baoiheia that Symeon desired, but the irnperium of the Romans, the hung in the balance, Byzantium was saved once again by its diplo-
throne of the ol:<ov;.te'v'q. And the Patriarch Nicholas, who for twelve macy and by its capacity for producing great leaders. Zoe gained a
years exerted all his diplomatic skill in an attempt to induce him to precious respite by entangling Symeon with Serbia; and while the
abandon this venture,” saw this very clearly: Symeon’s bid for world regency government was sinking into disaffection and intrigue, the
domination he castigated as tyrannis, a rebellious usurpation of the Admiral Romanus Lecapenus began his steady climb to power. In
imperial authority.“ The Patriarch, who was prepared to go to almost May 919, through the marriage of his daughter to Constantine VII,
any length to appease the Bulgarian ruler, significantly refused to he became Basileopator; on 17 December 920 he was crowned co-
concede this one vital point; against Symeon’s claims to hegemony he Emperor. Symeon had lost the race for power: the son of an Armen-
solemnly reiterated the essential tenet of Byzantine political philo- ian peasant had gained the throne by the very means the Bulgarian
sophy: the power of the Emperor, he wrote to Symeon, ‘ stands above sovereign had planned to use. In vain did Nicholas try to appease his
all earthly authority and was alone on earth established by the Lord impotent fury by sending him conciliatory letters: Symeon now
of all’.4 demanded the deposition of Romanus in favour of himself ;2 every
But Symeon’s hopes proved vain. Hardly was he back in Preslav year now he invaded the Empire, reaching the approaches of Constan-
tinople in 921, 922 and 924, and retaking Adrianople in 923. But
Continuatus (p. 385, CSHB) imply that the Patriarch visited Symeon outside the Romanus had a policy for dealing with the Bulgarians: he allowed
city; but according to Scylitzes-Ccdrenus (II, p. 282, CSHB) Symeon was entertained Symeon to exhaust himself in fruitless attacks on the capital, while
by the Emperor at a feast in the Blachernae Palace.
1 This View is argued by Ostrogorsky (‘Avtokrator i Samodriac’, Glas, CLXIV Byzantine diplomacy stirred up trouble against him in Serbia, nego-
(1935), 121 ff.; ‘Die Kronung Symeons von Bulgarien durch den Patriarchen tiated for a grand anti-Bulgarian coalition of northern peoples—
Nikolaos Mystikos’, Actes du I Ve Congrés International des Etudes Byzantines, Sofia, Magyars, Pechenegs, Russians and Alans—and successfully countered
1935, I, 275-86), and is accepted by P. Mutaféiev (Istorija, I, p. 240). For a different
view, see F. Dolger, ‘Der Bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher Sohn des byzant. Kaisers ’, his attempt to secure the use of the Egyptian Fatimid navy against
Sbornik Nikov, loc. cit., pp. 221, n. 1, and 228, n. 2 (= Byzanz u. d. europdische Byzantium.
Staatenwelt, pp. 185, n. 7, and 193, n. 20). In the autumn of 924 Symeon’s army appeared for the last time
’ There are twenty-nine extant letters of Nicholas Mysticus concerned with
Bulgarian affairs, all written during his second Patriarchate (912-25), twenty-six of before Constantinople. Realising no doubt that he could not hope to
which are addressed to Symeon: MPG, CXI, 40-196; Fontes Historiae Bulgaricae, storm the city without a fleet, he opened negotiations. At Cosmidium,
VIII (1961), 185-297. Zlatarski provides a detailed commentary on them in Sbornik on a pier built out into the Golden Horn, Symeon and the Emperor
za Narodni Umotvorenija, Nauka i Kniinina, x (1894), 372-428; X1 (1894), 3-54;
XII (1895), 121-211. Cf. GR, nos. 614 ff. Romanus met and conversed. Contemporary chroniclers, whose
3 Ep. 5, MPG, CXI, 45-56. Cf. F. Dolger, ‘Bulgarisches Zartum und byzantinisches imagination was fired by this interview between the two most power-
Kaisertum’, Actes du I Ve Congrés International des Etudes Byzantines, I, 61-2
(= Byzanz u. d. europdische Staatenwelt, p. 147). 1 Leo the Deacon, p. 123 (CSHB ): afrroxpdropa iavrov dV0.K_1]p‘l.l'1'T€l.I>' 'Pw).¢ai'oi9 €'rce'/\£uev.
4 Ep. 8, MPG, CXI, 64. “ Nicholas Mysticus, Ep. 18, MPG, cxl, 125; Ep. 19, MPG, CXI, 128.
 508 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Foundation of the Bulgarian Patriarchate 509

ful monarchs of Europe, give a dramatic picture of the Bulgarian of Preslav; while her husband, for all his imperial rank, sank to the
ruler, at first mocking and flippant, gradually cowed by the majesty level of a docile satellite of Byzantium, honoured and chastened at
of imperial Rome and humbled by the Emperor’s moral authority} once by the title of ‘spiritual son’ of the Emperors of East Rome}
Be that as it may, the meeting with Romanus sounded the death- The decline of Bulgarian power affected the Empire s northern
knell of Symeon’s ambitions: Constantinople, he must have realised policy in another sense: an effective buffer which hadlong prevented
by then, would never be his. Back in his own country, however, his the trans-Danubian nations of the steppe from raiding Thrace was
insolence revived: he spurned the last pathetic appeals of the Patri- removed in 927, and the defence of the Empire s northern frontier
arch Nicholas ;2 defiantly entitled himself ‘ Emperor of the Bulgarians now depended more and more on the skill of its diplomatists. Freed
and of the Romans’, to the indignation of Romanus who protested from the Bulgarian peril, and forced to meet a changing and complex
to Symeon in 925 not so much against his title of fiaoillezis, as against situation between the middle Danube and the northern Caucasus,
his ‘tyrannical’ claim to the throne of the Romaioi ;3 and, perhaps during the rest of Romanus’ reign (i.e. 927 to 944) and the personal
about 926, raised the Archbishop of Bulgaria to the rank of Patri- reign of Constantine VII (945-59) Byzantine diplomacy embarked
arch.‘ But these constitutionally vacuous gestures could not con- upon one of its most successful periods.
ceal the fact that Symeon’s bid for world hegemony had broken In each of the three sectors of the Empire’s northern front solid
against the impregnable walls of Constantinople, the patient defen- results were achieved. In the Balkans, next to an increasingly
sive policy of Romanus and the skill of Byzantine diplomacy. His byzantinised Bulgaria, the Empire restored its sovereignty over the
armies were still able to subdue and devastate Serbia, where the Serbs (c. 927); kept a somewhat nominal control over the coastal
Empire had been active against him; but in 926 a Bulgarian army cities of Dalmatia, which since the seventies of the ninth cent1u'y
which invaded Croatia was completely routed by the Emperor’s ally, formed an imperial theme under a strategus resident at Zara,2 and
the Croatian king Tomislav. On 27 May 927 Symeon died. retained some political authority in Croatia. The only serious danger
The death of the Bulgarian tsar altered the whole balance of power to its Balkan provinces in this period came from the Magyars who
in the Balkans. Exhausted and ruined by his wars, Bulgaria ceased ravaged Thrace in 934 and 943. The imperial diplomatists were
for the next sixty years to play an active part in the politics of eastern equal to the occasion: in or about the year 948 the Magyar ohloftaln
Europe. In the autumn of 927 a peace treaty was signed between Bulcsu came to Constantinople, was baptised 1n the city and, before
Byzantium and the Bulgarian government :5 Peter, Symeon’s son and returning home, was ‘made a patricius by the Emperor. Soon after-
successor, was married to Maria Lecapena, Romanus’ grand-daughter, wards another Hungarian leader named Gyula followed his example;
and was acknowledged by the Byzantine authorities as Emperor and on his homeward journey Gyula was accompan1‘ed_by thefrlnlonk
of Bulgaria (,8acn/lea); B00/1)/o.pio.5'); the autocephalous Bulgarian Patri- Hierotheus, whom the Patriarch had consecrated as Bishop o un-
archate was also recognised. But these flattering concessions were but gary’ (Turkia) (érrlorco-rrog Tovpkiag) and who appears to have laboured
a cloak that barely concealed the extent of the Empire’s diplomatic successfully in his missionary diocese.3 This new expansion of Byzan-
victory over Symeon’s mild and saintly son. The Byzantine tsaritsa tine Christianity to Pannonia, less than a century after the work of
of Bulgaria ensured the dominance of Constantinople over the court St Methodius in that land, did not prevent the Magyars from resum-
1 Georgius Mon. pp. 900-1; Theoph. Cont. pp. 405-9; Scylitzes-Cedrenus, II, ing their attacks on Thrace between 958 and 968; but at least it
pp. 303-6 (CSHB). Cf. S. Runciman, Romanus Lecapenus (Cambridge, 1929), p. 92, ensured a respite from their raids during the previous decade.
who quotes Romanus’ speech to Symeon.
3 Ep. 31, MPG, OX1, 188-96. 1 Cf. F. Dolger, ‘Der Bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher Sohn des byzant. Kaisers’,
3 According to Romanus Lecapenus (Epistolae, ed. Sakkelion, D, I, 1883, 658- Sbormk Niko” (1940)_ pp_ 219_32 ( = Byz. u. d. europ. Staatenwelt, pp. 183-96);
64, 665-6; Fontes Historiae Bulgaricae, VIII, 1961, 298), Symeon entitled himself G_ 05t,1'QgQ1‘sky, ‘Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie’, Sern. Kond. VIII (1936),
Beadle}; Bovhycipwv mi 'Pwp.ai'wv. However, a leaden bulla has been discovered with 41-53.
the simple inscription: Zvperbv iv Xpia[-raii] Bao'|.hc[1§s‘] 'Pop.co'3v [sic]: T. Gerassimov, 3 See J. Ferluga, Vizantiska Uprava it Dalmacii (Belgrfidfli 1957)» PP-'68*86- __
Bulletin de l’Institut Archéol. Bulgare, VIII (1934), 350-6. 3 Scylitzes-Cedrenus (II, p. 328) refers to the two chieftams as BooAoaov51)s‘ and Pu/\o.s‘i
4 The date of the foundation of the Bulgarian Patriarchate provides a diificult Constantine Porphyrogenitus calls the_former Bov)\1'§0'39 (D6 ad- "m.’P- °- ‘£01 115341’ I’
problem: it was probably established by Symeon, and doubtless after the death of p. 178, 1. 66); in the Hungarian tradition he 18 known as Bulcsu: cf.‘ . 1 ,mflI1.
Nicholas Mysticus (15 May 925); see S. Runcirnan, First Bulgarian Empire, pp. 163, Gesch. des ungar. Mittelalters, 1 (Berlin. 19401. PP- 127-32. 146-7- Gyucaii SW2»
n. 2, and 174. according to Constantine (loc. cit. ll. 51-2), a title and not a proper I1&m6- - - -
5 DR, 612. Macartney, The .Magyars in the Ninth Century, pp. 117-18.
 510 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Russia under Igor and Olga 511

At no time was the Crimean sector of more vital importance to the

vessels ’.1 The desire to safeguard the security of Cherson 18 evldent 111
Empire than in the reigns of Romanus I and Constantine VII. Never
the treaty concluded between Russia and the Empire in 944.2 A com-
was Byzantium’s traditional policy of hanging on to Cherson more
parison between the pacta of 911 and 944 suggests that the balance
clearly vindicated. From here alone could the East Roman statesmen
of power was shifting in favour of Byzantium: the trading privileges
effectively adjust their northern policy to the changes that had taken
of the Russians were now considerably curtailed,“ and, most s1gn1fi-
place in the steppes since the end of the ninth century. For the past
cantly, a notable proportion of the envoys sent to Constantinople by
two hundred years they had relied for preserving order in that region
Igor to ratify the treaty belonged to a Christian community in Kiev.
mainly on the Khazars, but Khazar power was declining; so in the first
Gradually, through trade and diplomacy, the Christian and imperial
half of the tenth century Byzantium turned to the Pechenegs, who
propaganda was breaking down the pagan isolation of the Viking
were then encamped along the Black Sea coast between the Danube
rulers of Russia. In the autumn of 957 Igor’s widow, Olga, regent of
and the Don. By the middle of the century alliance with the Peche-
the realm, went on a mission of peace to Constantinople; there, amid
negs had become the corner-stone of the Empire’s diplomacy in the
splendid court receptions, she was baptised by the Byzantine Patri-
north. Of this new and urgent preoccupation the opening chapters arch, adopting the name, symbolic by its past associations, of the
of the De administrando imperia have preserved a striking memorial:
reigning Empress Helena, wife of Constantine ‘VII! And though
for, as Constantine is at pains to explain to his son, if this alliance is
Olga was unwilling or unable to impose her religion on ‘her subjects
kept, Byzantine Crimea is safe, trade with Russia can flourish, and
at large, and made an abortive attempt in 959.to obtain a German
the Empire’s northern neighbours, Bulgarians and Magyars and Rus-
bishop from Otto I,“ her relations with the Empire‘ paved the way for
sians, who tremble with fear before the Pechenegs, will not dare to
the triumph of Byzantine Christianity in Russia 111 the reign of her
attack Byzantium. ‘I conceive, then,’ the Emperor writes, ‘that it
grandson. _
is always greatly to the advantage of the Emperor of the Romans to
The diplomacy of Romanus I and Constantine VII was I10 lees
be minded to keep the peace with the nation of the Pechenegs and
successful in the North Caucasian area. Relations with the Khazars
to conclude conventions and treaties of friendship with them and to
had become cooler since the Khan’s conversion to.Juda1sm and the
send every year to them from our side a diplomatic agent with presents
arrival of the Pechenegs in the Pontic steppes. It IS true that in the
befitting and suitable to that nation.’1 The responsibility for nego-
Empire’s diplomatic protocol the Khan still ranked, among non-
tiating with the Pechenegs inevitably lay with the strategus of
Christian rulers, second only to the Caliph of Baghdad.“ But Byzan-
Cherson.
tium no longer really trusted the Khazars. And just as their task of
Another factor which enhanced the importance of Byzantine
Crimea in this period was the continued growth of Kievan Russia. 1 Russian Prim. Chron., ed. Lichaéev, I, p. 34; II, p. 235; f»1‘8»nB- by C1‘0B9—S11B1‘b0W1tZ,
. 72-3.
In 941 Igor, Oleg’s successor, led a great sea-borne expedition against pP= Russian Prim. Chron. 1, pp. 34-9; Cross-Sherbowitz, PP- 73-7; DR» 647-
Byzantium. Repulsed from the northern entrance of the Bosphorus, 1 Exemption from customs duties is no longer mentioned, and the RHSSIBJIB W919
the Russians landed on the coast of Bithynia and plundered the forbidden to buy large silk fabrics higher in price than 50 nomismata; cf. R. Lopez,
‘Silk Industry in the Byzantine Empire’, SP, XX (1945). 34"5- _ _
country from Heraclea to Nicomedia; but, as they were withdrawing, 1 The place of O1ga’s baptism provides a controversial problem, for while the Rd'tt:8't£Z’n
their ships were attacked by the imperial navy under the proto- Primary Chronicle (I, pp. 44-5; Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 82-3), Scyhtzee-Ce 911115
vestiarius Theophanes: the Greek fire wrought terrible destruction, (II p. 329) and Continuator Reginonis (M GH, SGUS. P- 170) state that 511° was bag‘
tisbd in Constantinople, Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his detailed account Of 0189* 5
and the Russian armada was all but annihilated. In 944, at the head reception in the capital in September and October 957 (De cerirnoniisi) pp.v29i11?;;
of a large army of Varangians and Slavs, Igor set off once more CSHB) does not mention her baptism. Accordingly, some 111S1fé)l'13-1:3 te 16 le (See
against Byzantium. An embassy from Romanus succeeded, however, Olga was baptised in Kiev a few years before her journey to ons an mopq _
G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, New Haven, 1943, P- 40; G- O3151‘°S°1's_k.V'_ wtagy
in buying off the Russians and their Pecheneg allies on the Danube. of the Byzantine State, p. 251, n. 2). The present writer does not accept this view an ,
Then, as in 941, the Byzantines were forewarned of the approaching together with G. Laehr (Die Anftinge des russ. R6’iCh6-9» PP- 103-5) and F- Dvormk (Thje
danger by the intelligence bureau of the strategus of Cherson: the Slavs, Their Early History and Civilisation, pp. 200-1), is of the opinion that Olga s
ba tism took place in Constantinople. _ _
Emperor was informed by the Chersonites ‘that the Russes were F Continuator Reginonis, pp. 170, 172. Cf. G. Laehr, op. cit. pp. 105-6; F- DV01‘I111<.
advancing with innumerable ships, and covered the sea with their . cit. p. 201-2. _ _ _ . ,
Op‘ De scrim. pp. 686 ff.; cf. G. Ostrogorsky, ‘Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie ,
1 De admin. imp. c. 1, ll. 16-20 and c. 2-8, DAI, I, pp. 48-56.
Sam. Kond. vrn (1936), 50-2.
 512 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018
Rassian invasion of Bulgaria 513

policing the steppes in the interests of the Empire had recently de-
were falling under the sway of Bogomilism, a new sectarian movement
::sliV<;idup)ont£heBPechenegs, ‘so the _role they had formerly been
that combined neo-Manichaean dualism and an evangelical and anti-
C g y e yzantine diplomatists of guarding the Northern
aucasus was now transferred to the Alans whose lands marched w'th sacramental interpretation of Christianity with an attitude of revolt
the Khanate in the south. Since the sixth iientury the Alans h d b I against the established authorities of Church and State, and which
the most loyal of the Empire’s satellites in this area for aall tlifi: was soon to spread over the whole Balkan peninsula.‘ And, still
t - . it- was not until. the’ early yearn worse, the Tsar Peter, shortly after his wife’s death, committed an
Zfnigg iltizfihilein totfiaganlsml error which precipitated the gravest crisis his country had yet ex-
and an amhbi L1 ury at the ruler of Alania accepted Christianity perienced. In the winter of 965-6 he sent an embassy to Constan-
s op rom the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus. Despite
a subsequent and brief relapse into paganism, the Alene were held. tinople to demand the former ‘tribute ’. This was more than the
in high esteem in Byzantium and Constantine Po ' Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, fresh from his victories of Tarsus and
t . . ’ . . rphyrogemtus Crete, could endure "; Peter’s envoys were whipped and dismissed, and
:11gistssegntglegrcllisefulileéi in checking possible Khazar encroach- Nicephorus moved his army to the Bulgarian border.” Reluctant,
, I imea. eir ruler, who held the Byzantine title of
€£OUU'L(1U'T7?§; was one of the three imperial satellites to glor in the however, to campaign in that dangerous country, he confined himself
title of the Emperor’s ‘spiritual son’? Of comparable importalhce was to seizing a few frontier forts and sent the patricius Calocyras to
th S€t€I.Oa1:)tOéLG.i
th: ’ ’ Of.tAil)&Sg1&,
i,';I%f‘ ' who guarded Byzantinm . , s interests
. _
in Russia with instructions to bribe its ruler Svj atoslav to attack Bul-
garia. The pagan and warlike son of Olga had the makings of an
Sea coastg y V1 a area between Alania, Armenia, and the Black
empire builder: he had recently inflicted a crushing defeat on the
Thus within the semi-circle which in the tenth as in the Sixth Khazars (c. 965). He was easily persuaded by the Byzantine ambas-
cen ti ury, marked
'- the effective
' limits
' ' of
, the Empire
' s S influence
- m
. ‘the
sador: in 9673 he crossed the Danube at the head of a large army and
north, in the vast area that extended from the Hungarian Alfiild over rapidly overran the Dobrudja, setting up his -residence at Little
th
_
1;
t iiie h a d built
- -
*0
B, e ip omacy o omanus and Constan-
' up by the middle
' . of vassal and
of the century a chain
’ Preslav (Perejaslavec), by the river delta. It soon became clear,
however, that Svjatoslav had no intention of behaving as Byzantium’s
hireling; in 968, or early in 969 he returned home at the news that the
{alilée:1lijltlzs, :‘3i:»3?lllll'i6S supposedly revolving in obedient harmony round
Pechenegs were besieging Kiev :4 it is difficult to avoid the surmise
that the Emperor, mindful of the precepts of the De aclministranclo
o e umversal Autocrat in Constantinople, barbarians
rendered quiescent by the power or the liberalities of the Emperor, or imperia, had called them in. Before the middle of August 969, having
proselytes attracted by the prestige and spiritual appeal of Byzan defeated the Pechenegs, Svjatoslav was back in Bulgaria, intending—
t'mm; ’ Chr'istian' culture. It was the work of. these two emperors that' 1 Cf. I-I.-C. Puech and A. Vaillant, Le traité contra lee Bogomiles cle Cosmas le Prétre
Pave 15116 Way for the forces of expansion which in the next fift ea (Paris, 1945); D. Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cambridge, 1948).
were to carry the armies of East Rome to the Danub yd, 1:8 ' The chronology of the next three years is confused, as the sources give different
dates. Thus Leo the Deacon (pp. 61-3) implies that Nicephorus invaded Southern
influence of its civilisation to the confines of the Baltic Sci an t 8
Bulgaria in the spring of 966, while Scylitzes-Cedrenus (II, p. 372) states that the
F
nortliiglntht-‘ggfiathvof liomanus II (963) to the year 1018 the Empire’s
' . Emperor marched to the frontier in June 967. The present writer finds it hard to
agree with Runciman (First Bulgarian Empire, pp. 303-5) that these were two
_ 4 P _8»S Ominated by its relations with Bulgaria and
separate expeditions: both Leo and Scylitzes assert that Nicephorus’ campaign was
Russia. Bulgaria in the reign of the Tsar Peter (927-69) was rent h
immediately followed by the dispatch of Calocyras to Russia.
a social and economic crisis: the accumulation of ower d 1 hr 3 The date of the first Russian invasion of Bulgaria is not easy to determine, in
in the hands of an oppressive aristocracy was underiiiining the ailtli t view of the conflicting evidence of the sources. While recognising the complexity of
. . Or- the problem, the present writer prefers the date 967 which is given by the Russian
llily of the State and, as 111 the Empire, was depriving the peasants of Primary Chronicle (I, p. 4'7; Cross-Sherbowitz, p. 84), and accepted by S. Runciman
t eir small holdings Many of the latter es ' - . (op. cit. p. 304), M. Levéenko (Oderki pa ietorii raeelco-vizantijskikh otnoéeny, Moscow,
' 3 pecially in Macedonia,
1956, pp. 258-9), and A. D. Stokes (‘The Background and Chronology of the Balkan
1 De admin. imp. c. 10 and 11, DAI 1 p 62/3_4 and P 64 Campaigns of Svyatoslav Igr revich’, SEER, XL, 94, 1961, 50-7). The date August
968, supplied by Scylitzes-Cedrenus (II, p. 372), is accepted by P. Karyékovsky (‘O
32 De
De ceri-in. . 688 f. ,- cf. (I.
cerim-’}?l:€id. T Ostrogorsky, i Staateiihierarcliie
~ - - . , op. cit. p. 52,
chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatolave’, VV, V, 1952, 127-38) and
4 See also above: ch. IV, pp, 151 fi‘_ and 137 ff- G. Ostrogorsky (History of the Byzantine State, p. 259).
‘ Russ. Prim. Ohron. I, pp. 47-8; Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 85-6.
33 civmivi
514 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Bulgaria annexed to the Byzantine Empire -515

it seems—to make Little Preslav the capital of his realm} Marching to attack the Empire, Bulgaria, or Cherson, and to fight the enemies
iplpith, he captured Great Preslav, the Bulgarian capital, and stormed of Byzantium ;1 the Emperor renewed the old trading privileges of the
ippopolis ; by the end of the year the whole of eastern Bulgaria Russians? After a brief meeting on the banks of the Danube,“ the
was m Russian hands. Svjatos1av’s ambitions now centred on Con- two monarchs started on their homeward journeys: Svjatoslav was
stantinople itself: the Pechenegs, the Magyars and, it seems, the ambushed by the Pechenegs near the Dnieper rapids and slain in
Bulgarians themselves had joined with him in a vast barbarian battle (972); John Tzimisces returned in triumph to Constantinople,
coalition against the Empire. Calocyras himself had turned traitor where the Bulgarian Tsar Boris II publicly abdicated his throne.
and was plotting, with the help of the Russians, to seize the Byzantine Bulgaria was thus annexed to the Empire. In a single year John
throne. Conscious of this serious danger, the new Emperor John Tzimisces had restored the Empire’s northern frontier to the Danube,
Tzimisces began negotiations: Svjatoslav’s reply was to demand that from which Asparuch had evicted the East Romans three centuries
the B]zT_:Z&I1lJlI16S, if unwillmgto pay_him an enormous tribute, depart earlier, and freed Byzantium from the Russian menace.
rom urope ‘and cross over mto AS1&.2 Not since the days of Symeon Once again, after three centuries, the Empire found itself, across
had a barbarian ruler dared to address the Emperor of Byzantium in the lower Danube, face to face with the steppes and its denizens.
such tones. In the summer of 970 the Russians invaded Thrace, but More than ever it needed now a strong and reliable satellite in the
were defeated at Arcadiopolis by Bardas Sclerus.3 north: the Khazar Khanate could fulfil this role no more; it would
In the spring of 971,4 at the head of a large and well-trained army, never recover from the blow dealt to it by Svjatoslav; the Pechenegs
John Tzimisces set out on one of the greatest campaigns in the had several times proved themselves treacherous allies; the Magyars
history of Byzantine arms. In April Great Preslav, furiously defended were increasingly looking to Germany for their culture and religion.
by Sv]atoslav’s men, was taken by storm. The Russians, fighting Only the prince of Kiev, who now ruled over a vast territory from
desperately, fell back on Silistria (Dristra, Dorystolum) Where their the Carpathians to the lower Oka and from the gulf of Finland to the
prince had entrenched himself. For three months packed with heroic lower Dnieper, could stand between the Empire and the chaos of
episodes, the city was besieged, until finally the Russians, overwhelmed Eurasia. And it was by Christianity alone that Byzantium could
by Tzimisces’ iron-clad host, terrified by the fire-shooting ships of the hope to secure his abiding loyalty. For all his inveterate heathenism,
imperial navy that had appeared on the Danube to cut off their Svjatoslav, it seems, had not the time or the inclination to undo his
retreat, and exhausted by famine, gave up in despair. Svjatoslav mother’s work in Kiev; and all through the tenth century Christian-
undertook to leave Bulgaria, begging only to be ellowed to ereee the ity was slowly filtering into Russia-from Bulgaria especially, through
river and to be given some food for the remnant of his army!‘ The the Slavonic translations of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, from
Emperor accepted these terms; in July 971 a treaty was signed be- Bohemia perhaps, where the vernacular Slavonic culture still sur-
tween the two rulers: the Russian prince pledged himself never again vived, and probably also from Germany and Rome. But it was left
1 Russ. Prim. Chron. I, pp. 48-50; Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 86-7. The Russian to the Emperor Basil II to ensure, with the help of his missionaries
Zglgggitieggs adating of Svjatoslav’s second invasion of Bulgaria (971) is, as ell the and diplomatists, the final triumph of Byzantine Christianity in
_ gree, unacceptable. Here again Scylitzes supplies the accurate date
(Scylitzes-Cedrenus, II, p. 372). Russia.
" Leo the Deacon, p. 105. The story of Russia’s conversion is told at great length by the
a
Chr0I7;<:pl;:li(e .
Deatgign, gp. 108 fl'.; Scylitzes-Cedrenus, II, pp. 384-8.‘ The RussianPrimary Russian Primary Chronicle‘ and briefly by the eleventh-century Arab
Russian ‘ricit bf 13ssgSlllilerbe)witz, pp; é87-8;) flalsely describes this battle as a
. . . c um er er, ’ ' ~ historian Yahya of Antioch? The former, if allowance is made for its
(Paris, 1896), pp. 46-52. g pop 6 yzanmne a la fin d“ X‘ 8‘é°l"’ I peculiar blend of fact and fiction and for probable later interpolations,
4 T he date of John Tzimisces
. . , Russian
, _
campaign _
(Apr1l—July 971) has been may be used to supplement the latter, and the following picture then
conclusively established by F. Dolger (‘Die Chronologie des grossen Feldz d
Kaisers Johannes Tzimiskes gegen die Russen’ BZ XXXII (1932) 275-tlfizesl 6: emerges. In the spring of 988, at the most critical moment of his
C. Gollner, ‘Les expeditions byzantines contre les R,iisses sous Jean Tzirriisces ’ Rl;lS(lZ" 1 Russ. Prim. Chron. I, p. 52; Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 89-90; DR, 739.
xm (1936),
Russes,’ B’ 342-ss; H. Gregoire,
XII (1937), 267-76. ‘L a d erni‘e re campagne d e Jean Tzimishes
- - - contre’ les’ ’ Leo the Deacon, pp. 155-6. 3 Ibid. pp. 156-'7.
s The Russian Primary Chronicle (I, p. 51; Cross-Sherbowitz pp 88-9) brazenly ‘ I, pp. 59-83; Cross-Sherbowitz, pp. 96-119.
‘ Ed. I. Krackovsky and A. Vasiliev (with a French trans.), PO, XXIII, 423. The
implies that the Russians won the war. Cf. the detailed account in G. Schlumberger other sources on Russia’s conversion are cited in G. Laehr, Die Anfdnge des russischen
op. cit. chs. 1-3; and see above, ch. Iv. ' Reiches, pp. 110-15.
as-1
 516 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018 Conversion of Russia to Christianity 517

reign, when the troops of the usurper Bardas Phocas stood on the tine olicoviiéwi and for Europe a territory which in size exceeded the
Asian side of the Bosphorus, Basil II was saved by the arrival in Empire itself.
Constantinople of six thousand Varangian warriors. The timely as- The Byzantine government had all the more reason to feel satisfied
sistance of these professional soldiers enabled the Emperor to defeat with the success of its Russian policy, as the situation in the Balkans
his rival at Chrysopolis. This expeditionary corps, which was to form was rapidly deteriorating. John Tzimisces’ conquests, it seems, had
the nucleus of the Emperor’s celebrated Varangian guard, had been been inadequately consolidated; outside the main cities of eastern
sent by Sv]atoslav’s son, Vladimir, the prince of Kiev, in fulfilment of Bulgaria, Byzantine domination was never secure, and in the west,
an agreement he had contracted with the Empire in the previous amid the high lakes and valleys of Macedonia, seems not to have been
WlI1t(3l‘.1 For his military assistance Vladimir had been promised the felt at all. It was there that, on the Emperor’s death in 976, the sons of
hand of the E.mperor’s sister, the Porphyrogenite, Anne, on oehditien a provincial Macedonian governor, the four Comitopuli, raised the
that he and his people accepted Christianity. But now that the acute standard of revolt.1 The rebellion became a war of liberation. By 987
danger was past, Basil II seemed in no hurry to honour an obligation Samuel, the youngest of the four, was the sole ruler of a powerful
so incompatible with the honour and traditions of East Rome.” In kingdom, whose capital was first Prespa and later Ochrida, and which
the spring of 989, doubtless to compel Byzantium to send him his comprised by the end of the century most of the former Bulgarian
promised bride, Vladimir marched to the Crimea and invested Cher- lands between the Black Sea and the Adriatic, with the addition of
son ;_ by the summer the city was his, and the unwilling princess, Thessaly and Epirus, as well as Serbia. In 997 or 998 Samuel pro-
sacrificed to the interests of the Empire, was dispatched across the claimed himself Tsar, and this act, coupled with his restoration of the.
Black Sea. Whether Vladimir became a Christian in Russia on the Bulgarian Patriarchate abolished by John Tzimisces, whose seat was
conclusion of his agreement with Byzantium, as some Russian sources eventually fixed at Ochrida, signified his deliberate assumption of
seem to imply, or whether, as the Primary Chronicle prolixly relates, the traditions of the First Bulgarian Empire.
he was baptised in Cherson by the local bishop before his marriage, Basil II’s first attempt to deal with Samuel ended in disaster: in
is a question to which—in the present writer’s view—no certain answer August 986, returning from an abortive siege of Sardica, his army was
can at present be ‘given without ignoring or maltreating part of the ambushed in a mountain pass and slaughtered by the Bulgarians.
evidence. But whichever view is adopted, the role played by Cherson For the next three years, during which the Emperor was occupied
in the conversion of Russia will appear decisive, and this city, so long in suppressing the revolts of Bardas Sclerus and Bardas Phocas,
the focus of missionary work a-mong the northern barbarians, took Samuel’s expansion continued unchecked. By the spring of 991
her captor captive: for after their marriage Vladimir and his imperial Basil II was back in Macedonia, where he campaigned for three years
bride were escorted from the Crimea to Kiev by members of the local with increasing, but still indecisive, success. He was handicapped by
clergy, who began to implant Christianity throughout the Russian having to fight on two fronts, and his wars in Syria and the Caucasus
realm, while Cherson was returned by Vladimir to the Empire. The (995-1001) enabled the Bulgarians to thrust at Thessalonica and to
new Russian Church was subordinated to the Patriarchate of Con- invade Greece down to the gulf of Corinth.
stantinople :3 Vladimir’s act of faith and statesmanship linked Russia But in 1001 the Emperor had made peace with the Fatimids and
to.Byzant.ine culture and to eastern Christianity; and the East Roman was back in Constantinople, free to devote all his carefully nurtured
missionaries and diplomatists thus peacefully gained for the Byzan- powers of mind and body and his military and political genius to
1 DR, 771. what he had come to regard as the main task of his reign. In a series
* ‘On the Byzantine attitude to marriages of imperial, and particularly Porpliyro- of carefully planned and brilliantly executed campaigns he captured
genitae, princesses to foreigners, see G. Ostrogorsky, ‘Vladimir Svjatoj i Vizantija’
the cities of eastern Bulgaria, including Pliska and the two Preslavs,
Vlpdimirskiy Sbornilc (Belgrade, 1938), pp. 34 ff,
th The fa-0:1, }n:lP11fgI16d by several current theories, that Vlaclimir’s Church was from and advanced deep into Macedonia, seizing fortress after fortress. In
h e Inorppn o its oundation placed under the authority of the Byzantine Patriarch four years of this ruthless and methodical strategy Samuel had lost
as,_in e present writer s view, been conclusively established by V. Laurent (‘Aux half his Empire. Any hopes he might have had of saving the re-
origines do l’Eglise russe’, E0, xxxviii (1939), 279-95) E. Honigmann (‘The
]1;‘oundp$:1h5of the Rpssian Metropolitan Church according to Greek sources’, B, 1 The much-debated problem of the origin and early stages of the Bulgarian revolt
7VII.( _ ’ )',,128-6-) and M. Levéenko (‘Vzaimootnosenija Vizantii i Rusi pri is admirably discussed by G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 268,
\ ladiniire , l’ ll , n.s. VII (1953), 194-223; Ode-rki, pp. 340-85). n. 1.
518 The Empire’s Northern Neighbours, 565-1018

mainder were dashed in July 1014, when his army was routed in the
mountain pass of Kleidion (Cimbalongus) near the Strymon valley.
Basil had all the Bulgarian captives—-numbering, it was said, fourteen
thousand1—blinded, save for one in every hundred who was left with
one eye to lead his comrades back to the Tsar. At the sight of this
gruesome procession Samuel fell to the ground in a fit. Two days later,
on 6 October 1014, he was dead.
The end was very near. It was hastened by the chaos that engulfed
the remnant of Bulgaria. Samuel’s son and successor, Gabriel
Radomir, was murdered by his cousin John Vladislav (1015). In
vain did the new Bulgarian Tsar, like his predecessor, promise obedi-
Byzantium and Russia
ence to the Byzantine Emperor; Basil pursued his systematic con-
quest of Macedonia. Early in 1018, when the news reached him in
Constantinople that John Vladislav had been killed in a vain attack
on Dyrrachium, the Emperor set out on his last campaign of the war.
It was a bloodless and triumphant procession. At the gates of
Ochrida he received the formal submission of the late Tsar’s family.
After a last tour of the conquered territory, his work completed, the
‘Bulgar-Slayer ’ paid a visit to Athens, where, before the more
splendid triumph that awaited him in Constantinople, he offered
humble thanks to Our Lady of Athens in her church, the Parthenon.
For the first time since the Avaro-Slav attacks of the late sixth
century the entire Balkan peninsula, from the middle and lower
Danube to the southern tip of the Peloponnese, and from the Black
Sea to the confines of Istria, now lay in the unchallenged possession,
or under the sovereignty, of East Rome. In 1018 the three traditional
sectors of the Empire’s northern front—the Danube, the Crimea and
the south-western approaches to the Caucasus—were more firmly
than ever under its sway. In the steppes a favourable balance of
power seemed assured for the future, and further north the boundless
expanses of Russia had been brought within the orbit of the Byzantine
olKov;ie'v'r].

1 Cecaumenus (Strategicon, cap. 49, ed. B. Wassiliewsky and V. Jernstedt, St

Petersburg, 1896, p. 18) puts the number at 14,000, Scylitzes-Cedrenus (II, p. 458) at
15,000. These figures are probably exaggerated; cf. G. Ostrogorsky, op. cit. p. 275,
n. 1.

Cambridge Medieval History, IV part I.

Cambridge University Press 1966
 III

RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE

THE TITLE of this essayl might seem to suffer from the measure
of ambiguity attached to the term “ heritage ”. A heritage,
bequeathed in the past, might still be possessed by its recipient;
or it might have subsequently been lost or abandoned. “ Russia’s
Byzantine heritage ” might thus mean either a quasi-permanent,
and still existing, ingredient of Russian civilization, or a set of
influences formerly exerted upon Russia by Byzantium which can
no longer be detected at the present time. In theory this distinction
is somewhat artificial, for on the plane of history no important
element in a country’s past is ever completely lost, and, if we
assume that the “ Byzantine heritage ” was once an essential
factor of Russian culture and if no trace of this heritage were
apparent iii that culture today, we could not for this reason deny
a priori that the influence of Byzantium continues to condition
the historical background of present-day Russia. In practice,
however, the distinction has its importance; and it is implicit in
the contrast between two methods by which the problem of
“ Russia’s Byzantine heritage ” is sometimes approached today.
There are those who, starting from the present, try and work back
to the past: there is much in contemporary Russia that seems
unfamiliar and puzzling to the modem Western observer—ideas,
institutions, and methods of government that seem to run counter
to the basic trends of his own culture; and so, wishing to under-
stand the origin and meaning of these strange phantoms, he is
tempted to single out those which appear to him most striking
and to trace them back as far as possible into Russia’s past history.
Our observer could scarcely fail to remark that a strong dose of
Byzantine influence is a feature that distinguishes the medieval
history of Russia from that of westem Europe ; and if, further-
more, his reading of East Roman history will have suggested to
87
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
him some traits of similarity between the institutions of Byzantium relations in the field of culture; Russia’s connexions with the
and those of Soviet Russia, he will be inclined to conclude that European and Asiatic worlds that surrounded and affected her
the similarity is a proof of historical filiation. The other method during different periods of her history should also form part of
implies a reverse process, from the past towards the present: a the picture.
study of the culture and institutions of the Byzantine Empire leads An attempt to approach the problem from all these angles would
to an analysis of the precise character of the influence of Byzantine far exceed the scope of an essay, whose aim can be no more than
civilization on medieval Russia; the most important features of to suggest a few general topics for reflection. These topics might
this influence are then singled out, and an attempt is made to be expressed in the form of questions: how far can Russian history
trace them down the centuries in order to discover how long they be adequately studied with special reference to the history and
remained an effective ingredient of Russian culture. culture of the Byzantine Empire? What would be the implications
It seems to me that both these methods are unsatisfactory. The of such a study from the wider field of view of European history?
first is based on an essentially unhistorical approach which comes And these two questions bring a third one in their wake, which,
near to begging the whole question and generally results in biased however briefly and inadequately, must be answered in con-
and spurious judgements of value passed on both medieval Russia clusion: what is the specific nature of Russia’s Byzantine heritage?
and Byzantium. The second method conceals dangers of a more I believe that today, at least in those countries where scholarship
subtle kind: if one concentrates mainly upon those aspects of is free from the control of the State, we are witnessing a reaction
medieval Russian culture which are regarded as a by-product of against the nationalistic interpretation of history. It can no longer
Byzantimn, abstracting them from the wider context of Russian be reasonably claimed that the history of any single nation of the
history, there often results a certain lack of proportion, facts of modern European world can successfully be studied in isolation
secondary importance being given undue prominence and vice from the history of other countries. Those who would wish to
versa. This approach, moreover, is particularly open to the apply the notion of the modern sovereign state to the writing of
danger, from which historians are never totally immune, of con- history may paint a flattering and idealized picture of their own
fusing a derivation with an explanation, of forgetting that any nation’s past, but it would be a picture bearing but little resem-
set of circumstances or events can never be fully understood except blance to reality. Professor Toynbee has convincingly argued that
in the whole context of its own development, and of falling a prey the national state is not “ an intelligible field of historical study ”
to what Marc Bloch has called Pidole des origines.” and has illustrated this thesis with special reference to the history
An historically valid approach to the problem of Russia’s of England. In his opinion, the history of an individual nation
Byzantine heritage would thus exclude any endeavour to “ read becomes fully intelligible only if studied as part of a larger whole,
back ” any features of contemporary Russian culture to a hypo- a society or a civilization. In the case of English history this
thetical Byzantine prototype and any attempt to isolate the civilization is Western Christendom?
Byzantine features of Russian medieval culture from the whole Now it seems to me that to illustrate the truth of Professor
context of Russian history in order to follow their development Toynbee’s thesis, Russian history is an equally good test case, and
and fortune down the ages. It is only, I would suggest, within a that the results, if we apply here this method of investigation,
wider framework and as part of a larger picture that the problem would be no less revealing. If we survey the course of Russian
of Russia’s Byzantine heritage can successfully be studied by the history the following episodes might be taken to represent its
historian. Such a wider framework would include not only the main chapters: (I) the conversion of the Russians from Slavonic
history of Russia, of the Byzantine Empire, and of their mutual paganism to Byzantine Christianity, which began on a large scale
88 39
 SELECTION II RUssrA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
in the late tenth century; (2) the Mongol yoke which lay on most the new Russian imperialism was also powerfully stimulated by
of Russia from I240 to I480; (3) the growth of the religious the growth of diplomatic relations with the powers of central and
nationalism of the sixteenth-century Moscow autocrats, exem- northern Europe and by the claim of the Muscovite rulers, con-
plified in the formula “ Moscow the Third Rome ”; (4) the sciously formulated in the late fifteenth century, to those remaining
ecclesiastical schism of the Old Believers in the seventh decade of lands of their ancestral “ patrimony ” which formed part of the
the seventeenth century; (5) the Westernizing reforms of Peter Lithuanian-Polish State. And it is significant that the stimulus
the Great in the first quarter of the eighteenth century; (6) the which created and justified the doctrine of “ Moscow the Third
liberal reforms of Alexander II in the seventh decade of the nine- Rome ” came from outside: Byzantitun had fallen to the Turks-
teenth century; (7) the Bolshevik Revolution of I917. a just punishment for tampering with the purity of the Orthodox
It should not be diflicult to show that each of these chapters faith and signing with the Latins the detestable Union of Florence;
illustrates Russia’s close dependence on the outside world; for the First Rome had long ago lapsed into heresy; the Second
none of them is fully intelligible unless we view it against the Rome, Constantinople, was in the ‘hands of the infidels: the
background of one or several civilizations more extensive than Imperial mantle should now fall by every right on Moscow, the
Russia herself. (i) The conversion of the Russians to Christianity Third Rome; “ and a fourth there will not be ”. So argued the
was an event which united the scattered tribes of the Eastern Slavs ecclesiastical panegyrists of Holy Russia in the sixteenth century.
into a single state, linked to Byzantium by a common religion, and It is surely remarkable that this extreme glorification of Russian
made that state a member of the Christian community of nations. religious nationalism was, in one of its aspects, a by-product of
(ii) The period of Mongol domination is generally regarded—and an event of world-wide importance—.-the fall of Byzantium—and
with some justification—as that of Russia’s “ withdrawal into the that the formula which sustained it was, it would seem, derived
wilderness ”. Yet Russia was then a dependency of a Turko- from political ideas current in fourteenth-century Bulgaria.‘
Mongol Empire which was affiliated to the cultural centres of Finally, the doctrine of the divinely ordained and universal
central Asia, and the Golden Horde has left its mark on Russian Monarchy, which gave religious justification to the theory of
history; nor was Russia’s isolation from Europe in the fourteenth “ Moscow the Third Rome ”, political significance to the Im-
and fifteenth centuries as complete as is commonly supposed: perial coronation of Ivan IV in I547, and ecclesiastical sanction
western and south-western Russia were then part of a Lithuanian- to the creation of the Patriarchate of Moscow in I 589, can be
Polish State, closely associated with western Europe by religion traced back in direct line of ascent to the Byzantine theory of the
and culture; the cities of north-western Russia were commercially Christian Empire, adapted from the political philosophy of
linked with Germany through the Hanseatic League; while Mus- Hellenism in the fourth century of our era.
covy itself, the most segregated part of Russia, was in those cen- (iv) The great religious schism of the seventeenth century, due
turies opened to a fresh flow of cultural influences from Byzantium to the revolt of the “ Old Believers ” against the liturgical reforms
and the south Slavonic countries. (iii) The great imperial dream of the Patriarch Nikon, was in one sense the result of Russian
of the sixteenth century and the attribution by Russian clerics national exelusiveness: the Old Believers on the stake and in the
to the Tsars of Muscovy of religious pre-eminence throughout the Tsar’s torture chambers were convinced that they were dying
world were partly due, no doubt, to factors of Russia’s own history: and suffering for the ideal of Holy Russia, where alone the true
national consciousness and pride were intensified by the territorial faith shone as brightly as the sun. This, indeed, would seem to be
expansion of Muscovy in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth the very essence of religious separativeness, of deliberate cultural
centuries and by the liberation from the Tatar yoke in I480. But isolation; yet in this case also the stimulus came from outside: the
90 91
 SELECTION II RUssiA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
Old Believers fought desperately, and unsuccessfully a ' t Our survey of the main chapters of Russian history will have
forei infl
Chris?! woulllgnpris ' hfe.
on Russian - -
Nikon, the servant ’ of gams
Anti- suggested that at different periods of her history Russia was more
liturgical racticeP°t§ih0n his Church the Scriptural texts and or less closely connected with Asia, western Europe, and Byzan-
himsdf. tium. Her relations with Asia were maintained through the
"-5 £1 am a0Russian °_ °°m¢111P0rary
-. . . but my Greeks; he had
faith and declared
religion are nomadic and semi-nomadic empires which successive waves of
_ A131’ the tOld Believers preferred to rend the Russian invaders from the dawn of Slavonic history to the fourteenth
in o ra er than accept these foreign - . .
111I1()Va11Qn3_ century of the Christian era established in the Pontic steppes.
(v) The reforms of Peter the Great were patently a response to the Some of them—especially the Khazars in the eighth century, the
impact of outside forces, pressing on Russia from the West' their Cumans in the twelfth, and the Golden Horde in the fourteenth-
purpose was to transform Russia’s military machinery ,seeia1 entered into close relations with the Eastern Slavs and undoubtedly
structure, and economic life in accordance with Wesrerh inst; affected their destiny. And at least twice in her history Russia
tutions and 'th . ' seemed on the verge of becoming an Oriental Empire, with her
II’s reforms
d >w1artii;<I:l
P hllprhf
at y e Westqin tiichnology
emancipation (V1) Alexander
of the serfs, were both face and policy tumed towards the East: the first occasion was in
a pro uct of Western hberahsm and a consequence of the Crirnean the tenth century, when the Viking rulers of Russia made an
Wari I-h¢Y>_ I00, aimed at giving Russia the eflicient machinery of attempt to gain control of the Caspian and Caucasus regions and
3 progressive Western State. (vii) Finally, the Bolshevik Reve when Vladimir of Kiev, before deciding to accept Christianity in
lution
_ andth
th e S oviet ' regime
' ' ' it- gave birth
to which - were at least- the name of his people, hesitated for a moment before the beckon-
111 part e product of forces which arose and developed outside ing hand of Islam; the second opportunity occurred in the middle
iiglslsia the two comer-stones of the Soviet StatwMa1-xism‘ and of the sixteenth century, when Ivan IV of Moscow captured the
ThgSL>gSy—were borlrowed by Russia from the West Tatar strongholds of Kazan and Astrakhan: this double event,
history Shown eve e7:::1'1P :8, iiaken from the - chapters of Russian . which marked the final victory of the agriculturist and town-
contairied unit sud phc ear y that at no time was Russia a self- dweller over the Eurasian horseman of the steppe, brought about
. at we cannot understand her history in re;-ms the incorporation of large regions of Islamic culture into the new
of cultural s°1f'Suffi°1°n¢Y- “ We have ” to quote Professor T Russian Empire, signified the Tsar’s assumption of the political
bee “to thi.nl<' ’ °Y“' heritage of the Tatar Khan, and started Russia’s career of expan-
the ,chaPters of Eetgifms of the wh.01e anci not of the P31135 t° see sion towards Siberia and the Pacific. Yet the importance of
of some Pnot
members articul my 8‘:er»
Se at mfmb events
and mtothe Me ofthe
follow thefortunes
soclety and
of not
the Russia’s connexions with Asia should not be exaggerated. The
> Pflratff Y 1111 60110-lrrcntly, as variations on a single recent “ Eurasian ” school of Russian historians, while holding
Zhlelme or as l:Oflt;1buU0nS to an orchestra which are significant as that the whole territory of the Soviet Union forms a sub-continent
armon ' . separate from both Europe and Asia, has nevertheless laid the
notes Inysoutfa avg 11° meamng _as so many separate series of
_ - _ r as we succeed in studying history from this main emphasis on the Asiatic, “ Turanian ”, aflinities of Russian
P°mt °f V1¢W, We find that order arises out of chaos in our civilization.’ It is very doubtful whether much evidence could be
mind
beforifipd . - to understand what was not mtelligible
that we begin . . , found to support this interpretation. The Tatars have often
enough been held responsible for all the sins of Russia, though
can we discover a 1aTg¢1' “ whole ” s a civilization of whi ch historians are still divided on the question of the extent of the
R ' ' part and from whose standpoint
inilglilliigi . her history
. . beeeme
will influence exerted by the Golden Horde on Russian culture. On
the whole, it does not seem that this influence was very
92 93
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE

¢0I1$id¢rable.8 And we must not in any case forget that ‘Russia’s in the nineteenth century none was so constantly advanced and
conversion to Christianity separated her from Asia by a me ra1 led to such passionate searchings of heart as the question of
and cultu
Course wig:l hiulf vghich
' not even. the thousand-year-long inter-
. Russia’s status and destiny: was she part of Europe or a separate
_ ' r su sequent Asiatic rulers and subjects was able world sui generis; should she look to the “ West ” or the “ East ”?
to bridge. It is not ‘to the East that we must look in our search for And the ambiguity in Russia’s relations with the West is forcibly
Russia s parent civilization. apparent at the present time, when a political creed, a social pro-
Does “ the West ”—-the Christian and post-Christian countrie s gramme, and an industrial technology, all of which are Western
of western ill:d0 central Eqrope_provide
alternative? - .
a more satisfactory in origin, are used from a Russian base of operations to criticize
_ ur survey o the seven mam chapters of Russian and assail the very foundations of contemporary Western society.
history, the last three, covering the period from the beginning f It is also significant that the Westernization of Russia in the
the ei_ghteenth century to the present day, were eeneemed wlth .0 eighteenth and nineteenth centuries created a cultural dichotomy,
the direct effect of Western techniques institutions and ideas up a drawback from which Muscovy, for all its social disunity, had
Russia.
_ . ” This. in' itself
' , - = s process of“ Western-
suggests that Russia on not appreciably suffered. The influence of Polish education and
1239011 > Which has progressed at an increasing tempo during the manners in the seventeenth century, Peter the Great’s cultural
past three centuries, has been a more important and vital factor reforms, the assimilation of French literature and German
in her cultural history than her connexions with Asia - Ne; 1-1. as philosophy by the intelligentsia, the impact on Russia of the
she been a mere recipient: since the time of Peter the G Industrial Revolution, the spread of Socialism and Marxism,
. r
Russia has formed an inseparable part of the European steft ae these were practically limited in their effects to the upper class
system; for more than a century she has pbwerfully contributed to and educated minority. The life and outlook of the peasants-—
Euro
hi P ean ltu re, m ' literature
' - in
and music, - science
- and scholar- the overwhelming majority of the population—remained, at least
S p, and in recent years she has re-exported to the West in a until the twentieth century, untouched by these alien importations.
new and to some extent characteristically Russian form the ,e1-e d In the Russian villages life was lived much as it had been for
. _ _ _ - e
and practice of Marxist Sociahsm. , centuries past. The faith and toil of the humble folk, their strong
Yet we niay hesitate to place modern Russia unreservedl withi belief in God, their veneration of the holy man, the monk, and
the pale of that “ Western ” civilization which originated in thn the pilgrim, the annual cycle of work and prayer, their legends,
Western territories of the Roman Empire the ecclesiastical orbfi costumes, and folk-songs, these had not altered very much since
of the
and Pa ac 2;;d I156(political
gradlljany ' ' ' of, the Carohngian
domains - - State, 1 the dawn of Russian history. It may be said, in fact, that in the
_ _ Y en e its influence over the greater part of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Russia was living under a
inhabited globe. Resistance and hostility to all forms of Weste dual dispensation: the ruling minority—Westernized nobles,
Christiani
_ - - in- a large proportion
W are ingrained - of Russians,
. m technicians, and the inte1ligentsia—educated in a cosmopolitan
particularly sometimes in those who have ceased to concern them- spirit, frequently out of touch with the native culture and even
selves greatly about religion. Most educated Russians have long with the faith of their fathers, proselytes of the modern West; and,
been conscious of a dichotomy in their cultural inheritance: as on the other hand, the mass of the peasants who continued to live
earl Y as the b flgmning
' ' of the seventeenth century an acute Russmn ’. in strict accordance with the rules and ethos inherited from their
observer remarked: “We are turning our backs to one anoth ' remote ancestors. It would thus seem impossible to regard Russia
some of us look to the East, others to the West.”° Among :1; as an offshoot or a part of modern “ Western ” civilization; for
historical and p hilosophical ' problems debated by Russian - thmkers
. even during the last two centuries, when Western influences in
94 95
 SELECTION II RUssiA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
Russia were at their strongest, some important aspects of her life of the Eastern Slavs; the radiation of Byzantine art of the Mace-
and history cannot be explained in terms of this civilization. donian and Comnenian periods to Russia, where it achieved some
It will be noticed that our attempt to discover a larger cultural of its greatest works and informed the first native schools of
unit in whose terms Russian history may become intelligible has architecture and painting; the adoption by the Russians, mainly
so far been reduced to a search for a culture which has exerted a through Bulgaria, of the Slavonic alphabet and vernacular litera-
sufliciently profound and lasting influence on Russia to deserve ture, a gift from Byzantium which enabled them at the dawn of
to be considered as Russia’s parent civilization. This method of their Christian life to produce works of literature which rank high
investigation will prove helpful if we shift our attention once more in the history of their culture; and finally, the question of how far
to the medieval chapters of Russian history. There can be no the Russians in the Kiev period assimilated “ the thought-world
doubt that the influence of Byzantium on Russian history and of East Rome ”12—an important but diflicult question, where
culture was far more profound and permanent than that of the generalizations and hasty conclusions are especially dangerous:
Turko-Mongol hordes and more homogeneous than that of the theseare some of the problems that would be faced in such a study.
modem West. Russia owes her religion and the greater part of A much-needed essay could also be written on the second and
her medieval culture to the Byzantine Empire, both directly, more imperfectly known phase of Russia’s relations. with Byzan-
through her connexions with Constantinople in the ninth and tium, the period between I250 and I450. And here two awkward
tenth centuries, and indirectly, through the Slavo-Byzantine questions arise: did Russia really “ relapse into barbarism "13 for
schools of the tenth-century Bulgaria. Much has been written of two centuries after the Tatar invasion? and how far did the
late on the remarkable and precocious culture of Kievan Russia, Mongol yoke seal her off from the civilizing influence of the
but there is still scope for an essay which would fully reveal the Byzantine world? It is not easy to answer these questions pre-
extent to which it was indebted to the civilization of East Rome.1 ° cisely, but it may be suggested that the political catastrophe of the
The eleventh and twelfth centuries, I would suggest, might prove Mongol invasion did not break the continuity in Russian culture
particularly suited to such an investigation: Byzantine civilization nor substantially interrupt the flow of Balkan influence into Russia:
was then in its prime, its attractive power still at its height; Russia the _latter, indeed, grew particularly strong in the fourteenth and
was a young and growing nation, with no heavy burden of in- fifteenth centuries; the new literary trends and the theory and
herited traditions, no very rigid view of herself or her neighbours: practice of contemplative monasticism, two characteristic features
such conditions breed tolerance and favour intercourse and could of those centuries of Russian history, were imported from Byzan-
reveal, from behind the often obstructive screen of later impor- tium, Mount Athos, and the Balkan countries; while, in the field
tations, some salient features of her original culture. Such an of art, the remarkable school of painting of Novgorod in this period
essay might well be devoted to an illustration of Mr. Sumner’s was profoundly influenced by the last great phase of Byzantine
comprehensive formula: “ Byzantium brought to Russia five art, in the age of the Palaeologi.“
gifts: her religion, her law, her view of the world, her art and It will be observed that the influence exerted by Byzantine
writing.”11 The spread of Byzantine Christianity to Russia in civilization on Russia between the tenth and the fifteenth centuries
the tenth century, the growth of the young Russian Church under was markedly diflerent in character and scope from the impact of
the leadership of Constantinople, and the first flowering of Russian western Europe after the middle of the seventeenth century; the
monasticism in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; the introduction latter, we have seen, split Russian society into two and created a
into Russia of Byzantine law—which was an extension of Roman gulf between the ruling and educated minority on the one hand
law—-and its fusion, and sometimes clash, with the customary law and the peasantry on the other; Byzantine influence, which
96 97
 SELECTION II RUssIA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
spread to Russia through the medium of Christianity and the But, for all this persistence of Byzantine traditions, there was
channel of the upper class, was often slow in filtering down to the already much in late fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Muscovy
other sections of society; but filter down it did, and over the that indicated a parting of the ways. It is often argued that, after
course of the Middle Ages it pervaded in varying degrees the the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the marriage of Ivan III with
whole of Russian society from the prince to the peasant, leaving Zoe Palaeologa in I472, Russia consciously took over the political
practically no aspect of Russian life untouched.“ heritage of Byzantium and that the theory of “Moscow the Third
We may thus conclude that Russia’s parent civilization was the Rome ”, erected in the following century as an ideological super-
Byzantine culture of East Rome, in whose terms Russian history structure on these events, represented the final triumph of Byzan-
remains intelligible at least until the middle ofthe fifteenth century. tine influence in Russia. Yet it is difficult to accept this conven-
Leaving aside for the moment the task of defining and describing tional picture of a sixteenth-centiiry Russia, Byzantinized afresh,
this civilization, we must consider how far, after the fifteenth absorbing and continuing the cultural and political traditions
century, Russia’s parent civilization remains the “ intelligible of East Rome. Of course, there can be no doubt that some
field ” for the study of Russian history. There can be no doubt Russian ideologues welcomed the theory that the seat of Imperial
that a strong influence of Byzantine culture can be observed in all sovereignty had migrated to Moscow after the fall of Constanti-
sections and classes of Russian society, at least until the second nople. But the political implications of the doctrine of “ Moscow
half of the seventeenth century. Two examples may suffice to the Third Rome ” do not seem to have been taken very seriously
illustrate this fact. In the early sixteenth century an authoritative by the Tsars of that time.1” All the attempts made by the diplo-
spokesman of the Russian Church wrote: “ By nature the Tsar is matists of the Catholic West to entice the sixteenth-century Tsars
like all other men; but in authority he is like the Highest God ” 316 into an alliance against the Turks were ignored in Moscow, and
this definition ofthe functions ofthe sacred and universal Autocrat, while Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, and the Greeks themselves,
so characteristic of the Byzantine conception of imperial were dangling before their eyes the glittering prospect of a
sovereignty, reads like a sentence from the pen of Constantine victorious entry into Constantinople and the dream of an Orthodox
Porphyrogenitus or Eusebius of Caesarea. And in the second half Empire uniting the power of the Third Rome with the historical
of the seventeenth century the Archpriest Avvakuin, who suffered inheritance of the Second, the Muscovite riders tumed a deaf
death on the stake for refusing to accept the practice of making ear to those blandishments, and, sheltering behind the modest
the sign of the cross with three as against two fingers, and reciting but authentic title of “ Sovereign of All Russia ”, merely claimed
the triple as against the double Alleluia, and who exhorted his the inheritance of the Russian lands formerly possessed by their
numerous followers to sacrifice their lives rather than accept the Kievan predecessors. Here, it may be suggested, 1S an early
reforms of Nikon, signified his faith in the following words: “ I example of Russia’s conscious turning away from the historical
hold to this even unto death, as I have received it. . . . It has heritage of Byzantium: here, in the wake of the Realpolitik of
been laid down before us: let it lie thus unto the ages of ages.”1’ Ivan III and Basil III and Ivan IV, the Christian universalism of
Thus did a Russian parish priest, in his heroic refusal to coun- East Rome was transformed and distorted within the more narrow
tenance the slightest, deviation from the sacred wholeness of the framework of Muscovite nationalism. The really significant fact
liturgical practice, echo the words of the Byzantine Patriarch is that the beginning of Russia’s turning away from her Byzantme
Photius, who wrote eight centuries previously: “Even the smallest heritage in the late fifteenth century coincided with the growth
neglect of the traditions leads to the complete contempt for of her connexions with the West ; Ivan III’s marriage with Zoe
dogma.”18 was a harbinger of these connexions: for the niece of the last
98 99
HI Ill
SELECTION II RussIA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
Byzantine Emperor came to Russia from Italy accompanied by a About I650 the manners, literature, and learning of the Mus-
papal legate, and the marriage had been arranged in Rome; the covites began to be strongly affected by the influence of Poland
relations then established between Russia and Renaissance Italy and of the latinized culture of the Ukraine.“ The cultural dualism
were paralleled by the growing Western influences in Novgorod in which these Western influences created in the Russian society was
the late fifteenth century, which soon spread to Moscow? ° The aggravated by the schism of the Old Believers, which alienated
policy of the Muscovite rulers of that time, of Ivan III, Basil III, the various streams of popular spirituality and devotion from a
and even Ivan IV, has been compared to that of their Westem now partly secularized ecclesiastical hierarchy; and both these
contemporaries, a Louis XI, a Henry VII, or a Ferdinand of rifts—the cultural and the religious—anticipated and prepared
Spain; and it is perhaps true to say that in their autocratic policy the profounder gulf between the ruling classes and the peasantry
which relied on a growing national sentiment and on the increasing brought about by the Westernizing and secularizing reforms of
need for a strong centralized state making for order, and in Peter the Great.
the means by which they pursued it—the struggle with the I have already suggested that from the early eighteenth century
great nobles—they resemble more closely the contemporary onwards Russia was living, as it were, under a dual dispensation.
monarchs of western Europe than the former emperors of East The upper strata of society had exchanged the Byzantine traditions
Rome. of Muscovy for the education and ethos of the modem West,
We must not, of course, exaggerate the importance of these early while the peasantry still clung to the old way of life. Yet elements
connexions between Muscovy and the West: until the middle of of the Byzantine tradition survived in all classes of Russian
the seventeenth century soldiers and technicians, rather than society; thus a notable section of the Russian nineteenth-century
ideas and institutions, formed the bulk of the Western exports to intelligentsia, the Slavophiles, for example, regarded the Orthodox
Russia. Moreover, between I450 and I650, with her Byzantine tradition derived from Byzantium as their surest bulwark against
traditions on the wane and Western influences only slowly filtering the encroaching rationalism and materialism of Western “ bour-
in, Russia was developing into a world suigeneris and fast expand- geois ” culture. Above all, the continuing strength of the Byzan-
ing into a Eurasian Empire. Her culture, however, in these two tine inheritance in modern Russia has asserted itself again and
centuries of the late Muscovite period, was still a fairly homo- again in the form of the Orthodox Christian faith to which the
geneous whole and would, I believe, be still partly intelligible in peasantry and a section of the educated classes for long remained
terms of her Byzantine heritage. Yet in her history this was a profoundly loyal; and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest
period of transition: for when Russia, at the close of the fifteenth that the recent attempts of their rulers to destroy or subvert this
century, began to emerge from her “ Middle Ages ”, she started religious allegiance have met with any notable or lasting success.
to drift away from her Byzantine inheritance and to fall gradually Especially, perhaps, the vitality of the Byzantine heritage in
into step with the political, diplomatic, and economic life of Russia is manifested in the liturgy, which retains a powerful
western and central Europe. hold on the mind and emotions of all those, both educated and
The rest of the story is better known and needs no emphasis untutored, who have not succumbed to atheism or religious in-
here, save perhaps in one respect. The wholesale and spectacular difference, and which is one of the greatest and original creations
policy of Westernization carried out by Peter the Great has often of Byzantine genius.
obscured the fact that he was merely continuing on a vaster scale This dichotomy in the Russian culture of the eighteenth and
and in a more drastic manner a process which had been gaining nineteenth centuries shows that Byzantium, Russia’s parent
momentum in the second half of the seventeenth century. civilization, cannot be regarded as the “ intelligible field ” for the
I00 IOI
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
study of Russian history in this period. We have likewise day. It seems, however, that these elements are too isolated from
examined, and rejected, the possibility that Westem Europe might the other forms of social life to allow us to extend the eflective
fulfil that purpose in respect of these centuries. Can any other hegemony of Byzantine civilization in Russia beyond the beginning
cultural unit be found to take up the role relinquished by of the eighteenth century. In the Balkans Byzantine civilization
Byzantium? survived longer and, strange though it may seem, thus was due
To answer this question we must attempt a brief definition of to the Turkish conquest. No more than the Mongol rule in
Byzantine civilization in terms of space and time. A compound Russia did the Pax Ottomanica in the Balkans undermine the
of the Roman, Hellenistic, and Christian traditions, it can be Byzantine culture of the subject peoples. In a book bearing the
described in terms of the geographical area over which its influence suggestive title of Byzance aprés Byzance,“ the late Professor
was once predominant. Originally limited to the territories of the Iorga has shown the extent to which the Byzantine inheritance
East Roman Empire, above all to -the Balkans and Asia Minor, was kept alive among the Christian subjects of the Ottoman
Byzantine civilization made a thrust northward into Russia Empire; the Orthodox Church, the preciously guarded symbol of
shortly before most of Asia Minor was lost to Islam. The Balkans their former greatness, presided over by the Patriarch of Con-
and Russia remained its main strongholds during the remaining stantinople, who was recognized by the Sultan as the spiritual
part of the Middle Ages. Today the area occupied by “ the heirs overlord and temporal chief of all his Christian ‘subjects 24 and was
of Byzantium ” is basically the same, with the addition of the thus able at last to vindicate his ancient title of “ Oecumenical ” ;
territories won for Orthodox Christianity by Russia’s eastward the political inheritance of the former East Roman Basileis, taken
expansion; it comprises the European lands inhabited by the over partly by the Sultans themselves, partly by the Rumanian
Serbs, the Albanians, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, the Rumanians, princes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who steeped
and the Russians. The history of these six peoples reveals a themselves in the imperial tradition of Byzantium to a greater
striking similarity which to some extent overshadows their ethnic extent than their Russian contemporaries, the Muscovite Tsars;
and linguistic diflerences ; they are united by a common member- the preservation of Greek literature and Byzantine learning,
ship of the Eastern Orthodox Church and by the powerful influ-- fostered in the Danubian courts of the Rumanian Domni and the
ence exerted by Byzantium on their medieval culture; moreover, schools of the Phanariot Greeks in Constantinople—this survival
they were all subjected for several centuries to the rule of Asiatic of Byzantium under the Ottoman rule is a further example of the
empires—the Balkans to the Ottoman, Russia to the Mongol— astonishing vitality and continuity of its civilization. It was not
and on emerging from their political servitude succumbed, gradu- until the late eighteenth century that the East Roman heritage
ally in the case of Russia, more rapidly in the case of the Balkans, began to decline in the Balkans, undermined by Western influences
to the influence of west European ideas and institutions. of the Age of Enlightenment, and in the early nineteenth century,
It is less easy to define the limits of Byzantine civilization in under the impact ofthe ideas ofthe French Revolution and modern
time. Its beginning can be plausibly dated from the first half of nationalism, occurred what Iorga has called “ the death of Byzan-
the fourth century, for Professor Baynes has cogently argued that tium ”. Yet even then Byzantine memories continued to influence
the distinctive elements of this civilization were first brought the new Balkan statesmen, and the appeal of Orthodox Christianity
together into the melting-pot in the age of Constantine.“ The remained as strong among the peoples of these countries as it
difficulty of discovering a corresponding terminus ad quem became did in Russia.
apparent when we considered the case of Russia, where elements Our attempt to determine the limits of Byzantine civilization in
of Byzantine culture have survived in various forms to the present space and time has thus led: us to conclude that Russia and the
I02 I03
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE

Balkan Orthodox countries, which share a common inheritance recent political history. Their cultural backgrounds, moreover,
from Byzantium and whose history, despite many local differences, are far from identical, for apart from the ethnic and linguistic
is similar in several important respects, can be regarded as part differences that divide the Russians from the Greeks and both
of one larger cultural area. It is this area that would appear to from the Rumanians, the two regions have not always been sub-
constitute the wider “ whole ”, the “intelligible field ” against jected to the influence of the same foreign cultures. But any
the background of which Russian history should be studied. The distinction between a “ north-eastern ” and a “ south-eastem ”
name “ Byzantine civilization ” is clearly inadequate to describe Europe, however legitimate, must not obscure the essential fact
this field over the whole course of medieval and modern history, that, in so far as their culture has been decisively moulded by the
for, as we saw, the term is not applicable to Russia beyond the influence of Orthodox Christianity and Byzantine civilization and
late seventeenth century, or to the Balkans after the early nine- the history of their peoples has, since the Middle Ages, followed a
teenth, in view of the more complex and heterogeneous culture similar pattern (subjection to an Asiatic yoke, followed by political
of these countries in modern times. emancipation and increasing Westernization), these two sub-areas
As a term to describe this area I would suggest “ Eastem constitute a single cultural Iuiit, which may be conveniently termed
Europe ”. At first sight it has certain disadvantages: the Balkans, Eastern Europe."
from a geographical point of view, are in south-eastern rather than There is, I would suggest, a further advantage in the term
in eastern Europe; but this argument could be met by observing “ Eastern Europe ”, and this brings me to my next point: how
that the Iberian Peninsula, though geographically in south- far can we really speak of a Byzantine, or East European, World
western Eiirope, is generally included in the European “ west ” ; essentially diflerent in culture and historical inheritance from the
the criterion in both cases is cultural rather than geographical. It Christian countries of the Latin and Germanic West? What was,
might also seem unjustifiable to exclude from eastern Europe a and is, the exact nature of this relationship? Questions such as
country like Poland, which in certain periods of her history has these only emphasize how inadequate our knowledge still is of the
played a prominent role in the destinies of Russia and of the relations and interdependence between different regions of
Balkans; yet Poland, since the dawn of her Christian history, has Europe, particularly in the Middle Ages. If our discovery and
derived her civilization from the Westem, and particularly the assessment of Russia’s parent civilization have any meaning, this
Latin, world, and her cultural associations with both Russia and must imply that her cultural inheritance was different in some
the Balkans have been far less intimate; indeed, there would seem degree from that of the countries of western and central Europe
to be a strong case for including Poland in central, rather than in whose historical fountain-head was Rome. It is indeed the fashion
eastern, Europe.“ today to emphasize the distinction between the cultures of
More serious objections could be raised against the attempt to Byzantium and the West, to stress the contrasts between the
group the modem histories of Russia and the Balkans within a medieval histories of eastem and western Europe. I do not wish
single unit, at least after the beginning of the eighteenth century, to deny or minimize these differences, yet there seems to be a
when Byzantine civilization, still paramount in the Balkans, had real danger of interpreting the division between East and West in
already ceased to be the “intelligible field ” of Russian history. too rigid and absolute a sense. In the first place, we must not
Indeed, in spite of the close relations between Muscovy and the imagine that the Roman and the Byzantine spheres of influence
Balkan Slavs“ and of Russia’s championship, since Peter the were ever separated by a rigid geographical frontier: the medieval
Great, of the cause of the Balkan Orthodox peoples, the two history of the Balkan Slavs and the fate of the Ukraine between
regions would seem to have followed divergent lines in their the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries provide examples of a
I04 Io5
 SELECTION II RUssiA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
close interrelation between Byzantine and Western cultures; while centuries to come? There had been schisms and excommunications
medieval Venice was, in many respects, a Byzantine enclave in a before; the schisms had been healed, the excomniunications lifted;
Latin world. It is also frequently argued that the Schism of I054, was not the Universal Church the very body of Christ? And was
which divided Christendom into a Western and an Eastern not Rome, for all the unorthodox teaching and claims of its
section, for ever separated them by the barrier of an odium theo- pontiffs, a sacred and venerable city, a revered centre of pilgrimage
logicum; and that this Schism was itself only a formal recognition containing the tomb of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles? Anna
of a gradually increasing rift between Byzantium and the West Comnena is sometimes cited as proof of the hatred and contempt
which began with the very birth of Byzantine civilization. But is entertained by the East Romans for the Latin West ; and she
this an adequate picture and the whole story? For all the theological certainly says many bitter things about the ruffians of the First
disputes between Rome and Constantinople, the rivalry of con- Crusade who caused so much trouble to her father, the Emperor
flicting jurisdictions, the diiferences of language, customs, and Alexius. But if you reread the Alexiad you will probably be struck
traditions, in spite even of Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor by the great diflerence in the tones she adopts when referring to
of the Romans, there is surely no convincing evidence to suggest the Crusaders and to the Bogomil heretics: these inspire her with
that, at least until I054, the majority of the churchmen and states- horror and loathing; the former, for all their undesirable qualities,
men of East and West were not conscious of belonging to one are still fellow-Christians. Of course, mutual antipathy and
Christian Society. Would it not be truer to say that at least on distrust between East and West increased during the twelfth
two occasions, at Chalcedon in 451 and at the Festival of Ortho- century, and for this the Crusades were largely responsible. But
doxy in Constantinople in 843,the Byzantine Church triumphantly can the picture of two mutually exclusive civilizations be reconciled
asserted against the claims of Asiatic creeds—Monophysitism and with the Western influences we find in Byzantine society in the
Iconoclasm—its basic heritage, Roman, Hellenistic and, as it reign of Manuel Comnenus, and with the strongly pro-Latin
proved, European? The often bitter contentions between the sympathies of the Emperor, the court, and the aristocracy in the
First and the Second Rome are more suggestive of a fratemal second half of the twelfth century?“
rivalry for the supreme position in Christendom than of a struggle As one reads afresh the history of the later Roman Empire in
between two alien civilizations. But we can perhaps go even the East one wonders sometimes whether historians have not
farther, and ask ourselves whether the consciousness of a united exaggerated the importance of the events of I054. If, in the
Christendom did not survive the very Schism of I054. The process of gradual estrangement between Byzantium and the
episcopate of East Rome might have detested what it regarded West, we sought for an event that seems to mark a real turning-
as Latin innovations in the fields of dogma, ritual and ecclesiastical point, we could point perhaps with better reason to the climax of
discipline; though its most enlightened members could still urge the Fourth Crusade; and we would probably conclude that it was
their flocks to feelings of charity towards their Western brethren then that the folk of Byzantium, disgusted at the desecration of
in Christ: some forty years after the Schism the Greek Archbishop their hallowed City by men who called themselves Christians,
of Bulgaria, Theophylact, severely criticized his colleagues for finally turned away from their society and hardened their hearts
unjustly slandering the customs of the Latin Church.” And the to the West. If so, is not I204 rather than I054 the real date of the
simple folk of Byzantium, how would the Schism have appeared schism in the body of Christendom? Yet on further scrutiny and
to them? When the Roman legates laid the Papal Bull of excom- in the long run the first of the dates may well prove to have as little
munication upon the altar of Hagia Sophia, could they think that magical significance as the second. Among the problems of late
the Church of Christ was being rent in twain for at least nine Byzantine history which require further study there are few more
I06 I07
 sELEcTIoN II RUssIA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
crucial than the nature and scope of the relations between B an
yz -
she inherited this attitude from Byzantium. But the facts of early
tium and westem Europe, especially Italy, in the fourteenth and Russian history lend little support to either of these assumptions.
fifteenth centuries. But there is no doubt that, at least in the fields Recent research has revealed the extent to which Russia in the
of learning and art, there was close and constant interpenetration. eleventh and twelfth centuries shared in the common life of
And if we asked ourselves the question: were the relations between Europe: trade relations with Germany, the continued immigration
Byzantium and the West in the age of the Palaeologi any less close of Scandinavians, intermarriages between members of the Russian
than they had been under the Conmeiiian or the Macedonian dynasty and those of the principal reigning families of Europe,
dynasties—what would our answer be?
cultural connexions with Bohemia and Poland, ecclesiastical
If it be in the negative, the picture we shall have of Byzantium contacts with Rome—these facts of Russian history in the pre-
and the medieval West will be of two different but closely inter- Mongol period do not suggest any segregation from or hostility
woven halves of one Graeco—Roman Christian and European towards the nations of the West.“ ° Nor did the Schism of I054
civilization. Neither half, on this reading, was in any real sense a substantially affect Russia’s relations with the West, until the
self-contained unit or a fully “intelligible field of historical thirteenth century. It is true that her clergy sometimes issued
study ” at least until the late fifteenth century: and if we were warnings against the doctrinal errors of the Latins, and that anti-
inclined to doubt the truth of this interpretation, we have only to Roman polemical literature began to circulate in Russia in the
think how much will remain unintelligible in the medieval history late eleventh and twelfth centuries. But there is a story that is
of western and central Europe unless we consider the Byzantine better evidence of the Russians’ friendly attitude to the Westemers
contributions to its culture: Anglo-Saxon scholarship of the eighth at that time. In I087 some Italian merchants from Bari, sailing
century, the Carolingian art of the ninth, Otto III’s restoration of home from Antioch, put in at the harbour of Myra, a city in
the Roman Empire, the growth of the Norman kingdom of Sicily, Lycia on the south coast of Asia Minor. By a mixture of cumiing
the cultural aftermath of the Crusades, the Italian Renaissance- and violence they succeeded in carrying off the relics of St.
these and other important events of European history cannot be Nicholas from the basilica of the city and sailed home in triumph
understood without reference to eastern Europe. The Basilica of with this inestimable treasure. In Bari they were treated as heroes,
St. Mark in Venice, the art of Duccio and El Greco, are these not and two years after the perpetration of this robbery the Pope
eloquent signs of how much the Western world owes to the instituted a new feast in the Western Church—commemorating
genius of Byzantium? the “ translation of the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari”, annually
If from Byzantium we turn to medieval Russia and to her celebrated on the 9th of May. It is scarcely surprising that this
relations with the West, what shall we find—mutual hostility or feast does not occur in the calendar of the Byzantine Church: for
interpenetration? It would be easy, but hardly necessary, to show the East Romans had every reason to regard themselves as the
that Russia’s distrust of and hostility towards the West on the innocent victims of an act of brigandage. But the Russians had
political and religious planes originate in the distant past. Since no such inhibitions. St. Nicholas belonged to the common heritage
the thirteenth century she has had to face and repel at least six
of Christendom; the transfer of his relics to Italy was clearly the
major invasions from the West, three of which came near to work of Divine Providence; Bari was in any case a safer place than
destroying her national existence. It would seem natural to con- Myra, as Asia Minor was devastated by the Turks. It was a cause
clude that since the dawn of her history Russia has regarded the for rejoicing that one of the greatest saints of Christendom should
West as the hereditary foe, whose weapons are to be borrowed the now, by his posthumous presence, extend his special favour to the
better to resist its encroachments, and tempting to assume that
West: and so the Russian Church in its turn instituted the annual
I08 I09
IH
III
SELECTION II RussIA’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
f
cas of .the translation of the holy relics of our father 3I'I1OI1o- the
(C . .

were establishing their rule in the Ukraine, the Prince of Nov-

samts, Nicholas, the Worker of Miracles from M ra to th D ' gorod, Alexander Nevsky, fought back the attacks of the Swedes
Of Bari ”.31 The Russian liturgical hymns of this first co e C121’ and the Crusading Orders of the Livonian and Teutonic Knights
attheve
_ _ 1'3’ ed
‘I1 0 f the eleventh
- century, I eloquently express
’ mpose the against the Russian Baltic frontier lands. It was now for the
spirit of united Christendom: “ the day has come of brilli t first time that the West faced Russia no longer as an associate, but
t1‘iumP_h> thc city of Bari rejoices, and with it the whole unveil as a hostile force carrying eastwards its double threat of territorial
exults in hymns and spiritual canticles Like a star th 1' conquest and militant Catholicism:
have gone from the East to the West and the cit ytfglcsi The use of the term “ Eastern Europe ” to describe the area
has received divine grace by thy presence i If now thg O tan
over which Byzantine civilization held sway in the Middle Ages
ofMY ra is silent
. 2 thc whole norld,
Y ' H o ' by the holyConn
enlightened workerry
has at least the merit of emphasizing the underlying unity of the
of miracles, invokes him With songs of praise "32 so Consci history of European Christendom. And if it be objected that this
were the Russians, half a century after the Schism of the ' owl
unity was broken by the incorporation of Russia and the Balkans
nature of the Christian Church ; so little did they feel cutunffvifrsa
into Asiatic empires, and that these regions were for many
Western civilization. 0 mm
centuries lost to Europe, it may be said in reply that not only was
We can now perhaps make a distinction in the history ofRussia’s the Byzantine heritage in these countries preserved intact under
relations with the West, which I believe to be im orta t T
an alien yoke, but that the Orthodox peoples of Russia and the
different phases in these relations may be detectedp th n . t1 W0
. . I e mo er Balkans remained Europeans at least in so far as they successfully
Phase» Whlch 18 commonly associated with Peter the Great bu: defended their Christian civilization against their Islamic over-
reallythbe8 an in the lH tc fifteenth century, when Russia
from - borrowed
’
lords, and, by bearing the full brunt of the Asiatic conquest, made
e West first the rudiments of technology and then possible the cultural and material progress of their fellow-Chris-
-
increasm- scale ht. ' - . . ’ on an
H _ al _ ’_ erary and Ph-110S0phical trends, social ideas, and tians in the West.“
po tic institutions; these borrowings, as we saw onl affect d
A closer integration of the history of Eastern Europe into our
a small section of the Russian people at least uniil thy e
. > e res t text-books of European history-especially in regard to the Middle
generation; and the early phase, in the eleventh and Ifvv lfnh
Ages--is, I would suggest, a matter of great importance. Uncon-
centuries, when the Russians were conscious of e
. an sciously influenced perhaps by the legacy of Gibbon’s contempt
link between themselves and Western Christendom. Si(i'r%I?>n1-:1: of Byzantium, or by the picture of Slavonic barbarism painted by
Marriott has written: “ Russia is not and has nev b
some German riineteenth-century historians, are we not some-
membgr Of. the. Eu1'°Pea1'1
. family ” '' 33 thc first of these Elfat ement
cen, a times apt to regard western and central Europe—France, England,
may seem justified in part by contemporary events. the Second _ S
Germany, and Italy—as the true centres of European civilization,
I Submits 3 serious misrepresentation The tW0’pha‘ ' 111$, the primary objects of a medievalist’s study? On this reading, the
histo of Russ. , _ _ _ - ses in t e
two 2'1d a halfliémafispgcianpqvlwitli the West are separated by countries east of the Carpathians and south of the Danube seem
SW“.ing _ S° Oneal yoke, which, by virtually
the relations between Muscovy and western E
to play the part of an appendage, or at least of an isolated and self-
- ortant c urope’ contained unit, in either case admitted only grudgingly and
was an irn '
sparingly into our manuals of European history. There can be
turnin8‘P<iint
-_ in Ri.i1;ie’oftlheir 10ng'eStrangement'
a s re ations And another
with the West occurred simul- no doubt that the writing of history has suflered from this one-
E1-'=fI1t(‘I0uSly in tllile same years of the thirteenth century, when the
sided presentation. Nor are the dangers of cultural parochialism
a ars > ater t eir d evastfltlcn
' .
and conquest of central Russia, limited to the sphere of the technical historian. In the countries
IIO E III
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
of the West the general public is beginning to appreciate how B tine ast It is well that we should be reminded of this
much our common European inheritance has been obscured, and ctfiftllitrluity2 pwhich underlies the changing
_ pattern
. of revolution
- _
the international life of modern Europe perverted, by the fact that and reform, and has preserved, even in the Russia of€_:11;1,::1;1§e
history has so often during the past century been vritten from a thing at least of the thought-world of Byzantium-
nationalistic point of view. But the tendency to an egocentric that not all students of Russian history will be able go ac¢1_’>Pt
reading of history may conceal dangers of a more subtle kind: the Professor Toynbee’s view as to the nature of Russiaps yzalgllng
view entertained by present leaders of the Western world that in 'nheritance. In his opinion the rulers of Soviet ussia av
resisting aggressive totalitarianism they are defending the true inherited from Byzantium a state of mind and an institution: the
values of European civilization has much to commend it; yet it . . ' ' h
conviction that they are chosen to inherit the earth and are t ence
may be asked whether this view would not acquire greater force always in the right; and the structure of the totahtarian sta e. _
and conviction if it were rid of two widespread assumptions: the hall t here discuss in detail the origin of this outlook and this
notion that Western culture is identical with European civilization § ‘ ng n both of which undoubtedly exist in the 3°Vi¢t Uni°n
tout court, and the belief that there is something perennial and 231231 (Ihit Professor Toynbee’s thesis is so relevant to our
almost predetermined in the present schism in the body of Europe. ' . - ' f
present S11b]CCt that I feel impelled to cite s_ome.of my realsiznf 3(1)’
The theme of this essay was expressed in the form of three believing that, at least without serious quahޢat10n$, It 18 <1 Y
questions. Two of them we have now attempted to answer. We
have examined the basic trends of Russian history in terms of state for Professor Toynbee, is ‘me “ that has
Byzantine civilization and found that, at least until the end of the established its control over every side of the life of its subjects ”;
fifteenth century and to a more limited but still notable extent - - ' li li '
the proof of the totalitarian nature of the ByZl£(l:tm<2'::° $Ynh§:l;:
until the late seventeenth, this approach provided us with a the fact that its emperprs. succeeded m ma t gof the medieval
guiding thread which made our subject “ intelligible ”. From the Church of the Empire V11’l113l-ly 3 d¢Partmen _ _ al b the
eighteenth century, however, Russia’s Byzantine heritage, over- East Roman state ”; this enslavement of the spirltu _Y _
laid with influences from the contemporary West, ceased to be 1emP0ral he calls “ Caesarv-Papism ”- Ca°Sa‘°'PaPiSm’
. m ms
-
the primary source of Russian culture, and the “intelligible . ' B
view, had the disastrous effect of stunting and ¢fll$11111S Yziglfin?
field ” of Russian history in this period should be widened to ' '' ‘ and transmitted to medieval Russia the see s o
include the greater part of Europe. In any case the realm of °_“’“‘.’“‘l°“-Sm . qultivated in the political laboratory of the 1'1-11618
Byzantine civilization, which in geographico-cultural terms can, totahtanam these seeds later‘ yielded a harvest under the Soviet
both in medieval and modern times, be largely described as oi’. Musc(I’v3tr>,i'essor Toynbee has argued his conception ofByzantine
Eastern Europe, was never a self-contained unit, but should be f¢e grofpapiSm ” at considerable length in the fourth V°1“m¢ °f
regarded as an integral part of European Christendom. We must
now, in conclusion, consider briefly our third question—the
specific character of Russia’s Byzantine heritage.
- ~f ' we e o
5:;-tefl'1:lI;:i1timn will inevitably colour some of our
“ Russia’s Byzantine heritage ” is the title of a chapter in basic notions of East European hist01'Y> b°th in the Middle Ages
Professor Toynbee’s book Cz'm'Zz'zatz'on on Trial.“ The author ' t times.
stresses the continuity in Russian history and argues that, for all anl§§v.§T1i§°§§‘Expos-Sible, Within 111° SP” °f “”° Pa““g"Phs’ t°
the sweeping changes introduced by Peter the Great and Lenin, attempt a detailed criticism of Professor Toynbee’s the8i8- But I
the Russia of today still preserves some salient features of her venture to suggest that neither ofthese formulae—Caesaro-paplsm
II2 113
 SELECTION II
RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
or totalitarianism—is an adequate description of the complex
to tamper with the purity of the Orthodox faith. The antithesis
relations that existed in Byzantium between the Emperor and the
between these two sets of propositions’ constitutes 1ge£h3Pl: £11;
Church. It is true that: (I) in the Byzantine society the Emperor
crucial problem in any study of the relations betwflqen th urcl don
occupied a supreme and sacrosanct position; (2) the canons and
State in Byzantium. And it may be suggested at e $0 11
rules of the Church required his sanction before they became
of this still obscure question night be aPP1'°a¢h¢d bY an attenlpt
effective; (3) he could generally in the last resort depose a recal-
to transcend both Professor Toynbee’s interpretation of Byzantine
citrant patriarch; (4) some emperors claimed the authority of'
Caesaro-papism and, at the opposite extreme, the recent assertion
defining ecclesiastical dogma; and (5) the freedom of the Church
that “ the religious history of Byzantium could be represented as
frequently suffered from their heavy-handed patronage. But each
a conflict between the Church and the State, 3.C0I1fl,1,ClIf1'0I'Il Wh1¢h
of these statements has its own significant counterpart: (I) the
the Church emerged unquestionably the victor .3 Any U116
conception of the Emperor as “ the living law ” and of his
solution of this problem, I would suggesti mu$_t rest on _three
sovereignty as the earthly reflection of Divine wisdom and power,
essential and often neglected facts: firstly, in spite of the inter-
borrowed by Eusebius from the Hellenistic pagan philosophers,
penetration of the spiritual and tempffial Sphereélin liyzanfifii
was accepted in Byzantium, but it was gradually infused with a
society, there always existed m the mind of the S urc as the
Christian interpretation, so that the notion of the Emperor as
bridgeable gulf between the. competence of thle. tate 311 thc
vicegerent of God, without losing any of its original force, shades
sanctifying and saving functions of ‘the. Cliurc ,bsecon I-di-
ofi—through the idea of his duty as Defender of the Faith-—into
Emperor’s sovereignty was hmited—mtr:f1$1¢f1]1Y;;hrY 1tS”S‘_1 _
the obligation generally assumed after the sixth century by the
nation to Divine Law and the duties of philan opy _ lnetlm
Emperor at his coronation to preserve untainted the Orthodox
bent upon him, and extrinsically, by the spiritual authority of the
faith, and, later, to “ remain the faithful and true servant and son
East Roman bishop and the moral authority of the ascetic holy
of Holy Church ”.3’ (2) The canons of the Church were drawn
man '4 ° and thirdly whilst the attitude’ of the Church to the
up and issued by the ecclesiastical Councils: the Basileus only
Christian Empire remained substantially the same, the attitude Of
sanctioned and enforced them. (3) On the occasions of conflict
the State to the Church appears to have undergone a significant
with the Church authorities, the emperors often seemed victorious
change from the heavy-handed intervention of the early Byzantine
on the surface; but usually in the end, and increasingly so from
emperdrs in ecclesiastical affairs, through the bitter struggles Of
the ninth century onwards, the Church would vindicate her inner
freedom and her right to impose the moral law on the Emperor. the Iconoclast period, to the ninth-century settlement, expfreszsletti
Professor Toynbee himself admits that “ every famous Western
in Basil I’s Epanagogez “As. the Commonwealth consists o p nd
champion of the rights of the Church has his counterpart and and members, by analogy with an individual man, the glqeat;/sh are-
peer in Orthodox Christendom ”.38 (4) The Imperial-claiins to most necessary parts are the Emperor and the Patriarcg . ethe
define dogma, occasionally asserted, were in general regarded by fore agreement in all things and harmony (av,u<pwvia) etween
the Church as an intolerable abuse and, in the long run, success- Imperium and the Sacerdotium bring peace and prosperity to the
fully resisted; and (5) it is significant that these attempts, due not souls and the bodies of the subiects.”41 “ Parallelism ” and
“s hony ” between Church and State—are these formulae
so much to the emperors’ desire to enslave the Church as to their
notyzigiore faithful reflection of the Byzantine mind than Caesaro-
wish to enforce compromise solutions with a view to preserving
papism or totalitarianism? _
peace and unity within the State or securing military aid from the
And in medieval Russia it was the same: here too, in spite of
West, were always in the end defeated by the refusal of the Church
local differences, Church and State remained bound by the same
114 115
 SELECTION II RUS.SIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
twofold relationship which is implicit in the Byzantine Epcma- different from its own, are deviationists and traitors to the Cause.
gage :42 parallelism and virtual equality on the one hand, indis- The Byzantines were so deeply repelled by the theological inno-
soluble unity of purpose on the other. Sometimes, as in the vations of the Latin West that a few months before the fall of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when the secular power was Empire a high dignitaiy could publicly declare that he would
weak and decentralized, the Church assumed a preponderance in “ rather see ruling over Constantinople the turban of the Turks
public affairs ; sometimes, as in the sixteenth century, the State, in than the Latin niitre”.44 And when Constantinople fell to the
the person of the all-powerful monarch, would impinge upon the Turks in I453 and, as it seemed to men of that time, the Imperial
sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But generally speaking, after legacy of Byzantium was proudly assumed by the autocrats of
each of these oscillations the pendulum would swing back and in Russia, it was MoscoW, the Third R°111¢> that h¢¢§1h¢ the umque
the end the balance would be restored in accordance with the repository of the Orthodox faith and its guardian against the
Byzantine theory. The most autocratic Tsars of Muscovy cannot heretical West. It would be diflicult to resist the impression that
be described as totalitarian rulers; for they, too, like the Byzantine there is at least something in common between the religious
Basileis, were forced to respect the doctrinal supremacy and moral messianism of the Second and Third Rome and the fanatical
authority of the Church. The seeds of Russian totalitarianism belief of the Russian Communist in the exclusive truth of the
were sown by Peter the Great. It was he who first began to enforce Marxist Gospel, immortally enshrined in the collected works
the State’s claim to be recognized as the source of all authority in of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Yet this simile, in iny op1I11011i
the realm, the ultimate object of men’s loyalty. Inevitably this should not be pushed too far: it may give us some insight mto the
led to the curtaihnent of the Church’s freedom and to its partial psychological background of contemporary RHSSIEIS If taken aeda
secularization. For two centuries between I721 and I917 some- full explanation, it may become a real obstacle to our understan -
thing akin to Caesaro-papism could be found in Russia. But it is ing of both Russia and Byzantium. Historical continu1tY> hke
significant that this partial subjection of the Russian Church to the most other facts, is subject to the laws of change, development,
imperial power was brought about by Peter’s imitation of western and decline. From Byzantine universalism to Russian rehgious
Lutheran models, and that to carry out his reforms he was forced to nationalism, and from the latter to the doctrine of world revo-
try and break down that Byzantine relationship between Church lution, the change is very great; $01116» lhdeedi ma)’ be tembted to
and State that was Russia’s medieval legacy from East Rome.“ d it as a gradual debasement. There is, surely, at least one
Professor Toynbeeis other thesis—his claim that the Soviet ‘regar t difference between the intolerance of Byzantium and
Russians have inherited Byzantium’s intolerance of the West- Hl:lporFE11€ Kremlin The latter brand has, at least so far, expressed
also, I would suggest, requires considerable qualification. There it elf) in hatred and violence: all means C311 lfigitilhatell’ be em"
is, of course, a measure of truth in this comparison. It would be 1 F d in ursuit of the final goal. That was not so in Byzantium:
hard to deny the resemblance between the messianic credo of the
liaifed oflihe West could sometimes be found there, no doubt,
Russian Communist party and the sublime belief of the Byzantines
but it was not a hatred of Western culture or of the Western way
in their Universal Empire, destined to unite all the Christians of
of life, but rather a bitter resentment against the barbarians of
the earth under the sacred sceptre of the Basileus. Both attitudes
the Fourth Crusade, who, under the pretext of securing their
reflect something of a mixture of faith and politics. Both are
advance to the East, had stormed and looted the Imperial capital.
strongly intolerant of rivals and opponents. The Bolshevik party
tine intolerance was never actively aggressivei father was it
has often reserved its fiercest hatred not so much for the capitalists gym; the ride felt by the East Romans in their own achieve-
ofthe West as for the other Socialist parties who, with programmes 11:; - for CCII)'lt1.11'l6S they had passionately and successfully defended
116 117
 SELECTION II RUSSIA’S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
their way of0 life against the barbarians hammering at the gate, Russia was also closely linked with central and western Europe,
and the purity of their Christian faith against all attempts to by trade, culture, and diplomacy, above all by the consciousness
tamper with Orthodoxy. The Byzantines were deeply attached to of belonging to one world of Christendom, where, in the main,
their religion: there could be no compromise in matters of faith; there was still no Hellene nor Latin, but a common culture and a
and some of them were doubtless sincere in preferring to see their common faith. It is significant that Russia entered the European
capital under the heel of the Turk than their Church forced to family of nations through her conversion to Christianity, for which
subscribe to the unacceptable doctrines of the Papacy. It has been she is indebted to Byzantium. The heritage of East Rome was
well said that “ Byzantine intolerance is in its essence an affair of not, as it is sometimes suggested, Russia’s “ mark of the beast ”
the spirit .15 It is, I think, important that we should remind
b 5 I I O
that isolated her from medieval Europe: it was the main channel
ourselves of this difference between Communist Moscow and through which she became a European nation. Byzantium was
Christian Byzantimn. not a wall, erected between Russia and the West: she was Russia’s
It may even be doubted whether 1 any historical connexion can gateway to Europe.
really be found between the “ intolerance ” of Byzantium and 1 Based on two lectures delivered at Oxford in February, 1949.
that ofthe contemporary Russian Marxists. It is fashionable today 1 Marc Bloch, “ Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien ”, Cahier
to trace the roots of the Soviet leaders’ hostility towards the West des Annales, no. 3 (Paris, 1949), pp. 5-9.
11 Arnold]. Toynbee, A Study of History (2nd ed., London, Oxford University
back to the distant past, through the anti-Western feelings of a Press, 1948), i. 17-26.
section of the nineteenth-century intelligentsia to Muscovite 1 Cf. M. de Taube, “ A propos de ‘ Moscou, troisieme Rome ’ ”, Russie et
Chrétienté, nos. 3-4 (Paris, 1948), pp. 17-24.
“messianism ” and thence to Byzantine Orthodoxy. But the 5 William Palmer, The Patriarch and the Tsar, (London, 1873), ii., 175.
historian may feel justifiably doubtful of the validity of a method ‘1 Toynbee, op. cit., i., 23.
7 On the “ Eurasians ”,‘see the provocative article by D. S. Mirsky, “ The
which, as I have suggested, results only too often in a process of Eurasian Movement ” (Slavonic Re-view, vol. vi, no. 17 (1927), pp. 311-19)
'
reading back as the origin
- -
of modern Russian . .
ideas , _
and insti- and the more balanced account by B. Ishboldin, “ The Eurasian Movement ”
tutions to a hypothetical or imaginary Byzantine past. It cannot (Russian Re-view, vol. v, no. 2 (1946), pp. 64-73).
8 See the recent discussion of the Mongol impact on Russia by G. Vemadsky
be the purpose of this essay to discover the origins of the present (The Mongols and Russia, New Haven, 1953, pp. 333-90), who makes the
Soviet attitude towards the West. But one final question may be interesting and plausible suggestion that “ in some respects, the direct Tatar
influence on Russian life increased rather than decreased after Russia’s
asked in this connexion: Was not that criticism of modern “ Euro- emancipation ” (p. 335).
pean ” culture, which we find in the writings of several prominent ° Ivan Timofeev, in S. F. Platonov, Drevnerusskiya skazaniya i povesti 0
smutnom vremeni XVII veka, kak istoricheski istochnik (2nd ed., St. Petersburg,
Russian thinkers ofthe nineteenth century, itselflargely a Western, 1913), p. 206; Vremermik I-vana Timofeeoa, ed. by O. A. Derzhavina and V. P.
rather than a Russian, product? Adrianova-Peretts (Moscow, 1951), p. 162.
1 ° For the culture of Kievan Russia and its Byzantine foundations see:
If neither totalitarianism nor a messianic intolerance of the Andre Mazon, “ Byzance et la Russie ”, Revue d’histoire de la philosophic er
West forms part of Russia’s Byzantine heritage, can another d’histoire générale de la civilisation, fasc. 19 (Lille, 1937), pp. 261-77; G. P.
formula be found to express the true nature of this inheritance? Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind : Kievan Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.,
1946); B. D. Grekov, The Culture of Kiev Rils (Moscow, 1947) (in English);
We have in the course of this essay gained a glimpse. at several fields G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948); A. Meyendorff and N. H.
in which Byzantine civilization exerted a deep and lasting influence Baynes, “ The Byzantine Inheritance in Russia ”, in Byzantium, ed. by N. H.
Baynes and H. St. L. B. Moss (Oxford, 1948), pp. 369-91, and the bibliography
upon Russia. But there is one feature of this heritage which, on pp. 417-21.
I would suggest, informs and epitomizes the rest. This feature is 11 B. H. Sumner, Survey of Russian History (2nd ed., London, 1947),
p. 178.
best revealed in Russian history of the Kievan period. Then, as 11 The expression is borrowed from Professor Norman Baynes, whose two
we saw, with her doors wide open to the influence of Byzantium, lectures, The Hellenistic Civilization and East Rome (London, Oxford University
118 1 19
 SELECTION II RUSSIA'S BYZANTINE HERITAGE
Press, 1946) and The Thought-world bf East Rome (ibid., 1947), form an admir- 1" Avvakum, Zhitie, ed. by N. K. Gudzy (Moscow, 1934), pp. 138-9; cf. The
able introduction to the study of medieval Russian culture. Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by himself, trans. by Jane Harrison and Hope
11 The expression ‘e‘ relapse into barbarism ” is used by Professor Toynbee Mirrlees (London, 1924), p. 132; La Vie de l’Archipré'tre A-vvakum, écrite par
to describe the consequences of the shift of Russia’s political centre from Kiev lui-meme, traduite par Pierre Pascal (Paris, 1938), p. 185.
to the upper Volga region, an event which he dates in the last quarter of the 11 Photius, Ep. 13, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. cii, col. 7241); quoted in
eleventh century, i.e. some 150 years prior to the Mongol conquest (A Study Baynes, The Thought-world of East Rome, p. 10.
of History, vi., 309). Apart from the fact that he antedates this shift by at least 11 D. Likhachev goes as far as to claim (Kul’tura Rusi epokhi obrazovaniya
half a century, it is scarcely justifiable to speak of a “ relapse into barbarism ” russkogo natsional’nogo gosudarswa (Moscow, 1946), p. 32), that in no extant
in the north-eastern region of pre-Mongol Russia. The whole of this area was oificial Russian document, or even diplomatic correspondence, of the fifteenth
closely connected with the southern civilization of Kiev, and the twelfth- and or sixteenth centuries, is Moscow described as the heir of Byzantium. This is
early thirteenth-century architecture of the Suzdal’ and Vladimir region re- something of an exaggeration: in the Paschal Tables compiled by the Metro-
mains one of the finest achievements in the history of Russian art. Cf. Vernad- politan Zosima in 1492 the Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan III, is described
sky, Kievan Russia, pp. 259-61; N. Voronin, “ Kul’tura Vlad.i1niro-Suzda1’skoy as “ the new Emperor Constantine of the new City of Constantine-—Mos0ow ”
zemli XI-XIII vekov ”, Istoricheski Zhurnal, vol. iv (Moscow, 1944), pp. 35-43; (see M. D’yakonov, Vlast’ moskovskikhgosudarey (St. Petersburg, 1889),
Pamyatniki Vladimiro-Suzdal’skogo zodcheswa XI-XIII vekov (Moscow, pp. 64-6; D. Stremooukhoff, “ Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the
1945); D. R. Buxron, Russian Mediaeval Architecture (Cambridge, 1934), Doctrine ”, Speculum, vol. xxviii, 1953, p. 91). However, the political implica-
PP- 24-7- tions of the doctrine of “ Moscow the Third Rome ” seem to have been
11 For an account of Russian thirteenth-century literature see V. M. Istrin, ignored by the Russian statesmen of the time: cf. N. Chaev, “ ‘ Moskva—Treti
Ocherk istorii drevnerusskoy literatury domoskovskogo perioda (Petrograd, I922), Rim ’ v politicheskoy praktike moskovskogo pravitel’stva XVI veka ”, Isroriche-
pp. 199-248; for the Balkan influences on Russian fourteenth- and fifteenth- skie Zapiski, vol. xvii (Moscow, 1945), pp. 3-23; G. Olsr, “ Gli ultimi Rurikidi
century literature see N. K. Gudzy, History of Early Russian Literature, trans. e le basi ideologiche della sovranita dello Stato russo ”, Orientalia Christiana
by S. W. Jones (New York, 1949), pp. 232-43; cf. P. Kovalevsky, Manuel Periodica, vol. xii (Rome, 1946), pp. 322-73.
d’histoire russe (Paris, 1948), pp. 94-102, for an attempt to justify the term 1 ° The relation between the growth of Westem influence and the decline
“ Russian Renaissance of the fourteenth century ”. For the spiritual tradition of Byzantine traditions in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Muscovy is dis-
of medieval Russia see N. Zemov, St. Sergius—Builder of Russia (London, cussed by Fr. George Florovsky in Putz‘ russkago bogosloviya (Paris, 1937),
n.d.); A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, ed. by G. P. Fedotov (London, pp. 11-29.
1950), pp. 50-133. For the Novgorod painting of the fourteenth and fifteenth 11 L. R. Lewitter, “ Poland, the Ukraine and Russia in the 17th century ”,
centuries see N. P. Kondakov, The Russian Icon, trans. by E. H. Minns (Oxford, Slavonic Review, vol. xxvii, no. 68 (Dec. 1948), pp. 157-71; no. 69 (May 1949),
1927), pp. 71-100; L. Réau, L’Art russe des origines cl Pierre le Grand (Paris, PP- 414-29-
1921), pp. 136-95; C. Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, vol. ii (Paris, 1926), pp. 11 N. H. Baynes, The Byzantine Empire (Home University Library, London,
836-40, 870-2. 1939), pp. 7-10; Byzantium, pp. xv-xx.
1‘ Professor Vernadsky, on the contrary, suggests a sociological parallel 11 N. Iorga, Byzance apres Byzance (Bucharest, 1935).
between the Kievan and the “ Imperial ” periods of Russian history; he com- 1'1 With the temporary exception of the Serbs, who preserved an independent
pares the rift which the reforms of Peter the Great helped to create between ecclesiastical organization until 1459, and again between 1557 and 1766.
the Westernized upper classes and the conservative peasantry to the cleavage 11‘ Professor O. Halecki’s book The Limits and (Divisions of European History
caused by Russia’s conversion to Christianity between the Christian and the (London and New York, 1950) deals with several problems touched upon in
pagan sections of the community; both processes, he maintains, “ affected this essay, particularly with the relationship between western and eastern
first the upper classes of society and accentuated the cultural cleavage between Europe. The author argues convincingly that “ Eastern Europe . . . is no less
the élite and the masses ” (Kievan Russia, pp. 241-2). It is true that in Russia European than Western Europe ” (p. 121), but his definition of eastern Europe
the eleventh and twelfth centuries were to some extent a period of “ cultural is far from clear. He suggests two different methods of dividing Europe into
dualism ”, but the comparison should not be pressed too far. The cleavage geographico-cultural areas. The first method is based on a twofold division
created in Russian society by the increasing Westernization after the middle between a “ Westem ” and an “ eastern ” Europe, the latter including Poland,
of the seventeenth century proved deep and permanent, at least until the Hungary, Rumania, the Balkans, and the land of the Eastem Slavs in “ those
present century. Christianity, on the other hand, “ gradually enveloped more periods of their past which are definitely European ” (p. 110): these would
and more of the various social strata ”, as Vernadsky himself admits. Nor was the consist of Kievan Russia of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and of the west
distinction between Christianity and paganism in medieval Russia a distinction Russian lands of the Ukraine and White Russia which were incorporated in
between the upper classes and “ the masses ”, even in the Kievan period: the fourteenth century into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The second
the former retained something of the pagan ethos at least as late as the end method involves a fourfold distinction between western, “ west-central ”,
of the twelfth century, as is evident in the Lay of Igor’s Campaign; and, on the “ east-central ”, and eastern Europe. “ East-central ” Europe is taken to
other hand, Christianity seems to have spread fairly rapidly among the peasantry consist of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Finland, Rumania, and the
soon after Vladimir’s conversion, partly, no doubt, owing to the Slavonic liturgy Balkan peninsula; eastern Europe, in this classification, should be equated
and translation of the Scriptures. either with the Ukraine and White Russia (bur only when they are liberated
1“-Joseph, Abbot of Volokolamsk: Prosoetizel’ -(4th ed., Kazan, 1904), p. 547. from the political control of.Soviet Russia) or with Great Russia, “ if and when
I20 I21
 SELECTION II RUss1A’s BYZANTINE HERITAGE
Russia is considered part of Europe ” (p. 137). Both these methods of classi- *1 For the “ Translation of the Relics of St. Nicholas ” see Leib, Rome,
fication result in the exclusion from Europe of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, Kiev et Byzance a la fin du XI‘ siécle, pp. 51-74. For the possible role played
and the Soviet Union, and in a complete cultural separation between these by Russian Varangians in south Italy as intermediaries between Bari and Russia,
successive epiphanies of a Eurasian Empire on the one hand and the essentially see Vemadsky, op. cit., pp. 345-6.
“ European ” regions of the Ukraine and White Russia on the other. 3” Menologion der orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, ed. Rev.
Professor Halecki’s interpretation of Russian history is undoubtedly the A. v. Maltzew, ii (Berlin, 1901), 281-2. Cf. Leib, op. cit., pp. 70-2.
weakest part of his valuable book. In the first place, his attempts to justify the 33 Sir I. A. R. Marriott, Anglo-Russian Relations, I689-1943 (2nd ed., London,
exclusion of Muscovite and Imperial Russia from European civilization 1944). P- I-
(pp. 92-9) are far from convincing, and he himself seems to experience some 3‘ Since this paper was written, my views on the European foundations of
doubts as to the validity of his thesis when applied to the eighteenth and Russian culture have been reinforced by the remarks in Mr. W. Weidlé’s
nineteenth centuries. Moreover, the opposition between a “ European ” admirable book La Russie absente et présente (Paris, 1949) (English transl.:
Ukraine and a Great Russian “ Muscovia ”, so favoured by modem Ukrainian Russia: Absent and Present, London, 1952, pp. 1-14), and by the arguments
historians and now by Professor Halecki, rests on several historical misinter- of the late Mr. Sumner (“ Russia and Europe ”, Oxford Slavonic Papers, II,
pretations which have often been pointed out by leading Russian historians. 1951, pp. 1-16).
It is astonishing to find the opposite view, which includes the history of the *5 Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilization on Trial (London, Oxford University
Ukraine and of White Russia in the general course of Russian history, summarily Press, 1948), pp. 164-83 (first published in Horizon, August 1947).
dismissed by the author as a theory held only by “ some Russian scholars ” 3° Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, iv. 320-408, 592-623.
(p. 137). To try and trace the frontier of Europe along an imaginary border- 3' Codinus, De Ofliciis, cap. 17 (ed. Bonn), p. 87. Cf. L. Bréhier, Les Insti-
line between the Ukraine and White Russia on the one hand and Muscovite tutions de l’Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1949), pp. 9-10.
Great Russia on the other is to do violence to historical facts. Finally, it is 3° Toynbee, op. cit., iv., 594.
surely inconsistent to claim, as Professor Halecki does, that while Russia was 3° Henri Grégoire, in Byzantium (ed. Baynes and Moss), p. 130.‘
permanently “ cut oif from Europe ” by the Mongol conquest (p. 93), the ‘° On this point I am indebted to Fr. Gervase Mathewfs course of lectures
Christian nations of the Balkans, similiarly placed outside Europe by the on “ Church and State in the Byzantine Empire ”, delivered at Oxford in the
Turkish invasion, were “ reunited with Europe ” after their liberation from autumn of 1949.
the Ottoman yoke (p. 120). In fact, the Ottoman rule in the Balkans lasted twice 41 Epanagoge, tit. iii, cap. 8; Ed. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Collectio librorum
as long and was considerably more effective than the Mongol domination of juris graeco-romani ineditorum (Leipzig, 1852), p. 68.
Russia. In both cases, as I have suggested,-the Christians of eastern Europe “ For the influence of the Epanagoge in Russia see V. Sokol’ski, “ O kharak-
preserved their faith, their Byzantine heritage, and their essentially European tere i znachenii Epanagogi ”, Vizantiiski Vremennik (St. Petersburg, 1894),
culture under the Asiatic yoke; and their political liberation was accompanied i., 17-54; G. Vemadsky, “ Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epanagoge und
and followed by an influx of influence from Western Europe. ihr Einfiuss auf das russische Leben im XVII. Iahrhundert ”, Byzantinisch-
2° M. N. Tikhomirov, “ Istoricheskie svyazi russkogo naroda_\s yuzhnymi Neugriechische jahrbilcher (Athens, 1928), vi. 119-42; W. K. Medlin, Moscow
slavyanami s drevneyshikh vremen do poloviny XVII veka ”, Slavyanski and East Rome (Geneva, 1952), pp. 69-71, 109-12, 133, 171, 177-9, 191, 232-3.
Sbornik (Moscow, 1947), pp. 125-201. *8 In two footnotes in his Study of History (iii., 283, n. 2, and§iv., 398, n. 2)
2" The problem of defining the notion of Eastern Europe has led to-some Professor Toynbee admits the Western origin of Peter’s ecclesiastical reform
controversy, in which Czech and Polish historians have played a leading role. (“ Peter borrowed his ‘ totalitarian state ’, ‘ Caesaro-papism ’ and all, from the
See: I. Bidlo, “ L’Europe orientale et le domaine de son histoire ”, Le Monde contemporary West ”), but in his Civilization on Trial this essential fact is
Slave (Paris, 1935), tome iv, pp. 1-20, 204-33; “ Ce qu’est l’histoire de l’Orient ignored.
européen, quelle en est l’importance et quelles furent ses étapes ”, Bulletin “ Ducas (Historia Byzantina, cap- 37, ed. Bonn, p. 264) ascribes these words
d’Information des sciences historiques en Europe Orientale (Warsaw, 1934), to the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras. Their authenticity, however, is impugned
tome vi, pp. 11-73; M. Handelsman, “ Quelques remarques sur la definition by Professor C. Amantos (La Prise de Constantinople: in “ Le Cinq-centieme
de l’histoire de l’Europe orientale ”, ibid., pp. 74-81; O. Halecki, “ Qu’est-ce Anniversaire de la Prise de Constantinople ” (L’Hellénisme Contemporain,
que l’Europe orientale?”, ibid., pp. 82-93; G. Vemadsky, Kievan Russia, fascicule hors série) Athens, 1953, pp. 10-11).
pp. 9-12; and other articles by Halecki cited in his book The Limits and Divi- 45 Henri Gregoire, in Byzantium (ed. Baynes and Moss), p. 132.
sions of European History, p. 205.
2° Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrida, Liber de iis quorum Latini incusantur:
Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. cxxvi, cols. 221-49. Cf. B. Leib, Rome, Kiev
et Byzance a la fin du XI‘ siécle (Paris, 1924), pp. 41-50.
2° Cf. N. Iorga, Relations entre l’Orient et l’Occiden't (Paris, 1923), pp. 168-81;
C. Diehl, La Société Byzantine cl l’époque des Comnénes (Paris, 1929), pp. 75-90.
3 ° Cf. F. Dvornik, “ The Kiev State and its Relations with Western Europe ”,
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. xxix (1947), pp. 27-46; The
Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949), pp. 236-61; Vemadsky, Selection II. Ed. C.Hastings and B. Nicholl.
Kievan Russia, pp. 317-47. Sheed and Ward London and New York 1954
I22
 IV
BYZANCE ET LA RUSSIE DE KIEV

On peut distinguer, dans l’histoire des relations de l’Empire

Byzantin avec la Russie, deux périodes d’importance parti-
culiere. La premiere s’etend de la premiere attaque russe
contre Constantinople en l’annee 860 jusqu’a la prise de
Byzance par les armees de la Quatrieme Croisade en 1204;
elle comprend la période des dynasties des Macédoniens et
des Comnenes a Byzance, et en Russie celle de Phegémonie
politique de la principaute de Kiev. Le X1119 siecle, qui a
apporte a l’Europe de l’Est une double calamite — l’appari-
tion de l’Empire Latin de Constantinople et l’invasion de la
Russie par les Mongols —- presente, dans l’histoire des rela-
tions russo-byzantines, une page presque blanche. La domi-
nation mongole n’a cependant pas isole la Russie du monde
byzantin au point 011 on se l’imagine generalement, et pen-
dant la seconde période, qui s’etend du milieu du xrve siecle
jusqu’a la chute de Byzance en 1453, la civilisation mosco-
vite a ete influencee de facon directe et continue - tout au
moins en ce qui concerne la litterature, la theologie et l’art
-— par ce qu’on a appele << la Renaissance des Paléologues ».
A certains points de vue meme, Pheritage byzantin de la
Russie demeura une force creatrice pendant un certain laps
de temps apres la chute de l’Empire; et malgre que l’imp0r-
tance historique de la doctrine de Moscou, Troisieme Rome,
ait a mon avis souvent ete exageree, il est indéniable que les
notions byzantines de la souverainéte impériale ont influence
la croissance de l’autocratie russe a la fin du xve et au xv1°
siecles.
Cette seconde phase de l’histoire des relations russo-
byzantines, qui s’etend du milieu du x1v° siecle au milieu
du xve, est encore tres imparfaitement connue ; et il me semble
qu’il reste encore bien du travail de specialiste a accomplir
dans ce domaine avant qu’on puisse tenter avec quelque
certitude de brosser un tableau general de ces relations. La
premiere période a toutefois ete étudiée de facon assez detail-
lee tant par les Byzantinistes qui s’intéressaient a l’expansion
de la civilisation romaine orientale pendant une epoque qui fut
peut-etre sa période la plus créatrice, que par les historiens
russes qui, surtout pendant les cinquante dernieres années,
ont examine avec un interet croissant l’histoire de Kiev,
l'une des périodes les plus significatives du passe de leur
patrie. On peut donc aflirmer que le temps semble venu
pour tenter, avec certaines chances de succes, de brosser un
tableau d’ensemble des relations russo-byzantines pendant la
période de Kiev. Je dis de propos delibere que le temps
<< semble » venu, car il parait, je pense, evident qu’un certain
nombre de problemes relatifs a cette epoque continuent a
20
 défier les historiens. Je ne pretends avoir resolu aucun d’eux
d’une facon definitive, mais s’il est exact que le devoir de mener a l’erreur. Je tenterai de vous demontrer tout a l’heure
lhistgrien est tout autant de poser des questions pertinentes que certains au moins des problemes relatifs aux relatitgis
que e les_resoudre, nous verrons peut-etre que le fait de russo-byzantines, demeures sans solution, ont tpujoutrs selrn _e
poser certains de ces problemes non encore resolus concer- aussi deconcertants principalement _parce,qu i s on or mai-
nant les relations russo-byzantines dans leur coriterrte correct rement ete consideres soit de l’un, soit de 1 autre de ces points
peut nousamener beaucoup plus pres de leur solution. Mon de vue.
but est d evoquer certains de ces problemes. ll me semble qu’on peut prouver par _d§S 6XemP1e$ Concriits
_Je VOl1dI‘€llSAd abord exposer, d’une facon génerale, ce que la Russie ne forma ]amais une unite autonome, Bt_P l1_$
qui me semble etre <1 le contexte correct» dans lequel l’his- nous remontons le cours de son histoire rriedievale, moins il
toire des relations russo-byzantines devrait etre étudiée. Au est possible de lui attribuer une autonomic culturelle. Pour
cours des dernieres decades, certains historiens russes ont appliquer un utile conseil de M. Arnold Toynbee, <§ nous d_ev0ns
Eeuntegdancel attinterpreter l’histoi_re de ces relations dans le considerer l’ensemb1e, et non chacune des parties; V011‘ que
‘s une_ u e entre limperialisme byzantin et les aspi- les chapitres de l’histoire traitent des evenements de la vie
rations nationales croissantes de l'Etat russe. Ce point de vue de la societe, et non de celle d un quelconque de ses membres,
emporte les suffrages des specialistes du Moyen age sovietiques suivre l’evolution de ces membreshdans leur ensemble, et non
parmi lesquels se trouvent des savants distingues comme en tant qu’unites separees, de meme que des variations Slll‘
[_).S. Likhatchev; mais dans_sa majeure partie, cette opinion un theme unique, ou que diverses partitions d un orchestre
tire son origine du livre, brillant mais a mon avis par trop qui n’ont de sens que par lharmonie de lensemble, e_ non
Sllbjectif, do Priselkov qui a paru a Saint-Petersbourg en en tant que series independantes de notes. Si nous reussissons
1913 sous le titre << Esquisses de l’histoire ecclesiastique et a etudier l’histoire de ce point de vue, nous verrons que l ordre
politique de la Russie de Kiev ». D’autres savants russes, surgit du chaos dans nos’ esprits, et que nous commencons a
sans donner dans ce romantisme anachronique, parlent nean- comprendre ce qui nous etait_]usq’ue-la inintelligible ». _ _l
moins de lhistoire et des institutions de la Russie de Kiev En ce qui concerne la Russie medievale, il 11 est pas d1lllCh8
comme si celles-ci formaient une unite en soi affectees sans de decouvrir quel est ce_ _<< tout », cette civilisation dont e i
.
dOll:lIB liar des Hiflueiices _
exterieures, _
mais s .
essentiellement faisait partie, et a la lumiere de laquelle SOI1,l'l1StOlI’6, pen'dan_
co,eren es en e es-memes : '11 est frappant, par exemple, cette période, deviendra plus intelligible. C est la societe qui
qu un ‘des plus grands historiens russes, Klyutchevsky, ait a pour centre de rayonnement Constantinople, cette eimupi-;v_n
pu ecrire son << Histoire de Russie J) sans mentionner Byzance byzantine qui s’etendait sur toutes les contrees dont les habi;
autrement que de temps a autre et en passant. Je ne crois pas tants professaient la religion chretienne orthodoxe, et etaien
que celui qui veut etudier les relations russo-byzantines lies, en un sens qu’il n’est pas facile. de_definir a la lumifire
. . l_ , un ou l , autre de ces points
doive I‘B_]6lL€I‘ a priori . de vue : les des notions modernes de droit constitutionnel, par une in le-
conflits entre la Russie et l’Empire de Byzance furent nom- geance commune envers lEmpereur' de la Rome 0I‘1BI1 H B,
breux pendant la période kievienne, et certains d’entre eux Chef supreme de tout le monde chretien et representant de
peuvent tres bien avoir eu des fondements ideologiques; et Dieu sur la terre. Dans cette vaste oikoumene byzantine, une
place particuliere etait theoriquement assignee a’ chaqdue
d £1? augre ¢0t_6. malgre que l’empreinte laissee par la civili- nation, suivant la perfection de sa culture, 16 degre d In é"
gi‘ 1°? Y?§1_ntinle sur ,pl‘8lZlqLl€II1€I1lZ tous les aspects de la pendance politique dont _]0ll1SS2l1lZ son chef, l_es ressources
ussie me ieva e ait _ete profonde et durable, ce serait une
grave erreur de croire que les conditions locales et les militaires dont il disposait et les, services que lui et ses %i]ets
institutions indigenes n’aient pas continue a former la desti- etaient susceptibles de rendre a 1 Empire. Cette famille d tats
nee du pays, et meme a conditionner dans une certaine mesure et de nations qui evoluaient en hierarchie ordonnee autour
les relations entre la Russie et Byzance. Et neanmoins en de l’autocrate sacre de Constantinople, cette StaatenIiier_ar-
derniere analyse, ces deux methodes ne me semblent,pas chie que M. Ostrogorsky et M. Dolger ont recemment degrife,
satisfaisantes : souligner en premier lieu le conflit entre l’impe- et que le savant ru_sse Lamansky a evoquee avec tant Igo-
rialisme byzantin et le nationalisme russe revient a mon avis quence et de precision des 1875, comprenaitla Russie me 1e-
\ I . Q
a ignorer ou a sous-estimer le danger d’attribuer au Moyen
Q
vale chretienne, ainsi que les pays balkan1ques'orthodox(<=1:s
age a ses debuts des idees et des doctrines qui sont propres tels que la Serbie et la Bulgaric; et les chefs medievaux_ e
an icixe siecle. Mais considerer la Russie des xe, XI ou xii° ces pays n’ont jamais serieusement mis en doute cette V1S10lIl
zfgtes comme tine unite entierement independante, dont les d’un empire chretien unique,_destine a prefigurer sur terrede
les iions avec e monde exterieur peuvent etre decrites par royaume celeste, ]usqu’aux _]OLlI‘S derniers et a la venue e
ermes << contacts » ou <(ll'lfll1BIlC€S », peut egalement l’Antechrist. _ ' _ , , d t
Et c’est precisement cette oikoumene chretienne, on
>21 22
 Constantinople etait le centre et toute l’Europe de l’Est et du - le verrons tout a Pheure,
Sud-Est le domaine, qui me semble etre le acontexte correct» Rom? Or‘e“t8L1e'1’i31,i;c§11;1iii>i1n§l1¢Ze lesquelles les autorites
dans lequel le probleme des relations russo-byzantines doive la Vlggeur fe t faceg a ce defi venant du nord inaugurerent
etre examine par les historiens. byzantmei lreilivelle
l1H8IPéSI‘l£r§1é1e(; dans l’histoire
variagues de l’Europe
de Scandinavie de milieu
qui, au l’Est. du
Les circonstances et le moment de l’entree de la Russie e A ' ' . -
dans cette societe byzantine ne peuvent etre determines que [Xe
de facon approximative, car les faits exacts relatifs a sa . siecle,
- acquirent le controle
la Baltique de la
a la mer yieille
Noire, et V0l6_C0l:lT?e1'r
batiren eu_
conversion au christianisme n’apparaissent pas toujours tres male rehant 1 territoire Finnois et Slavon, furent les veri-
clairement des temoignages disperses et de sources parfois :0¥)l:luHl?)I1s(llEl‘l'.6flI'S
a . es de
_ l’Etat
, 1 russe ' En . verite, aucun historien
- sta d e
contradictoires. Nous savons toutefois que cette conversion ~ t nier ue le premier
fut un processus lent et de longue duree, qui connut de nom- gml9h$t%l€;t?0f1tI;3oli1fiiqaiiec1?lenfapléilhssie fiilt atteint lorsque le
e. u - 1; le sud de Novgoro d .
breux reculs : son debut peut etre fixe aussitot apres la pre-
miere attaque russe contre Constantinople en 860, son stade P‘1“°§8;a§3§§1‘§;,gl§§’1&2?/ugiluniirginsi en un seul tout les
VeI‘S 9 .
final fut marque par le bapteme du Prince Vladimir de Kiev . . fl - l allant du golfe de F.in .-
en 988 ou 989. Les traits saillants de ce processus, et les epi- dlfferents sfifiiguizfeiifielgrvdiie Diiliialplrf voie qui devint l’epine
sodes principaux qui precederent, accompagnerent et sui- lande1audcl’Etat russe. On peut toutefois douter qu’Oleg
virent l’entree de la Russie dans l’oilr0umene byzantine, for- dorsa e e s immediats aient considere Kiev, leur nou-
ment le sujet de cette etude. Dans la premiere partie, j’exami- etllescglglljlsgeldhmme
V6 6 . 9 autre chose qu’un moyen - de yenrichir
d’ tres
nerai le stade initial des relations entre Byzance et la Russie Personnelleriient et commezt uni rI:i2rch§1£€egeSV€,I§(ing:l;)0ur
de Kiev, entre 860 et 988, a une epoque oi‘i ces relations etaient
encore dominees par la guerre, temperees par le commerce, horizons’ d un plus grand a fiald el;)Ii.)'iches contrees du sud
et de temps en temps sublimees par des rapports a un niveau raventuye at 16 charme des C iljusesremiers princes de Kiev,
plus eleve; dans la deuxieme partie je traiterai de la conver- envofitalfmt encore‘ les émes le Pam a nes lancees Par les
sion de Vladimir au christianisme et des effets de cette ct
chefstrouverent
russes, anunee1S§}1(fledi3I(l)iltI?§
x sie . Iii cige %mperiale de Mikla-
conversion sur les relations russo-byzantines.
I1 peut sembler paradoxal d’ailirmer que le premier stade yard‘ - au cours du x 8 siec
" le, les Russes se mirent
f en
de l’incorporation de la Russie dans Poikoumene byzantine,
et de son integration eventuelle dans la communaute euro-
peenne, fut atteint lorsque les Vikings suedois, envahisseurs
Cinq fois, Ht
9:52
dirigées contre Conéiiliilielenoll eserdait inileressant de comparer
nordiques paiens et barbares, descendirent les fleuves de contre Cherslm eilfets de ces differentes expeditions : une telle
l’Europe orientale et lancerent, en 860, leur grande attaque les cause-S at ?1S1eS1;1-erait a mon avis la facon dont les chefs
contre Byzance. Il me semble, cependant, que cette affirmation ‘\7;’m.pZI::§0ge1}€iev perdirenl; graduellement leur turbulence
aria
. . .- ~ -
t r aniser -
leurs Sll]Bl3S
contient une part de verite : car lorsqu’au cours du ix° siecle
la domination des Vikings remplaca celle des Khazars dans vllkmg’ ’“,‘“s§2“?§§‘J1’.P?.‘i§g3§I§ii”$§ii3e,° dgoordonnerent leur
la Russie du Sud, la forte influence orientale subie par les fiioalitigug exterieure a la situation internationale en Europe
Slaves de l’Est au cours du siecle precedent recula subitement; = ncore
orientale. La caH_1Pa8_Ii:§ d Ol1e1grede;i§O'Z)usle§I:;béiI0iilZ°éi‘ Ifour le
tandis que l’attrait de Byzance, de la fabuleuse Miklagard, ete un typlqlie ra1gd_\;}0:1%’.¥g0r Se 921 pal-ait avgif eu une
qui detourna les vaisseaux Vikings, au milieu du siecle, de la butin' mais ’eXp 1 1 . . - d
Volga et de la Caspienne vers le Dniepr et la mer Noire, fut ’- bl oir ete la protection es
une premonition et une cause de l’attraction irresistible que patséerelfiéififiifiieiiiifli br".l°S§§§“ feivguerres baikaniques de
la cite de Constantin devait exercer au cours de nombreux
siecles a venir sur les esprits des Russes. L’attaque lancee en
lIl

<%8-11>. <»@n§1d<r%§.1"s:£,:2s.1§:§":.;.:i::1.
comme la_conseqiie_nce d un miii
. ‘, - 9 ' é

mire russe algparaissent

860 par les Rus’ suedois venant de Kiev contre Constanti-
nople, attaque qui ne fut repoussee qu’avec une extreme derpifir é%fIi?;0;:)eu:11§{1§nj%)l1E1¥pIlgllI\e7B3el1 gisace surtout aux travaux
main en _ _'_ _ ’ . d» -S
difficulte, forme ainsi un debut approprie pour l’etude des
relations russo-byzantines : cet episode oriental le plus dra- sous l’aspect plus plausib e I111 . 1
matique dans l’histoire des invasions Viking de l’Europe, di lomate qui poursuivit avec adresse et perseverance 6
resultat d’un processus de consolidation politique qui, pen-
dant plusieurs decades, avait contribue a unir les envahisseurs Prldjet d’iiistauration d’un Vaste ' Toyaume SlaV°'3°rd1que’ erre
suedois et les Slaves de l’Est, leurs sujets, marqua l’apparition allant de la Volga A la met ](5l:gee,'el:2ldC00Ill;
comprenaient, a un moment onne, ‘ll list:‘d1eSCoe1i§t‘iinti-
soudaine et brutale de la Russie sur l’horizon politique de la nople.
23 24
 Tout au cours du siecle en outre les e h '
russo-byzantins prirent des C anges °°mme‘°‘i‘“X Russes » que nous pouvons glaner des maigres remarques
et devinrent de plus en plus i)nIi(pE)i?*ialii)l€1sSp(i)eui')lldSv(ie1 e)cI<‘)l1i0VIg§teS' decoulant des sources byzantines; le reste est dans une large
des d rt‘ - ' ’ - "1119 mesure approximation et controverse. Je dirai seulement que
parmi les differentes tentatives pour determiner le lieu ou se
°°mPi:Xd£ace1(fEiitll
ar O1 t I fieydl’ 'Ifail'de llnelueur moyen
(I , e u_ ier e texte des traites conclus(-16. Se rendre situait cet archidiocese russe du ixe siecle, la plus raison-
% S 6% (:1 gor avec l Empire, conserves dans la Chronique nable me semble etre celle qui suppose qu’il se situait a Kiev.
la udescriptiiI§>0;1I1]%JI{alIé<-far
se, e -
(lieeur riclieisse » - techniques
en details . avec La rarete des sources ne nous permet pas de suivre le destin de
neuvieme _ du De _ Adminislsznico Elgifieserio
quid figélre an Chapitre cette premiere organisation ecclesiastique byzantine sur ter-
_ _ ' _ ritoire russe : elle fut tres probablement engloutie au cours
phyrogééneg» qul $’1T1l11t11l6, dc facgn sigiiificiiliitentlndfolra de la reaction paienne qui suivit la conquete de Kiev par Oleg
venue es usses, e b -’ - ,.
et qui continua sous Igor et Svyatoslav. Mais les germes
semes par les missionnaires byzantins envoyes en Russie par
etait inevitable
C0n?]tantiIl0Pl€ ». n arques ’ monoxyles’
' de la Russle Jusqu a
l’ensemble des relationsqilutego-(l?y1;§1(iii?iIe§esede ‘(ices l°°¥“"?°“S» les Patriarches Photius et Ignace ne perirent jamais comple-
niveau different. Car d’une part ces marcha do! tp ace a un tement : une chaine ininterrompue de temoignages demontre
naires russes << venant a Constantinople » Q1; 1-1e€e;aI(i%S.mI?Ce' l’existence d’une communaute chretienne a Kiev depuis les
premieres annees du xe siecle jusqu’a la conversion de Vladi-
cro a ' ' - (Yagir- comme Porteurs
- . d’idee: etlede
, mir. La Chronique de Nestor nous dit que lorsque les ambas-
He pouvaienli manque? sadeurs d’Oleg arriverent a Byzance en 911, l’Empereur
furent PromPtes a sepiirn; anger d attaques misses répétées’ Leon VI chargea des personnalites ofiicielles de leur montrer
de l’Empire dependait dre comme £1 quel pomt la Sécurité les eglises de Constantinople, avec leurs decorations en or et
soient Places aussi ra id e CI: que ces 'barbareS nordiques leurs reliques celebres dans le monde entier, et de les instruire
salutaire et ClVlllS&lZ6lIII‘ ?lIe1€ll?Eg(li:Z Ie(fSSde)1I’E0uS 16 contrfile dans la foi chretienne; et nous pouvons etre certains que l’apo-
Rome Orientale. mpereur de la gee de cette excursion dirigee fut la Grande Eglise de Sainte-
Sophie, sous les vofites glorieuses de laquelle, ainsi que nous
faitergiglgéggiggs ChI:1éSSl3l8.Il1SI'fl6 russe sont encore tres impar- l’apprennent des temoignages largement echelonnes dans le
temoignages temps, plus d’un coeur barbare fut gagne par la beaute et
ra t t f sont ’va gues, Solzlrces Spnt des
e certains peuproblemes
nombreuses’ les
qui s’y la majeste de la Rome chretienne, et la conversion de plus
ppor en ont lOb_]€1Z de vives controverses. Deux faits
peuvent pourtant etre consideres comme fermement 't bl’ - d’une nation paienne commenca ainsi. Petit a petit, cette
les debuts du christianisme russe doivent etre l é e a 1'3 ' propagande chretienne et impériale, tant a Constantinople
dans les annees 60 du IXe siecle- et deuxieme P ac’; Slau moms qu’a Kiev, se montrait plus forte que le paganisme des princes
sion des Russes fut une oeuvre internationalmen , a cqnveb russes : une notable part des messagers russes envoyes a
des missionnaires chretiens de plusieurs piyzccifiigledpar Constantinople en 945 etaient chretiens, et une eglise de Kiev
la uell l roe “l principal
' ' - .’par lEmpire
, 3,“ est mentionnee a la meme epoque par le chroniqueur russe.
B)(3Zante;n.e et decisif fut ]0llB Et douze ans plus tard, la princesse Olga, regente de la prin-
L’histoire enre istree d tt ' cipaute russe, fit le voyage de Constantinople et recut le
l’attaque russe de §60. A pe(in(eeet?iiI?eIlI:ae1:i(ih1i1Ie)enqIh1Ellgedigulec bapteme du Patriarche.
mat'l:grig':§:l;1;1eeng%l;1nfi1S€Igi(il3
b ' ~ - . P O‘ Il ne faut pas croire, cependant, que les seules influences
les 1%tlifilpelgiégr €:lV€ftS(€lI1d€l3 a explorer chretiennes subies par la Russie au xe siecle furent celles qui
. , A _ . resu '_ venaient de Constantinople. La complexite de ce probleme
tique furent bientot evidents : peu apres 869] ?.lI1:3cl'Iltl1):e P0511
russe vint a Constantinople, demandant le ha teme oassla e est devenue evidente ces dernieres annees; mais on peut
maintenant affirmer qu’a cette epoque le christianisme s’in-
Fr??? el’3£_P°uI‘ lelll‘ peuple. En 867, le Patriarghe Pl'l(I))lZlll; filtrait en Russie de plusieurs directions : des cites grecques
ll 'ln_S igateur de certaines des lus i t ' " de Crimee, de Cherson surtout; des communautes chretiennes
byzantines dans le Nord, fut a i¥1)iemerIdP;finaoIht(?grIT<ll1i:l(lle:
rus ' » ~ . de l’Empire Khazar; de Bulgaric particulierement, d’oi‘i les
obeifigailesdglgifincigniirigz Ieleb1I:es' naguere Par leur Cr‘-1311159» Russes devaient bientet emprunter les traductions en slavon
d’un eveque de aux
la R0emea OaI‘l6I(lilZ3l8.
-re lglon Finalement,
d.“ Christ et un 3 Pautorité de la Liturgie byzantine et des Ecritures, adaptees aux
tard peut_étre peu plus besoins locaux par les disciples de Cyrille et de Méthode; de
Suad’éS de Si HVFFPHS 9 874. les Russes furent per- Moravie et de Boheme, oi‘i des traditions du Christianisme
’ gner un traite avec Byzance, et un Archeveque slave indigene subsistaient encore; et de plus loin a l’Ouest,
leurvgigzé qiegue par le Patriarche Ignace,
de l’Allemagne et de Rome. Mais a la longue aucun de ces
renseignements sur << la premiere conversion des centres chretiens ne pouvait rivaliser avec le prestige immense
25 26
et les ressources de la Cite Imperiale sur le Bosphore, ni avec hierarchie d’Etats, le rang le plus has : en verite, en tant que
l’habilete des missionnaires et des diplomates byzantins. Et barbares paiens, ils etaient, techniquement parlant, encore
leur plus grand triomphe advint vers la fin de la neuvieme en dehors de l’oiI<:oumene, et pouvaient etre consideres tout
decade du xe siecle, lorsque le petit-fils d’Olga, Vladimir de au plus comme de potentiels vassaux de l’Empereur; ce
Kiev, fut baptise par des missionnaires Venus de Constanti- dernier, a l’epoque de Constantin, s’adressait au chef russe
nople, et la Russie qui, depuis plus d’un siecle, avait commence en lui donnant le titre derisoire de <56;-/_oiv. Mais la conversion
a sortir de son isolement paien, fut finalement incorporee dans de Vladimir entrainait une hausse considerable du rang
Poikoumene byzantine. oecumenique de la Russie, et nous pouvons naturellement
Je parlerai le moins possible des circonstances qui entou- supposer que le Chef chretien de la Russie obtint de son Par-
rerent la conversion de Vladimir : les faits sur lesquels tout rain imperial et patron spirituel un titre plus altier que
le monde est~d’accord sont bien connus; les autres sont trop o2';:;(w~i. Toutefois, les temoignages que nous avons sur ce point
discutes et trop complexes pour qu’il soit possible d’en parler crucial sont vagues et contradictoires. Nous avons, il est
ici. L’histoire est contee par la Chronique russe de Nestor et vrai, deux assez vagues indications datant du XIVe siecle qui
par les historiens arabes. Ces derniers lient le bapteme de attribuent aux chefs russes le titre aulique Byzantin de
Vladimir aux negociations politiques de 988 entre Byzance <3 érci 1?}; "cpct1té':';r;; (une espece de chambellan), mais la pre-
et la Russie — le chef russe ayant consenti a aider l’Empereur miere d’entre elles — qui emane de Maxime Planudes —
Basile II contre Bardas Phokas le rebelle, et a recevoir le se rapporte au temps d’Andronique II; l’autre — qui est de
christianisme, pour prix de la main de la soeur de l’Empereur. la plume de Nicephore Gregoras — est invalidee par la pitto-
La Chronique de Nestor raconte l’histoire bien connue du resque suggestion que le Chef russe obtint ce titre de Constan-
voyage des envoyes de Vladimir a Constantinople, leur admi- tin le Grand! Nous pouvons, je pense, etre certains que ce
ration stupefaite pendant la liturgie celebree a Sainte-Sophie, n’est pas ce titre que Vladimir avait convoite et recu. Quel
leur decision de recevoir le christianisme byzantin, la prise titre Vladimir obtint-il donc de Byzance‘?
de Cherson par Vladimir, son mariage et son bapteme dans Je vais risquer une opinion qui n’est pas entierement nou-
cette cite de la Crimee. velle, mais que les historiens n’ont jamais prise tres au serieux.
Ce furent, en raccourci, les stades principaux du proces- Cette opinion ne peut etre avancee qu’a titre experimental;
sus qui amena l’entree de la Russie, a la fin du xe siecle, dans elle peut, toutefois, a mon avis, etre maintenant etayee
cette famille supra-nationale de nations qu’on peut appeler par une masse assez importante de temoignages, dont cer-
Poikoumene byzantine. J’ai dit au debut de cet article que tains n’ont ete decouverts que tout a fait recemment. Je
cette oikoumene byzantine me semble former le << contexte vais vous soumettre la supposition que Vladimir recut des
correct », le <1 champ d’etudes historique intelligible» dans autorites byzantines le titre le plus eleve qu’ils puissent accor-
lequel on peut considerer l’histoire médievale de la Russie der E celui de {Ba-:i.>.eb;, ou Empereur.
dans sa perspective correcte, et que faute de se placer a ce Le temoignage le plus important que nous ayions sur ce
point de vue on a souvent commis des erreurs d’appreciation point est contenu dans une lettre synodale envoyee en 1561
dans les problemes des relations russo-byzantines. Permettez- au souverain russe Ivan IV de la part de la Hierarchie de
moi de tenter d’illustrer cette affirmation en attirant votre l’Eglise Grecque, preparee et signee par le Patriarche de
attention sur deux de ces problemes, auxquels je consacrerai Constantinople Joasaph II : cette lettre annonce a Ivan de
le reste de cet article. Je les formulerai de la facon sui- Moscovie que le titre de ;'zaei7,s-5;, en russe tsar, lui est offi-
vante : 1) quel rang, quelle situation, la Russie occupait-elle ciellement accorde. Et en guise de justification, le Patriarche
dans l’oikoumene byzantine apres la conversion de Vladimir cite un precedent significatif : un lointain ancetre d’Ivan IV,
au christianisme‘? Sa position‘ nouvellement acquise impli- le Grand Prince Vladimir, fut, dit-il, couronne Empereur
quait-elle une forme quelconque de dependance politique a (ti; eaeikéa) avec la couronne impériale (eawilixbv O'Tép..p.<7.)
l’égard de l’Empire Romain Oriental‘? apportee de Byzance par le Metropolite d’Ephese.
Une description classique de Poikoumene byzantine se Le byzantiniste russe Regel, qui, a la fin du siecle dernier,
trouve dans les oeuvres de Constantin Porphyrogenete, et etudia avec beaucoup de soin le manuscrit original de cette
son Livre des Ceremonies, compose au milieu du x° siecle, lettre, montra de facon assez probante que le Patriarche
nous trace un tableau d’un systeme ordonne d’Etats et de avait affirme de facon precise que la couronne impériale avait
nations satellites, liees par une allegeance commune a la Foi ete envoyee par l’Empereur Basile II, et qu’elle avait ete
Orthodoxe et a l’Empereur Universel de Constantinople, et recue par saint Vladimir, pendant le regne duquel les Russes
dont le rang et la position etaient definis par les titres accor- furent convertis au christianisme. Il vaut la peine de mentionner
des a leurs chefs, titres empruntes a la Hierarchie du Palais que le Patriarche affirme s’etre parfaitement assure dc ce
Sacre de Constantinople. Les Russes occupaient, dans cette fait, non seulement d’apres le temoignage de << nombreuses
27 2s
 personnes dignes de foi », mais aussi grace a l’examen qu’il a sceau de Vladimir est Autokrator, titre qui, a l’epoque, accom-
fait des chroniques ecrites, affirmation importante si l’on pagnait normalement eat-i7.si3;, lorsqu’il s’agissait de l’Empe-
considere qu’il y avait probablement a Constantinople, au reur de Byzance. A l’appui de cette these, il demontre que la
XVIe siecle, un grand nombre de manuscrits grecs qui n’exis- traduction slavonne exacte de Autokrator, Samoderjets, est
tent plus. Nous possedons deux autres temoignages de la appliquee a Vladimir a plusieurs reprises dans les sources
meme période, emanant de Russie, et qui, quoique souvent russes des Xle et xiie siecles. Quoique Soloviev ne semble
consideres comme tendancieux, confirment l’assertion du pas pret a tirer toutes les consequences possibles du titre
Patriarche. En 1554, les ambassadeurs russes envoyes au Roi de Vladimir, et quoique le terme Autokrator, meme sous sa
de Pologne recurent l’ordre d’expliquer de la facon suivante forme latine et dans Pinterpretation russe, n’etait pas absolu-
a ce dernier pourquoi Ivan IV se faisait appeler Tsar, ou ment synonyme de {ia-:t7,i=.i3;, il ne peut guere, me semble-t-il,
Empereur : << Le Tsar grec et le Patriarche -— devaient-ils avoir de doute que la preuve qu’il a mise a jour appuie le
dire —- couronnerent Vladimir tsar de la Russie, et il faisait temoignage des autres sources que j’ai citees.
usage du titre de tsar. » Et un an plus tard, Macaire, Metro- Il existe une autre preuve, tiree par induction-des cir-
polite de Moscou, reitera cette affirmation dans une lettre constances : il y a certaines raisons de croire que le titre de
adressee a l’eveque de Vilna, avec cette addition interessante §ast).e=3<; fut sollicite de Byzance — mais evidemment sans
que saint Vladimir << est represente sur les icenes revetu de succes par un des predecesseurs de Vladimir; ceci semble
la couronne impériale avec laquelle il fut couronne ». Si nous etre implique par un passage de De Administrando Imperio,
gardons en memoire que le mot slavon tsar etait la traduction dans lequel Constantin VII conseille son fils sur la facon de
ordinaire du mot grec fie:-1‘/.é=’i;, et que dans la Russie medie- s’opposer aux << insolentes demandes » des peuples du Nord.
vale le precedent iconographique etait considere comme une << S’il leur arrivait... d‘exiger ~ ecrit l’Empereur — que ce
autorite irrefutable et sacree, nous pouvons peut-etre consi- soit les Khazars, ou les Turcs, ou encore les Russes, comme
derer la reference au passe faite par le tsar et le patriarche il arrive souvent, qu’une partie des parures imperiales ou des
comme autre chose qu’un argument de plaidoirie. Le temoi- diademes ou des robes d’apparat leur soient envoyes en
gnage suivant, cette fois deduit des circonstances, date d’un recompense d’un service quelconque, ou d’une fonction accom-
siecle plus tat, et emane encore de Russie : en 1441 le souve- plie par eux, alors tu t’excuserais de la facon suivante... »
rain moscovite Basile II, dans une lettre adressee au Le mot dont fait ici usage Constantin pour designer << dia-
Patriarche byzantin Mitrophane II, se réfere plusieurs fois demes » est G“Cép.p.G.'COt., et il est significatif que dans le Livre
a saint Vladimir, et il est interessant de constater que pour des Cérémonies le meme auteur emploie le mot o1:ép.p.ot comme
decrire Vladimir pendant sa période pa'i'enne et Vladimir en terme technique pour designer la couronne impériale du
tant que chretien, il fait usage de deux expressions tout a fait owtm-tug.
differentes : avant sa conversion, il appelle Vladimir <<le F3 On objectera peut-etre a priori sur ce point qu’il est diffi-
Grand Duc Benunni/i HHHBB de Kiev et de toute la Russie »; cile de concevoir que Byzance ait pu accorder a un chef bar-
et lorsqu’il est devenu un chef chretien, il le nomme bare du xe siecle un titre qui etait une des prerogatives de
<< le pieux tsar du pays russe ». Pour parler de lui-meme et l’autocrate sacre et universel de Constantinople. Cela n’aurait-
de son pere, Basile faisait usage du titre traditionnel de il pas ete une negation de toute la structure hierarchique de
<< Grand Duc ». l’oikoumene byzantine 7 Pour parer a cette objection, il nous
Le dernier temoignage est peut-etre le plus impression- suffira de considerer les principes et les methodes de la poli-
nant : car il emane de la période de Vladimir lui-meme. En tique etrangere de l’Empire au xe siecle. Et je pense que la
1948, le savant russe Alexandre Soloviev publia un article supposition que Vladimir recut le titre imperial de Constan-
concernant un sceau en plomb decouvert dans le sud de la tinople, aussi etonnante qu’elle puisse paraitre a l’etudiant
Russie au debut de ce siecle, et portant l’effigie d’un prince des institutions politiques russes qui ne se hasarde pas en
et une inscription en partie en latin, en partie en slavon : dehors de son domaine specifique, semblera au contraire
il a ete prouve de facon digne derconfiance que tant l’effigie extremement plausible, des que nous considererons le pro-
que l’inscription se referent a Saint Vladimir. De l’inscription bleme dans le contexte plus vaste de Poikoumene byzantine.
latine cinq lettres subsistent : RATOR -—- et il n’y a pas Nous savons d’abord que pres de soixante ans avant la
de doute qu’elles forment la seconde moitie du titre de Vladi- conversion de Vladimir, le titre de Iiartleiig fut ofliciellement
mir. M. Soloviev, tout en attirant l’attention sur l’usage fre- reconnu par les autorites byzantines au chef d’une autre
quent de l’alphabet latin sur les sceaux byzantins de l’epoque_, nation situee au-dela de la frontiere nordique de l’Empire :
passe en revue tous les titres byzantins possibles se terminant Pierre, souverain de Bulgaric, recut ce titre par traite special
par RATOR et, rejetant Sebasfokrafor, Protostrator, E:c0usi0- conclu par son pays avec Byzance en 927, et dans le Livre
krator et Monokrator, tire la conclusion que le titre sur le des Cérémonies il est encore officiellement nomme east‘/.a3;

29 30
Beu7.7a;i'a;. Et que M. Ostrogorsky ait raison ou non en du siecle, avaient constitue la clef de voiite de la politique
affirmant que le meme titre fut octroye en 913 par les Byzan- etrangere byzantine dans le nord, s’etaient deja averes des
tins au pere de Pierre, Simeon, il n’y a de toutes facons allies indignes de confiance. La sauvegarde de l’equilibre
aucun doute quant a l’existence d’un precedent recent et des forces dans les steppes et sur le cours inferieur du Danube
pertinent, permettant d’octroyer le titre de eaeikeé; a — equilibre duquel dependait la securite de l’Empire —
Vladimir de Russie. Cet acte n’aurait pas plus rompu l’equi- demandait une alliance proche et continue entre Byzance
libre de l’oikoumerie byzantine que ne l’avait fait le traite et la Russie. Et finalement, par cette flatteuse concession
avec la Bulgaric en 927 : car Pierre, malgre son titre de aux ambitions du souverain russe, Byzance pouvait esperer
,€aei7.ei'»;, n’etait Empereur que de Bulgaric et, comme l’in- etendre son hegemonie sur un territoire dont les dimensions
dique le Livre des Cérémonies, il demeurait le << fils spirituel » depassaient celles de l’Empire lui-meme.
de l’Empereur de Byzance qui, seul, possedait le titre uni- Une difficulte demeure, toutefois : si le titre de Qaetléb;
V€I‘SBl (I8 Qot':i.7.6i'i; xoti oifiitcxpoitrnp 'PoJp.otiiov*. Ell dB la ITICITIB fut accorde a Vladimir, pourquoi ce fait ne fut-il enregistre
facon, Vladimir recut au bapteme le nom de Basile, pour dans aucun document byzantin ou russe avant le xvie siecle ‘?
symboliser sa dependance a l’égard de son parrain, l’Empereur On peut, je crois, supposer sans crainte d’erreur que les suc-
Basile II. cesseurs de Vladimir ne porterent pas ce titre, qui constituait
ll y a une autre ressemblance frappante entre la situation sans doute une distinction personnelle octroyee a l’epoux
de Pierre de Bulgaric en 927 et celle de Vladimir de Russie d’une princesse Porphyrogenete. Et une légende russe plus
en 989. Pierre obtint le titre de fiat-17.5.11»; lors de son mariage tardive, populaire au xvie et au xviie siecles, et selon laquelle
avec la petite-fille de l’Empereur de Byzance Romain Leca- les joyaux de la couronne impériale furent envoyes par
pene; Vladimir, lorsqu’il devint chretien, epousa Anne, soeur l’Empereur Constantin, au milieu du X19 siecle, a Vladimir
de Basile II. Ces deux mariages differaient cependant sur un Monomaque en Russie, constitue peut-etre un echo distant
point essentiel : l’epouse de Pierre, Marie, n’etait que la fille et confus des relations veritables entre saint Vladimir et
du co-Empereur Christophe Lecapene, et n’etait donc qu’une Byzance. Il est plus facile d’expliquer le silence des sources
princesse byzantine de deuxieme rang; tandis qu’Anne medievales byzantines : de toutes facons, elles font a peine
appartenait au groupe sacre et exalte des princesses qui, mention de Vladimir; et ainsi que l’histoire de la diplomatie
filles du souverain regnant et nees au Palais Imperial, etaient byzantine le montre clairement, les concessions faites par les
connues sous le nom de Porphyrogenetes. Si un souverain autorites imperiales a la puissance ou a la vanite de princes
etranger avait l’audace de demander la main d’une prin- etrangers etaient passees sous silence, ou tres commodement
cesse Porphyrogenete, il etait generalement econduit, ainsi oubliees a Constantinople a la premiere occasion : c’est proba-
que le decouvrit rapidement Liutprand de Cremone, lors- blement la raison pour laquelle les sources byzantines des
qu’il vint a Byzance en qualite d’ambassadeur d’Otton I°1' x1° et Xlle siecles donnent a Vladimir le simple titre de olpxwv,
pour negocier un mariage imperial pour le fils de l’Empereur et Pierre de Bulgaric fut traite exactement de la meme facon
Germanique. << Ce serait une chose inouie —- lui fut-il dit —- par les chroniqueurs qui passerent sous silence ou oublierent
qu'une Princesse nee dans la pourpre s’unisse a un barbare. » le fait qu’il avait ete, aux yeux des autorites de la Rome
Et le premier souverain etranger a obtenir la main d’une Orientale, un authentique Ba-nlisfiq. Lorsque tout aura ete
princesse Porphyrogenete fut Vladimir de Russie. N’est-ce dit sur ce sujet, on trouvera peut-etre encore que la supposi-
pas vraisemblable que Vladimir, lorsqu’il recut cet honneur tior. que Vladimir obtint de Byzance le titre imperial demeure
sans precedent qui 1’elevait bien au-dessus de tous les simplement une hypothese plus ou moins plausible, impossible
autres princes satellites de l’oilcoumene byzantine, recut a prouver de facon absolue. Mais, ainsi que j’espere l’avoir
egalement un titre en rapport avec cette position, un titre demontre, cette hypothese s’accorde avec les temoignages
au moins equivalent a celui accorde a Pierre de Bulgaric que nous possedons; et elle cadre parfaitement avec le tableau
en 927 ‘? general de la politique etrangere de l’Empire au xe siecle.
A la fin du x° siecle, l’Empire avait toutes les raisons de Je voudrais souligner une fois de plus que le fait d’octroyer
faire au souverain russe ces concessions aux consequences a Vladimir le titre imperial ne le rendait d’aucune facon,
multiples : par son aide opportune, Vladimir venait de sauver aux yeux des Byzantins, 1’egal de l’Empereur Universel de
l’Empereur du terrible danger de la rebellion de Bardas Pho- la Rome Orientale. Si, a la fin du x° siecle, le souverain de
cas. La Bulgaric, sur l’alliance avec laquelle les hommes d’Etat Russie fut reconnu fiaailkefag, son pays accedait simplement,
byzantins avaient compte apres 927, etait [maintenant de ce fait, au rang le plus eleve qu’un pays etranger pouvait
annexee de force a l’Empire; les Petchenegues qui, au milieu occuper dans l’0ikoumene byzantine. Et le fait que les succes-
seurs de Vladimir ne porterent pas ce titre laisse penser que
"‘ De Cerimoniis, Bonn, I, 690 la Russie cessa de tenir ce rang eleve apres la mort de ce
31 32
 X
prince, en 1015. Le rang de Baetlség, le plus eleve hierarchi- signifient << allies », et sont aussi d’une antiquite venerable.
quement de l’oikoumene byzantine auquel un souverain etilan- Mais il me semble que du point de VL1€'byZ3I1tll1 ces quatre
ger pouvait aspirer, impliquait neanmoins, nous avons’ pu termes — ':;5§s~;oi, uniixooi, bwésuflot, qvppa“/_0t _0Ilt, dans ]_e
le voir, une certaine subordination au fie-:i7.si'i.; des Romains, contexte donne, exactement la meme signification. Les trois
Empereur Universel et Chef de toute la Chretiente Ortho- derniers etaient auparavant appliques aux <<f(Bd€I‘alZl» e_t'aux
doxe. Nous pouvons nous demander, en conclusion, quelles << socii populi Romani », Sl1_]B1ZS autonoines, ou vassaux- allies de
etaient les consequences pour Vladimir et ses successeurs, de l’Empire. Dans un document du ve siecle, les foederati sont
cette subordination theorique ‘P expressement identifies aux i'i1t5':'x0vEoi._; et Procopeh de Cesaree
On a parfois souleve la question de savoir si la Russie nous dit qu’au vie siecle les foederati vinrent a etre appeles
médievale etait << un Etat vassal de Byzance ». Exprime de cauuaxci. On se souviendra que les << foederati » et les << socii
cette facon, le probleme presente des embiiches; car il serait populi Romani » etaient a l’origine des peuples barbares qui,
vain de chercher une formule equilibree qui resumerait les en vertu d’un traite (foedus) conclu avec Rome, gardaient
relations politiques entre Kiev et Byzance d’une facon qui les frontieres de l’Empire en echange de subsides reguliers,
satisfasse les theoriciens constitutionnels modernes : et il de la protection impériale et du dr_oit de se gouverner eux-
serait egalement errone d’attribuer a ces relations les distinc- memes de facon autonome. I1 serait sans doute imprudent,
tions plus recentes entre Etat souverain et Etats vassaux. Les en raison du traditionalisme philologique des Byzantins.
Byzantins consideraient toutes les nations chretiennes ortho- d’attacher une trop grande importance a la réapparition
doxes, tous les peuples chretiens, comme assujettis d’office ulterieure de ces termes techniques. Mais la_ continuite des
a l’autorite charismatique et legislative de leur Empereur; institutions romano-byzantines etait telle qu’il ne semble pas
les princes chretiens de la Russie accepterent la juridiction du tout impossible que les Byzantins aient encore considere
supreme de l’Empereur jusqu’a la chute meme de Byzance, leurs satellites chretiens du point de vue de l’ad_ministi_'ation
mais se conduisaient, en pratique, comme des souverains romaine; s’il en est ainsi, la position_de la Russie medievale
independents. On peut affirmer cela en toute certitude, et ce dans Foikoumene byzantine, theoriquement assu]ettie a
tableau correspond parfaitement a ce que nous savons sur la l’Empereur, en pratique independante, peut encore etre
structure et le fonctionnement de Poikoumerie byzantine. comprise a la lumiere de la conception romaine du << f0ede-
Mais peut-on, du point de vue byzantin du moins, determiner ratio », qui exprime le statut des_ su]ets-allies de lEmpire.
les details de ce tableau general ‘? Pour poser la question de Nous n’avons aujourd’hui considere que quelques-uns des
facon plus precise, les Romains de l’Est ont-ils exprime les nombreux problemes qui se posent encore a ceux qui veulent
relations politiques de l’Empire avec ces satellites et avec la etudier les relations russo-byzantines au cours de la periode
Russie en particulier, dans des formes legales ou constitu- kievienne. Je me suis limite principaleinent a la premiere
tionnelles‘? Nos sources ne donnent a ces questions que des phase de ces relations —- au_ixe et au xe siecles —- pour tenter
reponses fragmentaires. On peut toutefois, il me semble, faire une esquisse des grandes lignes du processus qui aboutit a
certaines deductions des termes techniques dont les ecrivains l’incorporation de la Russie dans ce que J Ell. appele loilt0li-
byzantins font usage pour decrire les relations entre les sou- mene byzantine. Dans ce processus, la conversion de Vladimir
verains russes et l’Empire. marque a la fois une fin et un commencement. Interieurement,
Pour la période kievienne, on peut trouver quatre de elle fit des communautes eparses de Slaves orientaux une
ces termes techniques; ce sont: bwiéieei, izpéievet, iméemveei, seule nation, unie par une foi commune, et une_loyaute com-
6"Qp.[J.<Xx$l.. Les deux premiers sont appliques aux Russes dans mune envers leur Prince chretien et, par son intermediaire,
la lettre encyclique de Photius de 867. En recevant le chris- envers son Chef spirituel, l’Empereur de la_Rome orientale;
tianisme, ecrit Photius, les Russes sont deveiius bwfixoei et elle porta un coup decisif a l’ancienne. dual1te_ entre Vikings
irpéiwet de l’Empire. Le choix de ces termes, qui remontent et Slaves, hata l’assimilation des premiers et lia plus etroite-
tous deux a l’antiquite classique, est significatif : le terme ment la dynastic regnante au territoire. Les relations entre
bizr/met a ete applique aux sujets-allies d’Athenes; tandis que la Russie et son voisin passaient a un stade nouveau et plus
les wpéievei etaient les amis etrangers de l’Etat. Les deux important. Ses relations awec Byzance avaient, Jusque-la,
autres termes sont appliques aux Russes au XIIe siecle; suivi les fortunes diverses du commerceet de la guerre. Main-
pendant le regne de Manuel Comnene, le Prince de Galicie tenant tout cela etait change. Le choix de_ Vladimir maria
est designe par Kinnamos comme un tméemveeq des Ro- la Russie a la culture byzantine _et_ a la C1V1llS3l'.l()I1'gI‘6C0-
mains (1); et en meme temps le Prince de Kiev est decrit romaine de la Mediterranee. La religion et l art, la litterature
comme le ei3p.p.a~/_e; (2) de l’Empereur. Ces deux termes et le droit, firent palir, sans prendre leur place_,‘les soieries
(1) Histor III, 11, Bonn p. 115 et les produits industriels qui, depuis plus d un siecle, etalent
(2) Ibid., V, 12, Bonn p. 235 venus de Constantinople en Russie. La Russie etait devenue
33 34
a tout jamais membre de la societe chretienne orthodoxe.
En meme temps, le christianisme fit de la Russie une
nation europeenne. A l’aube de son histoire, l’attraction de
l’Asie avait ete forte. Les Khazars l’avaient rapprochee de
l’Orient pret a tout absorber. Et Vladimir lui-meme semble
avoir hesite un moment devant les signes d’appel de l’Islam.
Mais desormais la Russie etait separée de l’Asie par un gouffre,
que meme les relations millenaires que la Russie aurait plus
tard avec ses conquerants ou ses sujets asiatiques ne pour-
raient jamais combler. Ce gouffre etait forme par la religion
chretienne de l’Empire byzantin, qui permit aux Russes de
résister pendant plusieurs siecles a la pression des Mongols,
et de conserver jusqu’a ce jour leur caractere essentiellement
europeen. Byzance fut en verité la porte par laquelle la Russie To facilitate comprehension of Commentary on the ninth
pénetra en Europe.
chapter of Constantine Porphyrogenitus De admini-
strando zmperzo the original text edited by Gy
Moravcsik 1S printed here together with the English
translation by R J H J 61'11<1I1$

Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarche Russo

en Europe Occidentale, XXIX. Paris 1959

35
 V

CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS

DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO

9 Hep! tmv awe Precinct; epxouévmv Poi;

perm rosv [J.OV0 ukcov ev Koivoravrivoutteltei. ' , 0 ' 1 7

9. Of the coming of the Russians in monoxy a

0'11 rot cute 1'7]; E500 Poicriotq p.ov6Eu7\ot xarepxoueva av KOJV from Russia to Constantinople.
0"‘!-'¢V1'LVOU'llZO)\EZ!. stat nev cure rou Neiiovapeaq, ev to Z<pev3oo97\a['3or;,
6 ulec; IYYQP, roii lipxovrog Pcooiotg, sxafielero, eiol. st nod titre re 5 The ‘monoxyla’ which come down from outer Russia to Coiistaritinqlplg
xototpov 1-qv Miktvtaxav xal cute Telitourlav xotl. TC8pVI.Y(i)Y¢V ital. are from Novgorod, where Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince _of RllSS(l1&,Ch3- _
orrte 1:00 Bouc=vpot8e Toturot ouv éircotvtot Sta rou ttorociiou xoctepxovrou his seat, and others from the city of Smolensk and from '1‘ehu%a_an Z121
Aoivatrcpscog, YUJ. entouvayovrou €L§ re xoccrpov re Ktoot oz, -.-2. 81'IOVO[J.¢ nigov and from Vyshegrad. All these. come down the river n'iIe§><->_1', £1 V
Ceiisvov Eaptflarocg Oi 8* Zxkot OL, oi itoocticorat autoiv, oi. Kpifintatr; are collected together at the city of Kiev, also called Sambatas. th eir t a f
vol 7.eyo;i'-vot, xoil oi A=vCavi']v0r. xou. at lioircoil Z1010: iqviat eig rot 691] 10 tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and, the Lenzanenes and _ etres of
oturoiv XOTCTOUOL rot uovoiuka av no rou xsiumvog xotipoi, xotl. xottotpri the Slavonic regions, out the ‘monoxyla. on their moimtainl in irrilet1(1)
winter, and when they have prepared thetn, as $P1'1n8 9'PP1'°3'°de§’ anth e
oeuvre; oturot, rou xotipou tlVOLYO[J.8VOU, rivtxot Siotliufifi 6 notyeteq, cf;
ice melts, they bring them on to the neighbouring lakes. An sirlige ese
rat; 'l'Cl\'7]0'l.OV oiicag l\I[J.VO(.§ EI.O'0\'.YOU0'LV aura Kai. easier] exeivott sic all
lakes debouch into the river Dmeper, they enter thence on to t s same
louctv sit; rov rcorotiiov rev Aotvotrcptv, time row exeioe ouroi eig rev an .- ""1 " T

. - -' ' - Atoerlav ootii.

6 Milivto-nav: (E);.ii7u.vl0'xa.v com. Ra-eki Te)u:0v1’C<XV- '1-'5 I
9 1 ante Pmofozg add 1'71; edd 4 Nep.oyap8ag Neo-{otp8ot (sine acc)
com Bayer Neuoyap8on (sic) com Raeki Ni-:Boyo:p8o:g com Bury Obolensky
SM ianoiiovié e ~~~'»<t><<-.
Tlapviymifiav coni. Raeki
We ."..?§3i;"*(i’*f5 .Y.;i‘3.‘Z;
3 E“; (¢W""' B9'nd“rl,“8)' _ P e'dd 12 “Moi
ZK).dBlVtOL edd. E‘/Jkfilfltvldt P ll ll/2 xai-ozpT’l°°“:T°‘; dd '
Nsuo~(otp8ac; Kukules
oorr. Moravcsik: aetfiiv P edd. 13 €'K='l'v¢ 6dd- 14 Pb“ om‘ ° '
 58_ 59

a6 \
‘toy 'rco"roip. 6 v eioep‘_0V.1lL,
9 I _ " ,
xoii oinepxovrai '
sic; '
rov Kiofioi, I
i-coil oupouciv 15
river, and come down to Kiev, and draw the ships along to be finished and
‘£4 ‘"1" $E°‘P'"°"-V» Kai Oiireunokofioiv ecrire‘: sic; 1'01‘); ‘P554, Oi 3g ‘P53; sell them to the Russians. The Russians buy these bottoms only,C furnishing
1 7
O"J>(d(p'.8lU. xoii new roifiroi oiyopoilovreg, -rd irodioridi oifiréiv p.ov6§u)\ai them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old monoxy a
xoirodiuovrsg, ii oi6'i'¢'i'iv lioikkouoiv 'rré)0ioig xerj, Q-}¢_aPy_of)g 8;; @518‘ ma which they dismantle; and so they fit them out. And in the month of June
7\oi1r0i€~|
‘ Xpsioiq
' =|= 1: =0: eE,o1'r:)\i§ouaiv
9 ' oiuroi.
9 I Kori. ’Iouviou [.LY]Va)§ 81,5; 1-05 they move off down the river Dnieper and come to Vitichev, which is a
n°T°"l"°" A°‘\'°l-TCPEQQ °’m°K'-"°5V"F5€, KwrE'tp*/ovreii eiq to Birsrzéfi 20 t ri'butar y cit 3* of the Russians, and there they gather (luring two or three
61! , ' ' "" Q ~ N \
:9 86:“ “°‘m"""'_":"“b¢" "°‘°TP°Y1'¢°\’ P014, xeii. O‘UVOC'9pOLCO[J.€vOl. excise
, , 1], days; and when all the ‘monoxyla’ are collected together, then they set
ii XP'- 8°‘) Kai TP'-¢°" “'1?-5953”, ‘;]VlK6( div o'ii'coiv'r.'oi o’i'rcoc:uvoiX}}¢'.3m_ 1,-Q‘; !1_Qv6- out and come down the said Dnieper river. And first they come to the first
7:10;,
E X $212Kd‘;€0)(I.\:OUO'LV,‘XO€l-
I ’ H xarspxoyroii
' Sic:\ rouH eipnuevou
D ; Acivoirrpemg
I barrage, called Essoupi, . which
. means in Russian . and Slavonic ‘Do not d_
'l~'- u. -
,1 Wpwtov pzsv Epxovrou. sig rov rrpm-;-Qv <ppciYp.dv, rov é'rcovo- slee P l’; the barrage itself is as narrow as the width of the Polo-groun ,
p.dCO[J.€VOV Eo'o'ou'mq, 6 €pp.‘I]V€6€Tdl. 'Peao'i.o"rl xoil. Exlocfi-qviorl 'p.~}; i<,oiy,5i- 25 in the middle of it iaire rooted high rocks, which stand out like islands.thAgainst
ther
can l '- 5 Se‘: rourou ' ' cppoiyiiog roooirrov" , these then, comes the water and wells up and dashes down over e 0
Eariv orevég, Saov ro 1:10:10; woo,_
si'd e, wi'th a might
O y and terrific din . Therefore the Russians do not venture
TCUK0=v'»6'r'qpiou' iiéoov 3% 0:61-06 rrérpoii eicl §iCip.oi'i'oii | i‘>i[;~q7r¢l vnqimv
8'Of-7]V oiycopaivépisvai.
to pass between them, but put in to the bank hard by, disembarking the
’ r[p0Q’(XU"L'd§
\ 1 \ oiiv épxousvov,
, 1'6 fidcop xeil I wk,-“;_y_u-
m 9 n on to dr Y land leavinv the rest of the goods on board the monoxyla ;
pouv xoixi-:i.~9ev oircoxpviuviloiievov -rrpog 1'6 xoires [J-§p0C '7lX°" P-éY°W Mil they then strip and, feeling with their feet. to avoid striking on a rock,
. . . . =|==ih==r.
cpdflov oiirorelei. Koil Sid 10510 uéoov oifrrrbv oi’: 'ro7ip.63o'i.v oi. ‘P63; Sig» 39 This they do some at the prow, some amidships, while others again, in t e
luv,‘ Mon rckqcrov
'98- ' oxoikmoavreq
I xoii. rob; iiév oiv1‘}pe.i'rrouc;
9 I ex[3oi7~.6v'rec;
y stern, punt with poles; and with all this careful procedure they pass this
5:3 ‘I-"Viv Evipoiv, "rot 8% Mind irpoiyiioiroi éciooivreg sig TO‘,-_ povéguxa sta, first barrage edgmg ' '
round under the river-bank. When they h ave passe d
0 urwq Yiyuvoi roar; " Iroclv oiureiv * - i[np,¢q,ou,,.;Eg
~ =i= =|= =|=, rm M] TM ’ M9‘? , this barrage,’ they re-embark the others from the dry land and sail away,
' ' Oul
irpooxpouaeioiv. Touro Se‘. rroiofioiv oi iiév TC)i¢i)pOC, oi 3% iiécov oi 8;-E and come down to the second barrage, called in Russian vorsi,' and in
xoil. sig rvgv
and“? ‘ irpupivoiv
' iisroi‘ xowoipioiv
I XO\:L'O§EU6[J.EVOL, ' xoii p.i-:'roi, 't'0LGU'C'1]Q
' , 35 S1avomc ' Ostrovounip rach , which means ‘the Island of the Barrage’. This
11¢; oixpifleioig Stépxovroii rov roiourov 'rrp63'rov qipoiyiiov Sid rfig one is like the first, awkward and not to be passed through. Once again they
“ymvioié xoil 'L"7]§ oxfivgr; 1'05 rroroiiiofi. 'Hvixoz 8% 8ié7i~‘}eiai I rev 1,'OLQ61'Q\) disembark the men and convey the ‘monoxyla’ past, as on the first occasion.
Similarly they pass the third barrage also, called Gelandri, which means m
ippaniév’ n°'0""' °,"“7b ‘P71’-3 £11955: o'ivoi7ioip.[3oiv6;.ievoi. 1'01‘); Aoirrobg 611:0- Slavonic ‘Noise of the Barrage’, and then the fourth barrage, the big one,
Xé '
called in Russian Aeifor, and in Slavonic Neasit, because the pelicans nest
:cPwoc::riil
vefim-M ‘Tlgv xi dogépxoiiag Eu; TM gimp“
ailiwfiopoli, 3()\(XB':]:)LO:E‘l. cppwmév’ Tb“ é""7"5Y'5P-~‘1\'°\'
3% Ooyrprjfiouviirpoix, Snap Epp:q- 40 in the stones of the barrage. At this ' barrage all put into
' land prow fore most ,
Tl 1'?" qbpayuou . EGTLV icoiiceivoq oiioioc; 'r6_3 7tp(I)1'(p,
xoikeiroe; ‘re icoil 3uo3ieZo3og. Karl 1'co'i)iiv éxfialovrsq rov Miov Sioifiifiéfiouqi
.-rd p.ov6E,u7\oi, xoi9ci><; xoil irp6'repov_ *Op.oioJr.; 3:3: 8LépXOV"L'U.L xoil rov rpi-rev
cppoiyiiov, rov M-zyépievov Fekavdpi, 6 éppsqvsfierai Zx7\oi[5Y]vi<;¢1 Gfixog
icoiiidicoii Me Ba i-:oip.5'ic9ar. Be 27 gSiC'qii.oi?.'oii. P Me Ba Cobet: fiilixoiiai Du
QQGYQOQ’, J5)» ofirmg rev réraprov (ppwngév, ¢5\, péyav Tgv §m;\s.Y6p£_ 45 Ca-nge Be 29 uéyav edd.: |LéYd. P 33 lac. ind. Siépxowai val 81.oi{5o'iCouoiv
(P \ \ , ' \ I 2
vov mciiori nev Aeupop, Zx7\oi[:'i1]vio'1.'i 32‘. N£t!.O"l]1.', Siori cpmkeifiouqiv ezrciclisse coniciens Moravcsik copouaiv coni. Kyriakides oiipouoiv aura’: coni.
1:11;:-diexavoi zit; rd: )ii3o'ipi.oi 1:05 cppoiyiiofi. ’Ev 'roi'rrqi oi'$v ire‘: CppaYp,5§ Dujéev 34 T0610 Se‘: rroioficw; roifi-roi, o8o1roioi'3oiv com’. Jenkins ll r'.).d>9o_i coni.
Jenkins irliiipa P; rrlfiipav Ba Be irpifipav Meursius 35 xowofieuopzvoi; xo\rro-
U . mvoucriv TCtZV"t'i‘l | sic;
’ fqv
‘ Tqv
“' opfiorrhopoi, }(0(l. efiépxovroii
9 oi.Q copi-
¢ i lioloéiievoi veZ xo vreuo iievoi. com‘ . Meursius 36 irpfirrov Vedd.: oi’ P H 400i51fiopoi;
Oi57ip.[3opoi ecu Oiiluopol coni. Thunmann Oiiluqiépq coni. Zeuss Zidioiliwic-rl
P 'OcrrpoBouvl1':poi)( edd. ' Oorpolivoul‘ irpoix com.' Zeuss -||4l6oiregP||42
[J-
V r6 v I 1' 6 M eursius
. Ba Be Ki6[3ei edd. |' 16 EE,oip-rqeiv
I P edd. 18 ante xaleirifiq P |[‘8uo8iéEo3oq P1 V1 edd.: 8io8iéEo8o¢; P 44 rev Jieybiievov <'P¢.ooics-cl
we‘T24/5
kit add.Tbtinogidacfl
i _ 611916.15). 17M.'
- l.[M:OI‘8-VCS1k
-' xoil ourmg
. addendum M,-_ Bek. phi) I":-:).oiv8 [p}£, Ex)\ei[3ivior_l <se. . .), 6 épiiriveiie-roii coni. Kunik aliqwid ezcidiase
cusp. Thomsen H I‘e7iav8p1; 1"e:7\ow8l com‘. Kunik Gcdeonov 44/5 Bala-
é , ___ _ l‘_ i"j"°Y °°°'_'-5:‘ <1-"El" - ‘>1 Zkloifitviorl (3%) Neaaourrfi, 8 fiiviorl (cfioverl 6 éori) fixoq <ppoi'yp.oi3 coni. Lehrberg ll 45 réraprov V edd.:
PP-7]V££)€-ill com. Kuiuk aliqmd excidisse .su.sp.Thoriiscn | 25 ’Eocoun'fi Necaou-rr£
we‘.1 an d urius
' Neoooum]~ com.- Bayer
- Thunmann A afarik. I\11I1l.k
. . ‘Gedeonov 8' P uéyav edd.: |.ié'~(or. P 46 'Aei<p6p (etiam V1 F Cobet): ’Aeiq><ip V edd.
Th omscn cvsky]' Zxlafliviorq"' P 1'|| 25/6 xoipioiceii
~ (etiam
. Cobet): Nears-fir: Nevoio'~F;i' coni. Thornsen 48 post &rroivi'ai add. 16: iiovofiukoi rd. V
bpfionpeipo. Meursius 48/9 opiousvoi (sine ace.) P
 60
61

°'l-‘é"°'- @3954 ’PU7\0'1‘r1'£iv 1'i]v Biyloiv iisr’ oiiivréiv, xoni o’c1re"pXovi'oii, xiii and those who are deputed to keep the watch with them get out, ‘and olf
rdc; liiyhoic; 0510'. 6io‘i robg Iloirlivoiiciroiz; oiypiircvceg cpulkoirrouoiv. Qi 6% .=-,0 they go, these men, and keep vigilant watch for the Pechenegs. The re--
7/iirroi re’: I irpoiygaaroc, oirrcp %'Xouoiv sic; 1'0’: p.ov6Eu7ioi, oivodmiiifiavéiievoi mainder, taking up the goods which they have on hoard the ‘inonoxyla’,
foi iI1uXo'ipioi p.e'i'o‘i 163v dhiosmv 6i.di 105 Enpofi oiiircii 6ioi{5iI3¢’i2:Q»_,,;-_ conduct the slaves in their chains past by land, six miles, until they are
iiillioi EE, é:'e>.; div 6ié)\.9ieci 1'9.-v cppoiyiiciv. Elitl’ ofiroaq oi. p.%v oiipovri-:4, through the barrage. Then, partly dragging their ‘moiioxyla’, partly por-
°l ‘il -1 ‘/-‘ll Elé T0136 ciiiioug Boioi'o’iCov'i'ec; rd oi1ii"ri'i'iv p.ov6Eu7\oi eir; 1'6 105 taging them on their shoulders, they coiivey them to the far side of the
<ppoi'(p.oU éxaidev iiépoz; 6ioiQiBo'i§ouoiv' xoci o1'$1:eJ:; Eiirrrovrec; oifrrdi sic; 55 barrage; and then, putting them on the river and loading up their baggage,
rev 1rp'coip.6v xoii. re’: irerltuévroi oi6r<T>v éy_I3)i~qqx6;ievoi, 8i0'épx0V1.'t1t, they embark themselves, and again sail off in them. When they come to the
xcii ’oiu3ig evanorrhéouoiv. ’A1cepX6p.eIvoi 6% sig rov rcéiivrrov qapoi-niév, fifth barrage, called in Russian Varouforos, and in Slavonic Voulniprach,
1.'ov e1covop.oi§6p.avov 'Pcooio"ri. p.%v Boipoucpcipog, Exhafinviarl 6% Bou7w11- because it forms a large lake, they again convey their ‘monoxyla’ through
at the edges of the river, as at the first and second barrages, and arrive at
itpoix, 6t6'ri iieyoikqv liiuvwiv oinorehsi, noihiv sic; rciig 1'05 1ro1:oip.o5 yeaviou;
the sixth barrage, called in Russian Leanti, and in Slavonic Veroutzi, that
‘to’: ou31.'d'iv iiovoiuhoi 6iocBiBo'io'oiv're:g, }(¢19‘(i)Q mil sig 'i'6v 'r:p63'i'ov (ppo:.yIJ,<‘)v 50
is ‘the Boiling of the Water’, and this too they pass similarly. And thence they
xoii 6:-zdrspov, xoi'roi)\oip.Bcivouo'i. 'i'6v %'x'i'ov (PpOt.Yp.6V, leyéiievov ii%v
sail away to the seventh barrage, called in Russian Stroukoun, and in Sla-
'PoJo'v.o"rl. As-zoivri, Zxloidriviarl 6% Bepoiirlvi, 6 %o"riv ’Bpo'ie'iiei vepoij’, vonic Naprezi, which means ‘Little Barrage’. This they pass at the so-called
xoil 8LtX.BdlVOUO'L xoil aidrov éiioicog. Karl o’i1'c6 roiirou oi1'co1r7\éouoi xoii ford of Vmr, where the Chersonites cross over from Russia and the Pe-
"P54 rov %'$6oii.ov <ppCZ'fl.L6V, 16v %rci7i.=.:y6p.evov 'Peio'io"rl. ii%v Erpoifixouv, chenegs to Cherson; which ford is as wide as the Hippodrome, and, _measu.red
EK)\C(.B‘I]VLO'Tl. 6% Novrcp:-:§~i], 6 éppsqvefiereii 'p.r.xp6g ,cppccyp.6<;’. Karl 6ioi[3cxi- 65 upstream from the bottom as far as the rocks break surface, a bow-shot in
vouoiv sic; 1:6 Asyoiievov irépoipioi 105 Kpocpiou, %v 6ioi1rep¢'1'>o'iv 021:6 length. It is at this point, therefore, that the Pechenegs come down and
'Poioioi¢; oi. Xepoeiviroii I xoil_oi l'loi'rCivoix'E'reii %'n:i. Xepo'o'3voi, Exov 16 attack the Russians. After traversing this place, they reach the island called
etre irépoziioi 1:6 p.%_v 1r:7\o'iroc;, 600v 105 i'n:rco’6pop.iou, 16 6% fiche; o’irc6 xoiroa St. Gregory, on which island they perform their sacrifices because a gigantic
%'cog 6100 irpoxifircrouciv i'Scpoi)\oi, 600v xoil qailoifistv ooiyirroiv 1'05 'roEe6ov- oak-tree stands there; and they sacrifice live cocks. Arrows, too, they peg in
reg %'v8e:v éxeifos. "O9:-:v xoii eig 16v roiofirov 'r6"r:ov KO\'.‘i.'épX_OV't'dL oi 70
round about, and others bread and meat, or something of whatever each
may have, as is their custom. They also throw lots regarding the cocks,
Hoi'rCivoixi"rozi, xoil TCO)\EIJ.O60'L 1'01’); 'P<'J3¢;, M515; 35 1-3, 3,E;)\3,;';_'v it-5,,
whether to slaughter them, or to eat them as well, or to leave them alive.
roiofirov rdrrov 'i'~l;v vfioov, 1'i]v é7IL)\8YOpl.éV7]V I 6 "A-fro; 1"p~,]Y6P;o;
From this island onwards the Russians do not fear the Pecheneg until they
xarakaiiiloivouoiv, %v Y; vfiaqi xoii. 1:o‘cg 3uoioi¢; oifirdiv érrireliofioiv 6rd 1'6 reach the river Selinasf So then they start off thence and sail for four days,
éxeioe 'io'i'oio~E}oii 'rroip.p.i-zyéllri 695v, xoil 3i'iouo'r. irereivoin; C<'l'>v'i'cc_<:,. l'l'r]- until they reach the lake which forms the mouth of the river, on which is the
yvuouoi 6% xoil. ooiyirroig yupéiiev, &70ioi 6% xoil. ilamiiioi mil xpéovroi, xoii 75 island of St. Aitherios. Arrived at this island, they rest themselves there for
EE (lav %'xei %'xoio"roq, ciic; to %'3og or.6'r&'iv %rrixpoi'rei'. 'Pi'rr'rouoi 6% xori. two or three days. And they re-equip their ‘monoxyla’ with such tackle as is
oxoipcpioi rrepl 'rc'I'>v 'rcs'reiv€6v, airs ocpoifiou. oiiiroiig, I sire mil cpoiyeiiv, sire needed, sails and masts and rudders, which they bring with them. Since this
xoii lciivroir; écioeiv oifiroifig. ’Arr6 6% 105 vnoiou roi5'i'ou I-ld.’l'.'cLVG.KfT'I]V oi
’P¢-5G 05 <p0Boiiv'roii, %'o>g div q>19-oiocooiv sig i'6v rcorocpibv 'i'6v Zsliivoiv.
EZS’ ofirmg oirroxivofivrsg %E, oiiiroii Iiéxpt reoooipoiv ~F]p.epo'3v oinonhéouoiv, 80
V 51 oivoiloifloiievoi V edd. 57-rréiirrrov edd.: e’ P 58 Zx).eiBivio'rl. P 58/9
éwq 05 ><M'o0\o'i[3cooiv eir; riiv ).ip.v'qv 1:05 nroraiiofi ordiiiov oiiooiv, %v y’; Boukvnnpdx; Bolvout fipfiix coni. Zeuss [I 59 Muv-qv: 6lw;v coni. Leluberg Zeuss
écrriv xoil '5] vfioog “:05 ’Ayiou Aid:-zpiou. Koircflieifiévreg 05v oi’5i'oi ‘r.'\i]V Thomsen Hrusevskyj 61 ante 6ei'n:epov add. elq 16v V edd. 62 Aeoivri:
'roioii5-mv vijoov, rcpoooivoiiroiiioucriv %oiu'roi5<; éxeioe %'eig 660 xoii rpié-"iv Ameivri ecu Ame'iv6i coni. Zeuss Zidieifiiviorl P 64 é'{36op.ov edd.: C’ P
Zrpoiixouv (etiam Cobet): Zrpoiifiouv V edd. 65 Zxloifiiviorl P Naorpelfi]
'i1p.epc'6v. Kori. ri:o'0\i.v rd: oii’>'rc'6v p.ov6Zu7ioz, sic; dceic; div linmvroit xpeioig, coni. Falk 65/6 6ieiBoi£vov-rec; Me Be Sioifioilvovmi Meursius Ba 66 Kpioiplou
rtspirroiofivroii, 'ro'i rs clipiisvoi xoil 'ro’i xoiroipriei xoil rd oii’i;(_évi.or, o'i'rrc-:9 35 coni. Vasmer Bpoipiou coni. Falk 67 Xepomvlreii P Harfiivoociroii P 69 upo-
xifiirrouoiv Gcpoiloi com’. Jenkins: iroipoixifiirrouoiv ol q>Dioi P edd. q>l7.oi: 6q>1‘}ci).p.o£
i_
Ba cpiloiveiv V edd. 71 Ilorrlivoixiroii P 'r:o).ep.oi">oi V edd.: 1i'o7\sp.cTioi P 77
P. 130.73%‘?-;Iv7Qg0v — PpY]Y6PL()§2 cf. Not. episc. (s. XIV.), ed. G. Parthey etre xoil cpoiyeiv airs xoil. ocpoiioii ou'i1:oi§c; V Me Ba 78 oiiiroiic; (add. etiam Bandurius):
om. Vedd. 79 oi’: om. Me 82 ’E9oiip£ou P 84 oii3i'63v: éoiuriév V edd. Mrcoivtoii
scr. Moravcsik llirovrai P; lelrrmvrai Be II
 ' 63
D I D I an I an Q |
ETELCPEQOVTCXL. Err0 0! (‘P rl Q -roiiiov rou TOLOUTOU 1T01.'Ot‘.IJ.OU écriv ~q roioiuriq
W O4 _ _ , ,
lake is the mouth of this river, as has been said, and carries on down to the
hi ~r , xoiilcir ei "roii, xoii x oirei e’: i " -i’roOio'io' ' , ‘ , , _ _
saaaqcaav _/E€,_MP.”v..6o .|. ,2 IOU ing , ..v6,qg.. xai Tfpbg WV sea, and the island of St. Aitherios hes on the sea, they come thence to the
, ', ' 7’ Y’ Q To? Y, P, U’ at Tc: amiss anspxovmi Dniester river, and having got safely there they rest again. But when the
“PDQ Ti” AOWMTPW mmllov’ mi 8’a6"’3€Wa‘:’I8“E""E m”)“" °""°“‘°"’°"‘ weather is propitious, they put to sea and come to the river called Aspros,
M" ’HV""°‘ 8% Yé"’I"'°"’ "°“P"‘3 """T‘l8E‘°§' °""°""°"\°5"°“"€§ EPX°"T°"' 90 and after resting there too in like manner, they again set out and come to the
Si‘; "-'5” "°"°‘lJ-5“ T5” ém7\E'-Y€5E*3"°" "A°T‘P°"= ml 5&1-°l°>§ x°’°<5l-'65 °’“'°" Selinas, to the so-called branch of the Danube river. And until they are past
"°°°°'°"l1£‘*°H '"°i7~'~\' 0'lT¢0><W°5‘I‘TEG 5PX0\"-'0“ Elf; T5“ Z@7\W°‘Wi 53¢; ‘I-'5 T05 the river Salinas, the Pechenegs keep pace with them. And if it happens that
Aavoufiiou -rroroiiiofi Aeyénevov rcapooi1oi_6icv. Kori Em; 06 6ié7i~9e>ci 1-ov the sea casts a ‘monoxylon’ on shore, they all put in to land, in order to
Zehiveiv I rcoroiiiov, naparpéxouaiv oifiroig oi lloirlivoixiroii. Kori éoiv present a united opposition to the Pechenegs. But after the Selinas they
no)J\o'ixig ~53 6oi7\oio'aor. I.LOV6E_,U)\0V sit; 'r'}Iv yfiv ci1roppiiIrn, O'X.d)\(i)VOUO'LV 95 fear nobody, but, entering the territory of Bulgaria, they come to the mouth
of the Danube. From the Danube they proceed to the Konopas, and from
iikoc, ivoi roig llarlivoixiroiizg o’iv*ri1coipoiI'roi;(~‘}63criv 6p.oi'3. ’A1r6 6% 16v
2,_;;\,,,,;,,, 0,; gogogvfmi Two,’ (ing Thv mg B001 O, {mg -v = 8 i L, the Konopas to Constantia, and from Constaintia to the river of Varna, and
9 - 6 ~ A I I v _ . IA \ T P ~ Y7’ av IUaapsvo _ from Varna they come to the river Ditzina, all of which are
. Bulgarian terri-
if ggvgfiztv :;ouEg3UK6o:::’:;: EfifiV;:’b 1_ogoKi§vTo2 é,aV(;fiLou lam tory. From the Ditzina they reach the district of Mesembria, and there at last
* in ez raw E; bv B , ’ I , 6B, ,, mu fig, g)V6mvT"’:’v100 their voyage, fraught with such travail and terror, such difiiculty and danger,
, Q, all , apwfq’ X2’ in °’PW“;,ePx‘:""-0“ 5"; T v ”°”°‘i‘°" is at an end. The severe manner of life of these same Russians in winter-time
‘"1" Al'FC'-Vfllv, <‘i1=8p Tiilvw 8!-oi Yr) ‘mg Boulivoipioig. A116 6% 'r"fI::, At1.':iVOL§ is as follows. When the month of November begins, their chiefs together with
Si‘; "'°‘ ‘W15 M5°*1ll@Pl°‘€ llé-P71 *°""°‘7*°‘l’-l3°i"°'~‘°"'» ‘ml °5"~"-°€ P-éXP'- "°‘5'"°" all the Russians at once leave Kiev and go ofl' on the ‘poliudia’, which means
5 "°7~°¢33W°<; °l\5‘F<33V Kill 1=@Pl<P°l5°€, 3U63léE°3‘5G T8 W-Oil 7(,¢7\E1T5G °'"=0' ‘rounds’, that is, to the Slavonic regions of the Vervians and Drugovichians
rrepoiiveroii ickofig. ‘H 6% XEZ|.IJ.épLO§ 'rd'iv ai’rr¢Tiv ‘P63; xoii 014.7\7]pdt 6ioi-ymyfi and Krivichians and Severians and the rest of the Slavs who are tributaries
i=':o'riv oii'$"r'r]. 'Hvixoc 6 Noéiifipioi; p:iIv €iO'E’3)\8"n, ei'i6%coq oi oii’rr63v %E,%pXov-105 of the Russians. There they are maintained throughout the winter, but then
rou. dpxovreg I p.e:'rdi iroivrwv 'r¢.Tiv ‘P654 oiirb 'i'6v Kioifiov, xoii dnépxovrai once more, starting from the month of April, when the ice of the Dnieper
sic; rd: 1ro7u56ioi, 6 Aéyarai yiipoi, fiyouv cl; rdir; Ex7\oiI5~qvioig 'r&'>v re: BepI3io'i- river melts, they come back to Kiev. They then pick up their ‘monoxyla’,
vcov xoil 153v Apouyouliirciiv xoii KpiI3i'rCc'I3v icoii rdiv E:-zfispicov i-coil 7\oi1r53v
as has been said above, and fit them out, and come down to Romania.
The Uzes can attack the'Pechenegs.
ZiO.o'iI3eiv, oirivég eloiv iroix'rr<'Bi'oii 'i'63v ‘Piiig. Ar.’ 6)\ou 6% 1'05 Xsiucfivog
Exeioe 6iar.'rp.=:cp6p.evoi, 'n:o'i7\iv o’i'r:6 p.'1]v6g ’A'rrpi7\iou, 6ioi7iuop.évou 105110
iroiyoug 106 Aoivoirrpewg 'rroroip.o5, KOl'CépXOVTQLt irpbq 16v KioiI3ov. Kai
zit)’ oi'i1.'o)g o’i1r:o7ioip.(5oivov'r:oii 'i'di oi6'i'(':'iv p.ov6Eu7\oi, xoi3'c’oc; T€Q0€ip‘II't'd.L, xcii
%Eoir7\iCov'roii, icoil irpbg ‘Peigiocvioiv XdTépx0V'1'd.L.
"Uri. oi Oiiloi 66voivroii roic; Tloirlivoixiroiiq 'n:o7\sp.e'rIv.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De Administrando Imperio. Revised edition.

Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967.

88 ’E~?ozipi'.ou P 89 Aoivoiorpiv com". Laskin: Aeiveii-cpiv P edd. 90 xaiipbq Meursius 6 (con-1'. atria-m Scliliizer Nevolin): <2 edd. II 107 Zxlaliivlag P
Meurslus 1%“ Bei 1-'<1P‘5C P 94 HdTcLVdXiTdL P 95 p.ov6Eu7\oi edd. 107/8 -re Bspfiidivmv; '1'=:[5epI3ia'ive.w con-i. Safarik 1:: Aepfiioivmv com’. Marquart
99 _Ktovorcoi Kfevoroivrloiv edd. 100 lac. ind. xoil oiirb Kmvoroivrloig Sachmatov 108 Zsfiepicov V coiai. Sachrnatov Zeuspimv P: Zeflépmv coni.
¢x9'd'~"~= <=<>""-We Jenkins ll 101 vi: edd- ll Airfiwaq P || 105/6 éipxovreq Raéki Zsfilpmv comi. Marqiiart Zzpfiimv edd. || 112 o'iTt0)\<1I.LI5dr.vov1'ai edd.:
§§5PX°\"~'°l¢ V 6dd- 106 p088 Ki'.oi_Bov add. 1ro'roip.6v V Me 107 ii:o).i'i6pioi 61'IL)~dI.LB€§.VO)V'T-'1'. P, 114 O1’lC0l P.
 COMMENTARY 1-;
‘ Dneprforsarnas Namn i Kcjsar Konstantin VII Porfyrogcnnctos’ Dc Administrando Imperio ’,
Lunds Univcrsitcts Arsskrift, N. F. Avd. 1, Bd. 46, Nr. 4 (Lund, 1951) (Falk). S. Gcdconov,
Varyagi i Rus’, II (St Petersburg, i876) (Gedconov). B. D. Grekov, Kicvskaya Rus’ (4th ed.
Moscow-Leningrad, 1944) (Grckov). Istoriya Kul’tu{y Drevney Rusi: Domongol’sky period, ed.
N. N. Voronin, M. K. Kargcr, I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1948); II (ibid., 1951) (Kul’tura Drevnqy
Rusi). A. Karlgrcn, ‘Dneprfosscrnes Nordisk-Slaviskc Navnc’, Festskrzft udgivct of Kcbcnhavns
Univcrsitct Ii Anlcdning af Universitetets Aarsfcst novcmber 1947 (Copenhagen, 194.7) (Karlgrcn).
T. D. Kendrick, A History qf the Vikings (London, 1930) (Kendrick). B. Kleibcr, ‘Zu den
slavischcn Namen der Dnjcprschnellen’, Zcitschrift fur slavischc Philologic 28 (1959), 75-98
(Kleibcr). Kniga Bol’shornu Chcrtezjiu, ed. K. N. Serbina (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950) (The Book
qf the Great Map). G. E. Kochin, Matcrialy dlya terminologichcskogo slovarjya drcvngi Rossii (Mos-
cow-Leningrad, I937), (Kochin). K. V. Kudryashov, Russky istorichesky atlas (Moscow-
Lcningrad, I928) (Kudryashov). E. Kunik, Die Bcrufung der schwedischcn Rodsen durch die Finnen
und Slawcn, II (St Petersburg, 1845) (Kunik). ‘Izvcstiya vizantiiskikh pisatcley 0 Severnom
Prichernom0r’c’, Izvcstiya Gosudarstvennoy Akadernii Istorii Material’no_y Kul’tury 91 (1934), contain-
ing N. V. Malitsky’s revision of V. V. Latyshev’s tr. of c. 9 (Latyshev-Malitsky). A. C. Lehr-
bcrg, Untersuchungcn zur Erlauterung der dlteren Gcschichte Russlands (St Petersburg, 1816) (Lchrberg) .
M. V. Levchcnko, Ochcrki po istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnosheny (Moscow, 1956) (Lcvchenko,
Russko-vizantiiskic otnoshcmjra). V. Lyaskoronsky, Istoriya Perqyaslavl’sko_y zemli (Kiev, 1897)
(Lyaskoronsky). V. _]. Mansikka, Die Religion der Ostslaven I (Helsinki, I922) , FF Communications
CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS 4.3 (Mansikka). V. Miller, ‘Nazvaniya Dncprovskikh porogov u Konstantina Bagryanor0d-
nogo’, Drcvnosti. Trudy Moskovskogo Arkhcologichcslrogo Obshchestva V, I (1885), Supplement, 19-
31 (Miller). A. N. Nasonov, ‘Russkaya Zcmlya’ i obrazovanic tcrritorii drcvncrusskogo gosudarstva

Dc Administrando Imperio (Moscow, 1951) (Nasonov). L. Niederlc, Slovanské Staroiitnosti I, 4; III, 2 (Prague, 1924, 192 5)
(Niederle, Slovanské Starofitrwsti). L. Nicderle, Manuel dc l’Antiquité Slave I, II (Paris, I923, 1926)
(Nicclcrlc, Manuel). Pamyatniki russkogo prava I, ed. A. A. Zimin (Moscow, 1952) (Pamyatniki).
H. Paszkicwicz, The Origin of Russia (London, 1954) (Paszkiewicz). Povest’ Vrcmennykh Let, ed.
COMMENTARY V. P. Adrianova-Perctts, I, II (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950) (Povest’); Eng. tr., S. H. Cross, O. P.
Shcrbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle, (Cambridge, Mass., 1953) (Cross). V. I.
Ravdonikas, ‘Nadpisi i znaki na mechakh iz Drieprostroya’, Izvcstiya Gosudarstvcnnoy Akadcmii
Istorii Matcrial’noy Kul’tui3i I00 (1933), 598-616 (Ravdonikas). J. Sahlgrcn, ‘Wikingcrfahrtcn
im Ostcn’, Zcitschriftfur slavische Philologic 8 (I931), 309-323 (Sahlgrcn) . A. Sclishchcv, Izvcstiya
Otdclcniya Russ/toga Tazyka i Slovenosti Ahadernii Nauk SSSR 32 (1927), 303-30: a review of N.
Dum0v0’s Ochcrk istorii russkogo yazyka (Sclishchcv). P. Scmcnov, Geografiches/co-statistichesky
Slovar’ Rossiiskoy Impcrii II (St Petersburg, 1863), 77-85, article ‘Dncpr’ (Semcnov). S. M.
Seredonin, Istoricheskaya Gcografiya (Petrograd, 1916) (Scrcdonin). A. A. Shakhmatov, Vvedcnic
v kurs istorii russkogo yazylca I (Petrograd, 1916) (Shakhmatov, Vvedenic). Id., Drevneishie
sud’b_y russkogo plcrncni (Petrograd, 1919) (Shakhmatov, Drevncishic sud’b_y). G. Y. Shcvclov (Yury
G. 9 Scrcch), ‘ On the Slavic names for the falls of the Dncpr in the “Dc Administrando Imperio” of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’, Slavic Word, XI, 4 (1955), 503-30 (Shcvclov). P. Skok, ‘Orts-
namcnstudien zu Dc administrando imperia dcs Kaisers Constantin Porphyrogennctos’, Zcitschrift
BIBLIOGRAPHY fiir Ortsnamenforschung 4 (1928) 213-44 (Skok). ‘Sochineniya Konstanrina Bagryanorodnogo:
,O fcmakh' (De Thematibus) i ,0 narodakh’ (Dc Administrando Imperio)’, tr. G. Laskin,
N. P. Barsov, Ochcrki russkoy istorichcskoy geografii. Geografiya .N'achal’nqy Letopisi (Warsaw, I873) Chteniya v Imperatorskom Obshchcstvc Istorii 1' Drevnostqy Rossiiskikh pri Moskovs/com Universitctc 1899, I
(Barsov). P. E. Bclyavsky, Article ‘Dnepr’, Entsiklopcdichcsky Slovar’ 20 (St Petersburg, 1893), (188) (Laskin). A. V. Soloviev, ‘Le nom byzantin dc la Russie’, Musagetes 3 (Thc Hague,
791-808 (Bclyavsky). S._ V. Bcrnshtcin-Kogan,_ ‘Put’ iz Varyag v Grcki’, V0P ro £7 Geografii 20 1957) (Soloviev, Le nom byzantin dc la Russie). I. I. Srezncvsky, Material)» dlya slovagia drevne-
(I950), 239-70 (Bcrnshtein-Kogan). V. A. Brim, ‘Put’ iz Varyag v Grcki’, Izvestiya Akadcmii russkogo yazyka (St Petersburg, I893-1909) (Srezncvsky). A. Stendcr-Petersen, Varangica
Nauk SSSR, 7th series, otdcl. obshch. nauk, no. 2 (1931), 201-47 (Brim). F. K. Brun, ‘Cherno- (Aarhus, 1953) (Stcndcr-Petersen, Varangica). _]. C. Stuckcnberg, Hydrographie des russischen
mor’e I’, Zapiski Impcratorskogo Novorossiiskogo Univcrsitcta 28 (Odessa, 1879), 90-108; II, ibid., 30 Rciches, III (St Petersburg, 1847) (Stuckcnburg). V. Thomson, The Relations between Ancient
(1880), 363-79 (Brun, Chernomor’e). A Collection of Voyages and Travels, some now first Printedfrom Russia and Scandinavia and the Origin of the Russian State (Oxford, 1877) (Thomscn, Relations). Id.,
Original Manuscripts, others Translated out of Foreign Languages, and now first Published in English, I ‘Det russiske rigcs grundlaiggclse ved Nordboerne saint bcmaerkningcr til Varaagerspérgsmélet’,
(London, 1704) (C/iurchill’s Vqyages). Cross (scc Povcst’). ‘Dneprovskic Porogi’, Zapiski Sarnlcdc Afhandlingcr I (Copenhagen, 1919) (Thomson, Samlcde Afhandlinger). M. N.
Odcsskogo Obshchcstva Istorii i Drcvnostqy 3 (1853), 581-6 (Dncprovskic Porogi). N. Durriovo, Tikhomirov, Drcvnerusshic goroda (2nd ed., Moscow 1956) (Tikhomirov, (Drcvncrusskic goroda).
‘Vvcdcnic v istoriyu russkogo yazyka’, Spisy Filosofické Fakulty Masagkovy University v Brnl 20, V. E. dc Timonoff, ‘Les Cataractcs du Dniéprc’ (St Petersburg, 1894), Vlc Congrés International
i (Brno, 1927) (Diirnovo). R. Ekblom, ‘Die Namcn der sicbcnten Dncprstromschnclle’, dc Navigation Intéricurc (The Hague, 1894) 7c Question (Timonoff). P. N. Tret’yakov, Vostochno-
Sprakvctenskaplzga Sallskapets Forhandlzngar 1949-51 (Uppsala, 1951), i5i-74 (Ekblom, Die slavyanskic plcmcna (2nd ed., Moscow, 1953) (Trct’yakov). A. A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on
siebente Stromschnclle). D. I. Evarnitsky, Vol’nosti zaporozhskikh lcozakov (St Petersburg, 1890) Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946) (Vasiliev, Russian Attack). A. A. Vasiliev,
(Evarnitsky). K.-O. Falk, ‘Hépana -rofi xpaplov, Traicctus Crarii’, Slaviska Inslitutet vid Lunds ‘Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia’, journal qf Economic and Business
Umversztet, Arsbok (i948—9) (Lund, 1951), 106-37 (Falk, Hépaiie -rofi icpaplov). K.-O.Fa1k, Hiring» 4, (1931-2), 314-34 (Vasiliev, Economic Relations). M. Vasmer, ‘Wikingcrspurcn in
18 COMMENTARY Ml__ COMMENTARY 19
Russland ', Sitzungsberichte derpreussischen Akademie der Wismischaflm, phil.-hist. Kl. (1931), 649-74 I ld h been 'ven the title of 6 iiipxwv 'Pw<7'i¢1$-
(Vasmer, Wikingerspuren). M. Vasmer, Rusiisches etymologisches Wéirterbuch (Heidelberg, 1953-8) that Gas: lfizvigvlfierlilcnigdienfjd rfslbilvieoilhis difiilculty E311 suggesting that the reference to
(Vasmer, Russisches etymologisches Wiirmbucli). G. Vemadsky, Ancient Russia (New Haven, 1943)
(Vemadsky, Ancient Russia). G. Vemadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948) (Vemadsky, g\\:1:iii;lav’s reign in Novgorod in 9/4-5 is a later insertion (see Manojlovffrsig
Kievan Russia). N. N. Voronin, Drevnerusskie goroda (Moscow-Leningrad, 1945) (Voronin). A. this seems. a. gratuitous complication.
- It is more likely that the passage
’ walsl ov o rod in the
Yuzhny, ‘Na Dneprovskikh porogakh’, Vestnik Evropy (1881), tom. 4, 399-406 (Yuzhny). Igor’s lifetime, and that it consequently referred ts Iivyatosgav sggiaglrgl lnmadegin order to
present tense: i<a9e§e1-at. The alteration to _ei<oz e_ e'ro W .3 P b Y when I or
bring the text up to date while it lay in the imperial archives, 16:1/V.CCn1?44, mcwfiat
INTRODUCTORY NOTE - . r a so
died and Svyatoslav removed t0)KlCV, and 952, when 0- C0115" '46 It ( °
C. 9 contains a topographical account of the trade route from Kiev to Constantinople, similar view, see Gedeonov 531. . _ f _
with special reference to the rapids or ‘ barrages’ (qbpayttoif) on the lower Dnieper; a list The suggestion that 9/3-104 was compiled about 9441 receives support rom a con
of towns situated on or near the Novgorod-Kiev section of the Baltic—Black Sea water- ‘d t' n of who its author could have been. He was obviously a Constantinopolitan. for
way; a description of the Russian trading expeditions to Byzantium; a reference to the S1 cm lo s the width of the ‘ford of Krarion’ on the Dnieper to that of the Byzantine
economic relations between the Russians and their Slav tributaries; and a concluding lg. congzifie (9/56__8) . and, cqually obviously, he moved in court circles: for, in assessing
note on the Uz. hlpp 'dth f the first fapid he takes as his measure the imperial polo-ground (9/26-7).
This material is not homogeneous: it falls into at least three sections, each presumably t e'w1 ‘£1 h t he obtained at least some of his information on Russia from some
derived from a separate source (cf. Manojlovié 1v, 41-3) : (a) 9/3-104, a description of the iiarangia
ls po§sii (fr tSlZv
_ in Constantinople'
___» however _’ the vividness and accuracy
_-tn of his
h des-
hd
gathering in Kiev of the monoxyla from different parts of Russia and of their journey to cription leave little doubt that it is in the mm; the 3.CC0;ll1:l(fc?f?lra1N¢eYi)Z:n :"in‘:rc°ha:t,
Constantinople; (b) 9/104-13, a fragment on the tribute levied by the Russians on the himself travelled up and down the Dnieper. \ c ean SC Y _ d b th Russian Shi S
Slavs during the winter months; and (c) 9/1 14, the note on the Uz. Different origins of ‘ t for two references to the wares (-rot 'rrpa'yp,oz'ra) Carflfi Y ‘3 _ P
(a) and (b) may be inferred from the transcriptions of the name of the city of Kiev since, cxccphe makes no mention of trade (cf Manojlovié IV, 33» 38-9% It 15 far m°'°
(1-cl Ktooifioi, 9/8, and 1-ow Klofiot, 9/15, in (a), and 1-61» Kfafiov, 9/106, ii 1, in (b)), and (.9/32’ 211,}, was a B antine envoy who had been sent to Kiev on a diplomatic mission,
likelyfttfii scfifiaammoifzwhom thg imperial government regularly dispatched to negotiate
of the Slav tribe of the Krivichi (Kpifim-airqvoi, 9/9-10, in (a), and Kpi.,8i1{¢?|v, 9/108, in one o 0 _ _ . _ b f
(b)). As for the note on the Uz, which is related formally to the opening sentence of the with the empire’s northern neighbours. cf. I /23» 7/3, 5}/2, 7» 23 4- In 94-4,3“ °m_ E557 mu:
next chapter (10/3-4) and in content to the earlier Pecheneg chapters (cc. 1-8), it is Romanus I travelled to Kiev to conclude a treat)’ with 18°!‘ ($¢¢ POW" > 1» 34-, 1‘(>23 73}
clearly out of place where it stands; its incorporation into c. 9 was doubtless due to the 1 i -
and for the date of both embassy and treaty, I_’0vest , 11, 939, C1'°$5 237 l
-8 . Th¢ an t °r 0-
absence of a marginal index in the ms. (see Bury 520-1). ma well have been a member of this embassy: cf. Bury 543-4- It Smms not“
It has long been apparent that, with the exception of the note on the Uz, c. 9 as 'a 9/3-104’ hit ‘on that the demotic use of the preposition oivrci followed by accusa-
whole is out of place in the first, didactic, section (cc. 1-13/11) of DAI: see Bury 543; liortiiy lnr.c1sl$lfi’nF:;1qucnt in ¢ 9 (see Vol 1 p 334) : this suggests that at least part of
tiveispariu - ",' . t
Macartney 143; Byzantinoturcica, 1, 211 (2nd ed. 363). Most scholars believe its proper the chapter was taken down verbally from a diplomatic repor . _ b _ d h_
place to be in the section on the Nations (cc. 14-46). Even there, however, it would not The complex problem of the sources from which the author of 9/3 104 ° tamc 15
be altogether uniform with the rest of the material: for we find in 9/ 1-1 13 neither the '1-if t' n on Russia will be discussed in the commentary below. A study of the
historical-antiquarian approach nor the concern with problems of diplomacy which are I omla 10' d Sl ic ro er names which abound in this chapter, notably in the
the distinguishing features of that section (see General Introduction, pp. 2-5). As a Scandinavia? as ' “ti: ii. vliill suggest that our author’s informant was in all proba-
detailed itinerary doing duty for a history of the Russians, c. 9 stands apart from the rest :?1(':ouml\cl)f
i ity a or thllnalfilsiljlfcli1 liijinglin the bilingual milieu of Kievan Russia, was familiar with
of DAI1; and it may well be, as the General Introduction (p. 2) suggests, that it is source
material consulted by C. in the imperial archives in 952 and later copied into his book. thlifslavongc 3115::‘from the pen of a Byzantine author, 9/104-13 Seems 110 ha“? b¢¢n
Its position in the book, immediately following the -rrepi Hot'rZ,'i.vou<t1'<3v icedoi/\ai.ov (cc. d rivgilsfiioiili a different source. It is in this section that traces of Slavonic terminology
1-8), supports this view; and passages such as 2/16-23 and 8/20-2 suggest that c. 9 was aife most frequent and apparent: the expressions woivrwv 1-cfiv 'P¢Iis‘ (9/I0_5) and 8l°"'!_"€'
used as a source, consulted when this :ce<;SoE)\aiov was being written. ' 1 ( /1 io) seem to be literal translations, and 1ro)tii8ioz (9/ 107) is a direct transcrip-
The material in this chapter, at least in its main section (9/3-104), was probably com- qlopemi" 9h 'cal terms used at that time by the Eastfiffl 513-VS; Whik thfi form KP‘B""£"”’
piled about 944. The wording of 9/4-5 suggests that Igor, prince of Kiev, was alive at the mm, 0 we {uh ' h netic transcription of the Slavonic plural Krivichi, corresponds
time of writing. Igor is believed to have come to the throne in 913 (Povest’, 1, 31) and (9/I08), whlcl lsla lg (ihe ori inal name of this tribe than the form Kptfiryrairqvoi at
died, in all probability, in the autumn of 944 (ibid., 11, 295). The passage could not have much mon? E086 ybo k to tbs singular form of this name. It would seem therefore that
been written much before 944, since Svyatoslav was still a child when his father died 9/9-10’ wllnc %)cs ka(t:ranslation of a Slav account. There seems no valid reason to
(ibid., 1, 40). The reference to his rule in Novgorod—a fact mentioned in no other source 9/104-Istlis tathisrtf:a' ent was written much earlier or much later than 944 (see on
—must mean that Svyatoslav resided in that city as Igor’s representative during the 3/i)cI>):i;) Rresumablgril lay in the files of thfi A°Y°6é""'l9 7°‘? 8P6l"°v in Constantinople’
latter’s lifetime: we know that in the ioth cent. the princes of Kiev were in the habit of where it was consulted by C., togethfif with 9/3-104» in 952' _ .
appointing their sons to the throne of Novgorod (see on 9/4); and from 945 to 972 ' 'dence that the material embodied in c. 9 was SL1b_]CCllCCl to a certain
Svyatoslav was prince of Kiev. The past tense €i<a9e'{,'e-i-o (9/5) might seem to suggest that ‘Thu-tc o1si‘s0i:l(ir:iiiary
amoun p editing - It has been suggested above that the form e’icoz9é'§c'ro
the passage was written after Igor’s death, when Svyatoslav was already prince of Kiev. In
1 There are, it is true, fragments of itineraries in the section on the Nations, notably in c. 42;
but c. 9 is unique in that its account of the Russians and of their waterway betrays no preoccupa-
IM ‘es sit?.Ez.:2:.ibi:“::L‘?-g‘i;.?. §".§."“§Z.¥ ’;?.§°2§’.3fiZ.
'
s
t I or’s reat

“gval attack. °t?.th° HTEPSFYIZ gggérapliical itinerary, containing neither historical excursuses
e apter, w ic is esseri i
tion with diplomacy or history (with the possible exception of 9/4-5). nor diplomatic lessons.
 20 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 21
(9/5) betrays an attempt, made between 944 and 952, to bring the text up to date. . . . . . 8 , 3 ff_ ; " b the suggestion that the name Rus’
Furthermore, the words otti'ro')v (9/104) and i<o:6tl1s rrpoeipiy-rou. (9/112) are clearly mmay
dwiiwugri
ave re (lI;;i:fil§i1dsl:)l:1io3glh
_ this lfi111l1)g\1:g¢ of _6 Turkic
_ P¢6P1¢1
d bSuch
th as 91°_
editorial comments, whose purpose was to link the fragment 9/ 104-13 to the preceding Chazars (Thomsen, Relattons,_99; Stender-Petersen, Varangzca,h84) , anb (1ii()6nyth6;<::'l1c
section. This evidence of an editorial hand appears to tell against the suggestion made in ' ' hich took place in Byzantium in the 9th and 1ot cents. e w _
the General Introduction (p. 2), that the material embodied in c. 9 was later ‘copied tamma1t{1on'wns and the title of the Biblical King Gog, described in the LXX version of
erroneously into the book’. It seems possible to agree with the view of c. 9 as source Ef “Eel (u):::,iii 2 3. xxxixa 1) as dfpxovrot 'PuSs. This contamination was made easier by
material and to believe at the same time that C. may well have intended to include it in
DAI.
9/1 oi-116 'Pwcrt'o1g.
1
thztf traditional assficiation of Gog and Magog with the Scythians of the Pontic steppes,
, . . -
attacks on the empire were in faotfulfilling ze ie sprop
' — h th R '
V ');N zlatarski Sofia
The word 'Pwaioz, which became the usual Byzantine term for Russia, is first encoun- ‘ ‘ Ma tfiy éipxoiri-a ‘Pwg (Florovsky, Sbormk v chest na ast . _ _ 1 . 1
tered in C.’s writings: cf. De Cer., 594/18, 691/1. The Russians themselves called their Fwy Km 1'/S luz umov Vestnik Dreww)’ I$t0T5i1 2 (1940): l2I_35 Vaslhev’ Rama”
country, in the language of the Eastern Slavs, Rus’ or ruskaya zemlya (Povest’, passim), more liiffii Eii-5513.-Qii ’ The iiidecliiiable form oi 'Po'3s‘1Whi°h may W611 hm hes“ i"flE‘°“°°d bY
rarely strana ruskaya (ibid., 1, 35, 39); the two latter terms correspond to xdipoz 1-fig h aliiblical 'Ph§g (also indeclinable), tended however in the course of time to give way to
‘Precious (at 37/43) and yfi 'Pwcnm§ (Theodore Prodromus, MPG, cxxxiii, col. 1412). l fl t d forms of the word: ¢f- 'r<I'1v 'Pv30wV (P5°n“5> Ch"”"°gmphie’ ed‘ Renauld’ H’ 8;
Later, the term 'PwoZa was borrowed by the Russians, in the form Rosiya, from the lgarifaguzenus 111_’ 94/13) ’' oi 'P¢Iicrot (Eustathius . 'of
1 Thessalonica:
' V. V., Latyshev, nd
terminology used by the Byzantine Patriarchate. In Russia this form is first attested in the Scyt/iica et Caucastca, 1, St Petersburg (139°)1 194) 1 °" P°"°'°‘ (§31Y¢as 5355/4 £331?)fo?m
second half of the 15th cent., though it appears in a South Slavonic text as early as 1387: '‘ ' Balsamon MPG, cxxxvn, col. 485). At the same time, ano er. 1
see Soloviev, Le nom byzantin de la Russie; see also Viz. Vrem. 12 (1957), 134-55. The in Ifwmm ( ' ill iddle of the ioth cent.: see Liudprand, Antapodosts, v, 15: gens
modern form of the name (with double 0/s) appears in Greek in the 14th cent. (Nice- Povmm’ appears In C $litate corporis Greci vocant . . . Rusios, nos vero . . . nomi-
quacdagl I (233215 .aar?d qf ibid 1 1 1, This false etymology, which connected the name
phorus Gregoras 111, 199/12, 511/18) and in Russian in the 17th. See also Martel,
Mélanges Paul Boyer (Paris, 1925), 270-9; Syuzyumov, Vestnik Drevney Istorii, 2 (1940), nf1ll11l;SR1ii.lsialI1is with, the ad_iectiv’e f,lOLl0'!.05‘, ‘red, red-liaired’1 b¢t1'aY5 the Popular Origin
123; Vasmer, Russisches etymologisc/zes Warterbuch, 1.11. Rossiya; Tikhomirov, Voprosy Istorii Sf this form (See 5YuZYl1mov 017- C53-1 1211 1235 Stend°r'PeterSen’ Vamngim’ 84'; Solovlev’
I I (1953). 93-6- Lefilm byzanlti: girl; 112F§::;;,;f)had no lasting success in Byzantine literature. Yet it was
epopu , _ .. b h-hth
9/1 Hepi 1-div . . . 'Pc3s‘. phonetically closer than the more learned form Pws t0 111'“? 0151811331 “Em? fzrvihgcslavg
The Greek form of the name is first unequivocally attested in Annales Bertiniani, ann. Russians were then widely known in eastern Europe and in t 3 defi: 81; L ( C6 Minor
839, where it is stated by Prudentius of Troyes that a group of Swedes, sent from Con- 1 1 ' ' ' 5 S '
stantinople to Lewis the Pious at Ingelheim, ‘se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari Called thcm Rm (sec Pave“ , pamm) and the Arljblc wrllcrssfid (brit ifintif tliis name have
5kY1 E"€}’¢l°Pa@d5a
deb, andfiyflslam In (I936):
often fiercely, I 18"'3)'
debated for Tthe6 meaning
past two centuries. Th‘e controversl’
. 1
dicebant’ (MGH, Scr. 1, 434; cf. Thomsen, Relations, 38-45; Vasiliev, Russian Attack,
6-13). Attempts to connect the Russian national name with the Syriac Hros of the 6th becntlflu
apar romis ',t many _ side
':_issues 1 was essentially
_ concerned,_ with
.. the elucidation
h. .. of fth
four
cent. Ps.-Zacharias (Marquart 355 ff.), or with the fioiioioz xdloivfitoc that formed part problems: (i) the linguistic interpretation of the term R111 , (ii) the et nic origin 0 e
of the navy of Constantine V in 773 (Vernadsky, Ancient Russia, 279-80), are dis- people who bore that name; (iii) the meaning, (Jr m¢aI11_Ti8$1latta§h;d$)etg£a?:‘gQE£:‘;
countenanced by most scholars today: see Stender-Petersen, Varangica, 16; Dvornik, The
Making of Central and Eastem Europe, 307-9. In Greek sources, oi 'Pt1')g are mentioned in in thc sourccs
Vikings in theofcreation
the 9th, of
mththeand I I'th Cents’;
Russian state. (Ev)
or dhc
t e rlietcli
IS. FYayfif tliis_ controversy
_ ’ see
the Life of St George of Amastris, which some scholars believe to have been written by Moshin Slavia 10 (P1-agu¢1 1931l1 109-351 343*791 501-37; id., Byzantznoslavzca, 3 (1931),
Ignatius the Deacon in the first half of the 91h cent.: Bapfitipwv 'rc3v 'P<I‘ig: see V. G. 33-58 ’ 285-307; Stender-Petersen, Varangicm 5-20;- Pa$Zki6Wi¢Z 1°9"3:1-' f H s:
Vasilievsky, Truafy, 111, 64. However, the authorship and date of this document are still The results of modern research ,may be sum_mar1z.ed ungeitgogg tll1;a‘:;%:_11:~:r;aZ‘;;t,
matters of dispute: for different views, see Vasiliev, Russian Attack, 71-89; Lipshits,
Istoricheskie Zapiski, 26 (1948), 312-31; Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie otnosheniya, 46-55. (i) The
school (forderivation
which, seeqf the
themm Rm cited
worl-cs. l’ Theabove)
most llig€mOul
lavedno Csu<(:)f
oceeded in undermining
the views the
ofE Kunik (Die
The earliest uncontroversial mention of the Russians in Byzantine sources is to be found
Vi¢W1 argucd by Thomsen (Relatwm)Z who dcve Ollie sonicst Petersbur 18:44) that the
in the writings of Photius: in the titles of his two Homilies on the Russian attack of 860, Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen (lurch die Fznnen undS awen, , ' 81 _ 1
where they are called oi 'Pu$g (C. Miiller, Frag. lzist. graec., v, 1, 162-73); and in his word Rus’ is derived from the Old Swedish word Roper, tholpgh the ll’lil£€I‘Ig1£il:i3:'g’ i0:
encyclical letter of 867, where they are termed T6 'Pa’)g (MPG, CII, cols. 736-7; ¢w'riov
e’1rio~ro/\ott', ed. Valetta, London (1864), 178). They are frequently mentioned in ioth Fiimish *R5tsi' (The inodcm terms Ruotfz mid Roltiw age t c nraibliifsl 01-ix lained' as identi-
cent. sources, both in the form ‘P65; (Leo Gramm. 240/19, 240/22-241/1; Sym. Mag. arid Estonian rcspcctwclyl) The word mp" Itself fa; {Sal h rciivinges of Upland and
c;'l with Roslagen, the name of the coastal area o t e we S _P _ _ T _
674/16. 18. 767/3. 146/12; De Cet-1 511/6. 579/211 598/41 651/I8. 65-=1/10-111 666/18.
664/15-16; Leo Diac. 63/9, 112/1, 135/3, 136/6, 140/16, 141/3, 147/24, 157/20), and in
the form ‘Poi; (MPG, cv, col. 516; Theoph. Cont. 196/6, 423/15, 2o, 826/18); cji
Soloviev, Le nom byzantin a'e la Russie, 9-12.
1111
East Giitland 1 Thomsen s Relatiom‘
_

11
9 95“7'’ “L

.’°" ”.‘?’”" or be:':;;...:°";:::.:@:.f;;:::.

__ ’ Samlede A./7m"dl1".§@T1
_ _ . 11 ¢344) 1 35 518"‘f Ymgv1

(Thomsmh Relations’ 95-6) ; as meaning 016?u hgnc0oL'l Otnlpcuubliées Phi: .7 -A Lundell

sans grande profondeur’ (Ekbl0m1 A76/"U83 d El" 95 fl?" a 65 P . _ th_ Stimcr re:
The Greek form ‘P69, ‘Pals has been derived from the Slavonic Rus’ (Pycb). This 11 (Stockholm, 1915), 9-1o; Stender-Petersen, Varangw¢l1 8°-11 9‘:-ll - .1“ 1513 an Pthc
derivation has been explained in various ways: (i) by the phonetic proximity and inter- . - — ' - me
tation, the composite terms such as tops-karlar, {ops-mien and raps .yggzar wp1:' n Sec now
changeability of to and ov in the North Greek language (Ekblom, Archives d’Etudes people who live along, or sail over, the roprar . For a different interpre a io ,
Orientales publiées par].-A. Lundell, 1 1 (Stockholm, 1915), 8; cf. G. N. Hatzidakis, Einleitung Vernadsky, Stidost-Forschungen, I5 (1956l1 167-79-
 22 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 23
(ii) 77" "("156 Origin
. . qftlw Rm’ ' Here too the attem ts f th ‘ ' -N ' ’ land under the rule of the Russ who dwelt at Kiev (= rus’skaya zemlia, the Russian land),
prove that the original Rus’ were not Sc,andinavia1i)s (l)he sii a:iied0rlnamst' school to
over a vast and heterogeneous field which includes Alans Fiiifis Ch 3 tema]???-168 raingg next to the inhabitants also, Slavs as well as Northmen, and in this latter signification it

T.......,’......?;;*.“;;1.;“;‘;’i2s;*‘: ;s~ csgcmporaw

and Slavs rem '
mi ’
h ll
>_ ,
' ' ’ ’ - azars’ it uamans
, 1 Y W" °V¢I'Whfilm1ng weight and virtual unani-
ty to the fact that the original Rus were Northmen from Scandina ' ‘n1
by gradually superseded the old names of the separate Slavonic tribes’.
(iv) The r6le played by the Scandinavian Rus’ in thefoundation qf the Russian state. The debate
as to whether the gth cent. Russian state was a Scandinavian creation or the product of
Not least in importance among these sources is c 9 of DAI in wh'vliai}-inal Y Swiidisi earlier Slavonic or Oriental traditions, a debate which has often been befogged by extra-
Dnieper barrages are given in the Slavonic and .‘R us ' ’ ’ 1 lc C names 0 t- C historical considerations, is not over yet. Twenty-five years ago it had seemed that the
beyond doubt Old Swedish (see on 9/25). In the coursesdffimjngiagcsi» the latte.’ bcmg ‘Normanist’ and ‘anti-Normanist’ schools, by renouncing their former extreme posi-
to the East Slavonic people over whom they established their rule in thus gave their namt tions, were drawing closer to each other on this point (see Moshin, Slavia, 10 (1931)
gth cent., and by whom they were gradually absorbed Neither of thezesiii-(6123::lfof thi: 533-7). In recent years, however, Soviet historians have increasingly supported an
seems, achieved before the iith cent.' d l S was’ 1 extreme ‘anti-Normanist’ position and have vigorously discounted the contribution of
12th. Yet the Slavicization of the ruling lliliiusisnczifiilgiceirlliaalils clfiiziiilonbplcted bcf1:?rc'thc the Scandinavians to the political history of Russia. The most objective and temperate of
DAI was compiled them was B. D. Grekov (Ifievskaya Rm’) . But among scholars in the West a more balanced
so €u;_ely Slavonic;toname
judge(sec
at least f
Thonrgéig, th f
Rslazgtotntsh i:Ii)§_.5s)c0ntC1'I1P0r8.1'Y
’ y cgun at t C bore
Svyatoslav time
view has generally prevailed. It is now, indeed, widely recognized that the Kiev state was
iii The difirent meanings qf the te R ’, I h ’ ' ' not born ex nihila with the advent of the Varangians in the gth cent.; but that its social
12th cents. the term is used in lil'll‘C:7iIlStlli‘1ClI Iilioiigfiudzlcaaisligiigllesgfif tile 19th’ I uh and and economic foundations were laid in the preceding period, during which the Slavs in
, _ I
(a) Ru: as an ethnic term for Scandinavians: e.g. Povest’ 1 id 186 appmgi scnscsi
q the Dnieper basin played an active part in the political and commercial life of the West
the last two of these passages, which cite the clauses of the tri=:a,ties,co , 123d Z51) ’ 36-9. In Eurasian and Pontic steppes; and that a pre-existing Slavonic land-owning aristocracy
. _
Igor with the Byzantines on behalf of the Rus’, it is just possible that e Y Olfg and
n and merchant class remained the mainstay of the country’s territorial stability and eco-
not only to the Varangian ruling class in Kiev but also by im licat' C tefini Rm refers nomic growth under its Viking overlords. It is equally clear, however, that it was the
jects as well. But the primary meaning of Rui’ is herckzertairii S lonclto t ‘en. Slav Sub- Scandinavian invaders who in the second half of the gth cent. united the scattered tribes
efforts of ‘anti-Normanists’ to impugn the veracit of the h lain mavlans’ and this of the Eastern Slavs into a single state based_on the Baltic—Black Sea waterway, to which
they gave their ‘Russian’ name. See G. Laehr, Die Anfdnge des russischen Reiches (Berlin,
Cal Statements on this Point (See the recent workii of TiklioIniii'ld:ver.S§ elf? an2‘catcgOn- 1930), 29-43; D. M. Odinets, Vozniknovenie gosudarstvennogo stroya u vostochnykh slaqyan
6-7 (194.7), 66-73 and D. S. Likhachev, Povest’, 11, 243-4.) are UnClJH:fl):l:ilflzya tmgmfiya’
(Paris, 1935), 151-81; Vemadsky, Kievan Russia, 19-28.
(b) Rus’ as a geographical term designating the whole territo ' h
Eastern Slavs and governed, directly or indirectly by the rinces a fled by the
, 0 n I
9/2 p.e1'ciz 113v p.ovo§15)twv.
F18), 35> 4-5» 4-3, 49, 51. In this sense it was synonymous iirith mkayalZ:,},Z,§';:f§“‘ ft: The original meaning of povdfvhov, used as a neuter noun, was certainly ‘ a boat hol-
wow: (see on 9/1 oimi ‘Paw’ . Th - - . _ _w‘
lowed out of a single tree-trunk’, i.e. a dug-out canoe. Movéfvka had long been used by
in the middle of the, 10th cent. ii1t¢n<i¢§xi€;-Ziii.li:tZirriiiory 1:/ailcd at dlfiirent “mm the Slavs for river and sea navigation: they were observed in 448 by Priscus during his
to a point on the middle Dnieper some hundred milezs ortrii zi'Ki_|adoga Ill the north
southern enclave which stretched along the southern Bug (ilie I;n' iev, aiildflinguded a journey to Attila’s court in Hungary (1-oi; povofuhotg 11-Ao|.'otg: Excerpta dz Legationibus, ed.
the Black Sea; in the west the ‘R 5 ' 1 C1’ h i ms er an . C mth to De Boor, 131/8); they were used by the Slavs in their attack on Thessalonica in 614-16
middle courses of the western Dvilnfiiiidallhe liiiiinsii -ai'snf2t1h1:‘sni)}i'i‘ihCarpa:th‘1ans and the (nix p.ovo3e'v3pwv 'yz\vrrrcizs vfjas: MPG, cxvt, col. 1 325) ; ‘and they took part in the Avaro-
Slav attack on Constantinople in 626 (1-ois‘ (.tovo§i5)lots‘ oixorriots‘: Nicephorus, ed. De
uphper reaches of the Oka and the Volga: cf. Atlas Istorii SSSR 1 ed Kai; Ilialritliaiiriidilii tbs
Boor, 18/10).
ot ers (Moscow, 1 955) , 7 —8. The political
Baltic_B1 ' ' “
and economic - pivot -’ ’ of' this .' territory
‘ _ was anthe The Russians are stated several times to have used povdfivha in their wars against the
ack Sea waterway along the rivers Volkhov Lovat’ and Dniep
empire: Svyatoslav made use of them during the siege of Silistria in 971 (Cedrenus n,
(0) Rus’ as a geographical term se ' t d ' , en .
402/20-3), and in 104.3 a fleet of Russian iiovcifvha sailed from Kiev to attack Byzantium:
or by the middle Dnieper, as distinciiildin oor (i:i€:Ic1>i1itt‘i‘ai?tci:liil"ildi'cf0ut'h 'RusIi‘,lan Suds O-n
on this occasion we are told explicitly by Scylitzes that this type of boat is indigenous to
territory. In this restricted sense Rus’ seerris to have ', d maimilg ast avomc
. > he rinci al't' fK' Russia (1-r/\oiotg e’-yxwpiots rais Aeyopévots p.ovo§1i)\otg: ibid., 551/ 14-15).
Chernigov and Pereyaslavl’ Evidence in su o t Com'pnsc t P p I les 0 mv’
. - f this meanin can b f ' It seems that the Russian p.ov6§v/la were actually made of hollowed-out tree-trunks.
Russian chronicles: see Nasonov 28- 0- P pl?‘ r ‘O g e mind In the
Psellus tells us that, while preparing for their attack of 1043 against the empire, the
Nasonov’s and Levchenko’s (pp. 20596), vi?/:s iiriiiiz 1t:3ciiit(i',aii33tlie Howcveri In spate of
Russians carved (?hollowed out) boats from the trees they had cut down in the interior
asserting that as early as the ioth cent. the word Rus’ w ,' re are no gmun S for
of the country (:5/\oro;u';'aav1'es ric'vw9ev Kai cucci¢1; pucpoi 1-e xai. p.ei§w Stays-y1\vq$61'es:
of the country. Most of the exam 1 f th' ' as restricted Hi thc southim part
Chronographie, ed. Renauld 11, 9/16-17). A general picture of the appearance of the
the 12th cent. Prior to that time I1)?u?’:s a :¢I:::zi1;iiiig<::i)It-:::nf'ir21x11‘-l1di')pEi1‘1(()lcll no Farhsr than
Russian dug-outs is given by Constantine Manasses:
the East Slavonic territories under th ' u -B Y re mire to an
P0ves¢', I1, 238-44. e Soverclgnty of the rulers of Kiev: see Likhachev:
Kai -yoip 1-01. avprrqfdpevot 9ozXa1-1-orrdpoz oxoiqiw)
We may thus still accept, at l t '
Tavpooxvfitfiv oi dnilapxot 1-ciiv oi)/ptoKap5iwv,
statement, made in 1877 (Relationjfiog?;IE;‘If-,iCr1;?ngEu?,th and Ioth Cents-, Th0msen’s
of a foreign Scandinavian clan that gained the maste 0' i i X135 at first the apigenziuon Kai 1-n\1'j9os &7I'€Lp(ipL0p.OV roig axoigbeatv e'v9e'v"res,
though the invaders wgm of Course: far infcrio-r to thléym iirlernureaEativ;hSl3.VOI'l1C tribes, Ewfieaav trot/\i5'rr1'ov1'e9 1'6: vzfira rfig Ba/\oicrm7s‘
tribe, Rus’, was then nat ura ll y t ransferred, as a politico-geographical
~ - .cr' appellation,
C nar_nc oftothis rais hepflocfiiotg rais wvxvoig, rais aiirofif/\otg 1r/\6ots.
all (Compend; Chr0n., 162)
3WD4A0I|
 *4 COMMENTARY CO M MENTARY 25
I
The povofviioz referred to in c . 9 seem to belong to this du - .
I

trees, f¢l1¢d by the Slavs on th - . 3 °‘-it tYP¢- they were made of light and solid enough to negotiate the Dnieper barrages, and sufiiciently stable and safe-
°'K°‘¢':8‘“ (9/ I 7) , 3 word derive;l‘IroIi1n0‘¢:1<iZ}im iigdmfl I), and that bouioms are ‘crm¢d to sai'l along the Black Sea coast to Constantinople. They were capable of carrying
that simpk dug_outs could not easily have ’Z:=0ma‘_18'-gut. It has been 0b_]CCtCd, however, between 4.0 and 60 men, and are thought to have resembled—though on a smaller scale-
Pnicpcr barragcs and to ward OH the Pcchcm: attlneks a crew sufiicient to negotiate the '
the later sea-going ' ' deckless boats which
Cossack chaiki, ' were genera lly about 60 ft. long ,
(ll1l'1Cll.1(llI'tg slaves, 9/32, 52) carried to Byzantigm ?l‘(1:C I1'l€1{€fi;.7‘t)s"Ish96): the merchandise '
io to i2 ft. wide, and about I2 ft. deep; cf. on 9/16-19. For the relationship' b etween the
t e sails, masts and rudders I f ’ n W Pwe‘-C ‘O sen it» and iiovéifv/\ov, the naboinaya lod’_ya and the chaika,‘see Lyaskoronsky 240-5; P. I. Belavenets,
sea-worthiness to carry tl1CIII1]c:(f::;1:ylhErB‘ll;:2l:e§ v'(_)yag° (9/35), While retaining enough Material? pa istorii russkogo flota (Moscow-Leningrad, 1940), i5—i6; Voronin in Kul’tura
‘chm St"iif"age. Slcizzerz zur dltesten Gesclziclzte der Rafi? seal‘; L. Pié, zur Rum&lzisch' U”-ga"' Drevney Rusi, I, 282-8; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, 29-30; Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie
otnosheniya, 64-5, 143-7. For a detailed discussion of the various types of Russian boats,
339 H‘something
were I‘ ha‘ “°“°° ‘mlthansusssmd
larger d - ts.<@f- Manoiloviéiiliaaniiarliigiiaii,”,iL§'?zig’
d ‘ ’ . _ ’ 58583)’
' 5 F-°"° U 01 including the p.OV6€UAOI-', see Niederle, Slovanské Staroiitnosti, iii, 2, 446-62, and the

::"*=mr;°i"">'
istrakcs, which ran clinkerw. f
2‘; the §;,;f§J;’%§‘;ie §:;';,;*.:*=r. :".‘1="= "“,‘i“i.
e p.ovo- v ov as referring, not to the sin le tr k f
3 un - °
Ion’ W lc ta cs
C k¢§l,_but to the single planks or
summary of it in his Manuel, II, 256-60.
We do not know what the Slavs called their ;iov6§v)ia in the Middle Ages. The more
recent Russi'an eq uivalent of p,ov6§v)tov-—0dnodrevka, odnoderevka—is first attested, in
largc Russian ships arc indce13¢atT;::e:¢i1: &?eSrC1;I];ll of the Viking vessel). ComParativelY adjectival form, in the 16th cent. (struzhak odnodrevy: Sreznevsky II, 619). It seems likely,
the Russian ships which plundered the coast of She Ee3.r;gi.aac§0rdlI1g to Mas‘i'idi, each Qf ’
however, that C.’s povofvhrx '
approximated most closely to th e boats known in Kievan
crew of ioo (Marquart 336) ' and C h' ' n ca 6' 914 was manncd by a ' R ussi'a as naboinye lod’z' which some historians have identified with the nasady. For the
. , . imself mentions seven Russi h‘ ' 2 '
°a"'Y1I1g 415 soldiers, which took art in B ' . . an S ‘PS ( P‘°5' "°‘P°‘l3‘°‘) nasady, see Bogorodsky, Uchenye Zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogicheskogo
660/I8)_an avcmgc of P _ a yzantine expedition to Italy in 935 (D, Ce, Instituta, 104 (1955), 227-58.
, 59 In h . - . ' ' '
comparatively small size and shlalliiiir Elrlalii l1—Ito“{cvCr,hmost of thc' Russian ships wcre 0; We may find some support for the view that the povofvka were d ug- ou t canoes with
gation: Luidpl-and states that ¢ by rcasongoffilllglre ;rnCa)il\Vt?1‘C lfulilt partly for river navi- ' d b y rows of p lanks in c . 9 itself. For C . tells us that on two occasions dur-
their sides raise

V.
shallow water where th G 1;

to sai] in light and f t_ .

'

’ , il
P::;s:: - size t Cy can mm": in V317
PM
S _ a ti a t e Russians are said
rivers which flow izio r31(Z2vg}§gLOg2sa((€£:X1I'S(g|£§I‘B l;J]$C3.l.lSC}(l):nlY(ll1;1 them can they navigate the
ing
'

wh'ch
the voyage from Russia ' to Constantinop ' l e various
' ‘ tackle’ was added to the original
dug-outs (9/16-19, 84-6). It seems likely enough that, among the Iioimiis xpeiag with
i the uov6§v/\o: were equipped, together with oars and rowlocks in Kiev, and sails,
masts and rud d ers on the island of St Aitherios at the mouth of the Dnieper, were
included these lateral planks, which would have offered greater safety and comfort for the
nople in the 9th and ioth defitst ifrerirss16n'2h1)l)s which Sallcd from Kiev to Constanti- journey over the Black Sea.
‘ljussian flat which aftackcd Cénstanti:-orlfive I;n(Z81é10lI§';Cbl£lflt:lC sans: of,the word. The
“Wk, 190-2) to have cons' t d f V'ki ' . C mvc Y asilicv (R“~“ia" 9/3 olrrd rfis Zfw 'Pwo'iozg.
launched by Oleg of Kiev ai:ainsi)By;anIiigu:ii]L§:’ gnd til? game may lie true.“ the ships Many attempts have been made to explain this hapax legomenon. The majority of
anchors, and each of which was manned by 0 oars], W Kl’ wcfe pmv1d€d wlth sails and scholars have accepted one of the two following views:
64:—5). It is noteworthy that the Russian vessil depidilfdlais 2:12.‘ WES, H, 266-7; Cross (i) ‘Outer Russia’ was, in the eyes of C. or of his informant, the whole of that part of
miniature in the 15th cent K.. . b _ C 1_I1g Onstantinople on a Russia which was outside Kiev and the districts immediately adjoining that city. It thus
blance to a Viking shiP (PCpf(?Cl1L1l§:delI§ Itgitejlf ti1c2€nf,n§aU C/mmde bears a close “acm- included all the Russian cities mentioned by C. (9/4-7, 20) with the exception of Kiev,
On the other hand, the R ' ’ -’ _ ' . . and comprised those ‘Slavonic regions’ which paid tribute to the Kievan Russians
that actual Iwvdgvka, or at l‘::s1£-*2 :33;Elsiglgigldet}Slg!I.IlCf3.dCl1tIOI'13.ldCEldCI1CC suggesting (9/9-10, 20-i, 107-9): see Thomsen, Relations, 52; Shakhmatov, Vvedenie, go; Grekov
that tim¢_ The pn-mag, Chm". I . d . . ‘=0 , were use y the Russians at 176; Vemadsky, Kievan Russia, 31. This interpretation has the advantage of conforming
lad , 1- and kombh, (the latter (ilfivlillllg
2 321;b tile Russian
' vessels, uses mainly
- two terms: strictly to the syntax of the text, the correlative clauses beginning with elal p.%v_ (9/4.) and
log‘-sch“ Warmbuch, 621%’): cf Pow“, H indee xapafliovz see Vasmer, Russilsches etymo- ewi
’ ' 3% (9/5) both b eing ' ta ke n to refer to the subject ofthe sentence 1-ii: olrrci 'r'fis‘ Efiw
mm-£81,"),8 1. mkotove monkie mmiry in‘, rus/24,0537’ s_.iZhkoZibl I. Smorgonsky, Korable- 'Pwo'iozg iiovdifv/\oc This reading however raises logical difficulties: for the antithetically
ld b
tl_935l, 78-82. In the Chronicle these terms SCCIf.l toptifusid irin2iJ);eriii:\/I'0sCow_LcIgngrad, implied Zaw 'Pwo'i'a, if restricted to Kiev and its immediate neighbourhood, wou e
imcs of
areLaws,
clearly synonymq _ _ P , ,5,e(1:3i4:—(5t,hI o3'4)- But the Pravda
T1° sens‘? an S0me- disproportionate
' ' l y sma ll b y corn p arison with an ‘ outer Russia’ extending from Novgorod
Codc in its upandciésvierfionlllfig Russ/cd_J'a, the
to the middle Dnieper; it is hard to believe, moreover, that a town such as Vyshgorod
f-our Categories of boats in ordcr of that . in , e 12th cent., contains a clause listing '
(9/7), which was virtually a suburb of Kiev' (see on 9/6-7), could have b een p l ac ed on the
faring boat; naboindya lodfya = a boat ":10, slffial (or zlzmofskaya) lodiya = a sca- perip ' h ery 0f a lar ge realm of which Kiev was the centre. Nor do these logical difficulties
P’“"d“ Rwk<v~1.ed. B. 1) Grek M 6 -W1 a‘°“‘ Planks; "ms; and 6/wln: vanish if we assume that ‘inner Russia’ comprised the southern districts of Chernigov
and Pereyaslavl’ as well as Kiev ' (as is' stated by V. Mavro d'in, D revnyaya Rus’ (Leningrad ,
"5, 255- Q38» 310, 336, 357, 351’ isis-sci-5510?:-Leningrad’ .1949)» "3, 131, 158, 174, 196,
qfl Medieval Russian Laws, tr. G. \’/ernadgk (1\?:7)%57Z~—8. article 79; Pamyatniki, 173-4; 1946), 132), particularly as C. himself places Chernigov (9/6) on a par with the other
to most authorities, translates naboinaya ladyfya as‘; , 5:61; Ic?%7)’t4)9 Q/cmadskyi ¢°11¢mry Russian cities outside the capital. i
believe that the Russian ’ ,\ - F Oa , ' numb" °f 5¢h01a!‘8 (ii) ‘ Outer Russia’ consisted only of the city of Novgorod and its surrounding districts:
hoHOwcd_0ut trcbtmnk seI:‘:’3§1;c<:J;B;;3;r;\of:I:ri akvarfiety of the nabainaya lodillaz the see Manojlovic iv, 42; Moshin, Byzantinoslavica, 3 (1931), 305. Nasonov, who shares this
framework were raised by external Planks naileda Ion or smzh a oat;‘h? Sid“ °f this view (2o—i, 3 I , 39, 7o , 162) , believes that in 9/3-9 ‘outer Russia’, with its centre in
Ordcr to incrcasc thc size, displacemcnt stgbflit a01c‘lseavfvn on in clinker-built fashion, in Novgorod, is contrasted with Rus’ proper, situated on the middle Dnieper, and ruled by
i Y I1 S ety of the craft. Such ships we;-¢ Igor, prince' '
of Kiev; ' his
in ' opinion,
' ' the passage need not b e tak en to mean that any
 26 COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY 27
other of the cities enumerated therein was included in ‘outer Russia’ (31). This interpre- _ _ . . . ‘kl, ' Drevnerusskie goroda 14; Lev-
tation has the drawback of deviating somewhat from the literal sense of the passage, for supplied by a Scandinavian izformagiré sppi;I'l:0t:;1l1;:'<Ii>:,this connexion’ that’NovgorOd
the correlative clauses elm’. new . . . elo-1‘. 5% . . . certainly imply that all the cities chlmko’ Russko-mzanmskfeloifllos "lil)1aScandinavia until the 12th cent., and that the Norse
enumerated here, from Novgorod to Vyshgorod, are part of ‘ outer Russia’. It has, how- !'¢tain¢d dose Commcrcla les W1 ' h rinci al city of Russia: see
- ~ d Novgorod, and not Kiev, as t 6 P P
ever, the advantage of restoring a more literal and accurate meaning to the adverb é'§w, Sagas ml/'a1'1ab1Y regar . .. E M0 k (1-Iallg 1924), 170-1; Stender-Petersen,
which is well suited to the peripheral position occupied by Novgorod and its district on Brim Q27 ; Braun, Festschrift fw’ "gm 3 ’
the map of ioth cent. Russia, from the viewpoint of both Kiev and Constantinople. Varangivfl, 256"7- _ h f the Volkhov river, was in the
Th‘, City ofNovg01-od, situated on the upper reac es 0
In addition to these two widely held opinions, the following views have also been . - ' ly due to its
ioth cent. the largest. Russian ' town aft er K 1 ev. Its importance was main _
expressed regarding the meaning of ‘outer Russia’. It has been identified with a Scan- ' ' t d th northern sector of this
dinavian settlement on the middle Volga (Smirnov,_ Zbimik Istorichno-Filologichnogo position on the _ Baltic—Black
_ Sea wateI‘WaY
- (It domma N C C h
L k Ladoga, t e o 0V> V lkh
Viddilu, Ukrai1is’ka Akademiya Nauk, Lxxv (1928), 180-1); with the district of Roslagen waterway’ whlclzi hfikefi ";i.g1£f,12f,:ln;,i,Il?Qg:: ill; lecdmdveftlie western Dvina to the
in Sweden (A. Pogodin, Belidev Zbomik (Belgrade, 1937), 77-85) ; with the Swedish colonies Lake Il’men’ an t e ov , _ - V l ' ee Tikhomirov,
. - ' h r reaches of the o ga. S
in north Russia in the area between Beloozero, Ladoga, Novgorod, Izborsk, Polotsk and uPPer Dn1ePer), and to its I}I‘OX1IIll::;f1lIO trizciiirpaplecity of thc Slovene, thg most northerly of
Rostov (Stender-Petersen, Varangica, 82-3); with the entire Russian territory colonised D"""”“""k’e gorida’ .375-6' t was ' dpa lar e part of the basins of Lake Il’men’, of the
by the Vikings (Paszkiewicz 122-3, 323, note 6: he believes that the implied ‘inner the East Slavolnic tribes,d\~;ll;o mgpfiehc uppgcr course of the Mologa, and the northern
Russia’ was Scandinavia); and, tentatively, with all the Russian lands and cities men- V°1kh°V’ thc ‘Wat all C ’ V nadsk Ancient Russia, 324-7; T1'¢t’Ya‘
tioned in c. 9, i.e. the whole of Russia from Novgorod to Vitichev, except the extreme section of the Valdai hills: for the Slovene, see er _ y, _ Ch "Me records its
- - ' hrouded in mist. the Primary T0
south of the country which bordered on the Black Sea (Soloviev, Byzantion, 13 (1938), kov 228-33.
_ The 01131115 °f. the °“Y_a_rc S f h Slavonic p¢Qp¢( l Povest’ , 1 , 11', Cross 53)-
227-32). Cf. also the suggestion of M. A. Shangin and A. F. Vishnyakova (Viz. Vrem. 14, foundation among the . earliest traditions= o t e , ) superseded as capi.tal of the Slow”
1958, 97-8) that the word ‘Pwala. is a later insertion, and that the passage originally read The ‘old’ town Whlch N9‘/Bomd (ht “SW ‘own - b f the Norse sagas)-
- - ' Ladoga (the Aldegju OPS °
1-0’: olnd T175‘ iifw iiovcifv/\a. has been ‘cntanvdy Identified Staraya d have existed as early as
It seems to us that those interpretations which would include Kiev in ‘outer Russia’ A Slavonic settlement on the site if Ig°‘;,‘;’:;ic:?cl,,,1:lo1‘;§ili,l13)» Nlllizlirod (Moscow-Leningrad,
twist the straightforward meaning of the text, and are hence unacceptable. It is quite the 7th or 8th cent. of our era: see . . d half O} the gth CCHL, according to written
clear that the passage in 9/3-9 intends to suggest that Kiev forms the nucleus of an 1947), "-245 Vorqnm 35' In thefsecolin ortant Scandinavian colony in north Russia
implied ‘inner Russia’ (Eaw 'Pwola). It seems most natural and satisfactory to identify
1) ifw 'Pwm'a with northern Russia. It is hard to say whether this term should be sources, Novgorod W36 fig Ccntr9c—g0l1n‘{rdI:a3ology however, has to date revealed virtu-
lpovestli I’ I8’ H’ 244 . ’ r-03$ 5 l h t ' tie A. V. ArtsikhovskY> 0sn0v)' A7/‘h‘°'
restricted to Novgorod and its neighbourhood; it is probably wrong-to seek for too precise ally_I10th1ng on thls sltc pl-lT.h1e0 lbllitilcgl allfigiantte of the city to the Varangian dYna$tY
a delimitation of a geographical term which is doubtless used here in a general and rather
vague sense. It seems perhaps most likely that for C. or his informant the southern 0lofglgifill/i[)?'s::6)aWblyli15ai)e;
- the Earl)’ mth cent‘:hether
S“ Nasonov 69'of t h e N ovgom d rcgion
the Slavs
boundary of ‘outer Russia ’ was somewhere between Novgorod and Smolensk. D°"b‘sha"° s°m°"m°’ ’°°"" ‘mllmsscd as to W ' 1 Thus Bernshtein-Kogan
Although the term 1) é'§w 'Pwot'oz is a hapax legomenon, similar or analogous expressions many suppliid ‘mvégvhablor tlluc llZigrlhhttfhfdggtztlknwfiild have been dragged °Vcr
have been noted both in Greek and Slavonic. H. Stfirenburg has pointed out that the
correlative expressions év,-6; (emu) and ex-i-69 (élfw) were often used by the Greeks to (250) thinks lt umifafmllargis-.l
l1h¢tW°P°1'ta8'33t 3‘ Sc tlie1Lovat’ from
- - the DnieP¢1', h whim:D ie°n er
C35V.own
A. Showing’
Parkho-
designate places situated more or less close to the Mediterranean: thus we find 'LB1)pia they could all have been obtaine ' d from cities on ord near t.t mid e I1 P '_ls not thc north-
at 9/4
1) €v-rcis (the Hispania citerior of the Romans) and ii éfw ‘I3-iqpioc (Hispania exterior), as m¢Y1k°, °n the other hand’ suggests that ti-i:igli=:)d,€‘i)il"(tlheI1l1sfd1ul(l)i (U istokov russk0)' 8°~"‘da'~‘t"
well as 1) é'fw 9oi1\ozoaa, the Atlantic Ocean: Relative Onlsbezeichnung; zum geographischen cm City’ but imothcr town of that nfmgls Such scepticism seems quite unwarranted-
Spraehgebraucli der Griec/ien und Rfimer (Leipzig-Berlin, 1932), 14-18 (cited by Soloviev, ”"m°"“* Lcmngrall’ 19?’, tslllotllqghccentre on the Baltic—Black Sea waterway to take an
Byzantion, 13 (1938), 230-1). A curious example is provided by Balsamon, who observed N°V8°1'°d was an lmpor ‘En cn - ' Th ' no reason to doubt that the
that the fiovaoi/\i.oz (a pagan feast widely celebrated in Slavonic lands, and notably in
Russia) were still kept in his day ‘in the outer regions’ (év rais é'§w xaipous-): see MPG,
°”°“”a’
Slovene ofpart
the in the Russian
Novgorod mic
B-1‘¢a, wlthililzlhltlglfisr
3 OTIS W ‘glracvldnic regions’ (9/10), contri-
cxxxv11,,cols. 728-9, and, for the p'ovaoZ/ha, Niederle, Manuel, 11, 55, 132, 166-7. A buted their quota of f.LOV6€UAC¢ to the rulers of Kiev.
possible Slavonic parallel to the term if é'§w 'Pwaif<x is offered by the expression Verkh-
nyaya zeml_ya' (‘the upper country’), used in the 12th cent. in Russia to designate the
territories of Novgorod and Smolensk: Ipat’evskaya Letopis’, ann. 1148: Polnoe Sobranie 9/%1“hz¢€v8oa€’AS£BOzitoslav
e name o vy 9 prince of Kiev during 31¢ TPSCPCY
- . and°fin
- Slavonic, ' hisa<_:COI'_
m°th°1‘ Olga
dance with(945"‘
- ~ 59 to 972, is _ the
Russlcikli Letopisey, n2, 369; cjl Povest’, 11, 350-1; Gedeonov 436. 69) and sovereign of Russia from _ L D.ac_ pamm) ls mndcmd In 3
contemporary Byzantme transcnglloni ht1h:Ell:l glfurccli) Slalvonic Sve-. This is remark-
9/4 oind ‘rot? Ne7.io'yozp8o'ig. nasalizfid forni’ .2¢€v-’ Corrcspmldmgd ltlhat the nasal vowels were no longer Pronounced
The emendation to Nefio)/ap6oZ5~, proposed by Bury (543, note 1), is accepted today:
able’ bccausc
in Russia PY Itthe
is gel-dldllny
m’ C Ofxflrlsl
C Iillffl cent l (See Shakhmatov,
h r E"i~iikl°p8diJ’a Slaqyamkoy
still in use among the
see Latyshev-Malitsky 52, note 14; Gregoire, La Nauvelle Clio, 4 (1952), 279-80. The
name presumably occurs here in the genitive form (Durnovo 205). The ending -'yozp8és
leaves little doubt that we have here the Greek transcription of a Scandinavian name for
Novgorod, similar in form to Hélmgarar, the Old Norse name by which that city is known
"i '1 ‘;s:°s;:i;.;2‘2;,;;.1:;is$*;:Y,‘::;:*.,,‘:‘I§Z§@ia,,
“ ganans3 an 1 . - . . It ' f t that the influence 0 t e @;=;k
through a South Slav mtcrmcdmryd. cf ‘t’l€l)C2?I'Zt1'lSCIl:pall(?l'l:
of several other Slavonic
in the Icelandic sagas; this strongly suggests that this passage at least is based on evidence Old Bulgarian language has ban ctcc c - 3 and on 9/25.
proper names in c. 9: see Shakhmatov, Vvedeme, I,
 28 COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY 29
Svyatoslav’s name probably became known in Byzantium in 944, for among the
Russian ambassadors sent to Constantinople in that year to conclude a treaty with the Theoph. Cont. 235/8, a form which is close to Liudprand’s version of Igor; and cf. MPG,
empire there figured a personal envoy of Svyatoslav: Pavest’, 1, 34; Cross 73. Svyatoslav QXVI, col. 69 B; AASS, Nov. 11/1, 360 B, 406 C). _ _ _
was doubtless then still prince of Novgorod ; 9/4-5 is the only source which refers to The title éipxwv 'Pwai1xg was in the middle of the ioth cent. the oflicial designation of
Svyatoslav’s residence in Novgorod, presumably as representative or deputy of his father the imperial chancellery for the prince of Kiev: see De Cer., 690/21-691/1_; ¢f- O5"'°'
Igor, who was then prince of Kiev (see Introductory Note, p. 18). It was a common Qrsky Sam. Kond., 8 (1936), 49. In the Old Russian text of the Russo-Byzantine treaty of
practice for the rulers of Kiev in the 10th cent. to appoint one of their sons to the sub- g44 piesumably translated from the Greek at the time of its conclusion, Igor is given the
ordinate throne of Novgorod (see Pouest’, 1, 49-50, 83; Cross 87, 119; cf. Nasonov 31-2); igitle, of veliky knyaz’ rusky (velikyi kifnyazi msiskyi), ‘ the Great Prince of Rus’:: Povest’, 1, 35;
and the existence of princes who ruled in different cities of Russia as vassals of the Cross -4 The same title was applied to Oleg in the treaty of 91 I 1 P011855’, I, 95; Cross 56-
[¢5 Grizgk equivalent.: iiéyozg éipxwv 'Pwoiag, is cited in an inscription
, , on a recently
. dis-
.
sovereign of Kiev is attested in the Russo-Byzantine treaties of the ioth cent. (Povest’, 1,
25-6, 34-5; Cross 66, 73; cf. Grekov 177-8). covered seal attributed to Mstislav II of Kiev (1 167-9) : see Blifel ti, Arkheologzya, (Kiev,
This passage, and the reference to Igor which follows it, permit a tentative determina- 1950), 102-10; Rybakov, ibid., 111-18; A. Soloviev, Festschrgft fur H. F. Schmzd, Wiener
tion of the date at which the main section of c. 9 was compiled. Paszkiewicz (161-2) Archivffir Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas, 11 (1956), 144-9.
claims that this passage was written after Igor’s death, i.e. not earlier than 945, when
Svyatoslav, as he believes, ruled over Russia from Novgorod. But this conclusion seems 9/5It isé““0駓°' - the Introductory Note (p.
suggested in 1 8) that the compi'1 er 0fth'is sec tion ofc . 9,
to be incompatible both with the evidence of the Russian sources and with the wording
of 9/4-5. The prince of Novgorod never wielded authority over the whole of Russia; who wrote while Svyatoslav was still prince of Novgorod, used the present tense Kaflégerai,
and, pace Paszkiewicz, 9/5 suggests that at the time of writing Igor was ruler of Russia, and that the verb was later altered to a past tense in the Byzantine archives, in order to
i.e. prince of Kiev. On this point, and for the view that this passage is not a later insertion bring it up to date. _ _
but was written during Igor’s lifetime, probably about 944, see Introductory Note, It may be that we have in s’il-oc9é'l,'e'ro a direct and literal translation of the Slavonic
pp. 18-19. side: since the Old Russian verb sé'de"ti, whose original meaning is,‘ to sit’, was often used
at that time in the special sense of ‘to occupy a throne, to reign (see Sreznevsky, s.v.).
9/5 ci vidg "I'y'ywp, "rot? dipxowog 'Pwcriocs. The translation into Greek of a technical term used by the Russian rulers, or at least by
The Hypatian Chronicle states that Svyatoslav was born in 942 (Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh their Slav subjects, would suggest that the writer of c. 9 was supplied with part of his
Letopisey, 112, 34). This dating is justifiably suspect: for although the Primary Chronicle tells information by someone familiar with the Slavonic language. C. 9 contains other instances
us that in 945/6 Svyatoslav was still a child (Povest’, 1, 40, 42; Gross 78, 80), he was at least of Slavonic idioms probably translated, and in one case directly transcribed, into Greek:
old enough to wield a spear in battle (ibid.). His parents, Igor and Olga, are said to have see on 9/107, 110; and cf. on 8/30.
married in 903 (P0vest’, 1, 23; Gross 64); this date is even more dubious (see Povest’, 11,
262; Tikhomirov, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, 6-7, 1947, 71). 9/5-6 oirrd To icoiorrpov 'r1i;v Mihiviaxav. .
The chronology of the early part of Igor’s life is exceedingly uncertain (cji Povest’, 11, The term Koiorrpov is used in this chapter (9/6, 8, 21) in the sense of a stronghold or
249-50). According to the Primary Chronicle (Povest’, 1, 31; Gross 71), his reign in Kiev fortified town. It corresponds exactly to the East Slavonic gorod (Old Church. Slavonic
began in 913, and he died in all probability in the autumn of 944 (Povest’, 11, 295). While grad). A gorod or grad was, for the Eastem Slavs in the early Middle Ages, an inhabited
his reign was noteworthy for three unsuccessful campaigns waged by the Russians in place often, situated on the high bank of a river or at the confluence of two rivers,
Transcaucasia (see Vemadsky, Kievan Russia, 32-5), it was for his dealings with Byzantium enclosed by an earthwork or a wooden palisade and serving as a_ centre of craftsmanship
and trade. Archaeology has shown that the earliest East_Slavonic goroda arose in the 8th
that he was chiefly remembered in his own country. The Primary Chronicle usefully supple-
ments the evidence of Byzantine sources on the Russian campaign in Anatolia in 941, and 9th cents. in the valleys of the middle Dnieper, Dniester and Bug. Written 80011168
reveal a remarkable growth of these fortified towns on Russian territory in the 9th and
which ended in the destruction of Igor’s fleet; adds the information that in 944 Igor’s
ioth cents. The chronicles mention more than twenty in this period alone: see Tikhomi-
army, which was marching against Byzantium, was halted on the Danube by the diplo-
rov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 3-1 7. The rapid development of town life and urban economy in
macy of Romanus I; and gives the Russian text of the treaty concluded between the
the early Kievan period has often been discussed by historians: e.g. A. Eek, Le Moyen Age
Russians and the empire in that same year (see Povest’, 1, 33-9; Cross 71-7). For the
Russe Paris, 1933), 3 fi'- _ _
Russo-Byzantine war of 94 1 , see Bartova, Byzantinoslavica, 8 ( 1 939-46), 87-1o8;Runciman,
The( Northmen, by establishing their power and promoting trade. along the rivers of
Romanus Lecapenus, 11 1-13; Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie otnosherziya, 128-71. At the time
Russia, certainly contributed to the further growth of these Slavonic towns‘. However,
c. 9 was compiled, Igor was thus well known in Byzantium ; and it seems quite likely that
contrary to the statement of H. Pirenne (Economic and Social History of Medieval E’w'0fl¢,
the author of 9/3-104 was one of Romanus I’s envoys who travelled to Kiev in 944 to
London, 1949, 22-3), there is no reason to believe that any of the large Russian icourrpa
conclude the treaty with him (see Introductory Note, p. 19).
was actually built by the Northmen. In fact the name Garfiarilcz, the land of the goroda or
The name "I'yywp has retained the Scandinavian nasal consonant, which is absent in
towns, which the Scandinavians gave to Russia, suggests that they were struck by the
the Slavonic Igor’. The same form is adopted by Leo Diac. (1o6/5, 144/6: he cites the
number and size of the cities in their newly acquired Slavonic lands: see _Sten_der-
genitive case ”I'y'yop05', which may derive from a nominative "I'y'ywp or "I;/-yop), and a
Petersen, Varangica, 1 7-18, 84. The Old Norse word gardr (a yard, a stronghold) is akin to
similar transcription, Inger, is given by Liudprand, Antapodosis v, 15. "Iyywp is an inter-
the Slavonic grad, gorod. It forms the ending of the Old Norse_names Holmgardr and
mediate form between Ingvarr, the Old Norse form of the name (Thomsen, Relations, 135)
Kwnugaror, by which the Northmen designated Novgprod and Kiev respectively, and is
and the Slavonic Igor’; it may be regarded either as a blend of both forms or as reflecting
clearly identifiable in Nep.[B]o'yozp30is‘ (S66 011 9/4» 11'"0 _'T°v 1)_(€.“_'°')"f‘P8°‘$‘)- It has bgcfn
a form presumably used in Kiev before the complete Russification of this name. (In this
suggested that the use of the term gardr in these names is an imitation of the Slavonic
connexion, it is worth noting that C.’s own great-grandfather was called "I7/yep,
grad, gorod: see Thomsen, Relations, 80, note 1.
 30 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 3'
_ 1-r)v Mi/\iviar<ozv is the town of Smolensk on the upper Dnieper. The first i was un- Chernigov was situated near the bank of the lower Desna, north-east of Kiev. Its
doubtedly caused by assimilation to the two following iotas. The omission of the initial Z economic importance was assured by its proximity to the Dnieper waterway; and its
has been variously explained. Durnovo (238) suggests that the name stood originally in political significance is apparent in ioth cent. sources: it is first mentioned along with
the genitive case—oi1ro 1-1'7‘; Z'p.u\ivi'ov<as (or *Zp.o)t1vio-i<oc5~)-and that one of the con- Lyubech, as subject to Kiev and receiving tribute from Byzantium, in 907; and then, in
secutive sigmas dropped out; however, the preposition oirrd with accusative is common 944, it was clearly considered to be the most important city in South Russia after Kiev, a
enough, especially in this chapter (9/5, 6, 96, 106). The omission could also be explained position it retained during the following centuries: Pooest’, 1, 24-5, 36; Cross 74; cf.
by supposing that the Greek form oirrci rfiv "‘Mo)l1viaxoiv goes back to the Slavonic group Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 338-40. _ , _
i- Smolinlska, which the author obtained from a Slav-speaking informant and which he rot? Bovaeypafié: this is undoubtedly the town of Vyshgorod, situated on the right
could easily have interpreted as iz Mollntska; by further interpreting the genitive in this bank of the Dnieper, 20 km. upstream from Kiev, near the confluence of the Desna and
latter group as the name of the city (cf. on 9/6-7), he would naturally have taken the the Dnieper. Its Slavonic name means ‘the upper (or higher) city’, the acropolis. It is
nominative form to be Mohivloxa, from which he then formed the accusative Mo/lwiorcav, first mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, ann. 946, where it is described as a possession of
required by the demotic use of oi-n-6 (this explanation was suggested to me by Professor R. Princess Olga: Povest’, 1, 43; Cross, 81, 243, note 83. For Vyshgorod, see Nasonov 53-5;
_]akobson). Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 294-8. _
The position of Smolensk, near the watershed between the Dnieper, the western The form Bovae-ypoz5e' is derived, not from the Russian (East Slavonic) Vyshgorod, but
Dvina, the Lovat’ and the Volga, gave it considerable commercial, and later political, from the South Slavonic Vyshegrad. It is generally attributed to the influence of Old
importance. Archaeologists are still undecided as to the exact location of 9th and 10th Bulgarian (see Durnovo 207-8), though one scholar suggests the possibility of a Serbo-
cent. Smolensk: see Avdusin, Vestnik Moskooskogo Universiteta, 7 (1953), 123-37. The view Croat source of the form -pOt- in this name (Selishchev 311-12). The terminal e comes
that it was situated 10 km. to the west of the present-day city, on the right bank of the perhaps from the Slavonic locative case Vyshegrade (see Dumovo 207; Skok 237): this
Dnieper, on the site of the celebrated Gnezdovo burial ground, has been strongly may provide further evidence for the belief that the author of this passage used a Slavonic
impugned by Tikhomirov (Drevnerusskie goroda, 28-32), who believes that the medieval written or oral source: cf. on 9/5-6. The Slavonic bl is, at least after labials, commonly
and modern sites of Smolensk are identical. It was one of the oldest towns in Russia, and rendered by the Greek diphthong ov in DAI: see Skok 221, 243.
is mentioned in the opening section of the Primary Chronicle as the principal city of the
Slavonic Krivichians: Pooest’, 1, 13; Cross 55 (for the Krivichians, see on 9/9-10). Its 9/7-8 Sui: 1'05 7TO1'(!/..l0§ icon-re'pxov*ror1. Ao1voirrpews- _
political importance was enhanced when it became part of the Kievan realm, an event The Dnieper was the principal artery in that intricate network of rivers, lakes, port-
which the Chronicle dates to the late 9th cent.: Povest’, 1, 20; Cross 61. By the middle of ages and seas which led from Scandinavia to Byzantium, and which was one of the most
the 10th cent. Smolensk was a fortified stronghold, beside which a new burg (a fau- important trade routes of early medieval Europe. The international importance of this
bourg), inhabited by merchants and artisans, was growing up. For the importance of route dates from the second -half of the 9th cent., when, along most of its length, the
Smolensk at this period, see Brim 233-4; Voronin 28-9; Nasonov 159-65; Tikhomirov, Northmen founded their trading colonies and carved out their military kingdoms. In this
Drevnerusslcie goroda, 352-4. way the Dnieper, which about that time superseded the Volga as the true Swedish
austrvegr, the great highway for the Eastern adventure, became the spinal cord of the new
9/6-7 oirrd Tehio1i1'§ozv Kai. Tgepvvycfryozv Kai oirrd 1'06 Bovoe)/pads’. Kievan state. There are two detailed accounts of this trade route in medieval sources: the
Te/\ioi5*r§av: practically all commentators agree in identifying this town with Lyubech, Russian Primary Chronicle, which gives it its classic name, ‘ the route from the Varangians
situated on the middle Dnieper, north of Kiev and not far to the north-west of Chernigov. to the Greeks’ (put’ iz Varyog 1: Greki), mainly describes its northern half: the waterway
Different explanations have been offered of this much corrupted Greek form: suggested from the Baltic, up the Neva, the Volkhov, Lake Il’men’, the Lovat’ into the Dnieper
readings vary between re /11.015 (B >'r§o:v (Racki), re /ltoiii-{oir (Manojlovié IV, 34, note (Povest’, 1, 11-12; Cross 53). The other account, DAI, c. 9, is particularly detailed on the
2) and 1-0‘: /11015/:31-{oz (Shakhmatov, Vvederiie, 89; Latyshev-Malitsky 52, note 15). A southern section of this waterway, the section from Kiev to Constantinople, known in
sceptical view is expressed by Durnovo (205), who points out that the Slavonic vowel 10 medieval Russia as ‘the Greek route’ (grechesky put’)..C. 9 does, however, sketch the
was rendered by C. by the Greek v, and never by iov: cf. 11-o)tz58wz, 9/107, and note ad principal landmarks along its northern sector as well: the towns of Novgorod, Smolensk,
loc. There certainly seems to be a linguistic difliculty in the traditional interpretation Lyubech, Vyshgorod and Chernigov, whence the p.01/éfv/\oz ‘come down’ the river
Lyubech) Tehtov'-rljoz, but on geographical and historical grounds the identification is Dnieper. The last of these, standing by the lower Desna, lies in the Dnieper basin; the
well-nigh irresistible. other towns, except Novgorod, were on the banks of that river. It is only from Novgorod
Lyubech is mentioned in the Primagr Chronicle as early as 882; in 907 it is listed among to the Dnieper that the exact itinerary followed by the Slavs and their /tovdifv/\a remains
the Russian cities subject to the prince of Kiev and receiving tribute from Byzantium: uncertain: for between the upper Lovat’ and the Dnieper there lies an expanse of land,
Povest’, 1, 20, 24; Cross 61, 64. The close commercial relations Lyubech had with Kiev in about 140 km. across, which the Primary Chronicle vaguely terms/a portage’ (volok),
the ioth cent. explain the part it played at that time in the trade with the empire: see ignoring both the fact that this territory is bisected by the western Dvina and the existence
Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 345. of several portages and a large number of alternative routes within it. The problem is
Tl_§epvt';/1'15)/av: this comparatively uncorrupted form of the name Chernigov is given, as best formulated by Seredonin (227-8): ‘The Varangians, and the Russians after them,
are the other place names in 9/6, in the accusative case. The Greek nominative must pulled and dragged their boats over comparatively small distances, making use of every
have been T§epvr.-yo?ryoz. Durnovo (207) believes that the form may go back to the little river, every lake, to sail their boats, or at least to drag them over water rather than
Slavonic genitive Chernigova, and may have preserved in its terminal the case-ending used over dry land. The chronicler was evidently but poorly acquainted with the conditions of
by the author’s Slav-speaking informant: iz Chernigooa, i.e. ‘from Chernigov’. The second navigation along the great waterway. The modern investigator must show how the boats
y in T§epvi'y<13'yav, instead of the expected B, is probably due to a graphic assimilation to passed firstly from the Lovat’ into the western Dvina, and secondly from the Dvina into
the first -y. the Dnieper. ’ Seredonin himself attempted to trace the different itineraries, using
 32 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 33
geographical and historical evidence (227-40); and his conclusions have been followed Arab sources, Ibn Rosta, Gardizi and possibly Hudzid al-‘/llam, place on the borders of
and amplified by Brim (230-2) and Bernshtein-Kogan (252-60). (i) The shorter of the the Slav lands, was suggested by Marquart (509), but has not found universal accept-
two sections, that between the Lovat’ and the western Dvina, is a maze of rivulets and ance: see V. Minorsky, Hudzid al-‘zilam (London, 1937), 431. The more noteworthy
small lakes; Brim mentions four possible itineraries, and Bernshtein-Kogan nine. The attempts to explain Zauflaroig have been made with reference to the following languages:
most convenient route, it seems, led through the town of Toropets, which was reached Old Norse (Thomsen, Relations, 145-6; cf. Pipping, Studier i nordiskfilologi, 11 (Helsingfors,
either by sailing up the Kun’ya (an affluent of the Lovat’) and thence up the Serézha, 1911), 25-6); Slavonic (Il’insky, loc. cit., 176-7; qf. L8tYShCV-M3lltSkY 53); Armenian
over a portage to the Toropa river; or by moving up the Pola river over several portages (N. Ya. Marr, Izbrannye robogy, 11 (Leningrad, 1936), 284); Hebrew (Heinzel, Sztzungsber.
into the Toropa, and thence down the Toropa into the western Dvina: see map in derphil.-hist. Cl. der Akad. der Wiss. 114, (Vienna, 1887), 479-80); Hungarian (Gedeonov,
Bernshtein-Kogan 253. (ii) Between the western Dvina and the Dnieper there were two Otiyvki iz issledouany 0 varyazhshom voprose (St Petersburg, 1862), 107); and Turkic. The
main routes: either up the Kasplya river, over Lake Kasplya, up the Vydra, over Lake view that Zapfiaroig may be derived from the Turkic language of the Chazars has
Kuprino, up the Krapivka (or Lelekva), over a small portage to the Katynka, and down recently found acceptance, wholehearted or qualified, in the works of a number of
that river into the Dnieper a little below Smolensk; or else up the Mezha river and its scholars. It was put forward by Yu. D. Brutskus in 1924 (Pis’mo Ichazarskogo evreya at X.
aflluent the El’sha, over a portage to the Votrya, down that river and the Vop’ to the veka, Berlin, 19-20), and is argued by him in considerable detail in The Slavonic and East
Dnieper above Smolensk: see map in Nasonov 160. European Review, 22 (May, 1944), 108-24. In his view, the word is formed by the juxtaposi-
tion of two Turkic roots: sam, which means ‘ high ’ or ‘ top’, and was used as a designation
9/8 rd rcoiorpov rd Kiooifla. of a large number of towns in the Chazar empire; and -bat, meaning ‘strong’. *Sambat
The name Kiev (I'{H9B'I>, I-{1>ieB'i>) is transcribed in c. 9 in three different ways: would thus mean ‘high fortress’, an epithet appropriate to the geographical position of
rd Kiocifioe (9/8), rdv Kiofioe (9/15), and rdv Kioqflov (9/106, 111). The last form is Kiev. Brutskus’ interpretation was wholeheartedly endorsed by Moshin (Byzantinoslaoica,
nearest to, and Kiooifloe furthest removed from, the Slavonic pronunciation. 3 (1931), 53-4, note 74) ; cf. also Manojlovié iv, 45; L. P. Yakubinsky, Istoriya dreoneruss-
Kiev was probably the oldest city in Russia. Excavations carried out on its site between kogoyazyka (Moscow, 1953), 346-7. Lyashchenko (op. cit., 69-72), without adducing any
1938 and 1947 by a group of Soviet archaeologists under M. K. Karger revealed distinct linguistic arguments, also believed in the Chazar origin of the name, and took 9/8-9 ro
traces of at least three Slavonic settlements dating back to the 8th or 9th cent., and evi- mean ‘ thefortress of Kiev, which is also called Sambatas’. He suggested that Z'ocp.,Boi-rots‘
dence of still earlier habitation: see K'ul’tura drevney Rusi, 1, 197-8 (including a plan of is a name for the Kievan fortress on the hill, as distinct from the lower settlement on the
early medieval Kiev); M. K. Karger, Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya drevnego Kieva. Otchety Dnieper. From the historical viewpoint, these explanations have their weaknesses: the
i materialy (Kiev, 1951). The Primary Chronicle recounts the story, whose details are clearly foothill below the fortress of Kiev was still, it seems, uninhabited in the middle of the ioth
legendary, of the foundation of Kiev by the eponymous Kii and his two brothers Shchek cent. (see on 9/8) ; Vyshgorod, the Slavonic equivalent of ‘high fortress’, was a separate
and Khoriv: Povest’, 1, 12-13; Cross 54. A variant of this story, however, occurs in a 7th town, albeit very near Kiev, and not, as Brutskus believes, identical with that city. Yet
cent. Armenian source: see Marr, Izvestiya Rossiiskoy Ahademii Istorii Material’no_y Kul’tur_y, this theory has the advantage of taking into account the Chazar cultural and political
111 (1924), 257-87; cf. Rybakov, Izvestiya Akademii Naulc SSSR, ser. ist. i filos., v11 (1950), influences to which the area round Kiev was subjected for more than a hundred years
239; and Karger claims to have found some factual corroboration of this story in the before the late 9th cent.
topography of 8th and 9th cent. Kiev (op. cit., 6).
The historical records of Kiev begin with an entry in the Primary Chronicle ann. 862, 9/9 oi 1rou<1'io'31'ou. o:i§'rr3v. _ A h_ h f
which relates how two Varangians, Askold and Dir, captured the city from the Chazars: There has been some controversy as to the meaning of rroucnwrai, w 1C comes rom
Povest’, 1, 18-19; Cross 60. It was then the capital city of the Slavonic Polyanians, for the noun ro rroim-ov, itself derived from Latin pactum. In Byzantine Greek rroiicrov meant
whom see on 9/ 108-9. Its role as the political centre of the whole Russian realm, which it both ‘pact’ and ‘tribute’: see Du Cange 1, 1080-1. Eek argued that the relationship
was to retain until the second half of the 1 2th cent., is dated by the Chronicle from its cap- between the Russians and the Slavs is shown in this passage to be based on a mutual con-
ture by Oleg in 882, when this Varangian ruler allegedly declared Kiev to be ‘the tract or treaty, on a ‘symbiose volontaire et profitable pour les deux parties’ (Annuaire de
mother of the Russian cities’ (Povest’, 1, 20; Cross 61). l’Institut de Philologie et d’Hi.1toire Orientales, 2 (1934), 343-9). This view has been contro-
In the middle of the 10th cent. Kiev was already a city of some importance, with a verted by Dujéev (Sem. Kond., 10 (1938), 145-54), who refers to a passage in Theopharies
palace partly constructed of stone (see Povest’, 1, 40; Cross 78), a pagan sanctuary and a (359/12-17) stating that in the late 7th cent. the Slavonic tribes in Moesia were vrro
Christian church (see Povest’, 1, 39; Cross 77). It was situated on a hill overlooking the rroixrov vii-cl-vis the Bulgarian invaders. This, he convincingly shows, means that the
right bank of the Dnieper; the later mercantile and artisan faubourg of Kiev, the Podol, Slavs were the tributaries, not the allies, of their conquerors; and he concludes that in
was still uninhabited at that time: see Povest’, 1, 40; Cross 78; cf. Tikhomirov, Drevne- DAI as well (9/9, 109) the Slavs are described as the tributaries of the Russians. Con-
russkie goroda, 17-22, 286-8. tractual relations between the two parties, as he further points out, a,re excluded by the
wording of 9/105-10, where the Russians are said to be ‘maintained during the winter
9/8-9 rd e'1rovo;1.oc§cip.e'i/ov Zapflaroig. months by their Slavonic waxrufrrai.
The name, despite many attempts, has not yet been explained to the satisfaction of If further proof were needed of the accuracy of Dujcev’s conclusions, it could be found
most philologists. In his critical survey of his predecessors’ views on the subject up to at 37/43-5, where the lands of the Slavonic tribes are said to be ‘ tributary’ (1§1T0¢(ip’OLS')
1928, Il’insky (Tuvileinii Zbimik na poshanu M. S. Hr'u.1heos’kog0, 11, Kiev (1928), 166-77) territories of the country of Russia; and one at least of these tribes, the /i€VC'€Vl.VOl./
lists twenty-two different theories (not counting his own) of the etymology and meaning /i€VCt2VfiVOt, is also listed among the 7TCZK1'Lt'IJT(ZL of the Russians at 9/1 o. The term 151-roqbopos
of Zapfiarég. Lyashchenko (Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (1930), B, no. 4, 66-72) and quite unambiguously suggests a relationship of subjection or dependence; and it is clear
Latyshev-Malitsky (52-3) have further lengthened the list, while adding their own differ- from a comparison of the two passages that 1511-6:/>opor. and rrouc-rufrrori are used synony-
ent interpretations. The identification of Zaiifiai-oi; with Zanbat, a city which several mously.
34 CO MM ENTARY
COMMENTARY 35
The pronoun oziii-div refers logically to oi 'P<1‘i5- who, however, are not fnflntiongd in thg ‘led-, meaning ‘uncultivated, virgin soil’, and the Common Slav suflix -janin- (‘inhabit-
preceding passage, except in the chapter-heading (9/1). If the appositional clause oi an t 0f’) . The Common Slav "'ledjanini'1 (‘an inhabitant of the virgin soil’) must have
1rouc'ri.d‘rroci aiirtfiv was not mechanically inserted dur' th ' ' produced the Old Russian forms *l¢dZanini2',
.. *leZanini2, either of
3 which,
. . , in
. Il’insky’s view,
h
incorporation of c. 9 into DAI, from the passage oi:-11:5; €l:E&id1’ft;nK§'l2l:)1f(ElE'Ii;)§€9]3cf) may provide the model for /levloiv-qvoi. Moreover, the term ledjaninu is known to ave
9/109, the conclusion seems inescapable that the heading (9/ 1-2) eith ' ul S I 8 iven rise to the word Lechii, which became a common name for a Pole (cf. Niederle,
marginal, formed part of the original ms ' of c ~ 9'- see General Introdiic t’ion,
Cr p.Gag“ . at or Slovanslcé Staroiitnosti, In, 226-9; Manuel, 1, 164-6). The Poles were L'th indeed
' called Lyakhy
and Lechitae
in medieval Russia, Lengyel by the Hungarians, Lenkai by the 1 uanians,
9/9;" Of Kpt/3r7'rom7voi heydpevoi. in medieval Latin sources: cf. Paszkiewicz 365-6. The inescapable conclusion is that the
he first of the five Slavonic tribes referred to in c ' /l ev I avqvo
" 1. are Poles: cf. Durnovo 206; Skok 240; Paszkiewicz 366. The preservation of
. . . . - Q 3-5 Zikhotflflvtai (9/9-10 [Q -.
are
f th‘e Krivic h ians ( Krrvichr).
' ' All of them, except the /lev§oiv-qvoi
.. (9/10), occur m_ ’ thg7 list
9) the nasal in this name raises the same problems as does the form Z'</>ev3oo9l\oiBo5-. see on
o thirteen East Slavonic tribes mentioned in the opening section of the Primary Chronic]; 9/4-
(Pawn > 1, 11-14.; Cross 53-6). The long-standing controversy amon Russ‘ h 1 The 8eo Sraphical location of the /lcv§ozv'f;voi raises some awkward questions. Il’insky
to whether these 9th and 10th cent. ‘ tribes’ were separate ethn' g lan Sc O ars as believes that 9/9-10 must mean that they were neighbours of the Krivichians and that
or less transitory territorial units, is summarized by Tret’ ak 1c groups gr mm-dry more '
they lived '
near enough to the Dnieper '
to bring ' monoxyla to th'is river
their ' w ithout too
relying on recent archaeological evidence concludes that nio tmili 217? ). Tret yakov, much difficulty; he suggests that this position precisely fits that of the Slavonic Radi-
were compact and stable groups which had lived for five of lciugd not all) of thcm mic ' h'ians who lived in the basin of the Sozh, an afliuent of the Dnieper, and points to the
territory they occupied in the ioth cent. each of them united bslx un red yfars on the remarkable fact that the Radimichi are said by the Primary Chronicle to be descended h th
tural traditions and by a common langiiage. He appears to 1-¢;:,?_.1mn’:)c;It1 8911121 and cul- from the L_yakh_y, or Poles. Paszkiewicz (365-80), who accepts this view, believes t at e
much ast'b b t th ' ' O crilnotso /lev§aWI“von included the Slavonic Vyatichians on the upper Oka as well as the Radi-
Kievan sm’;’e_es’ u ta er as cthmc 81'°uP5» Whlfih were gradually absorbed into the
michians, the Polish origin of both tribes being vouched for by the V chronicler.
d k For the
Ancient
The Krivichians were amon th ld t d . Radimichians and the Vyatichians, see Povest’, 1, 14; Cross 56; erna s y,
Chronicle tells us that they lived onctfie iipgiri rldiizsliegtzflfihzfirgfizz gfillpg The P'c‘lmt‘K7 Russia, 316-20; Tret’yakov 238-41, 244-5; Solov’eva, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 25 (1956),
D '
b nieper (_Povest, , 1, 13,_ Cross 55),. and that their
_ I I
principal -
city was3 Smolensk
V1113. an
This hasC 13 8- 70. H owever, the identity of the /levfloevfivoi with the Radimichians and Vyatichians
een strikingly confirmed by the excavation of the Krivichian burial mounds ' th is questionable; and Soviet scholars (Likhachev,
. Pooest’, 11, 225-6;
. . Tret’yakov
. 244-5),
.b as
dating from 4th to ioth cents. The considerable commercial ' “'1 at'area’ well as Vernadsky, deny, on archaeological grounds, the Polish origin of these two tri es.
which lies at the very centre of the great East European watizlrtiixiiitancti: (‘If this terrmiry, Furthermore the position of the Radimichians and Vyatichians is inconsistent with that
"°“ by ‘he N°"hm¢“ as ¢aY1Y Pfirhaps as the end of the 81h eeiii, ciirlidaihs 1'8 Colema- ascribed to . the /levlevivoi.
. at 37/42-4: these are placed . in. South Russia,
fP west
. .of and
the
a\./cquirgd by Smolensk at the time c. 9 was written on 9/5-6) Fdr the Kridildllfiglhkazgg Dnieper, in the neighbourhood of the Pechenegs. As C. in his account o atzinacia
ernak,A'¢R' _. 1 _ ..' , its neighbours at 37/34-45 seems to be surveying these territories in a general direction
Sovetskaja iidrkliiilgggrélsftgaécflgii, yakov 298135, Paszkiewicz 436-41 ; V. V. Sedov, from eas t to west and then to north-west , the /levlevivoi could best be located to the west
The name of the Krivichians is transcribed in c . 9 In ' I Cl. ' {T 1 ' of the Derevlyanians, on the upper Pripet and the upper Bug, in the borderland between
(9/9-10) and Kpt,BLTC¢?)V (9/108). The form Kpifirrloi r¢;:_(;d:1C:;‘¢::gig? l{{Pl,8EozI-"Ivor Russia and Poland: see Il’insky 317; Paszkiewicz 366. See also on 33/ 18-19.
of Greek phonetics would allow the Slavonic (Old Russian), plural I‘; i Zgaws
I I , Tl ,
KptB7]Tdt7]VOL, which Marquart (107) wrongly derived from an im ossifilc . for 9/10 ori /\oi'rroii. Exhafinviai.
*Kriwicin, B. Unbegaun has shown that it is a Greek lural form d f P C smgu' at The term 1) Zliclloifiiqvioc (Exhavnvia)/ai Eichoi,B'qviou. (Z'ic)ioe,Bivi'oii, Zichoiviviou.) was
singular *Krivitin. This conclusion is all the more ortant s?n rom Old Russian frequently used in the 7th, 8th and 9th cents. to mean the Balkan lands colonized by
sources have preserved no examples of the names of the fild Russiiincfrillafs 1iflvtzlhlC Siavolnc
Singu ar Slavs: more particularly, (i) the left bank of the Danube (Simocatta 293/2, Acta S.
form, the chronicles invariably t t' th ' . Demetm," 1, MPG, oxvi, col. 1285),- (ii) " Thrace (Scriptor' I ncer tus de Leone Armenia ,
XVIe siecl¢ (Paris, 1935). 288-9. ma mg em as Coucctwc plurals‘ L“ ‘”"g"‘ ""“ ““ Byzantion, 11, 1936, 423); (iii) Macedonia (Theophanes 347/6-7, 364/11, 430/21-2,
486/12) . See Vizantiski Izvori za istoriju naroda jugoslavije, ed. G. Ostrogorsky, 1 (Belgrade,
9/10 oi /I€VC(ZI/fil/OL. 1955), 125, 177, note 7, 251-2, 222, 226, 230, 235-6. By extension the term came to mean
This name, which recurs at 37/ ' th f A ' ' any region occupied by the Slavs (ibid., 177, note 7). Cf. on 49/ 1 5.
It was most commonly identified4:ri1trh tli:ato6i'nthe€:€::Ili‘ii’ri)eLsiliii-:IiiiEl'i:l?>ii:zi._:1tsloIf€}i1 pqfzlci‘
L t k - V 1 . . , . . I O 6 Cl Y Q
u 5 fn ° Yma_(¢f P0_v¢$¢ , I, I 36, Cross 168). so Barsov note 114; Seredonin 128' 9/10-11 eig 1'61 6pr7 atircfiv Kdrrrovoi rtic iiovdfvlioi.
and, with reservations, Niederle, Manuel, I, 215. Shakhmatov who in 1 16 half h dl 1 The reference to the ‘mountains’ on which the Slavs cut the monoxyla is somewhat
accepted this identification (Vvedenie, 89) repudiated it in ’I9I9 (Dr:-‘;neish_ ' Z-Zrte Y puzzling. The nearest mountain range, the Carpathians, was far distant from any of the
not
P , _
.C.L
'> 1:1;l’!°1..Z§2Zi
_
-M‘
l 5:;~::*:.:’’ ~ thosi
Y» 1 9-C CV, 0v¢8l_ , II, 215; see other works cited by
aszkiewicz 366, note 5), it has now become a minority view Tret’yako '1' '
.“‘“ J’»3°»
is SlaVonic re 8 ions mentioned in c. 9. The few hills that exist in the neighbourhood of Kiev
and Chernigov are scarcely
. . important enough
. . to fit the picture here sketched.
. Ithmay bet
that the author has in mind the Valdai Hills (from 900 to iooo ft. high) near t e grea
1953, still regards the /levljoz " A ' 1 - 1 ' V’. Wm mg ’_n water-divide that separates the upper courses of the Volga, the Dnieper and the western
idHtitY ‘an 0Pen one’ (218,v2,72v4‘-))L./ evgevwm as mysmnous ’ and the qucstlon of that Dvina, which the Primary Chronicle calls Okov’sky les, the upland Oka forest (Povest’, 1, 1 1-
owever, as early as 1925 G. Il’insky proposed a much more convincin ' ' 12, 11, 217; Cross 53). However, since the iipr; in c. 9 refer to all the Slavonic regions, it
1 7 _ _ __ I gsolution (Slavia, seems possible that this word is a translation of the Slavonic term gory, plural of gora,
V. 2 (1925), 314 19)- H‘: d¢1'1"¢d /1€vCaV7]V0S‘/A-€VC€Vl-V05‘ from the Common Slav root
 36 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 37
which in Old Russian t I . , 7 with Bands made of Lime or Cherry-tree; they build them as our Carpenters do with
water‘ it is also notewhriffln tlrici Pnlyh nRmn"am but also dry laid" as oppqscd to ribs and cross-pieces, and then pitch them.’ Churchill's Voyages, 1, 591-2; original text,
’ . Y 3 111 I e ussian language of the time the notions of
‘mountain’ and ‘forest’ w 1 1 . Description d’Ukranie (Rouen, 1660), 55-6. The monoxyla could scarcely have been loaded
T0!/cow’ slowly,’ I (St Pctcrs€)1‘L<:r;_9$I9)ZC(9pvn1':;91te;ld. sele IS;')ezneysky, s.v. gora; cf. V. Dal,’
in Kiev with all the merchandise, traders and crew they carried down the Dnieper (see on
significant that the Kievan Polyanians ari: describi-id fn tli CP) S‘. 926-7; Barsov It is 9/2) unless their sides were raised with such planks: 1;/I Kul’tura Drevne_y Rusi, 1, 283-4.
tghe forest on the hills (v lese na gorakh) over the river Dniegcr sT’;5Z’3;s_(t:f’T0nzgl8 gs hving ‘in
eredonin 143. It ma th b ' _' 1» I ; ross 5 - qf, 9/ 17-18 1-iii rrahomiz afirciiv p.ovri§vllci rcorralliiovres.
his Slav-speaking inftinnziisit ihl’ir’iii1:cgi;i1,:t.;htc,;“Fh°' of ‘hm Passagcv Wh° 1¢a1‘l'1lI fI"0m The dismantled moncxyla are presumably those which, in the autumn of the previous
misinterpreted this statement to mean that this actisiiytfhtfiicylf In the liorests (M gorakh) year, had returned from the journey to Constantinople. C. 9 seems to imply that these
"Hi 5Pn). In the primeval forests which then cov d P ace Ont C m°“”““”’ (“‘ Russian trading expeditions thither took place every year: see Manojlovic iv, 41 ;
Russia 3 there must
_ have been man y trees la ere hso much of central and northem Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie otnosheniya, 200. Yet this could hardly have been so, for C.
sky, Kievan Russia, 30. In the 15th cent. GiOSETE.1Icg§i'1€artf)0SifVr‘fii1aisi1:1?;zl:‘-yff. Cf]i1yc\r/n?d- himself tells us that they were possible only when there was peace between the Russians
- were hollowed out boats of one '
trees from which n so e o ga
P1¢¢¢> “P3-ble °f ¢31‘1‘Ying 8 to 10 horses and the Pechenegs: see 2/ 16-23 and cf. 9/70-1.
and the same numb f ; . .
tr‘ W. Thomas d. £1‘ Odrglen lsee]. Barbaro and A. Contarini, Traoels to Tana and Persia,
9/19 'Iovviov pnvdg.
’c or ‘an °y°fA‘d""’°Y(L°"d°"iHa1<1vrt$<><=1¢ty,i873).3i. The monorgyla gathered in Kiev during April (9/110); the month of May was doubtless
9/1 1-12 xozi xarozprioavreg az}1'd_ spent in rigging them out. The time of departure, which was conditioned by the seasonal
This first stage in the pre arin
' 0 fitt ' . . must have melting of the ice on the Russian rivers in early April (9/110-1 1), was also governed by
bgen the actual honowingmfit prgcc; Vggnqflt€1I%u1;l,t;Z0x_J"lz;zr Perfcgmed inétztu,
the sailing conditions in the Black Sea, which is at its calmest in June and July. On the
structs the method of manufacture‘- ‘ the trunk of a thick
- M tree
mm-7
was fi‘ms h1, 211 2) thus recon- - other hand, an early departure was desirable, since the Russian merchants were required
an axe and then trimmed with an adze . T hen the lo w 1 mtd O owed out - wnh - by the Byzantine authorities to leave Constantinople by the autumn (Povest’, 1, 36-7;
tended to the required breadth' the b ow and the stern g were
as S cam‘
firml ’ and ' d ‘he “d°"'
' ‘ha’ Cross 75-6) ; and the expedition had to be back in Kiev for the polyudie, which started in
cracks; thc process ofstrctchin g was
’ .
consolidated ,
b the in ' f Y tie to avoid any - November (9/ 1 o5-7) . The duration of the journey can be calculated only approximately:
branches . . . . Perhaps the tree was sometimes
_ Y out b sertion
fitted f b o' thwarts made ' of
- Sufi‘ the section from Kiev to the rapids, including the stop for two or three days at Vitichev
wedges were gradually driven eve 1' d eeper into
' the trunk, Cafter
om two emg to fend’ in um
five years the cast
U-¢¢ (9/20-2), probably took almost ten days; the rapids were possibly passed in a day;
would fall and the manufaetm-¢ of thc du another day would perhaps be spent on the Island of St Gregory (9/72-8); from St
. ’ g-out would be completed in the ordina wa
this method ensured greater solidit y for the boat, but was too slow - A dug-out made ry Y‘
' '
in Gregory to the Island of St Aitherios at the mouth of the Dnieper was four days sailing
this way might have a bo d ' . (9/80), and here the travellers stopped for two or three days (9/83-4). About eighteen or
varied considerably, fromwszgllSgilziogtlierelgtirrigoor slgarp. :1-'l€l1:‘(;1SlZ¢ of these dug-outs
nineteen days out from Kiev, they began the voyage across the Black Sea: here their
monoxyla in the interior of Russia is alluded to b y Psellus,
us in ‘ca the
S. passage
ls preparation
cited on 9/2of the speed must have varied considerably with weather conditions. Kendrick states (149) that
Constantinople lay at a distance of about ten days sail from the Dnieper mouth along the

9’-i'.1i;‘.J.'Z§;'i ; :::f*“:""*" “F is ~ ~ ~
1 - ’ “ ’ '
The Mina‘ in qugstionismay
o course n
be th1os(é0::'tti?(:f1fE)A:‘e:.l;C
8 11
'
Piéigpgr does npt flow out of any lake.
over a arge part of the great
western coast of the Black Sea; this may be true of the Russian naval campaigns against
the empire, but would scarcely apply to a convoy of merchant ships, obliged to put in to
shore at frequent intervals (9/88-104) . About twenty days for the sea voyage would seem
Russian waterway and which wer ' to be a conservative estimate. Probably, therefore, the whole journey from Kiev to
Baltic
. and the upper Dnieper; but 6se£J3(.;‘n1(gl;5fl9I'lY
t l numerous in' the sector between the
Constantinople, under the most favourable conditions, took about six weeks; in stormy
weather, or when the Pechenegs were troublesome (9/50, 7o-1, 78-9, 93-4), considerably
9l15"19 of 3% ‘P159 . . . e'§o1rr\i§ovo'tv 0:151-oi more. The Russians must consequently have arrived in Constantinople by the middle of
forThis is thestage,
thc first secondseesta
Oglegqlf th ' '
I-1: :o:¥;1;r:;1.:rg9/(1)Ir-£23001‘ . .-
if:/11-10-15‘ (9; l5)h0f the mon0JEYla: _]uly at earliest, more often probably during the second half of that month.
We know that on several occasions Russian armed fiotillas appeared in the neighbour-
the Varangian
and rowlocks forruling clas (\i\:)vpnet<:l4lt;i;1))1t1h(:p¢;<a£g:i;$;:n(sduggotg?
the joumi); h ' I ‘A: a en ovfr , 11‘-leeY 0;
t P9/2)
Russians (5-6-
with oars hood of Constantinople as early as June: on the 18th _]une in 860 (Vasiliev, Russian
Attack, 102, 149); in 941 the Russian fleet was seen approaching the Bosphorus on 11th
(9/19) With which the mon l ‘ ' - . Pm 3' C ‘ at ‘ C ‘mhcr ta-¢k1¢’ June (Runciman, Romanus Lecapenus, 111-2); and in June 1043 the Russian navy was
served to raise their sides Gigi: :1:r;/:)ggT(lli:‘Ii In Ihlev llfcludcd éxtemal planks which sighted in the same place (Vemadsky, Szidost-Forschungen, 12 (1953), 52). But these were
Beauplan, who visited the Dnieper region towarldzlih miigccr Guillaume Lcvasmur dc military expeditions, and even the faster moving Russian combat ships could scarcely
thc Cossack boats of that period which as has heme tlg of thi(2 17tl} cent., describes
have taken less than three weeks to sail from Kiev to the Bosphorus.
rcscmblancc to the early Slavoriic mono; in e out on 9 2), bore a close
yla: the Cossacks, he wrote, ‘ build Boats about
60 foot long, io or 12 foot wide > and 12 foot de ep ; these Boats have no Keel but are built 9/20 1'6 Bt're'rl_;e'B-17.
upon
PlanksBottoms
Io or I2made
f t0lf th e W03 d 0f the Willow' about 45_foot in . length, and.rais’d
’ with This is the town of Vitichev on the Dnieper, about 60 km. downstream from Kiev. As
oo C0r:e8t0a:12
anothcr . . . tin they 0 , b
go lpcifolptt brtzlag, which th¢Y Pin or nail one over the assembly-point of all the monoxyla and one of the last Russian fortresses on the fringe
of the Pecheneg steppe, it must then have been a place of some importance. No early
and brcadth the higher thcy go. ' Th‘: hga , an 1% in length, stretching out in length
as thick as a Band end to cud at-la rcaC);ling/(t3h€iFf;l.llZl0]UIi1dICSt}(if lfarge R/eeds Put t08ether mention of it, however, is made in Russian sources: a deserted ‘hill of Vitichev’ is
referred to in the Primary Chronicle, ann. 1095 (Povest’, 1, 149; Cross 181). Some historians
’ C CH8 0 t e essel, well bound
 as COMMENTARY COMMENTARY
identify Vitichev with Uvetichi, mentioned in the Chronicle, ann. I I00 (Povest’, I, 181;
Cross 198): see Grekov 295; Likhachev, Povest’, n, 4.60. The identification is, however,
not proved; and is not accepted by Tikhomirov (Drevnerusskie goroda, 14, 55, 286); gf.
O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor in Cross, 281, note 350.

9/21 vraxnwnlcciv xoicrrpov 1'¢?w ‘Pris. For -zroucrtarrucdv, craxnefrrat, See on 9/9.
For K(iO"TpOl/, see on 9/5-6. DNEPROPETROVSK ©

9/22-3 fivixa div ciz'1rozv'roc olwoovvaxacfiat 1-ti: povcltfvloz.

The choice of Vitichev as the assembly-point of the monoagvla may seem at first sight
surprising. Why was this relatively minor city, and not Kiev, the place where the boats Ed'o'ou1rr;
were ‘all collected’? And why this extra two or three days’ wait at Vitichev? The text Kaldatslgy
clearly suggests that the flotilla was joined in this town by a further contingent of
monaxyla; and it seems natural to assume that these late arrivals came from Pereyaslavl’.
This city stood on the lower course of the Trubezh, not far from its confluence with the
S T Ooh 0P0‘! =
Dnieper, some 5o km. downstream from Vitichev. Its contemporary importance may be urs w
Lokhanslg ’Oo"rpo§ouvnrpotx
gauged from the fact that among the Russian towns mentioned or alluded to in Russo-
Byzantine treaties of the Ioth cent., Pereyaslavl’ is listed third in order of priority,
immediately following Kiev and Chemigov: see Pavest’, I, 24.-5, 36; Cross 64-5, 74. The
same treaties provide solid evidence that Pereyaslavl’, along with other Russian cities, Zvonetskay rekowspi
traded with Byzantium in the toth cent. (ibid.); qfl Lyaskoronsky 262. For Pereyaslavl’,
see also Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 308-13. Though Pereyaslavl’ is nowhere men- l\lena§ytetsl<,y - At|q>0p= N£¢°"1T
tioned in DAI (its omission from c. 9 may be due to its position which precluded its dug- (flenasytets)
outs from joining the others at Kiev), there can be little doubt that monoxyla which had
been cut and prepared in the forests surrounding that city took part in the common Volrusslg h
%,/
voyage to Constantinople ; we may thus suppose that the monaxyla from Pereyaslavl’ were
taken down the Trubezh and then up the Dnieper to Vitichev, where, before their inclu- Buddovslg 66 \Bot P ou 1’ o P o5= Bou)\vq1rp¢
sion in the assembled flotilla, they were in their turn furnished with oars, rowlocks and
Ta val: ha nsléy I8
\Atavrn
=- Bapouflm
side-planks.

9/24 sis Tdv rrpcfirov qipaypdv.

The qipozypol (literally, ‘barrages’), or, as the Russians called them in Slavonic, parogi Ltshiv )
(literally, ‘ thresholds’, ‘ridges’: cf. Old Church Slavonic pragfi), of which the celebrated
Zrpouxouv = Nornrpl-17,?!
description begins here, were a series of rapids formed by the Dnieper for a distance of
Vtlfiv -
67-7 km. between the modern towns of Dnepropetrovsk (formerly Ekaterinoslav) and
Zaporozh’e (formerly Aleksandrovsk). They are caused by granite formations which
extend across south-west Russia in a south-easterly direction from the Carpathians to
the Sea of Azov; the Dnieper, which, until its confluence with its left bank tributary the Kzchkas Ford. rrcpocpot TOU Kpmp Qv
Samara, flows parallel to these crystalline rocks, at this point abruptly changes its course
and is forced to cut through them in a north—south direction. As a result, the river-bed 6 "Ayto5 |"pqyop\o5
intersects a large number of granite ridges, which often protruded above the surface of the Klwrtztsa Is @ ZAPOROZH E
water, forming sharp or dome-shaped ledges from 20o to 85o m. in length, nine of which
extend right across from one bank to the other, and some thirty more over part of the
river-bed: the former are the porogi proper; the latter are called in Russian zabory. The
water, finding its way blocked by these natural barrages, sought to rise over or pass
Klbmeavs
between them; and the ensuing turbulence rendered the rapids highly dangerous, and in
some cases impossible, for river craft. The hazards of navigation in this area were further
increased by the strong and variable winds which blow during spring, by the large num-
ber of isolated rocks, scattered over the sandy bed of the river in the intervals between the
rapids, some of which jutted out above the surface, and by the sixty-odd islands with The Dmeper rapids
which this sector of the Dnieper was studded. The speed of the current, which over the
rest of the river’s course averages between 4.0 and 50 m. a minute, rose in the rapids to
4— 1) A 1
 4° COMMENTARY C O M M E N T ARY 41
between 200 and 320 m a mi t 5
f th rinci al explanations of
79-81; Eva, nitsky 33-40; B¢1i;:vi;i(y ili7iSi)9ii_i;i[i)i; ,'I§93Dnéflrovskze Porogi, 581-6; Semenov d'iscussed for more than two centuries. A detailed review o ep p
These spectacular and fearsome obstacles ito iiiiiiiiiiii t'iii_59i these names ofliered up to 1951 , and a comprehensive bibliography of the subject, can be
medieval Russia mu t h b aviga ion on the principal artery of 6
found in Falk 59-272 (German summary ibid., 244-5 ).
detailed medieval 3.(:iC0U:liiii0iielil1ii"3iiIi;iii1ciigi3iiiiiiid iiiiiiiiiig Noiiihmcli and Slavs: Yet ti"? °n1Y The researches of T. S. Bayer (1736), _]. Thunmann (1774), and above all the argu-
gussigan Primary Chronicle makes no mort-ii:i;iiaiifii:i>i'<iisii;i1iiigiiirii-ifii=:iii1iii::1s Isteigtainpg in c. 9. The ments of V. Thomsen (1877) established beyond doubt that the ‘Russian’ names of the
o, 1 4; Cross 90, 116, 200-1). Th L I , _ _ _ce o em avast», I, 52_3’ rapids are Scandinavian—-Old Norse or Old Swedish. Even the more extreme adherents
poetic image of singular power; is gngpgzr ;1h(5)4lm{l¢:in,b1tt:s tr:e,:lludes to them in a of various ‘anti-Normanist’ theories (see on 9/1) have been unable to refute this conclu-
stone mountains across the Polo t i I d’ i ii ere t Y way through thfi sion; they have hence either glossed over the ‘Russian’ names, or, in Thoinsen’s words
(MoScow_Lcningrad, I950), 27)‘? £2? thc(5Zovr gflolltu Igareve, ed. Adrianova-Peretts (Relations, 67), ‘ contented themselves with vague allusions or loose postulates of the most
DAI we have to wait until the late 16th cent whiii liiiiiiiiiiii iiciiiiiiiii iiiii iiiii iiiiipiiii iiiiiie unscientific kind ’. To some extent at least this charge can be directed against those contem-
von Steblau, ambassador of Rudolph II df Hfiiliisibtiiiii weiiii liiciiiiiibiiii by Eiiiiiii Liiiiiiiiiii porary Soviet scholars who in defiance of the clear evidence of c. 9, are most reluctant to
Tagebuch des Erich Lassata von Steblau, cd. Schottin (Hi?! io Q, ii Ziipiiiiog Ciossacksi 36° admit that in the middle of the ioth cent. the ‘ Russian’ language (i.e. the language of the
'7"¥9' A “st °*i‘h° Dnicpcr rapids with their position 'i ii’ ’ 86)’ ’°8"‘°> msd in Falk ' ' see Tikhomirov,
Rus’) was Scandinavian: ' ' Sovetskaya Etnografiya, v1—v11 (1 9 41), 15-7 ;
S. V. Yushkov, Obshchestvenno-politichesky stray i pravo Kievskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1949),
(Kmga Boliihomu C/"'t‘z/1"), ¢°mPiled in Moscow in ii; given iii iiiiii .B0ok With‘ Gm“ M49
grad, 1950), 111; ¢f- L. Bagfow, Imago Mandi v st0Ckf1Z)l1iI:di Sii8iiii8iiiii iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 51-3; Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie otnoslwniya, 208-io.
rom this period a vivid descriptio 1 ii, ’ ’ ’ ‘94 ’ "2 'W¢ ha"° also As for the ‘ Slavonic ’ names, no scholar has ever doubted that they are derived
' l from
methe
of
19), who between 1630 and 1648 iliJuiilitiiii'0rlIiieEsiigi; 9fL1;:vasseur de Beauplan (see on 9/16- language of the Eastern Slavs, who themselves later adopted the nationa na
‘Russians' ’ from the ir erstwhile Scandinavian conquerors. Some philologists, however,
limd Who
07°10’ - claims
-reaching the astonishing
- is a Russian i feat
if ' of having
wo d $§"R3::11g saileiciii LiiP;it1idi1iiiiiiiiii
oificiiiiiitiihiiiiii K'i'liig iThC
iiii Piiiiiiiiii have detected in the Greek transcriptions of these East Slavonic names traces of a
Stones quite cm; 1:-Vilggfifor Rock; andinthis Porouy C Ii3:131
is a $3
ridge ofword such phonetic and morphological ' '
influence '
of the Old Bulgarian language.' see Sh akhmatov ,
the surface, and others 8 or 1o foot abdve it Th iiiiiiii aiiii lindmi Water’ °th°1'3 1*?‘/<51 With Vvedenie, 81; Shevelov 509, 526; and on 9/4. On the other hand, Falk, basing his argu-
°n° an°th¢1', so that it resembles a Dam oi B iiiliiiiiiii as big iiii ii House’ and VCYY $10513 I0 ments on the palaeographic study of the oldest ms. of DAI and on his interpretation of
then falls down five or six foot in some Placies :.li'1Cl iii iiiiip iiiiii iioursc of the River: Whidl the linguistic methods used by the Byzantines in transcribing foreign proper names, has
Boristhenes is swoln’: Churchill’: V1270 es 1 i. - ii.iii or siivcn in others’ accwding 33 lihfi recently concluded that the Slavonic names of the rapids are Ukrainian (226-3o and
later descriptions, scc Falk 20_33 8 , , 579, original French text cited in Falk 2o. For passim). This conclusion i h as been strongly challenged by a number of leading philolo-
Medieval and modern authoriiies d gists 9 who have pointed out that it accords neither with . the evidence of the oldest .South
d.
rapids;
- this
. is
. dm to thc fact that sOmCoof11pf;nv\(;a()11s
l agree on the exact number of the Russian documents nor with the results of a comparative study of the East Slavonic ia-
between the Porogi ProPcr and the zaboii’ C iv i tliiiii iiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiigii iiiiiiiiciion lects. See the highly critical comments on Falk’s methods and conclusions by Shevelov
corrcct numb“ is nine (Evamitsky Bel .a .k9 ET e number of the raPids as seven: the ‘
(passim), '
the review of Falk ’ s book by the same aut hor (wr itin g under the name Yu.
discrepancy is suggested by Kleibdr (7i;)V$ Y, imonoff, Falk). A possible reason for this Serech) in Ukraina, 5 (1951), 324-30, and Falk’s reply ibid., 8 (1952), 627-32; 9 (1953),
There can be littl d bt l'i ~ - -i . 722-5. Cf also 1he d'is cussion between Falk and] . Sahlgren, cited by Shevelov (503).
substamlalb’ the saniiie fiiiiiirwaiyiiiaisifliziigidisg iii:ii- iiic raplds the medieval Russians used One of the difficult problems which face the scholar who seeks to 'interpret
h the names
t l
k_n0wn as the ‘old course’ or ‘Cossack C0l1Iii‘iSiiCi ltiiiia iiiiiiaiiiii liiiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiii This route’ of the rapids is, as Shevelov (505) succinctly puts it, that of discovering t e correc re a-
fight bank of the river; the depth of this fairwa , V d fir Y C ose most of the time to the tions
' h'ip b etween the three basic parts of the material: the Slavonic and the Scandinavian
between the rapids, and was hardly ever lessiih iiiiiii iiiiiiii 2 iii ii iiiiiiiiiii iii iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii names, and their etymology or translation into Greek; ‘the relationship between the
Belyavsky 801 ; and map in Falk ad_fin_ All the dean_3§. cet at the porogz and zabav,-; s¢¢ three parts varies ' from one case to the other, and the scholar must d eci'd e w hether he is
dangers of the journey over the rapids which SCl‘;fi)tlOI'lS emPhasize the difliculties and going to approach each instance completely individually or whether he is going to look
for some general system’.
mg t;insec
hi°_¢i: theDmpmwkie Pomgi,
Year (about 58I_ on
75 daY$ S tihe averaigifiili
8 . 3 Wiiliiieiiiii Elie iliiiiiiiliiiafiiiiii
eve o water was iiatiiiiw
iiiiiiiiig its A controversial and still unsolved question is that of the relative priority of the
19th cent. the highest water on the ii'iri1iIi>iiiii;vwaiisi Ii‘i;iiiiiili1)iii(¥iiii 93—iii iii iiiii iiiiiii iiaiii iiii iiiiii ‘Russian’ and of the Slav names. If, in accordance with the text, we assume that the
O. S.: see Stuckenberg 111, 282 note 1 iiiii ii ’ on the avcragci °n 9th Mal’ Greek interpretations of the names apply to both categories (for a differentreview, how-a
resents
To-day the rapids a 1 i . ever, see Karlgren 14-25), it would follow that one of these two groups p
Dnicpcr hydrmtlcctric ifaggn <(>E1)gni:;',r;/i:l))le._Tlc";e construction from I927 to I932 of the translation from the other. The view of Yushkov, loc. cit., and of other Soviet scholars (qf.
an artificial lake between Dnepropetiovsikaiziiidiig waiiiiiii,ciiiii iiiy 37 mares and Cm?-t¢d Levc hen k0, R usska - vizantiiskie otnoshmiya, 209) , that the ‘Russian’ names belong to a
rapids, the entire rivar has become navigable D aporozh e. Since the flooding of the separate ‘international nomenclature’ consisting of names taken from various languages,
I 0 h do d

sgatipn gvere rebuilt by I947: see N. N. Mikhziiloiitisililliiiiziiiiiliitiaiiilyi iiiilliii ii€li\i/Iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiiiciii is neither clear nor convincing. It has been suggested that the Northmen w o iscovere
.; . habad, Geography cf the USSR N y i ii" "57 0560*”, 194-7), 98 and exp lore d the Dnie p er during the 9th cent . gave to the rapids names in their own
skqya Entsiklopediya, xiv (2nd ed., 1952;, ;;i,i7_8°iik> 1951), 433, 444, 454; Bol’sha_ya Sous!- language, and that these names were borrowed and translated by the Eastern Slavs into
their own tongue. Falk accordingly ' '
(39-40, 67-8) believes most of th e S1 avonic
' names t 0
9/25 iPw0ta1-ii. Kai Zlx/\a,B17v1g-rZ_ b e d'irec t translations of the Scandinavian ones; and he points out, in support of this view
The celebrated names of the Dnie ' (34-5), that place-names similar to the ones brought by the Northmen to Russia are
dN d f h
and . Slavomc,
. _ allargc numbcrP¢;' rapl ds , here 8'1'v Cn in
ralst ' two languagtgs ¢Russlan,
. found in regions of Viking colonization in Scotland, England an orman y; c . ow-
’ bl ' Ph11°1°g1sts
ii pro ems whlch ' - and historians
. ’ . have ever Shevelov (526) for a different interpretation of this fact.
 4’ COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 4.3
On the other han mss. of c. 9, ibid., 275-94.; Ukmina, 8, 1952, 629-31; Shevelov 507-8). Falk’s interpreta-
tion tallies well with the description of the first rapid at 9/2 7-30; and it is noteworthy that
between Kiev and the rapids there is eve ccm. crosscfi the Dmcper about hauzway the modern Russian word ustup is cited as a synonym for porog in dictionaries of both
down the lower DniePer andlwere th f ry'lI:caSor'1 to bchcv? that the Slavs had sailcd medieval and modern Russian: see Sreznevsky and Dal’ s. v. porog. Falk’s reading of
of ’ Us am‘ ‘ar wlth the 1'3P1d$, lflng before the advent
_ the Northmen , M11 1 er (29) therefore beheved - _
that the Scandinavian_ names are t l Eaooirrri) as *0i5a1-ovrrfi is accepted as a possibility by Shevelov (507-8, 527); and, more
tions of the Slav on °5 . Ekbl Om ( D‘ie szebente
' rans a‘
Stromschnelle, 163-4,) suggcsts that that txistcd wholeheartedly, by Ekblom (Die siebente Stromschnelle, 167-9), who supports it by different
a set of Slav name f th ' ~ . . _ and rather simpler palaeographic arguments and confirms Falk’s suggestion that the
na,m¢3 to them’ weicqfinflficfiggf lgliugllich thlel Scandinavians, when giving their own
priority of the two groups of narlms to bgvz,‘:10; consideiisktliequestion of the relative Slavonic ustupi corresponds to the Old Norse stup (or stupi) , ‘ a fall, a precipice ’; the formal
and semantic resemblance between the two words suggests, in Ekblom’s opinion, that the
view that the Northmen t ranslated the names of
language?‘ cnthe
one’rapids
1. ewlsei mchnes
‘directly (526)
from th¢tolocal
‘"h° original form *oi3crrovi-rfi ‘reproduced the East Slavonic ustupi and besides reminded the
writer of the Old Norse stup(z') ’.
Equally contro ' 1 ' th _ Attempts have been made, however, to derive 'Eo'aovm'q‘ from a Scandinavian word.
d . d. W "'°1'$13 ,1S_ e problem of the source from which these names were
erive as the autho mf Thus Thomsen, who endorsed the traditional derivation *Neaaov1r'fi in 1877 (Relations,
namcs obtained from a gflcrggfizlifc §'IC;t‘l’1:'}I:::11k3l'(§.auii.2:? _Or each Latcgory oft
54.-5), abandoned it in 1919 (Samlede Afliandlinger, 1, 299 Ff.) in favour of the Swedish Ves
geerns to postulate two separate sources the on B ] . -vzzan us ze otnos ngya, 210) uppi, ‘be awake’; but this latter has not been generally accepted: see Sahlgren 320. And
in Russia, the othcr a V . . ’ <‘-fa u garian merchant who had travelled
pmvcn. As Falk _ arangian in Constantinople. this view is, to say the least, un- Sahlgren himself has recently suggested derivation from the Scandinavian dsupi, ‘ always
,RusS_a , d th (21%! 4) has pointed out, the semantic correspondence between the (ii-) sucking in (-supi)’ (Bygd och Namn, 38 (1950), 145; 39 (1951), 153 f.; cited by
1 n an e avonic names of the rapids and th f th . _ Shevelov 508). Cf. Kleiber 87-8.
plete and omit the same rapids stron l 5 t lh g act at boih hsts are mc°m' The wording of 9/24,-6 certainly suggests that the ‘ Russian’ and the Slavonic names of
by one Person BUT)’ who drew,attent% Y tuggcs t at thc names wcrc gwcn to the author the first rapid were the same. In view of the fact that all the other rapids except the third
less seriously
. cormpicd
' than the Scancpn o_the fact_ that the S1av names are on the whole
been a Slavomc _ one sec also shcvclo inaglea’. believed ( 54 1) th a tth e source must have have double names, it has been supposed that one of the names, probably the Scandina-
thc author ofc 9 was ' a Byzantine env 52 L‘ 1 ller 3 0. However , on eh e assumption ' that vian, was omitted here, either by the author (Falk 91) or by a copyist; and Kunik
.'. lled to Kiev in (428), who held the latter view, believed that the order of the words was shifted frpm
Note, p. I9), it is equally possible to ‘boll W O "ave 94-4 (See Introductory riiv e'1rovop.oz§cip.evov 'Pwcrw1'i nev . . . Zlxhafiiviari 5% Neaoovwfi, 3 e'ppn7vei5e'rou. 16+/\.
Varangian . who, living in the bilin e leve that he obtained
_ b o th sets of names from a
.
language,’ which, as Bury .ust1 b 8": world of Kievan _ R ugsla, ' k new the Slavonic - (qf. Thomsen, Relations, 54-5). However, it is equally possible that the author was given
Ea;1i:ntv€3£:p£;This igzftgussgvgy i\;_a!s)atthat time a sort of lmguafmma’ in both a Scandinavian and a Slavonic name for the first rapid, but that these names were
phonetically so close to each other that he took them to be the same word: see Karlgren
mes o ' - . 26-30; Shevelov 505-6, 527.
philologists. The Scandingviarzcfigig;Pi$cPt1::¢::;3 c. 9 are of great importance to
This first rapid is generally identified with that known as Kodak (or Kodak) in the 1 7th
language spoken by the Swedish Ray Th irec specimens we have of the cent. Book of the Great Map (Kniga Bol’shomu Chertezhu, 1 1 I ; see on 9/24), and as Kaidatsky
. .
language of the Viking age and alon - ' Cy Eva‘l features typlca ' 1 0f‘ th C Swcdwh-
- - provide. or Staro-Kaidatsky in the 19th cent.: see Evarnitsky 35; Falk 90-1 ; Timonofi’ 60-2;
origin valuable 'd , f 3 aside- the- Russian place-names
. 0f S cand‘mavlan
'
Kleiber 88; and the map in Kudryashov 111, 12. It lay 18 km. downstream from Dnepro-
ofier cine of the most strikiiig giifsfsowe (pao:gci:sad?:hletg:::§lny in Easlcfn %m'0Pe. They petrovsk (Belyavsky 799) and consisted of four ridges; its dimensions are given by
Thomsen Relations 6 ‘F lk -6 . mama“ M1819 ° the RM’: see Evarnitsky as follows: width, 331 m; length, 512 m. by the right bank, 54.4. m. by the left
bank; fall, 1.94. m. (it should be noted that the measurements given by Evarnitsky for the
centuries is termed Old Russian. Despite the sce t' ' , flc In respect O . C following rapids, cited here and below, differ slightly from those given by Timonoff After the
and Shevelov (529_3 O ) , who d.iscount their
_ valueP as
lfilfm o_ scholars
linguistic like Selishchev
material, (309)if
they can still, Nenasytets (9/45-55), this was considered one of the most dangerous of the rapids; see Falk
used with necessary caution provide im o t t ' 24-5.
phonctlcs
. and morphologypcf. Durnovopgg;-1;. evi d ence on the history ' of Old Russian
-

9/26-7 5001/ 1'6 rrloiros 'roi3 1'CUKO!VLO"I"l')pllOU.

9/25-6 -rdv e'1r0vop.oz{6 ‘E ~ -\ ~ I , , __ , The rlvicavtarripiov was the imperial manége in Constantinople; it served more
It is fairly commonly Zgrgbd iii:i0i)iligis0i1i£’si:::i1Ti:‘n'afi{ F? gmgaam '- particularly as the Polo-ground of the emperor and the court. The word comes from the
equivalent of ‘do not sleep’ (pxr) xoip.6Eaat) is ne szipi in Old Clio the rs‘ r§P1d= the exact Persian Jougdn, ‘polo’. Hence 1-{w<oEviov, ‘the game of polo, polo-stick’; 1-§v:<ozvZ§ew,
and modern Russia;-1_ Thc, first form can bc obtain d .f.. b urc Slavonic, no spa in Old 1'l;ovxavi§eiv, ‘ to play polo’. The game, imported from Persia in the first half of the 5th
miswritten for *Neaaomrfi or *Neaov1rfi a mistakg all ilie C supposfid fliat €a°'°""""l was cent., was popular at the Byzantine court till the fall of the empire. From Constantinople
word €1rovo;.toz§<i;.1.evov ends with a v This ex ' more na ura as t C preceding the French Crusaders brought it to France, where it was known as chicane. The first ‘T€UK(!-
. . planation was alread ro o d b B '
in 1711 (as Nea0ov'mf' MPG, cxi 1 yp P Sc Y andun viorfipiov in Constantinople was built by Theodosius II to the east of the Palace, near the
commentators; see Falk 72-83. F:1lcohl>:vl¢?i?§raI;l0};?,:c’;c:Il:cclipfieii ‘;YfiEh° majoriw °f Sea of Marmora. Basil I demolished it to make room for the Nea Ekklesia, and built a
tion of this namg Hc S t th ’ h . .’ ml) ¢ ¢ Y 1 erent explana- new and larger ground further east, by the sea: see Theoph. Cont. 144/13-1 5; and, for
transcription of *u_,;up,', ;]_ SP Ltfip;r1.g;n?cld::daC’;rrr£Ft t’:°"n,’ ‘;"a3h;0I3g'rov1'rfi, a Basil’s exploits at the game, Genesius 127/8-15. Cf. plan in Vogt, Commentaire 1, adfin.;
initial m;_ (8_) was misrcad as G and UT as > h , _ J_ec ion . n opinion, the
» he ori ina lm f - D. F. Belyaev, Byzantine, 1 (Zapzlski Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, v/1 (1891)), 76;
from the documents in C ’s archives and tlialfw cn t g S. 0 C. 9 was compllcd _]. Ebersolt, Le grand palais de Constantinople (Paris, 1910), 75, 140-1, 147, I 51, 160, 173-4,
thc samc mm: . (83192, 2 ' O. th3 h e alse ct _ ymolo gy ne‘sup:
" ' was invented
' at the
49-5 ’ ‘if’ C P otogmphlc r¢P1'°d11¢t10n of Paris and Vatican 215; Koukdules, EEBE, 13 (1937), 114.-17; C. Diem, Asiatische Reiterspiele (Berlin,
V V
44 COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY 45
1942), iii, 120-8, 260-2; R.]anin, Constantinople byzantine (Paris, 1950), 4.0, i 19, 188-9; . . . . ' ' ' he prince’s retinue; and the
L. Bréhier, La Civilisation Byzantine (Paris, I950), 66-7. Russian cities still belonged to the military a_1‘1$t0¢1:9-CY» t° _ _é 8 F th
The exact dimensions of the 1-§v:coavt01-fipiov are not known. On Vogt’s plan its width monopoly of the trade with Byzantium was in their hands. Manofllovg Iglgrfgel: 8:; thg
is about 70 metres. This reference, as well as the allusion to the width of the Hippodrome trade between Russia and the emplrfi, Whmh was thm d°nf8m°5 Y YP oh; Edm
. - s - — ' 31' ,
(9/68), shows that the author of this section of c. 9 was a Constantinopolitan and a Russo-Byzantine treaties (Povest , I, 24-Q, 34-9» C1'°$3 54 > 7_3 7)’
courtier: see Introductory Note, p. 19; Manojlovié IV, 37 ; (ff: on 29/ 14.-53. d’Oriant II (1908), 203-io; Istrin, Izvestiya Otdel. Russ/c. 1’azyka 2 Slovesnom R088» Akai
Nauk 2,9 U924) 383-93- Vasiliev Economic Relations; Levchenko, Viz. Vrem., 5 (19552,
» _ ’ . ’.. . ’ . __ _ R ' rt t
9/30-5 Kai Sid: 1-oi'3'ro K1-/\. ’ 105-26; ici., Russko-vzzanmskw otrzosheniya, 9i 127, 152 71. Fog tlge ussian expo ra 6
For this use of punting-poles in rocky, shallow water, of Vita S. Hilarionis, Analecta in the ioth cent. see Iful’tura Drevney Ru-W, I8 319-25, 335"4-1, 3 5- -
Hierosol. Stachyologias, 5 ( I898), 131-2: 154502/\ov (qfl on 9/68-70) xai 0'1-em'7"g 1-fig 1'06 1r/\oiov
t Q I \ ' A ' ‘P ‘ . . . Oil/\Bopoi'.
dtafioioews ot'io"q5', itfi Svvoipievoi K(.67T(Xl$' Xpfio'ozo9at, fivayxégowo icovroiig rd 11'/\o'iov sewa-
9/:2,'r9}:4?Rfl:a:-fiznipgtyti-I-;v;;;(:;:1f1fl1ia;i,cl,fiiiilsiaels notlgti-eliilbdifficulties. It is derived from
oiipevot [.L€7'& 1ro/\/\oi3 3e'ovs‘ rclv Tdwov 3iozi/ifxeafiat. e us
. - ' ' ' . 9 -
the Scandinavian (H) ulmfiirsz, a dative-locative singular of Holmforspr . m;fors a com
9/31 11-Avgalov ano:/\<.6crav~res'. On the assumption that the Russians used the same fair- ound of the common Scandinavian word holm (Old Norse hélmr), an islet , and jbrs, a
way as the Cossacks in later times (see on 9/24.), this would be the right bank. ifvaterfalli a . rapid
. ' See Falk‘93-109 ’ 250'’ qf. Th0m$¢f1, Rdatiansa 55"6§d’Sahlgmn h 1 - 316-7
Vasmer, Wzkmgerspuren, 669. As Falk has shown, 3- la1'g¢ nunillblcr Of Slzclm? aiggiffgfi
9/32 rd: . . . Xotmiz 1rpri'yp.oz1'oc. formed with the element holm-, and the Old Norse word 0 mr, or 0 ,
This, together with a later passage referring to rd: wpciypara and slaves (9/51-2), is the Slcindinavian place-names in England, Scotland and Normandy.
only explicit mention of trade in c. 9; but 9’. 2/ i 6-18. There can be no doubt that the
annual expeditions described in c. 9 were primarily undertaken for trading purposes,
although, as Manojlovié (iv, 43) has pointed out, Russian merchants travelling to 9/4;}; Ex/rifizggfbthe Slaggfiiaeolisigvmlewgfxiihe second rapid is perfectly clear. It is a com-
Constantinople were sometimes employed on diplomatic missions.
° “‘° . . . - ‘d. Ph'l 1
bination of an aCl]CClZlVC formed from ostrov, an island, and P'a8i§P£T08)é_ac1Z'Pé_ in raga‘;
The nature of these Russian goods which were shipped to Constantinople is revealed ' however not all in agreement on the original form o t e a _]¢ V -
by contemporary Russian sources. The Primary Chronicle, ann. 969, attributes to Svyato- g'lstS anli ma'orii have favoured the form '08lT0l’l"J’i (°°TP°B5HH")3 5¢¢ Th°m3cn'
slav of Kiev the statement that furs, wax, honey and slaves are exported from Russia to lll:Il1:tsiorl.tc55'
i i Slhaklimatov ’. Vvadenie’ 39'’ Dum°V° 205-
- - Fan‘: however
' * ’ (I°9"I3’ 250*
, th t lt
Little Preslav on the lower Danube: Povest’, I, 4.8; Cross 86. These were in the ioth cent.
the staple articles of Russian export to the South. The great importance of the Russian-
slave-trade at that time is attested in many sources. ‘The slaves in their chains’ were an
- IX» on d h 3%‘ ‘°"“1%“: °;*§i":;‘:.wit*.:..::i2".;:":2...:1. .1;
ovov as o o _
copyfitpfcmicfi: 6k:ai(§iI:;F03i1phthong ua. His ,interpretation has been criticized by
_ _ _

essential part of the shipload of the Kievan monoxyla (9/52). The Russo-Byzantine sont uss'1a ',b t St msclmelle 169-70). The form wpoix exhibits two striking peculiari-
treaties reveal that some of these slaves shipped from Russia to Constantinople were Plkblar?
; (ifuf
rivs:(leJ:Oet frzm the East Slavonic form porog, but from the South Slavonic,
. Old
natives of the empire: the treaty of 911 provides for the return home of Greek and lifislgiiriiin jirag (but see a different view in Selishchev 312); and th° final X (1n5t¢adf°f 7)
Russian prisoners of war who had been sold into slavery, against a specified ransom st;-Qngly suggests that the g in - prag_was pronounced by the author ’ s i'nforman t as a ricad—
(Povest’, i, 28; Cross 67-8); while the treaty of 944 contains two clauses relating to the ' ant in accordance with South Russian phonetics. These facts prompte.
gltglgmonstzn (‘I/vedenie 81) to writc. ¢C0nStamin¢ Porphyrogenitus . . . obtained his
return of fugitive slaves: a Russian slave who escapes to Byzantium, or who finds his way ma_ ov ’ . -- ' ' h R - b t th -
to the St Mamas quarter (the suburb of Constantinople where the Russian merchants information [about the Dnieper rapids] from an inhabitant of'Sout ussi:, 1:”oris
were forced to reside), is to be returned; likewise a Byzantine slave who escapes to d in conversing with the emperor, whenever it was necess ry,
Russia must be brought back, and, if the property he has stolen is found to be intact, the cducatcd man urge th 'r Russian [i e. East Slavonic] but in their Old Bulgarian form,
Russians will be paid two nomismata (Povest’, I, 36; Cross 75). am? names llot mt tlii: same time. his South Russian pronunciation.’ Shakhmatov’s
“ihllc revs? lggneasis of c 9 may not be wholly acceptable on historical grounds; but his
Furs from the forests of central and northern Russia were highly prized in the markets views on e _ - I f h I _
of Europe and Asia. In the tribute gathered by the Russians from their Slav subjects linguistic explanation of the form ‘ITPCZX has been endorsed by a number 0 86 0 ars
during the winter (9/105-9) furs were the standard contribution (Povest’, I, 42; Cross 81).
0 Q ; I \ I " A’.
Igor, on concluding his treaty with the empire in 944, presented the Byzantine envoys to
Kiev with furs, slaves and wax (Povest’, 1, 39; Cross 77). The same commodities, accord- 9/40-! tlfng epldliiisiilzl 3.:-1((JiI:l]1€‘oé,l;-\(:;’nl+gp:ll);.!I.’lI?(?8» of the rapid are formed of words
ing to the chronicler, were promised to the emperor by Olga of Kiev (Povest’, I, 45; Cross Bot'h "cl C313 I d ‘ra id’ It has been observed, however, that the Greek translation
83). Contemporary evidence shows that the furs exported by the Russians at that time nlclinmg riisesaiii noatnquite I::orrect: the words should be reversed: the exact equivalent of
included beaver, sable, ermine, black fox and squirrel. (I)-ll C naand Ostrovinyi prag would be 6 qlpaypds rot? vqcrlov. See Thomsen, Relations, 55;
Wax, as is evidenced in the passage cited above, was a commodity highly rated on the Lotmjlirs
a s ev- Malitsky 55 note 2i - Sahlgren (317) attributes‘ . the- inversion to the absent-
Byzantine market (if 53/53 i) : it was used to make candles for the Church. Together with minldedness of the author or eopyist. See however Kleiber 84-5.
honey, it was gathered in the Russian forests. ‘ ‘d has been identified with either of the two which lie downstream from the
The Russian merchants referred to in c. 9 are clearly armed to the teeth. Since a con- Thls flip!‘ h th second rapid called Sursky in modem times, or with the longer and
siderable part of their itinerary passed through territory infested by hostile Pechenegs, Hm 036' Wu tchird ra id tn; Lokhansky. Both have islands adjoining them. As these
this is scarcely surprising. In a more general sense, however, the boundary between lnorc
w° fapaidgirifiaufinly abouli
. half a kilometre
- distant from
. one another, it may
' be that6- Fthe
lk
trader and warrior was a slender one in I otli cent. Russia. The merchants of the principal mu-n¢ I-Iolmfbrs-Ostrovlnyt prag comprised both of them. see Thomsen, _1iel§tiofizst;v5r;d is .
93-103. The Sursky rapid was 7% km. downstream from the first, it consis e o g ,
 46 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 47
its length was 102 m. by the right bank and 72§ m. by the left bank; its fall was 50 cm. _ . b that a term with this meaning
»rAl5fbfs on palaeogffiphical gro;p~11ds,_:-li1€Vféi.:'tli£r phieggesonic name of this rapid (See on
The Lok/iansky had three ridges and the following dimensions: width, 128 m.; length
271 m. by the right bank, 166 m. by the left; fall, 1-6 m. sad Evarnitsky 35 ; Falk 25; and would provldlino limable Iilaniviihlibme sctgqtifiism Thomsen’s and Falk’s Aiforf, and
the sketch-map of these two rapids in Timonoff 63. 9/4-6-7)’ Bu‘ C a 0 reg? S .- - ' 'f t I nation.
Concluda’ ghat ’h;.?a;n§ Aiioglifi ‘:;,2;1(:1::¢2lt: ifitgrizption was discovered on
9/43-5 rdv -rplrov ¢pa'yp.6v . . . ' fixes 9$pa'y;ioi3 '. Ab011t 1 7° at 1 5 I ‘m - - ' U sala
-
a ston¢- A8 d¢¢1Ph°1'¢d bl’ H‘ Plppmg (‘Nor ' ' dzska Studier
- tillegnade
- h A. Noreen, pp his1
th r with
The name of the third rapid has been assigned to the wrong language and the Slavonic
' ' '
1904,, 175-82), the inscription re ferred afto at certainR _ Hegbiarn
_ w o,dtoge
th 6
enetratcd as far
name is lacking. Fenai/Spl is a transcription of the Old Swedish present participle - jstam in the sou an P _ _
Gtellandi (Old Norse Gellandi, Gjallandi), which means ‘loudly sounding, ringing’. For the brothers, erected stones in memory °fR n a “ h I havc ldcntb
. - - - d t d b t iooo A.D., and most sc o ars
problem raised by the insertion of the Greek rho, see Vasmer, Zeitsclm_'ft fzlr slavische 25 t$)(f£II‘1Cl'l?O€I:‘ Rziijigiiin has yielded no conclusive results, thouglh
Pliilologie 28 (1959), 99-100. As at 9/40-1, the author makes a slight error in translation: e iurwi . -- - . Kamen ’ ‘ the cloven stone ’ , W hichte
the meaning is not ‘ the sound of the rapid’, but ‘the sounding (ringing) rapid’, perhaps it has been tentatively identified with the Roan)’ _ ’ _ Chas
. i ' described as situated on the upper rea
6 oSpoey;i6s* 1-oi) 1';'xov. It is quite possible, as Kunik (429 f.) suggested, that the Slavonic Russian traveller A. Afanas 6V-Cl'l1JlZlf'1bl11Sky F I, the
. ' d ed. (St Petersburg, 1863), 101- °
name was inadvertently omitted by the copyist and that the original text read 'ro’v of the rapid: Poezdka v yt1Zl"l"_J’" R0-‘~f!7“> Ii 2? , . d Sm” A A_
. - - - Sb k arkheologzcheskz/ch state)’, [>0 "8 J’
Xeydpevov 'Pwo'w1'l pév Fe/\av5pl, Zlicltozfiiyviori 5% . . . 5 iippiyveiierai ‘fixes qlpa-yp.oi7'. It
may be that this missing Slavonic name bore some resemblance to the modern Russian Z111?érdk mscfSlftI1’(:t1er:l?i:ir§.’
0 7"“ am“ _ ’ II£:1iai‘;n;7l(1i1—6
’_ ‘' .
Arne, La Sulde
1;‘ at
1 l’0Ti¢"t
' (UPP5a1a»
f 'ts I914)’
decipherment,
name of this rapid—Zvonets or Zvonetsk_y—which is derived from zvon, ‘a ringing sound’, 11; Latyshev-Malitsky 55, note 23 , Falk 136-9. For a seep ica view o 1
and is thus exactly synonymous with Gmllandi. See Thomsen, Relations 56-7; Sahlgren see Sahlgren 321» 11°“? 1-
317; Latyshev-Malitsky 55, note 22; Falk 117-28, 251; but cji also Shevelov 510.
Kleiber (89-90) believes that Zvonets may already have been the Slavonic name of the ' ' ’‘A6’ vi? P°"Y#°'7' .
rapid in C.’s time: if so, the name——probably ZvonieI—might have been transcribed as 9/éffil;-7
6 31N6aai2Tii1:i.6i:)erbf
3-V0“ theflfsotliilh
. Lraifildx
- Ii-as- liseen satisfactorily
' explained.
' Contrar}(');3
h tthe
our author’s assertion, - - connexion with P6lieans
its _ seems dubious. It , . is true
h Et a S1 vonic
*Z',3ovi1-oi: see Vasmer, loo. cit. The peculiar sound made by the water passing over the - ' ' ' hich became neyasyt in t e ast a
Dnieper rapids has struck several observers: cf. 9/29-30; Falk 127-8. The Zvonets was Chumh Slavomc . word for pchcan ls d nejevui W notably by Thomsen ( Relations ,_5 8-61_ >'
hgwgvfif,
situated 5 km. downstream from the Lokhansky rapid; it consisted of four ridges; its length languagc of R“Ss’a' It has been argue ’ ' h e of this raP1d
cf. Latyshev-MalitskY - 553 note 23). that the connexion d f lo ic between t e nam If any such
and Ornithology.
by the ri ghtban k was 1 86 m., and by the left 218 m.,"its fall was 11} m. (Evamitsky ' 36;
Timonofl' 64; Falk 25). and that
.
of the pelican -18 1mP°$$1b1° '°“ Emu“ S°
ld have
3
been called by a compoun
d name
connexion
_ had really
. - existed,
. - thfi 1'aP1d
‘d’ W0“ _
and not simply , the Pelican
. ,_, pe 1-168 ns a morc_ _
9/45-6 Tdv 're"rozp1"ov qipaypdv . . . ’/letqldp. meaning something - -
111“ P°1‘°‘°‘“
'
rap’ ’
lley nor do they nest in roe .
" ks Th ‘
e P
elicanthe01'Y'1s_
The ‘ Russian ’ name of the fourth rapid still raises some difliculties. Its correct interpre- ovcr’ do not hvc In thc Dmcpcr Va , ' r‘ either of the author or of his
tation became possible only in 1876, when Cobet (Mnemosyne, 4, 1876, 378-82) pub- ‘hug rcgafdtfii by. r3o:1t.scfl10la;snEo%al"il=:fi:t:1T1[llgVC(:FSb:l1lC more recent commentators to
lished c. 9 according to a fresh collation of the Paris ms. of DA]: it then became apparent ¢¢Ym°l°g“’a Y Him 6 m orm - ' ' h t ks, ultures swans or owls,
th a t th e correct form of the name is' not ’ Aetqlap,
’ as previous
' '
editors '
had given it, but substitute for Pelicans oéhzr lfess ;I1:;[;:.:"0g)I:.1l£L(gibc;;'gSésS1.;CLe ;sasko:29_\:}2; Lat,yshcv_MalitSky
'Aei<;b6p. See Thomsen, Relations, 143-4; Falk 135. were even more mi88u1 e i °r ’
At the present time there are two principal explanations of 'Aet¢@6p. The first was pro- Kl 'b 8 . _ .
posed by Thomsen (loc. cit.) : in his opinion, the word is a compound of the Old Norse part- 55‘I’1lliotc
_ e 23'
name Slszix:'(li‘vi:sVi:1i‘deedciii:1iive(:l—from
. . - - ' nej€~U’”a
. "€}’“~Ull’-
b th - But lb‘? Pnmaw mcanmg
Old Church Slavonic an in ' of
'
icle ei, ey,oe (Old Swedish ai), ‘ever’, and the Old Norse adjectivejorr, ‘forward, precipitate, thls word» wlzgh ms‘; neg£it1)v?. aiifijgzafrg-Eiisgliidzi dlnlyliiln eminently suitable name for
violent’. Eijbrr (in Old Swedish Aijbrr) thus means ‘the ever violent, the ever rapid, Old Russian ast avonic in -_ , . th tin is
perpetuo praeceps’. The name Aifiirr was transcribed as 'Ae1<;$6'p. Thomsen’s interpretation thfi largcst and mos‘ fcarsomc of ‘hc rap‘ ds ’ the only - one ' which,
h evenr in e sp 8,
diminished (See
is accepted by Falk ( 142-50, 252), who considers that it is supported by the punctuation h t , d whose violence is t us ncv¢_ _ ‘_
of the Paris ms. of DAI. A different explanation was put forward by Sahlgren (32o—3): ‘Seller
, )wlbo1ly
cow 5 , . u a(l::dfll2Il’1e€?Cltg‘i\Ea:lt:i’1a0’l‘rit:ni1aIne
h tf thefrom
17ththe Slavonic
cent. onwardaCl_]CCt1VC meaning
s the _ ra p id in-
was invari-
_
criticizing Thomsen for ignoring Swedish toponymy, he points out that the great majority
of Swedish waterfalls have names ending in -;fors, and cites the Swedish word ed, pro- a Y ca C 8 , ' 6 - -Falk 129-54.
nounced aio in the ioth cent., which designated a place where boats were dragged or B0l’slwmI1 Cll¢"¢¢-Zhui “13Th°mscn’ Relfltlons’ O I ’ ' ' f th modern name Nona-
carried, i.e. a portage. He accordingly takes '/letqlép to be a transcription of *Ai8_‘fbrs, There is still 2?2II;Ct.(lll‘I.€gt(3)I1(;fo:f;3)P:‘:g3g1::s(z;lfi;'1etl';:o£€1b%;§yOthatCthe form Nwmif is a
which he renders ‘the portage-rapid’, ‘die Stromschnelle mit dem danebenlaufenden ~U’M5- Thomscn ‘,0 wmi ’ ' h t I as the 10th cent. the
Transportpfad’. In support of his view he refers to the description given in e. 9 of the mistake for Nevcéqr. SCl:iSl'1Cl’1C‘\ll:1£3(1: 186€.1l.lSwel:z:ll€1yCt\;c€{So:- ;gn::y§;;iY but suggests Nqigqytias
fourth barrage, the only one impassable for monoryla and round which they had to be Slavonic nameo t erapi may I t farm related by popular
dragged and ported (9/47-57). The omission of the 0 in ""Aei9$6ps he explains by an alternative. Falk, howevert(15:), rigzfils .lI\(;:a;i_f1t;;se::satlraaterthfi séffix ‘as was added
supposing that the ms. was written from dictation and that this letter was conse uentl ¢WtTh!'1°1°8'Y ‘E ‘:;a‘l:;: xigltléoomts 0 sthe Slavonic
- name of the third rapid _ (see on 9/4.3-pl,
not distinguished from the initial o of the following word axlafiiyvtori. Sahlgren’scl recon-Y ‘O C name Y , t ersonify this rapid, which was a so
st rue ti on o rm"zofors is' supported by Vasmer ( Wikzngerspuren,
" ' 669) and Karlgren (108-9). 35 3 0f1‘hY1T1C- Th‘: suflix’ moreover’ serves
- .
t b ’ F lk I I—2 2 2-3)
dfathcr’ and Razboznik, the Rob er ( 8. 5 1 5 _ -
The explanations of both Thomsen and Sahlgren have recently been reconsidered b Y popularly- known as Did’ Gran -
Ekblom (Die siebente Stromschnelle, 171-3). He, like Falk ( 143-6), rejects the reconstructed ' ' 11 tdt Neon 1-.Itwasin ee ag iant _among the raP1ds.
, ' ' d d _
S‘ituate
The Elpltfilctflltiirsi
a ou -“bajibt lI:1‘:!1t€1ll‘(l)I'apl((lnlt
’ consisted of twelve ridges, covering an
 4s COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 49
overall distance of 2-454 km. by the right bank and 1-65 km. by the left. Its fall was 5-9 vollnyi, ‘free’; he attempts to corroborate this view by identifying Bovflvmrpoix with
m. For a distance of about 2 km. upstream from the rapid, the Dnieper was about '2) Vil’n_y, the name given in modern times to the ninth and last rapid, which does _mean
km. wide; after passing the two large islands of Kozlov and Tkachev, the current ‘the free’ (see on 9/65). Bov/\1;-rrpoix, he thus concludes, means ‘the rapid which is free
accelerated and, on entering the rapids, began to zig-zag violently from one bank to the (of water)’. The transcription of voltnyz as ,6ovAv-q- is interpreted by F as evidence that
other between the numerous rocky islets by the left bank and the promontories and ridges the weak i (L) in non-final positions had disappeared in East Slavonic by the middle of
that jutted out from the right bank, sometimes to the middle of the river. The strength the Ioth cent. (in Greek it would have been rendered as e or as ov), and that an early
and turmoil of the current were further increased by the many underwater stones and by stage in the phonetic development 0) u) i, characteristic of the Ukrainian language, had
a transversal barrier of steep rocks, whose summits, jagged or rounded, rose up to seven already been reached by that time (as instanced in_ the transcription of 0 as ov).
feet above the surface of the'water. ‘ For all these reasons the river, which above the Nana- Falk’s interpretation of this name has been criticized by Ekblom (Die siebente Strom-
sytetsky rapid flows freely and smoothly on its course, on reaching the rapid and encoun- sclmelle, 169-71), who points out with justice that Falk’s arbitrary change in the sequence
tering there impassable obstacles in the form of ledges, rocks, ridges and promontories, of the names of the rapids has no basis in fact: qf. Shevelov 51 1. It is hard to believe that
hurtles with inconceivable violence in different directions and rushes from one rock to the name Vz'l’n_yi (Vol’no_y, Vol’ry) , which since the i 7th cent. has invariably designated the
another; the current, as a result, becomes terribly agitated . . . billions of particles of last, i.e. the most southerly, of the rapids, should ever have been applied to the fifth rapid,
spray fly up in all directions . . . bottomless whirlpools are formed between the rocks: all which lay 26 km. upstream. Ekblom reverts to the ‘wave theory’ and suggests that
this produces a terrible noise, resembling a groan, which can be heard far away from the Bovhv-qirpoix may well have been derived from ‘a South East-Slavonic’ form * Vz1lni(hz‘i)-
rapid and which drowns all other sounds—the cry of the birds and the voice of man . . . praJi(i‘i). (For the possibility that the Slavonic form of this name in the ioth cent. con-
Nenasytels looks particularly majestic and enchanting viewed from the top of the right tained a labio-velar 1, see also Selishchev 311.) In this case, Falk’s linguistic conclusions
bank when the river is in spate and its surface is covered with silvery, pearl-like foam . . . would have no relevance: the Slavonic ii ('5) was transcribed in Greek as ov, and the
when it roars, and groans, and throws up its waters high in the air, and suddenly breaks name never contained any I (B). The name BOUAVY)7TPaIXs mm B°‘P°"¢°P°$, mfiam ’d1¢
ofi’ and falls into so deep a silence that one may hear the water gently splashing its way Wogenstromschnelle ’. _
from stone to stone, from one ridge to another, thus enabling the local inhabitants to fore- Pace Falk, there can be no doubt that the rapid Bapovddpos/Bou)w-qwpoix 13 the one
tell changes in the weather.’ Evarnitsky 37-8 (Falk 27). known in more recent times as Valnigsky, Volneg (Ukrainian Vozmih) : cf. Miller 26. For the
The Nenasytets doubtless enjoyed the same terrifying reputation in the ioth cent. as it various forms of this name see Falk 19, 28, 32. It lay about 14 km. downstream from
did in modern times. It was the only rapid over which the Russians did not risk their Nenasytets, and was one of the largest of the rapids; it consisted of four ridges and covered
monoxyla (9/47-57). In later times the Zaporog Cossacks were more intrepid: their pilots a distance of 576 m. bythe right bank and 501 m. by the left: its fall was 2-4 m-.: see
took boats and rafts through a narrow passage free of rocks in the middle of the river: see Evamitsky 39 (Falk 28) ; Dneprovskie Porogi 583; Belyavsky 800; Timonoff 68, 80.
map in Falk adfin. It must have been a terrifying experience. See also Yuzhny 405-6;
D. I. Evarnitsky, Zaporozlfe, 1 (St Petersburg, 1888), 121 HI; Timonoff 64-8; Falk -153-4. 9/59 3to'1'i. ,ue'yoiz\1]v Alpvqv ol'rro1'ez\ei.’. _ _ _ ‘ _
It is not clear why the name ‘the wave-rapid’ should be given to a rapid because it
9/50 1'01); Hargtvaxlrag. See on 9/66-7, 70-1. forms a large lake’. Lehrberg"(366—7) therefore proposed the emendation from /\l,uv1;v to
Slvqv, ‘a whirlpool’. This was accepted, as approximating more closely to the rapid’s
9/52 rd 1/ivxoipta. See on 9/32. name, by Thomsen (Relations, 64), Niederle (Slovanské Staroiitnosti, 1, 4, 109) and by
9/53 p.l/\ta Zf. Shakhmatov and Krims’ky in their Ukrainian translation of c. 9 (Zbimilc Istor.-Filolog.
The length of .N¢lld.$_‘}Il¢l.S‘ was 2-454 km. by the right bank (see on 9/46-7), along which, Viddilu Ukrafn. Akad. Nauk, x11, 1924, 138, note 1). However, Malitsky, in his notes to
presumably, the portage round the rapid was made. But six Byzantine miles were equiva- Latyshev’s Russian translation of c. 9, points out that there were no special grounds for
lent to 8-887 km. This would imply that the Russians put in to land (9/48) and re-em- singling out the whirlpool of this particular rapid, whose fall was considerably less than
barked (9/57) respectively several miles up- and down-stream from the rapid. that of Nenasytets. He proposes to retain /\lp.v'r)v, translates this (following Laskin 71, 73)
as zavod’, ‘creek’ or ‘backwater’, and mentions the existence of a small harbour by the
9/57-8 rdv 1re';m"rov ¢pa'yp.o'v . . . Bapovqldpos. exit from the rapid: Latyshev-Malitsky 56, note 24; cfi Likhachev, Povest’, 11, 216. But the
The name has most commonly been derived from the Old Norse Bdru-fiirs, a compound problem cannot be said to have been solved. Cf. Kleiber 85-6.
of ba'ra (genitive lniru), ‘a wave’, andfors, ‘a waterfall, a rapid’. It would thus mean ‘the
wave-rapid’. The ending -for: was hellenized to make -gbdpos. See Thomsen, Relations, 9/61-2 rdv Eierov tfipaypdv . . . /leoiv-rt.
64; Sahlgren 317-18; Ekblom, Die siebente Stromschnelle, 171; and earlier works cited in The name /leoivrt is quite clear. It is a Scandinavian present participle, formed like
Falk 155-63. Falk himself (163—6, 253), on the other hand, claims that the name should I'e)\av8pi' (see on 9/43-5). It corresponds to the Old Swedish participle le(i)andi, from
read Varuforas and relates it to the Swedish varu-, var-, meaning ‘an elevation, an island, lea, ‘ to laugh’ (qfl Old Norse hltzjandi), which, as Falk has pointed out, was an onomato-
bank or rock rising above the surface of the water’. poeia. The ‘Russian’ name of the rapid thus means ‘the Laughing’. See Thomsen,
Relations, 65; Miller 27; Sahlgren 318; cf. Falk 183-8, 253-4. Thomsen plausibly suggests
9/58-9 Zlxllafl-qvtow-i . . . Bow\v-qrrpoix. that this rapid ‘may have been so called both from its rippling or babbling sound and
The great majority of commentators are of the opinion that the Slavonic name of the from the glittering or sparkling of t_he foam’. Cfi G. B. Ravndal (Stories qf the East-
fifth rapid has exactly the same meaning as the Scandinavian: Bovhv-qvrpoix is a com- Vikings, Minneapolis (I933), 92): ‘Number 6 vaunts the name of I:.eanti or “Laugh-
pound of vliina (BJPBHH), ‘a wave’, and pragif, ‘a rapid’ (cjl on 9/40). See Thomsen, ing”, corresponding to the Minnehaha of America’s Indians. Seemingly, they were a
Relations, 64; Shakhmatov, Vvedenié, 89; Dumovo 205. Here again, however, Falk (166- dauntless, rollicking crowd, those early river-men . . . who first baptized the rapids of the
7 1, 253) rejects what he calls the ‘ wave theory’, and connects Bov¢\vq- with the adjective Dnieper. ’
 5° COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 51
9/62 Bepoiiv-§1;, 6' e’o'rtv ',6poiop.oz vepoi)‘ ’, Ekblom. The former (207-17, 254), largely, it seems, in order to bring the sense of this
The Slavonic name of the sixth rapid is semantically linked to its ‘Russian’ name word into full accord with his explanation of the Slavonic name of this rapid, Nairpelfi,
Bepoifrl-q is generally acknowledged to be a transcription of the East Slavonic artici le "'Nao'rpe§1j (see on 9/65), extends the meaning of Strukum to include not only ‘ the small
vtrzliii (Bbpyqnn) from viréti, ‘ to boil, to bubble’. The name thus means ‘ the bailing por rapids’ or ‘ the narrow places where the current is rapid’, but also ‘ the area surrounding
bubgllngi 1'aP1d > and approximates closely to Bpdiopa vepofi : here, as in the case of other the rapids or narrow places’. The difference may appear comparatively slight; but
rapl s (cf. on 9/40-1, 43-5), the Greek expression is a free rather than a literal transla- Ekblom (Die siebente Stromschnelle, 153-4, 166), while accepting Falk_’s etymology of
tion of the original name. See Thomsen, Relations, 64-5 ' Miller 27' Shakhmatov Vv¢d¢m'¢ Zrpoiixovv, will not agree to any such extension of meaning: Strukum, he insists, could in
8/9-go; Durnovo 206 and note 2; Latyshev-Malitsky 56, note 25,; Falk 188-91’ 253 Cf‘ this context mean only ‘Stromstrich’ (or more precisely ‘den Stromstrichen’), but not
anfljlgvfingfitgfféhf sfiw. P/Hi. 28 (1959),l98),Bwhoicritieizes Kleiber’s attempt (ibid. 90-1 ‘Stromstrich mit anliegendem Gebiet’.
_ 5. 95_9) 43"7) t° 1'6 flit? €povr§'q to the Slavonic ruclzey, ‘a stream’.
The Slavonic ch (1!) is quite regularly transcribed in DAI as 1-§: see on 9/6-7 - ef Dumovo 9/65 Not1rpe§1j.
?r‘:gr51 Stlfiek ::itC¢
1- A3 1:01‘ 6, itglffims I0 do duty fort (1,) that had not yet disappeared The name Nocirpebj has caused commentators much trouble. In this form it has
Shevelov 5I2_4. name. see blom, Die szebente Stromschnelle, 169. Cf., however, proved to be an insoluble conundrum, and those who have tried to solve it have been
driven to emend the text: see Falk 192-206. It was not until 1951 that Falk’s Dnep1_'for-
Commentators have not always agre d ' 'd tif ' A ' ' samas Namn fully explored the promising line on this problem proposed by him in 1944.
tentatively identified it with the Tavolzharl:sky:Iir1i=:ne|‘.i1ond‘dni§i thzalvg-t‘ll1€t:'1p(;-C Tlisomsgg He suggested the reading Nae-1-pel,'1j, and showed on palaeographical grounds how or
situated between the Budilovsky and the Lishny rapids, near the island that bore ills riai:iIi=:' could have been mistaken for er. The root of this word, in his opinion, is the Old Church
@f- Falk 18—9°5 ma}? P- 39. But the Tavolzhansky was not a proper rapid and it is not everi Slavonic feminine noun streit (C'I‘p6H{b), meaning ‘the rapid current of a river, that
marked On recent maps. Falk (191, 235) leans uncertainly towards the view that the sixth part of the river where the current is most rapid and impetuous’: cf. Sreznevsky, s.v.
rapid is the Volnigs/cy (or Voonih) : but this cannot be accepted, as the latter rapid must be CTpbHtI>H'b' ; Vasmer, Russiltelies etymologisches Wtirterbuch s.v. strezh.
-BC!p0l:§bOpO$‘/.BOUAV1]7Tpdl.X (see on 9/58-9). It seems most satisfactory to identify Aeoivrtl Falk’s interpretation (217—22, 254-5), apart from its simplicity, has the great merit of
Bepom-§-q with the Budzlo or Budilooslgy rapid: see Evarnitsky 39-4o (Falk 28); and map establishing a close semantic relation between the Slavonic and ‘Russian’ names of the
p. 39. It lay about 5% km. downstream from the Volnigsky, consisted of two ridges and seventh rapid, since streit and truk(a) are synonyms (see on 9/64). The next step, how-
was 399 m. long by the right bank and 218 m. by the left; its fall was 1 m. It was ohe of ever, proved somewhat hardelf, as the exact relationship between stre-ft and Nozai-pelrj
the dangerous rapids. See Evarnitsky, z'bid.; Belyavsky 8oo' Yuzhny 406 I 0 was diflicult to establish. Falk suggested that Nozav-pew corresponds to *.NastreZje (from
an earlier "'.NastreZtje), which he rendered as ‘ the area surrounding the rapid and narrow
9/(Z1 brdv é',B5op.ov q$poz'y;.io'v . . . Zlrpoiixovv. current (strait) ’. This view was searchingly criticized by Ekblom (Die siebente Stromschnelle,
o et’s edition of c. 9 (1876: see on 9/ -6 1; d th - , 151-4, 156-67, 174), who pointed out that, contrary to Falk’s belief, the name Strukum,
which is found in the Paris ms. (Falk 28 1 ) plleizfisofthe fatiltzfgttzbiljgfigilnci’ t€1eP{;2Ji‘t‘i‘::ii which is identical with streit but not synonymous with the area surrounding it, is by no
1:8. (Falk 291), given by all previous editions. See Thomsen, Relations 144' Falk 207 For means a synonym of*.Nastreitje. In attempting to explain Nao~rpe{i§, he argues, one should
t nf . b _ _ 2 9. . .
(2; co usion etween ,8 and K in Greek minuscule, see Byzantinoturcwa, n, 56 start not from the hypothetical derivative *NastreZtJ'e, but from the well attested, basic form
streit. He shows that in Germanic languages place-names with nominative meanings
Erpovxovv is fairly generally derived from the Old Swedish (or Old Norse) Strukum commonly occurred in medieval times in the form of locative datives preceded by pre-
the dative plural of stmk(a) or stmke, meaning ‘a rapid current in a river es eciall h , positions governing the locative case; and he suggests that the form Nixon-pe§ij (Nastrezi)
it‘Stromstrich’
is “a"‘°“” (Ekblom.)
(Th°"1~*@n)»The‘Vsrsnsuns im Flusslauf kleine Stromischlfielle’ V61‘ ll.“ may similarly be a compound of the Slavonic preposition na (‘on, at’) and streil, a
dative case was a locative one and the Old S locative of streit. It is thus possible, he claims, that a Slav-speaking Northman, when
original may have read at (ti) Strulcum. Such locatives occur in large numbers in ¥’/Ilfillfsl questioned by the author as to the name of the rapid, may have replied in his own
place-names, not only in Scandinavia but also in England and Scotland. Another instancg language ‘Heitir at (ti) Strukum’ (‘it is called Strukum’), and have added in Slavonic, when
of a locative dative is provided by Oi}/\Bopal (see on 9/39-40). The substitution of the giving the other name, ‘Imenujetit se no Streii’ (‘it is called Streit’). In this manner,
Greek ending ovv for um can be explained by the natural aversion of Greek cl ' ' ' Ekblom believes, the Slavonic name Streit (crpemb) was accidentally recorded by the
writers from a word ending in 71 (cf Byzantinoturcica 11 47- end ¢d ). in a asslfllzmg author of c. 9 as no Streii and transcribed as Nozo"rpe§1j.
with the practice of hellenizing foreign proper nan:ies,by adapting t:l"?em to t:l:i:)rG?-:5]: Though the exact relationship between Nd0Tp€C'6 and streit may remain controversial,
system of declension, a practice commonly resorted to in DAI, Strukum was tranggribcd as it is Falk’s great merit to have restored the first of these terms as the correct Greek trans-
2?-rpowcovv, a form which would have suggested a neuter singular. See Thomsen, Rela- cription of the Slavonic name of the seventh rapid, and to have notably advanced our
tions, 144_5 , Falk_2o7—17, 254; Ekblom, Die siebente Stromschnelle, 153-6, 161, 165-6, understanding of its meaning by revealing the Slavonic root that for so long remained
A somewhat different explanation of Z}:-pofixovv is given by Sahlgren ( 18-90) h hidden within it.
derives it from the Old Swedish word "‘stmlcn, ‘a stream a small waterfall? H ,W 0 It has not been possible to identify Erpoiixovv/Nacrrpelij with certainty. It has
that a second u was added to the name in the Greek transcription for hon t'c suggests generally been identified either with the penultimate (eighth) or with the last (ninth)
and draws attention to the concordance of meaning between ‘a small vfaterfgallti iiiadilht rapid, known in modern times as Lishny and Vil’n_y (Vol’noy) respectively. Lishny is
Greek pucpds ¢poc'yp.6s: of Yasmer, Wikingerspuren, 669. Ekblom, however (Die siebgntg favoured by Lehrberg (373), Thomsen (Relations, 66), and Evarnitsky (40; Falk 29);
Stromschnelle, 166, note 1), points out that the word *strukn is nowhere attested For other Vil’ny by Ravdonikas(614) , and Kudryashov (see his map of the rapids, 111, 12). Falk takes
explanations, see Latyshev-Malitsky 56, note 26; Falk 192-206. . Z-rpoiixovv/Naan-peflrj to be the narrow fairway below the Vil’ny rapid and above Kichkas
The precise meaning of Strukum/Z’?-poiixovv is a matter of dispute b¢1;w¢¢n Falk and ‘the ford of Krarion’: see on 9/66) : Falk 213-4, 235. Cf. Karlgren 81 ; Kleiber 94-5.
 52 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 53
Lishny was situated 15 km. downstream from Budilo ; its length was 469 m. by the right - . .' l'k l th . too, when travelling
t the Russians - to Black Bulgariaan
- d
bank, and 186 m. by the left; its fall was only 40 cm.: this, coupled with the fact that its Cnmca.’ and It 27:2? )1 fzrhsseil the Dnieper at the ford of Kichkas. In all probability,
fairway was relatively unimpeded by stones, could well justify the epithet 'p.ucpds' (ilhazfna I'C 15 ‘lord wits, also an important landmark on the trade-route
, I that linked Kiev
¢p(X')//L65‘. See Evarnitsky 40 (Falk 29); Belyavsky 800; Timonolf 68-9. Vi'l’n_y or Vol’noy
i/vithctclie ‘Don, with the lower -Volga and with Tmutarakan ' (Toqsoil-roipxoi).
, th h com-
lay 6 km. downstream from Lishny, and consisted of six ridges; its length was 990 m. by
This land-route over the Kichkas ford was an alternative tpftlglel gngesvn t821%nicpcr
the right bank and 81 1 m. by the left; its fall was 2-90 m. The shallow water and an
' lly more convenient, waterway from Kiev to Cherson w 1c ‘e 0 _
abundance of stones and rocky islands in this sector of the river made the Vi'l’n_y a
:rQlcl.t(;1aCSlZLl3I'Y and thence eastward over the Black Sea. For this route, see Spitsyfl,
dangerous rapid: in a particularly difiicult spot was a narrow passage known as Vooche
horlo (‘ the wolf's gullet’), later used by the rafts of the Cossacks to sail between two small
islands close to the right bank. See Evarnitsky 40 (Falk 29); Lehrberg 374-7; Dneprovskie
, ’
-*~ E
tion, between the mouth of the Dnieper an ' _e1‘$ >
- .Itsl tt

th K'chkas ford retained its importance for several centuries. T e

ec-
_ h
Porogi, 583; Belyavsky 800; Timonoff 69, 96; and map in Falk adfin. landlroutc ova-I 6'1 l1 rl 1 th cent for trading through Cherson with Constanti-
Rusilans
HOP CI S€C
us{:/iglitjil‘-It!-ltljielonflirfiiae
2
Relastiom’ 326-7 ' In ,_the 16th
,
and 17th cents. Kichkas was
9/66 sis rd heydtievov -rre'poi;1oi 1-017 Kpoiplov. . =. , H' ov 108. _
This is by common consent identified with the ford of Kichkas, mentioned from the late known as the Tétar fdr:l' ’l:1:a1l;’iadl:'Clat€lf)(:1!:Oli)drt:‘l!)6:I(I[:aIglCV and Cherson are attested in
16th cent. onwards, and situated about 15 km. downstream from Vil’n_y, the last rapid. Dlrcct cconomlc
,
‘a/I8.SlllCl\I: Economic Relations , 326-8‘, Likhachev3 Povest’ 9 11 J 219- '
As f°r
For references to Kichkas and for different forms of the name, see Falk, Hépapa -roii the mth cent’ . sch at this ‘time controlled the entire lower course of the Dnieper, they
Kpoiplov 107-10. ‘ha Pwhgnggs, o II; to use the Kichkas ford‘' when crossing over to . the left bank - of- the
A few kilometres downstream from the last rapid, the Dnieper, which, save for a h'ad manh obcallnnin of every Sllmmcr (8/34-'5); Whik 3-¢¢°mPanYmg Bwammc d’P‘°'
westerly bend between Nenasytets and Budilo, had been flowing through the area of the mm’ at t c cg Ci t Western Patzinacia (7/I-3); Whcn ‘Performing scrviccsl
rapids in a north-south direction, abruptly altered course and made a sharp bend towards mane agcnt? fromd f crtslsn :1 eror in Russia (6/4-5); or when acting as middlemen in
the south-west. At the same time the river-bed, which at the last rapid was about 1 km. fir
t e Chiirsolinrcs
tra e e Weefl an Rgisia Edd Cherson‘' for it may be
. presumed
- that the ___
wax whichfrom
the
wide, suddenly narrowed between the bend and Kichkas to a mere 183 m. The curve in
Chersonites obtained from the Pechenegs and 801d 111 Byzant"-1m (53l53° 2) Cam‘:
the river-bed, the enormous rocks that protruded from the water by the right bank, and
Russia: see o,n 9/32-
the current flowing with considerable force towards the left bank, made this passage
particularly hazardous. The river banks, high in the whole area of the rapids, here
rose precipitously to form a narrow gorge flanked on both sides by steep cliffs reach- " ‘ ’ ‘ ’ . . . " ov 1-oi3i-rr1ro5po;.il0v-
ing to a height of 75 m. See Lehrberg 332; Dneprovskie Porogi 583; Semenov 80 ; Belyavsky 9/61i—8 5 figgligvealedhhat the width of the Hippodromc was I I 7'5° ms
801. the fig:, included'
. .
see Preliminflfil R690"' '"P0" the """a”"“°"" “med out ind
theh Hippodmifie
; L
of
On:
Attempts were made to explain the expression -n-e'poip.oi -rot? Kpoipiov by deriving the Constantinople in 1927 on behalf of the British Aeaderny (by Casson an .ot ers on nd
latter of these terms from either the Turko-Tatar or the Armenian languages; but, as 8) -8 ; E ' Mamboury’ Th ' Wiegand , Die
192 '3 - 1
Kaiserpalaste van Konstantinopel (Berlln a
Th Width
Falk (He'poq.ioi -rot? xpoiplov 110-12) has pointed out, they are unconvincing. His own
. . . T ts It b l I tanbul, i953),355- ¢
explanation is simple; it can be supported by sound palaeographic and linguistic argu- Lelpzlg’
of I934),course
the actual 4°, EhMa6nbi‘iucr2ilbtll’al.eted0z‘with
ass eevo t B zanzion I0slightuviiriations, to have
(1935), 472_3; Vogt, been between
Commcmairc H,
ments, and agrees well with the topography of this section of the river. He proposes to
72.50 and abimt 7;15:1‘. Le; h§vlM€.litsky 57, note 28. Levasseur de Beauplan (see on
read 11-e'poip.oi 1-oi? *Bpoiplov. The letters B and K were often confused in Greek minuscule
writing: see on 9/64. According to Falk, -rré'poq.ioi 1-oi)‘ "'Bpoipiov goes back to an Old l 91
’/ 9€)ncclleEc?'i1bilng
9 _ , Kicliskas ford ’ said that,. ‘ there the Channel 8 cannot
, h be'dth above 1 50
Ofthe
Swedish * Vrdrfairia: the form vrdr, genitive of ord, ‘an angle, a corner’, was, in accord- paces ova’, (clurchlll S Voyages’ I’ 579')’ tlxiccofdmg t-O 2Pfiii‘:lvs'lI"lidseoll:ig1lret:i wtlhe first of
ance with the Byzantine custom of hellenizing foreign loan-words, given the Greek end-
ing -iov; while fieria, ‘ferry’, was naturally translated as 1-re'poip.oi. Both these Old Dgicficr
w ic is 0lgvious
'K1(lhkaSpi"bai:i1r81:tem:l}l)"iioi
y ap I dizillleii f’i‘om that established fdr the Hippo-
Swedish words, he shows, are frequently found in Scandinavian place-names, and drome by modern archaeologists-
notably, in the forms wray and ferry, in England. And finally he points out that Vra"
names are mainly found by river-bends and confluences: a significant fact when related \ Q
9/68-70 -rd 3e vibes . _. . e’.-ceioe. _ b d d_ Thc
to the position of 11-e'poip.oi rob‘ "‘,8poipi'ov, ‘the ford of the bend’, just by the sudden and
The_ text as it stands is a hopeless
1 conundrum
- I and clearly requires d ' to e ¢m¢I1d to ¢be that
spectacular curve of the Dnieper: see map p. 39. But see Vasmer, Zeitschr. slav. Phil. offending words are -iroipoucvirroiiaiv oi </iihoi. A popular emen ation prove I t d:
Q9 (I961). 379-81- proposed by Banduri in his edition of 171 1 : oq'>0oil\p.oi instead of ¢i€\pE-A/II';fGl1‘;1:'>Ha £0]
- ~ ' . 1'1 7 3 ‘
‘altitudinem vero ab inferiorl P8-11¢ qpanwm °¢“l1 P¢1'§P1°¢1'¢ P855“ d tl
9/66-7 e'v Sioiirepdioiv . . . e’-rri Xepoofivoi.
175) But this reading
, is neither logically
- nor syntfletlfia-"Y 5at15fa¢l°1'Y,
1' 1; ’ an was “P of
t t'on Y
The Kichkas ford, it appears from this passage, was a kind of main junction on the cfitiflizcd by Malitsky (Latyshev-Malitsky 57, note 29). But Ma its y s own re en i
road from Kiev to the South. Here the land-route from Cherson forked off in a south- . - ' f the passage, to say the least, obscure:
the unsatisfactory qbihoi renders his own version 0
ward direction from ‘ the Greek route’, which led by water down the lower Dnieper to
see also Likhachev, Povest’,
_ 11, 216). - 5, akes
the Black Sea: see on 9/7-8. Here both the Chersonites returning home from Russia and
The only emendation so fer suE_Sest(edct‘h,%:-Jtl (fare 6I?u_f;;;r€tZ,'u,S)4; hcl gficgltglrcad
the Pechenegs on their way to the Crimea crossed over from the right to the left bank of
the river. This route from Kiev to Cherson must be one of the two roads, mentioned at Sense of thc pasfigi is igidiniiiclnzroiis) prejeeli’, aiid suggests the following transla-
irpoiciiirrovoiv v oi Of, _ _ , d t from
42/84-6, along which the Pechenegs are said to ‘pass through’ on their journey to the (ion for 9/67-70: ‘this ford is as wide as the Hippodrome and, measure ups ream
 54 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 55
the bottom as far as the rocks break rf b -h ' -
here the latitudinal and longitudinsill zfdalshrelhihfimobfnthieng-E’:épV:cgrglfildethus 11?“ deepened after Kichkas, and whose banks were now much lower, assumed at this ‘point
A-0 , h - 4 _ _ - vqioi/\oi sc. the appearance it had had above the rapids (see Belyavsky 801). The island of Khortitsa
fgurcli irlggclziigcz grlunded Zummits projected above the surface of the water, were
was used in the following centuries by the Russians as a base for their campaigns against
that a _ over t e area of the rapids (see on 9/24); and it is noteworthy
particularly large rock called Shlcola is marked on the map of the ra ids at h the Polovtsy and the Mongols: see Povest’, 1, 183-4; Cross 200-1 (ann. 1103); Polnoe
appears to be a distance of about 100 m. from the ford: see Falk 214 and ml; ad W gt Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, v11, 130 (ann. 1223: in this source, the Voskresenskaya Letopis’,
Khortitsa is called ‘the Varangian island’). In Brun’s opinion, the island was given the
what is s"1'.¢lY 3 ¢UI'i0t1S coincidence 1 Levasseur de Beauplan in his notes on tlfe ic asY
name of St Gregory by the Byzantines after St Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of
‘1‘{€3e£Ch“'ghig‘5 A/Wages. I, 579) wrote: ‘ I have seen Polanders with a Bow shoot adioss the
, an t e rrow has fallen above 100 paces beyond the Bank. ’ Armenia.

9/73-8 e’v 7) vrjoqi . . . vioioeiv ailroiis.

9/7°"! 'O9ev it-oil . . . rroltepioiioi -roiig ‘P135-. In performing their pagan rites on the island, the Russians presumably expressed both
It seems clear that this passage was used as a source for 2 their thankfulness and relief at having completed the most dangerous part of the journey
. / 16-23: see General Introduc-
t . ;I
round a ta _d
d .
enegs attac ing while the Russians are porting their ships
pi , and must hence have been based also on 9/47-55
-~= and their hopes of a safe passage from Khortitsa to Constantinople. The nature of these
rites is a matter of some dispute: the fact that some of them are attested among the
Scandinavians may suggest that we have here an account of Viking sacrifices (Mansikka
The Russian sources clearly show that in the 10th cent relations between the R ' 323-4). On the other hand, the description also tallies well with our knowledge of
d P h . _ ' _ ' 'lJSS1aIlS
Egstiugfis E)I;t;vgS»u::1e4;ec:pg:,i}pceace as well 8.; in war. The Primary Chronicle refers to Slavonic pagan ritual (Gedeonov 547-51).
_ 8 8 _ _ Years 92°» 9 , 971-2» 933, 992 and 997 (Pooest’, _1, 32, (i). Oak-trees seem to have played an important part in Slavonic paganism, notably in
47’ 52 3’ 3’ 4' 5’ 87'8' Cross 71- 85- 9°: "9-2°» 122-3); and to peaceful relations in Russia. The trees under which the pagans were said to pray in the ‘ Statute of Vladimir
915- 944» 968 (Pm-1’, I. 31. as-4. 48; Cross 11, 7-.--3, so). The same dual relationshi '
suggested in DAI, notably in c. 9. The deadly peril to the Kievan state r t d b P is
I’ (Pamyatniki, 245, 251), and which, in a later source, they were alleged to worship
(N. M. Karamzin, Istorijia Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, I (St Petersburg, 1892, note 2 16), were
Pechenegs, who so often threatened to cut the trade-route to B P Isen C y h-C probably oaks (cf. Mansikka 244-5). In the 12th cent. Helmold described some sacred
economic life-line, is only too apparent from such passages as 9/5oYZz:tIium, Russia s oaks consecrated to a divinity of the Baltic Slavs (Chronica Slavorum, tr. F. _]. Tschan, New
103-4. Yet trade relations between the two are hinted at at 9/66-7 (sled not, 93-14, 95-6‘ York, 1935, 218). An oak-tree which ‘had lived for thousands of years’ and was ‘of
if we consider the statement at 2/16-18 that the Russians ar l bl C a ac), and colossal width’ was described on this same island by a Russian traveller in 1876. It had
Constantinople when they are at peace with the Pechenegs and(i'e‘l:tZif’t tlhto travel to died a few years previously, and was thought to have been the traditional meeting-place
regular traffic between Kiev and Byzantium painted in c. ,9 we shall beof C lzimtm of of the Zaporog Cossacks: see Laskin 73, note 297.
clude that, at least in the middle of the 10th cent peaceful refat' b omc to (ion- (ii). The slaughtering of cocks and/or hens for sacrificial purposes is ascribed to pagan
and their Turkic neighbours in the steppe were,maintained folrorlm etwec'n¢lhc Rushmns Russians in several sources: see Pamyatniki drevne-riisskoy tserkovno-uchi'tel’noy literatinjy, 111
As Parkhomenko (Slavia, viii, 1 (1929) 138-44) has rightly pOlI1t::6l1€)1fiIcr£I? SP“: mm‘ (St Petersburg, 1897), 224, 227; if. Kul’tura Drevney Rusi, 11, 72. Ibn Fadlan, in his cele-
b 111' thD'
czpgglégdgng e nieper rapids,~ played
’ a vital- part in
- the fortunes’°°°°“°8‘-
of the Russian brated account of a Russian ship-burial on the Volga in the 10th cent., describes the
ritual killing of a cock and a hen which were thrown into the funeral ship: Pateshestvie
In 1928, during the construct' f th D ' Ibn-Fadlana na Volga, tr. I. Yu. Krachkovsky (Moscow-Leningrad, 1939), 82. Leo
underneath the river-bed just ojfgogte KichlllzgciiiilT1111: Sili:Cc(:;~l£(l)1r::-£226Zxmicltgd fr.-om Diaconus (149/22-4) tells us that during the siege of Silistria in 971 the Russians in
The workmanship of these swo d d th L " ' ' ' ' ‘L mu papum Svyatoslav’s army sacrificed cocks by throwing them into‘ the Danube. Finally, Thietmar
that they were made in the ioth dehlth, pPEI)3.liljlnlI’1nl“((\lIt::’:tt;1l‘l1nElf11t‘10;)l:3el;Il)Clatc.l1est stlhggeitcg of Merseburg (MGH, Scr., n. s. Ix, 24/5) refers to the practice of sacrificing cocks which
.:.:2:t...:
b 1

S t 1
d t

>fK_ _
. .

0 s a
_

-- -= 1-»
e onged ‘to the Varangian retinue of Prince
vya os av o iev, who, on his return from Bulgaria in the spring of 972 was amb h d
s 3 Cy

--
3,
existed in Lederun (Lejre) in Denmark.
(iii). Arrows, and weapons in general, were used by the Russians as sacred objects in
their pagan ritual: see Likhachev, Povest’, 11, 290. In 907, when concluding their treaty
by the Pechenegs at the Dnieper rapids and slain in battle (Pooest’ 1 ‘ - C us C with the empire, the Russians took the oath on their weapons ‘in accordance with the
Evidence supplied by the find that these swords had been simulta1ieduiI_3, mss Rilssian religion’: Povest’, 1, 25; Cross 65. In 944 they ratified the treaty with Byzantium
thc D - , . _ _ . y immerse in
b m¢P¢1' suggfisflng a sudden catastrophe, together with the striking eoneo;-d;.m¢¢ by ritually laying down their weapons before the statue of Perun, the pagan god of the
etween ‘the Chronicle story and the passage at 9/70-1, certainly give Support to this Slavs, in Kiev: Povest’, 1, 38-9; Cross 77; cf. Mansikka 29-38. The arrows, pegged in the
hypothesis: see Ravdonikas 598-616; qf. Kul’tura drevngy Rust, 1, 328-9_ ground in a circle (9/74-5), were probably used for divination: similar use was made of
spears by the Baltic Slavs: see Thietmar of Merseburg, ed. cit, 302/25 ff.
9/K fe:v‘I)]:I:f)’gov, 'r1;)v e"-irihfe-yo;.i4"<i/'i7v ii '/I-yiog Pp-q-y6pw;_ (iv). Both the Slavs and the Northmen offered food to their pagan divinities. The
. owns ream rom ichkas, opposite the site of the modern Z‘ ’ - ‘Sermon of a certain Lover of Christ’, written in Kievan Russia against the remnants of
th -I d fs g63i;e7g9or3{;a:r:l);rn
Chfirz”-':1;,eon G ‘tpikthe Russians_ _
as Khortitsa. _.island,
For this aporozhelay
see Biun, paganism, refers to the custom of setting meals in front of idols, which meals included
loaves of bread: see Pamyatniki drevne-russkoy tserkovno-uchi'tel’noy literatuiy, n1, 227; Man-
greatest width was sli g‘h tly over, 2 km. Flanked 669‘
mgenpumz’ on the north
It was eastHand
about km' in hlength‘
b ' ‘ts sikka 147-60. Ibn Fadlan relates that the Russians in the first half of the 10th cent. placed
cliffs rising at times to 20 m., it lay in the middle of the river ‘l'k ' ‘gout’ Y high meals of bread, meat, onion, milk and intoxicating drink before wooden efligies of their
the waters of the Dnieper’ (Brun 364) The river itself which liafl Zfdgiigllc shig c’£;‘v’ng gods: Piiteshestoie no Volga, tr. Krachkovsky, 79. Finally, the ‘History of St Olaf’ in the
' - Y W1 en an Heimskringla, describing the idol of Thor, states: ‘four loaves of bread are brought to him,
5—o.e..1.
 56 COMMENTARY
and meat withal’: Heimskringla, tr. E. Monsen and A. H. Smith (Cambridge, 1932),
COMMENTARY 57
33!-
. It seems that boatmen and sailors of all times were accustomed, after passing through 9I84Th_6is . tlhlliv ;1{d'iii:a‘i‘ the fitting ofthe mm-ola= -=f- on 9/I 1""- 9/“"43
9 9 . - '18, ts
the Dnieper rapids, to express at this stage of their journey their thankfulness and relief In preparation for the long sea voyage, they are no}! equllgped with sai mas an
in their several and characteristic ways. A Russian traveller who in 1880 was taken down mddu, whi¢h._the Russians have brought with them rom lev-
the rapids on a raft relates that after passing Budilo, the last dangerous rapid (see on
9/62), the pilots stood in a circle and sang a prayer (Yuzhny 406). In recent times too 9/89 -rdv Aloiiroia-rpiv rro-roipdv. Qfl 42/55"?-
the Dnieper pilots would come ashore at Kichkas and shout in chorus ‘ davay horilku! ’,
that is, ‘ bring the vodka! ’: see Falk 13, note 6.
\ 7I'O‘I'Ot/1.0l.'1'OV
9/91 -row ‘ ‘ e1i;u\€'y6pI-$90"
’ "flair_P ow. _ ,, - - th
It is quite possible that in the middle of the ioth cent. the island of St Gregory, during
these brief halts of the Russian flotillas, may also have echoed the sound of Christian According to Niederle (Slooanské Staroiitnosti, 1, 4, I21), {$9 a rgzezélfifpofi
prayers: we know that by 944 there were already many Christians in Kiev, notably basin of the Dniester. Its name was doubtless connected wit . E‘ kg? and Gem“
among the Varangians (Povest’, 1, 38-9; Cross 77) ; and C. himself (De Cer., 579/21) refers m°m‘°n"d at 37/60-1’ imown as Belgmd m Russllan (Ailcichmnetgtum dfrthe Dniester and
to oi Boiirrio/.ie'voi ‘Pills. Albd in Rumanian), which stood on the southern s fire1;) h ene age Skok 242, note I;
was in the middle of the ioth cent. controlled by t e ec e gs-
9/78-9 ‘And 3% 1-017 myolov roifrov . . . 1-dv Zle/\ivo'iv. Honigmann, Byzantion, 17 (1944-*5)» 15°? Na5°n°" I38’ ‘42'
For the Selinas, see on 9/92-3. The words oi} cfiofiofiv-roii are puzzling, in view of the
later statement that the Pechenegs keep pace with the Russians until they are past the 9/92-3 rdv Zeilivoiv . . . iroipouc/\oi3iov. tbs th t
Selinas, in the hope that one of their morzoxyla will be wrecked on the shore (9/93-6). Generally identified as Sulina, the present name of the central of the three mou eh
Meursius, accordingly, in his edition of 1611 (see Vol. 1, pp. 23-4), omitted the negative form the Danube delta, between the Kilia mouth in the north and the St George 111°“
. , - - . The
particle oi}. But this is inadmissible on logical grounds, since the Russians had begun to in the south. See
, Seredonin 159; Skok 242, B1'°mb¢1'8> B)'Z""i“’">- I3 093?)’ ‘d I2. I3 ’ and
fear the Pechenegs long before they reached the Island of St Gregory. The passage word irapoix/\a3iov, a hapax legomeeion, was translated b3;_il\g4:tt:l1l_s:usTiil18oug2’¢?i1;81l111;1; bean
probably means that the danger of Pecheneg attacks, which had been particularly acute imcrprctcd by Du Gauge uh’ Dfnubmsi lgddamos n ) it‘is surely more satisfac-
by Nenasytets (9/50) and the -rrc'poip.oi (9/70-1), subsided between the Island of St Gregory derived from a West Slavonic pieklad, a ferry ( ¢°n°V 534 > _ .
. . I ' ‘ ’: M I V16 Iv:
and the mouth of the Danube: the Dnieper below St Gregory was too wide and its banks tory to connect it with the Greek KAIXSLOV, ic)toi3og, a small branch see an0J °
too low to allow the Pechenegs effectively to attack or to shoot at the Russians; the Island 36. Indeed, it is found in MGr.
of St Aitherios was probably under some form of Byzantine protectorate (see on 9/82);
and for most of the time between the mouth of the Dnieper and the Selinas the Russians
were out at sea. However, as 9/94-6 shows, the Pechenegs could still be a real danger
9/91-8 "iv 1*-is Bovlvepies Y-‘iv - - _- -'-'PX°*"'°"- . - , S_ R C--
The lower Danube formed at that time the northern frontier of Bulgaria see 1131 1
during the voyage to the mouth of the Danube, in the event of the Russian flotilla’s being . - -
man, A History ofthe First Bulgarian Einpire (London, 1930), I50, note 2, 1 f
60. On Bu} the oaria.er
driven ashore by bad weather. hand, we are told at_37/48 that Patzinacia wast}1;lmtang1a1fed¢El?l1z(;l‘€’}\11;:T:‘2;hr£:’;Ir’lt. t-hi two
If taken literally, this statement would mean ’ at in e mi mil _ dc th
9/82 vi vfioos 1-017 ‘A-yiov Aideplov. countries were separated by a kind of no-man s-land severa es in lpn ér existed The
The Island of St Aitherios is the small island of Berezan’, 856 m. long and a mere Within
350 m. wide, lying in the large estuary common to the Dnieper and the southern Bug, _ Bulgarian. territorial
- waters
- danger from the Pechenegs
' d I10 lon S their coast for
B11l8 arians could raise no objection
. to the voyage
- of Russian tra ers ' B. ll . S ’
d mon-
5 km. from the mainland. Its importance in the 10th cent. was due to the fisheries of the at this time they were close allies of the empire. The effic-3°_Y °f thls 3 _""""° was E .1
Chersonites in the mouth of the Dnieper, to the strategic value offered by this estuary to . th t es that a OSU e
strated in 941, when. the Bulgarians warned thi gwalgzfinzgle 920283,, I, 33; Cross
the Byzantines, and to its role as a station and emporium on the trade-route to Russian fleet was sailmg past their coast to attac ons - >
Byzantium. Two special clauses of the Russo-Byzantine treaty of 944 inhibit the Russians 71-2.
from interfering with the Chersonite fisheries at the mouth of the Dnieper and from
spending the winter on the Island of St Aitherios on the retum journey from Constanti-
nople: Povest’, 1, 37; Cross 76. 9/99 ‘Z9 "5" “l°’."°'”°“" - ~ th 1 1 ' land in
There is a striking resemblance between this mysterious name and a 0 firldle‘ _ ul
In 1905 a Swedish Runic inscription was discovered on the island, which reads: ‘ Grani ' Pl‘ N 1. H‘ t. ed. Teubner, 1, 336/15-16) ea <=_ ,1”, a
erected this mound in memory of Karl, his comrade’. There is little doubt that these two gm Danugciaizlig,“‘g,lg:,be:.gy(éy:an;i0,: 1,3, 1938, 1 1-12), pointing out this similarity,
names belonged to Northmen who had stopped at Berezan’ on their way to or from
stfgrgzstznthat Kwvo-ii-oi; or Kwvorroi, 3-5 hi? Prdbrs t° mad, ma)’ be Sithcr the St (ihiorac
Constantinople, and the second of whom was buried there by his comrade. The inscrip- ’. D 31'! 9
Island, between the Sulina and the St George mouths of the D3-I1\~1b¢» °1' 1'an°" 3
tion has been tentatively dated to the 1 1th cent. See Brun, Chernomor’e, 1, 90-108; Braun,
between the latter mouth and Lake R8161!"-
Izvestiya Imperatorskqy Arkheologicheskoy Kommissii, 23 (1907), 66-75; Cleve, Eurasia
Septentriorialis Antiqua, 4 (1929), 250-62; Boltenko, Arkheologiya, 1 (Kiev, 1947), 39-51;
’ Kwva-rev-rioiv
9/gg-roo sis ' . . . Boipvets- _ _ R manian is a
Levchenko, Russko- Vizantiiskie Otnosheniya, 163, 303-4. V
The distance by river from Kiev to the mouth of the Dnieper was 953 km. (see Kiova-roiv-rioi, later known as Constanza and Kustenje (Constanta in I-1 la _
Soloviev, Byzantion, 13 (1938), 232); and from the Island of St Gregory (Khortitsa) to the town on the sea-coast of the Dobrudja. Varna was alread)’ thcn an imP°rtam Bulganan
Dnieper estuary, 347 km. (Timonoif 1 15). city. The river mentioned here, at whose mouth Varna laY» 13 kn°Wn mday as the
Provadiya.
 58 COMMENTARY COMMENTARY 59
9/ {F9-I £59 rdv 1101-oqiciv -r1)v Alt'r§ivav. this section originates in the account of a Slavonic observer who had personal experience
his river has been identified with the Bu-Qiva '
- of the tax-collecting methods of his Russian overlords.
ed. Reiff h . d,
wiss0wa,e;'{sIci‘,
d b Anna, Comn ‘ma (V11 3»-
U. 4;ag13,3(/);7)én'§}i1Ic1: rlgtgtr, known Ipentloilc.
in antiquity Yas Hozvvcros (see Paiily-
9/106 dpxoirres pierciz rroivrwv 1-div 'PiBs‘.
the Black Sea between Varna and la ab! tlrlll/is as the‘ Kamélya 01: Kaméyk’ flows into
The expression rroivres oi ‘P639, which here designates the aristocratic retinue, or
must have been either Dichina or Vichicriz. Se(e S:i:d1dJ1iii:)i It? Iimldllfval Slavimic namc
druzhina (see Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, 137-40), of the princes (dipxowes) of Kiev, is to
(1897): 319-223 G- 1- Brfitianu, Recherche: sur Vicina at Cetatgg 14111:‘ ?BoVl'1ky, Viz. Vnmi, 4 all appearance a literal translation of the Slavonic idiom vsya Rus’ Povest’, 1, 18, 52).
wi
is Br°mberg'-. B-7z“”ti°"> 13 (1937), 173—30'3 Banescu I Byzantion , 12 (11c9g:3I)csii3I_%35%>’. I3”_ This passage may be compared with the Primary Chranicle’s account of Igor setting out
turel, Studzz ,1:. cercetdrz, de Istone_ Vac/w, 8 (1957), 1-4, 295_305_ , ;
from Kiev in 944, accompanied by his druzhina, to collect tribute from the Derevlyanians:
9/I01 &1'l'€p rroivroz G202» Y5]! 7775‘ BQUA)/(xpzas
Povest’, 1, 39-40; Cross 78. ~

at .:;s.i;?;.:.;.:‘:::§’iZZ£“‘;f.‘Z“1§Z1°.§§..?‘i .ia§;*.Z~“d
It is clear f - h - '
I
. _
. .
passage allows us to conclude that the coastal cities of Mesemliiiizzl agnclii/Ii:li:iI:lSr1a. Tllis
at this 9/107 rd: 7|’0Al;8L(Z, 3 )\e"ye'r0u. yiipoi.
vro/\i53ta was taken by the earlier editors and commentators to be a diminutive of
an Agatho , h. h h , _ I , OZOPQ 3 -rrdhg (qfl the alternative reading rroM3pia proposed by Meursius). Du Cange, accord-
B za t_ bP° 15 W 1C ad l9°1°nS¢d _t° SYITIFOH 8 empire, were recovered by the
Y I1 IIICS y the treaty of 927 . see Runciman, First Bulgarian Empire 180 ingly, has the following entry s.v. 1ro)\ii5iov: ‘municipium, oppidum . . . Nisi legendum
sit 1ro}\i53pi.a’. Banduri also translated 1roAz55ta as ‘ oppida’, giving 11o)h53pta as a possible
9/2192-4 ‘Z9 7'6‘ T779 M€U?7}L,3Pl:d$ p.e'pr) . . . -rrdofig variant (MPG, cxiii, col. 177). This explanation was accepted by Niederle (Slavia, VII, 4
.
he Russians are here said to end their vo . '
yage at Mesembria. This robabl (1929). 919-80)-
simply that th ey are now within- - Byzantine . waters and are thus safe.P The safet
Y means of As early as 1851, however, a different and much more satisfactory explanation of
RussianI,merchant
Pawn,’ h' in
27; Crossssgps ' t h ese waters was expressly guaranteed by the treaty of 91 Y 1; ~n-oM8ta was proposed by S. M. Soloviev (Istoriya Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 1 (St Peters-
burg, 1894), 215-16) : he recognized that this Greek hapax legomenon is simply the phonetic
transcription of the Slavonic (Old Russian) word poiyudie or poiyud’e. Polyudie was a
9/II04-5 ‘H 5% xeqtépiog . . . oziifl]. technical term, occuring fairly frequently in medieval Russian sources, which meant (i)
t was suggested in the Introductory Note t th' h .
the tribute collected by the princes from their subjects, and (ii) the journey, or circuit,
probably a separate account, derived from a Slciivoiisiccsdliiiifer )
thai 9/134-13 ls
undertaken by the prince round his lands in order to levy tribute, administer his realm
and dispense justice: see Sreznevsky, Kochin, Vasmer (Russisches etymologisches Wb'rter-
inccedmg’ longer in
ected and sorted Section of C-of9 the
the office at U16
/\o time
6 ' when" the ’material
' for thisvibaliiiaigltlc to co
r was thlg'
. . ’)’° €""'7$‘ 1'0v 3pop.ov in Constantino le Thi f buch), s.v. polyudie, polyud’e. It is now generally accepted that 11-o/\i53ux corresponds to the
ment, Wl'l1Cl'l ClCSCI‘lbCS how th R ' 1 ' ' ' S _mg'
second meaning of polyudie, and that 9/ 105-7 refers to these ‘circuits’ undertaken by the
months, is linked chronologiciilly lifltllbs eiiizdpgiiggieefi$r:,E‘°hSt1afi’s dialing] tam Wlmfi
Russian rulers and their retainers over the lands of their Slav subjects. See Vvedensky,
formed
_ _ by the Slavs in cutting and prepar ' n th I [ 1c- C S 0 - C a our Per’ Izvestiya Obslwlwstva Arkheologii, Istorii i Etnografii pri Kazanskam Universitete, XXII, 2 (1906),
Eosmon as an aPP¢ndiX, 01' at the most a kmdloigexplaiggizi-jir fobrinbl: iiilgiilji s(al)/I(l)f Its 149-63; Popov, Byzantinaslavica, 3 (193 1), 92-6; and the valuable bibliographical survey
eing redundant and illogical by its implication that t l , ' vc rom
by the Russians from their Slav sub_ _ a east part of the tribute collected of the question in Latyshev-Malitsky 57-8, note 34.
jects during the winter was shi d B ' ' The evidence of Russian sources confirms and supplements the brief description of the
the manoxyla in the spring. It ' 1 eh t ppc to. Wantlum In
pobiudie given at 9/ 105-10. It generally took place in the autumn or winter (Povest’, 1, 39;
relate the second passagc to 2;. :lcca;1n2:?Lfcfi11l(:EOV:y35NI:1)£:.;lt;b}; some editorial hand to Cross 78, ann. 945). The dues of the local population included both the maintenance of
Anattemttdfi
Manojlovié hd'gfieiifingalreléween
1()W, 041 fznnesgrse l 5)/3—I04 and'0'
9/ 104-13 was made bY the prince and his retinue (cf. on 9/1 1o) and contributions in kind, generally furs,
Contcmions, that 9/3_m4 d€Scrib6s the noith are Riscerning and helPful; but his main honey and wax; some of these were subsequently exported to Byzantium. The tribute
whik 9/104713 is Centred on Kiev as thc Ca iterln f 11{SS13..I1S whose_ centre was Novgorod, was collected from each homestead or from each tilling unit. The right of poiyudie was
occasionally granted by the princes to their more important retainers and companions in
earlier period, perhaps even to the late gtlii) cacini) czilrlhzi laid that _())'4£cfcr;
to an
arms. Whenever the dues were collected by a subsidiary ruler, he was expected to retain
Russko-vizantiiskie otnos/mziya 204-5 who in some accep € C i CVC cnko’
- ’ * his theses) Th ' one-third of the tribute for his personal use and to send the remaining two-thirds to Kiev
evidence to ,show that 9/104-13 was composed 1 tcasurc th accepts h ' ' cm
- is no (P0vest’, 1, 43, 88-9; Cross 81, I 24). See Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, 189-92; Kul’tura
probably written about 944 (Introductory Note p 3);) T2: t e.tf.irst scctlcin’ whlcli WIS
Drevnqy Rusi, 1, 305-6, 11, 13-14.
the two sections is rather the reverse of what Mano'lovi ' pqscj loljiqccupmd .by Kiev In
The practice ofpaiyudie, which at its best was an onerous burden to the Slavonic popula-
Kiev is the true centre of Russia, and upon this Jcit cfconsltfirc It to PC: In 9/3'10‘?
tion, and at its worst little different from organized robbery, cannot have been popular
Russia, the monoxyla converge; it seems mo,-C Hkcl thl2rci1_‘0m the most distant parts Qf
among the Slavs. It was on one of these foraging expeditions that Igor was killed by the
tion is based on the verbal account of a Russian Vaihngian liiighi thc Vlrhoh? of flu; sce-
furious Derevlyanians in 944 (Pave.st’, 1, 39-4o; Cross 78). It is noteworthy that the system
perhaps took part in the fitting out of the monax la in th ' h lav, W 0 witness: and
of poiyudie seems to have been thoroughly overhauled in 946 or 947, that is, in all prob-
first-hand and detailed knowledge on the itin et qty C arbour, ‘ and who possessed ability, a few years after c. 9 was written. The Primary Chronicle alludes to new regulations
gg 104-13 appears centrifugal: here the Russianseaizysh§wn(l::.iIai:'g1nKi)d:r. ails goimast’
relating to taxes and tribute introduced by Princess Olga: Povest’, 1, 43; Cross 81-2. It has
t eir ‘rounds’ over the dc end t Sl t ' ' omg on
been plausibly suggested that the aim of _Olga’s financial and administrative reforms was
Slavonic technical terminoihgy iii‘-le mg; riziligifrriiiissl =i1i<ivi.iri‘1ii1i1;'r okisewc thaj: traiccs of
to replace the periodic and arbitrary visitations by a more equitable system, whereby the
other part ofc. I tr d . in 9_ 194-13 t an In an?’
9 ( n O uctory Note P‘ '9)’ WC may Well be justified in concluding that taxes were to be locally collected at specially determined posts throughout the land and
 60 COMMENTARY 9/,,,3_,,4] COMMENTARY 61
the amount of the contributions fixed in advance. See Grekov 180-2; Vernadsky, Kievan 9/108 Kpiflm-§d‘iv. See on 9/9-10.
Russia, 39-40, 190; Kul’tura Drevney Rusi, 11, 13-15; Levchenko, Russka-vizantiiskie
Otnosheniya, 213-16. But there is no reason to think that Olga ‘abolished the custom of 9/108 1-(Du Zleflepiwv. _
poliudie’ (Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, 39), still less that the information given about it in These are the Severians (the Seveiyane or Sever of the Primary Chronicle). Their homes lay
c. 9 is ‘somewhat out of date’ (Levchenko, Russko-vizantiiskie atnosheniya, 213). to the east of the Dnieper, in the basins of the middle Desna, of the Seim and of the upper
The word yiipa, translated by Du Cange as ‘circulationes, circuitiones’, is clearly the
Sula: see Vernadsky, Ancient Russia, 316-19; Rybakov, Sovets/caya Etnografiya, 6-7 (1947) ,
Greek synonym of polyudie. It is obviously related to the adjective yvpdg, ‘ round, circu-
lar’, to the noun yfipos, ‘a circle’, and to the adverb -yvpdfiev, cjl 9/75. Commentators 8l'955 Tret’yakov 242-4; Solov’eva, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 25 (1956), 138-70.
have varied in their grammatical analysis of the form yiipozz Popov (Byzantinoslavica, 3, 9/108-9 Kai. hotirciiv Exhoifiwv.
1931, 93-4) regards it as a neuter plural of the adjective yvpds‘, and, contrary to the read-
It has been observed that among the Slav tribes enumerated at 9/9-io, 9/107-9 and
ings of Paris and Vatican mss., places the accent on the second syllable; the passage
37/44-5, no mention is made of the Polyanians (Polyane), a leading East Slavonic tribe
would thus mean ‘the 1ro)\153ia, which are called circular’. Stender-Petersen (Varangica,
which lived on the middle Dnieper and of whose territory Kiev was the principal city
162-3), on the other hand, takes yifpoz, with better reason, to be a feminine singular noun,
(see Vernadsky, Ancient Russia, 313-15; Rybakov, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, .6-7 (1947), 95-
meaning ‘a circuit’. This view has not only the advantage of retaining the parallelism of
105). This fact has been interpreted by several historians to mean that in DAI the Pol-
the two synonyms rro)\i58toz and -yiipa. ; it is also supported by a passage from the Epanagoge,
yanians are identified with oi ‘P655-: see V. A. Parkhomenko, U istokov russkoy g0sudarstven-
whose relevance to 9/107 was already perceived by Nevolin (Finnsky Vestnilc, 2o (1847),
nosti (Leningrad, 1924), 54.; Tikh0I11iI'0V, Sovefskaya E"_*°g"¢lfi)'a, 5-7 (194-7)» 77; ‘I-¢_‘_"
no. 8,1-io = Sobranie Sochineny (St Petersburg (1859), 527), who, however, following
chenko, Russko-vizantiislcie otnosheniya, 205-8. If this view is taken to mean that the Pws
Leunclavius (]us graeco-romanum, 11 (1596), 92), wrongly ascribed it to the Ecloga. It reads:
were Slavonic Polyanians, it is wholly unacceptable: see Nasonov 16, and on 9/ 1 ; for the
iceheiio/iev p."r)5evi 'r<Iw oipxdvrwv efefvat Xwpis‘ oivoeyxaiag xpeiozs oi1ro817/.1t'ag
Russians in DAI are very clearly distinguished from their Slav tributaries. On the other
-rroieiadac -ii 1-dis /\eyoy.e'i/as ytip as (Epanag., vii, 8, ed. Zepos, jus graeco-romanum, ii
hand, the Polyanians appear to have been among the first of the East Slavonic tribes to
(Athens, 1931), 250). It is clear that &wo8-qptiag/ring /leyoiiévag yiipag are a pair of
lose their tribal name and to adopt the ‘Russian’ national appellation of their former
synonyms exactly corresponding to 1-dc rrohiifiia, 5 Aéye-rou. yfipa, and that the meaning
of yiipo: is hence ‘ a circuit’. The singular form may be influenced by the fact that polyudie Scandinavian overlords: they are mentioned for the last time in the Chronicle in 944
(Pawns, I’ 33, H, 240; Cross 72), and this source has an earlier, and significant, reference
is a collective singular noun.
to ‘the Polyanians, who are now called Rus” (Povest, 1, 21; Cross 62). It seems quite
Stender-Petersen (Varangica, 151-64) has recently drawn attention to a passage from
the Heimskringla which describes the activities of Harald Hadrada in Byzantium and possible that by the time c. 9 was written the tribal name of the Polyanians was no longer
Russia: the saga tells us that Harald had, while in Constantinople, gathered much wealth in current use and was hence passed over in silence by our author.
by going three times on pdlzitasvarf (ed. F. jonsson (Copenhagen, 1911), 457). Stender-
Petersen suggests that the difficult word fl(llllld.l'I)d1_'}‘; which has been interpreted in various
9/This iirbOi'1dph92ii.Jl:rl:i'ly appearance of being a literal translation of an East Slavonic (Old
ways, is a compound formed from the Old Norse svaij, one of whose meanings is ‘a cir-
cuit, a round ’, and from a transcription ofpalyudie. Thus, pdliitasvarfis a tautology, similar Russian) verb, whose infinitive mood was kormitisya, meaning (i) ‘to feed’ qr ‘ to be. fed’;
to the synonymous tautologies &1ro817;.tia/yiipoc and 1ro)liJ8ia/-yiipa. He believes accord- (ii) ‘to be maintained’; hence the Old Russian technical terms konnlenie, the mainten-
ingly that the Scandinavian source which is at the origin of this passage of the Saga of ance of oflicials at the expense of the population’, ‘ the collection of tribute , and korni,
Harald Hadrada in the Heimskringla stated that Harald had gone off three times on ‘the duty of the population to maintain officials’: see Kochin, s. vv. karmztisya, kormlenze,
administrative and tax-gathering circuits (polyudie). korm. The term occurs in the form pokorm, in the Primary Chronicle, ann. 1018: Povest ,1, 97;
Cross 132.
9/107-8 -rcfiv . . . Bepfiioivwv. \ \ I I "‘
9 110-II ’
arro p.'r7v0S' ArrP ihtov . . . woroquov.
_ _ _
The majority of commentators have proposed the reading Aepfitoivwv, and have identi-
fied this Slav tribe as Derevlyanians (the Derevlyane of the Primaiy Chronicle), mentioned /For the dates when the ice melts at various points on the Dnieper, see Stuckenberg
at 37/44 in the form Aep,B/\evlvotg: see Marquart 107; Manojlovié iv, 40; Shakhmatov, 268-82. At Smolensk the average date of melting is 1st April: Bernshtein-Kogan 270,
Vvedenie, 90; Durnovo 206; Latyshev-Malitsky 58, note 35. The latter form is clearly note 56.
derived from the Slavonic singular Dervlyanin, the former from the plural Dervlydne.
9/113 'Pwp.ozvio:v. C_/I Dolger, BES, 77 ll.
This tribe lived to the west of the middle Dnieper, between the Pripet in the north
and the Teterev in the south. In the first half of the ioth cent. they carried on a fierce
struggle against the rulers of Kiev, which ended in their defeat by Olga (c. 945) : Povest’,
gillllie Ch (()d,rcghuz) were a Turkic nomadic people who in the ioth cent. lived north-
1, 39-43; Cross 78-81. For the Derevlyanians, see also Vernadsky, Ancient Russia, 323-4;
east of the Caspian Sea, between the Volga and the Aral Sea; see Marquart 337-41; R.
Tret’yakov 245-51; I. P. Rusanova, Sovetskaya Arkheolagiya, 1960, 1, 63-9.
Grousset L’empire des steppe: (Paris, 1941), 240"‘! 3 B)’Za"fi"°‘"ml"a» 1: 46-9 (2nd ed-i 9°'4)=
11 197 (2hd ed 228). The illogical position of this note in c. 9 has often been pointed out:
9/108 "rzfiv Zlpovyovfltroiv.
scie Bury 520- 1,; Manojlovic iv, 43; and Introductory Note p. 18. Macartney (146-7)
These are the Dregovichians (the Dregovichi of the Primary Chronicle). They lived
convincingly suggests that this reference to the Uz was brought in from 37/5-8, whet;the
immediately north of the Derevlyanians, north of the Pripet river: see Vernadsky,
Uz are said to have defeated the Pechenegs: therefore, C. argues, they can de eat t em
Ancient Russia, 323-4; Tret’yakov 246-7. The name in this form corresponds to the
again’. Cfl Latyshev-Malitsky 58-9, note 36.
Slavonic singular Dregovitin: cjl on 9/9-io, 9/ 107-8.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando lmperio, ll Commentary.

Ed. R.J.H. Jenkins. The Athlone Press 1962.
 MONG the many still unresolved problems that confront the historian
A of medieval Eastem Europe is that of the precise nature of the
relationship between the Cl1I.lI‘Cl1 of Russia and the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. This gap in our knowledge is due to the scantiness and
vagueness of the relevant sources: Byzantine writers, at least before the
fourteenth century, show themselves singularly uncoinmunicative about
the Russian Church; while the early Russian chroniclers are almost equally
reticent on the ecclesiastical affairs of their country, and especially on the
relations of their Church with the Byzantine Patriarchate.
One fact stands out, uncontroverted and well-known: from 1039, when
a Byzantine prelate is mentioned in Kiev,’ to 1448, when the Russian
bishops, severing their dependence on the Unionist Patriarch of Constan-
BYZANTIUM KIEV AND MOSCOW tinople, elected their own primate, the Russian Church was a metropolitan
diocese of the Byzantine Paniarchate. Was this so from the beginning, and
A STUDY IN ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS can this direct subordination of the Russian Church to Byzantium be traced
during the half-century that followed the oflicial acceptance of Christian-
ity by Prince Vladimir of Kiev in 988 or 989? 2 In the absence of explicit
and contemporary evidence on this point, controversy has raged, and some
of the advocates in this cause célébre are still in the field. It is not the pur-
pose of this article to discuss the conflicting theories of those scholars who
have sought to prove — unsuccessfully in my opinion — that Vladimir’s
church was dependent on the Bulgarian Patriarchate of Ohi-id; subject
to Rome; or autocephalous.” The ingenuity and learning with which these
hypotheses have sometimes been argued cannot gainsay the circumstantial
evidence which strongly suggests that the Russian Church was from the
’ The Russian Primary Chronicle (Povesf orernermykh let), ed. V. P. Adrianova - Peretfi‘
(Moscow, 1950), I, p. 103, — English translation by S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-
Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 138. In subsequent references to this document the
original will be cited as “Povest’,” and the translation as “Cross.”
' The acceptance of one or the other of these two dates depends on the relative value
attached to the different sources relating to Vladimir’s baptism. See G. Laehr, Die Anfiinge
des russischen Reiches (Berlin, 1930), pp. 110-15.
' For the “Bulgarian” theory, see M. D. Pi-iselkov, Ocherki po f§erkovno-politicheskoy
istorii Kieoskoy Rusi X-XII oekoo (St. Petersburg, 1913), pp. 35-76; H. Koch, “Byzanz,
Ochrid und Kiev 987-1037,” Kyrios, III (1938), pp. 272-84. For the “Roman” theory, see
N. do Baumgarten, “Saint Vladimir et la conversion do la Russie,” Orientalia Christiana,
27, pt. 1 (1932); M. jugie, “Les oi-igines romaines do l’Eglise russe,” Echos d’Orient, 36
(1937), pp. 257-70. For the view that Vladimir's church was autocephalous, see E. Colu-
binsky, Istoriya russkoy fierkoi, I, part I (2nd ed., Moscow, 1901), pp. 264-9; C. Ver-
nadsky, “The status of the Russian Church during the first half-century following Vladimir’s
conversion," Slavonic Review, 20 (1941), pp. 298-314.
 24 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 25
beginning directly subordinated to the Patriarchate of Byzantium: the seems inspired by the ecclesiastical polemics of the time.’ Yet there do not
statement of the eleventh-century Arab historian Yahya of Antioch that appear to be adequate grounds for refusing all credence to this statement
the Emperor Basil II sent to Vladimir of Russia “metropolitans and bish- of Gregoras. Biased as he sometimes is, his knowledge of Russian affairs is,
ops” who baptised him and his people; ‘ the role played by the Greek as will be shown below, extensive and on the whole accurate; and, in this
clergy of the Crimea in the christianization of Russia, the building of case at least, his testimony on the earliest organization of the Russian
Vladimir’s first stone church in Kiev by Byzantine architects, his marriage Church is supported by the evidence already cited.
with Anna, the Emperor’s sister,“ his assumption at baptism of the name In a passage of the thirty-sixth book of the ‘Io-ropia. 'Pco;.|.a.i'Kfi which im-
Basil, doubtless a symbol of his spiritual adoption by the Emperor: “ surely mediately follows the one quoted above, Nicephorus Gregoras makes an
these facts create a strong presumption in favor of the view that Vladimir's even more remarkable statement. Referring to the primate (dpxtepéa) of
church was placed under East Roman authority.’ the Russian Church and to the time when the Russians were converted to
This contemporary, if indirect, evidence is confirmed by the explicit Christianity, he writes: “it was laid down that he would be taken alter-
testimony of a fourteenth-century Byzantine historian whose relevance nately now from that nation [i.e. from the Russians], now from those who
to the problem under discussion does not seem to have been justly ap- were both born and brought up here [i.e. in Byzantium], each primate
preciated. Nicephorus Cregoras, in the thirty-sixth book of his 'Io"ropia always being raised to the throne there, after the death of the previous in-
‘Pm/iaimj, in which he deals at length with the past and contemporary cumbent, by altemate succession, in order that the link between the two
history of the Russian Church, writes: “from the time when this nation nations, thus secured and ratified, might forever preserve the unity of faith
[i.e. the Russians] embraced holy religion and received the divine baptism p1n"e and undefiled, and find an increased stability for its existence and its
of the Christians, it was laid down once for all that it would be under the strength.” 1°
jurisdiction of one bishop . . . ; and that this primate would be subject to The language of this passage may be rather involved and pleonastic,
the See of Constantinople, and would receive from it the laws of the spirit- but its meaning is clear beyond doubt: Gregoras is asserting that when the
ual authority." 8
This text is so clear and explicit that its neglect by historians seems at ° The words fiqb’ évi -rmroiiofilar 1-é-ram-at mfidrrai tipxtzpcz, in their emphasis on the ecclesiasti-
first surprising. Yet the evidence of so late a writer must clearly be treated cal unity of all the Russian lands under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Kiev, are
doubtless intended to justify the abolition by the Emperor ]ohn VI Cantacuzenus in August,
with considerable caution; it is possible, moreover, that, by appealing to a 1347 of the separate Russian metropolitan diocese of Galicia, established in 1303 by An-
tradition of so venerable an antiquity, Gregoras was concemed in this pas- dronicus II. At that time Cregoras was still on good terms with ]ohn Cantacuzenus, and
thus probably approved of the ecclesiastical re-unification of Russia. In several public docu-
sage to support the claims over the Russian Church which were being ments issued in 1347 in Constantinople the abolition of the metropolitan diocese of Galicia
pressed with renewed vigor by the Byzantine Patriarchate toward the mid- is held to be justified by the creation, at the time of Russia's conversion to Christianity, of a
dle of the fourteenth century; and at least one expression in this passage single ecclesiastical organization for the whole of the country, under the metropolitan of
Kiev. See the chrysobullon of ]ohn VI reuniting the metropolitanate of Calicia with that of
‘ Histoire de Yahya-Ibn-Sa'i'd d’Antioche, ed. and transl. by I. Kratchkovslcy and A. Kiev: K. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Ius Graeco-Romanum, III (Leipzig), pp. 700-3, and
Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, XXIII, fasc. 3 (1932), p. 423. the edict of the Patriarch Isidore, confirming this decision: Acta Patriarchatus Constan.tinop0li-
P0oes't', s.a. 988, 989, pp. 76-7, 80-3; Cross, pp. 112-3, 116-9. tani, ed. F. Miklosich and I. Miiller, I (Vienna, 1860), p. 267. In a letter written in
I 1 ;al<;;é Monk, Pamyat i pokhoala knyazyu ruskomu Voloclimeru: Colubinsky, op. cit., the same year to Prince Lyubart of Volynia, the Emperor states that the jurisdiction of the
metropolitan of Kiev over the whole of Russia was established at the time of the country's
' The view that the Russian Church was from the time of its foundation placed under conversion, “by custom and law" (@151-60¢ €6tp.ov vjv mi v¢vop.r.o'p.e'vov): Ibid, p. 265. Finally, an
Byzantine authority is strongly and convincingly argued by V. Laurent, “Aux origines de edict of the Patriarch Anthony, issued in 1389, reiterates this statement, in terms reminiscent
1Eglise russe,” Echos d’Orient, 38 (1939), pp. 279-95; E. Honigmann, "Studies in Slavic of Gregoras' words: 1] rfis 'Pwo'fa.s irrapxla. rréicra. iJ¢' Iva. pqrporrokirqv drr’ tipxfis ircixfirj 1rotp.a.l-
Church History, Byzantion, 17 (1944—5), pp. 128-62; F. Dvomik, The Making of Central vwfial re ml Stcvfiilvwflati Ibidn H» P- 116-
and Eastem Europe (London, 1949), pp. 169-79; and M. V. Levchenko, "Vzaimootnosheniya ” Elva: 8'a.i':rov ml. vfiv p-iv in roii -yivous lxcivou, vfiv 8'30: réiv 'rfi3¢ ¢tlv1'wv tlpoii ml rparislvrwv,
v1Zi:.I1lI11‘1 Rusi pri Vladimire," Vizantiisky Vremermik, 7 (1953), pp. 194-223. 6.p.oiBa3ov, rijv inc? -rrpoc5pia.v cici Siascxopfvwv para rov 1rporc'pov Qdvarov rrapahkolf, 11»: (iv re
‘ I Torrrq rowvv To Z91/‘es, ci¢' oil rfj choc/5'6 rrpooeppri-q Hpajcrmiq. Kai 16 'r63v xpwrtavtiv Ogiov roiv Svoiv ycvoiv avvaciais oimuai flcflatofipcvov mi. KUpO‘llfI.¢VOV ficfiatoripav is 1'5 cimjpasrciv re xai
¢'8¢fd-T? /3¢1“1r'r10'p'a., 11¢’ évt ru1ro1'i0'9a.:. 1'£’1’ClK1'C|.L xafitirrai dpxtcpci . . . Kill. rival. row arprii-rov rofrrov dxpatqfivls xal rijv rfis rricrraus o'1lp.1rvo|.a.v lxjj dzuhirruv chi mi povtpwrlpav T"l]V ofioiaw Kdl 8th/aptv.
fl.pxl.€p€d. ‘Hp rijs Kwvarav-rtvomrdkcws inrcixovra. Bpdvqa, mi im-5 -rmirou re}. v6,ur.p.a. 8c'xco-flat rfis cipx-fie Val. Parisot, Livre XXXVII de l'Histoire Romaine de Nicéphore Gregoras. Texte grec com-
-rfis rrvwparrxfiq. Nicephorus Gregoras, Historiae Byzantinae, xxxvi, cap. 22-3, ed. I. Bekker plet dorm-é pour la premiere fois, traduction frangaise, notes philologiques at historiques
(Bonn, 18-55) III, pp. 512-13. (Paris, 1851), P. es.
26 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 27

Russians were oflicially converted to Christianity —- that is in 988 or 989 — rfisc rfzrivrwv dpoii Kai 'rpa.¢e'v'rwv. The Bonn edition reads: elvar. 8'o.r'rrov Kai viiv
an agreement was concluded between the authorities of Constantinople piv in rélv 'rfi3e ¢1ll!1'(0P 644.01’) Kai rpa¢e'v'rrov.1°
and Kiev — in other words between the Emperor Basil II and Prince Vladi- It is not surprising that historians, who since 1855 have tended to read
mir I — by the terms of which the primates of the Russian Church — i.e. the thirty-sixth book of the History in the Bonn edition rather than in
the metropolitans of Kiev — were for all times to be appointed according Parisot's earlier version, have, with the exception of D'yakonov, failed to
to the principle of alternate nationality, a native Russian succeeding a By- realize the true meaning of Cregoras’ words; indeed, the defective text of
zantine, and vice-versa. This altemation is explicitly referred to three times the Bonn edition, in spite of such patent clues alluding to alternation as
in this short passage and is emphasized by the terms <i.p.oi,8a86v and 1ra.pa.)t- the correlative clause viiv jrév and the words d.p.o|.,8a.36v and srapahiuff, could
rag." 11 at first glance be read to mean that the Russian primates were to be chosen
The importance of this passage was perceived as early as 1851 by V. solely from among those who had been bom and brought up in Byzantium."
Parisot, the first editor of the thirty-sixth book of Gregoras’ History." He In Migne’s edition of the History, published in 1865, the passage in question
accepted Gregoras’ statement as true, but his insufficiently critical approach is printed in the same, defective form."
to this passage, and his somewhat sketchy knowledge of Russian history The omission of the crucial words which refer to the altemation in the
did not lead him to any very clear or positive conclusions.“ In 1889 the nationality of the primates of Russia from all editions of the thirty-sixth
Russian historian M. D'yakonov quoted this passage as something of a curi- book subsequent to Parisot's is undoubtedly due to an error of I. Bekker,
osity and, in the absence of corroborative evidence to support Gregoras’ the editor of the third volume of the Bonn text of Gregoras’ History: for the
statement, was cautious in assessing its historical value.“ Finally in 1913 printed text of this passage in Bonn (as indeed of the entire thirty-sixth
another Russian scholar, P. Sokolov, ridiculed the attempt to read into this
book) is derived from a single manuscript, the Par. Gr. 8075 in the Biblio-
theque Nationale, which is a copy made in the year 1699 of the fourteenth-
passage any reference to an alternation in the nationality of the metropoli-
century Vat. Gr. 1095 in the Vatican Library; ‘° and both manuscripts con-
tans of Kiev.“ As far as I am aware, in no subsequent work of scholarship
tain the crucial words in full.” I know of no other manuscript containing
was this passage discussed.
the thirty-sixth book of Gregoras’ History. Omont is wrong in stating that it
The negative attitude of Sokolov, and the silence of recent historians,
is also to be found in the Par. Cr. 1276 in the Bibliothéque Nationale,” an
are understandable, for Parisot’s edition of the thirty-sixth book of Grego-
error repeated by R. Guilland in his book on Nicephorus Gregoras.” So we
ras’ History, from which this passage has been quoted, was superseded in
are left ultimately with a single manuscript, the Vat. Gr. 1095, on the basis
1855 (four years later) by the Bonn edition of the third volume of the com-
of which this passage, defectively printed in the Bonn edition, should be
plete History, which contains this passage in a mutilated form; six words
corrected.”
are missing, and they are precisely the crucial words which refer to the
What are we to think of this statement of Gregoras? In no other source
alternation in the nationality of the primates of the Russian Church; Pari-
sOt's edition reads: eivar 3’a1§rov Kai vfiv piv €K rofi yévovs éxeivov, viiv 3'e'K rriiv “Historiae Byzantinae lib. xxxvi, cap. 23, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1855), III, p. 513, lines
2-4.
“ "Passer d'un prélat russe a un prélat grec, c’est nommer -mp¢)t)td.$, peu importe qu'aprés “ This conclusion is, in fact, drawn by Sokolov (Russky arkhierey iz Vizantii, pp. 39-40,
le Grec on prenne d’autres Grecs ou que l'on revienne a un Russe: si l’on y revient, les choix 265).
se feront dp.or,Ba86v; mais, tant qu’on ne dit pas dpotBa86v, on ne sait pas si les choix mettent " P. C-., CXLIX, col. 453.
altemativement un Russe et un Cree sur le siege primatial. Qu'on ne croie donc pas 1|-¢pa.Mé$ " Parisot, op. cit., pp. 2-3; R. Cuilland, Essai sur Nicéphore Grégoras (Paris, 1926), p.
synonyme d’ dp.or,Ba.86v; il y a entre eux la meme difiérence qu'entre uarier et alterner . . . xviii.
Nous disons parfaitement en francais Faltemotive dens la variation.” Ibid., pp. 281-2. "' Par. Cr. 3075, fol. 75 r; Vat. Gr. 1095 fols. 255 o-256 r.
“ See note 10. Parisot called this book the thirty-seventh, but his numeration has been “ H. A. Omont, Inventaire sornmaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothéque Nationale,
superseded by that adopted by the Bonn editors. I (Paris, 1898), no. 1276.
“ Parisot asserts, in particular, that in the course of the eleventh century this altemation “ Cuilland, Essai sur Nicéphore Grégoras, p. 242.
in the nationality of the metropolitans of Kiev “fut consacrée et devint comme ofiicielle” " The omission of the crucial words from the Bonn edition was no doubt accidental: this
(ibid., p. 281), but adduces no conclusive evidence for this statement. is shown by the fact that in the Latin translation undemeath the Greek text they are given
“ Vlast' moskooskikh gosudarei (St. Petersburg, 1889), pp. 6-7. in full: qui mode ex gents illa, modo ex nostra terra natis educatisque post antecedentis
" Russky arkhierey iz Vizantii (Kiev, 1913), pp. 39-40. mortem mutuo sedem occupat. Hist. Byz., Bonn, III, p. 513.
28 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 29
is such an agreement between Byzantium and Russia, regulating the nation- zantine documents as well 2° — shows that his judgment of Russian aiialrs
ality of the metropolitans of Kiev, so much as mentioned; the view currently was apt at times to be clouded by partisan bias. The same desire ‘to ,blacken
held by scholars of the methods by which the Russian primates were ap- the Patriarch Philotheus appears in Gregoras’ account of Alexius unsuc-
pointed is far removed from the notion of any such working compromise cessful rival Roman, a candidate of Olgerd, Grand Duke of Lithuamfl.
between Russia and the Empire; and these facts, when added to the late- who later in the same year 1354 was appointed by the Patriarch metro-
ness nOf Gregoras’ evidence, might well suggest that his statement was a politan of the Lithuanians.” Gregoras extolls. the virtues Of 30111911 9-5
product of fantasy or misinformation. Yet, so long as Gregoras’ statement vigorously as he castigates the vices of Alexius,” and, contrary to the
is not directly contradicted by other, more reliable, sources, it is surely evidence of all the other sources, he makes Roman come to Constantinople
worth inquiring whether any evidence, however indirect, can be found to and receive the Patriarch’s consecration before Alexius’ ai'ri\:a1-8° film
support it, and whether, generally speaking, his testimony might provide is clearly to suggest — though, doubtless to salve his historian s conscience.
adequate grounds for reconsidering the problem of the ecclesiastical rela- he does so with disingenuous ambiguity — that the Patriarch Philotheus,
tions between Byzantium and medieval Russia. The first step in such an out of deference for the Muscovite gold, unlawfully appointed Alexius to
inquiry must be an attempt to ascertain the general reliability of Gregoras’ the same post — the metropolitan see of Kiev and All Russia — to which he
statements about the Russian people and their Church. had just nominated Roman.“ _
In his History Gregoras discusses the affairs of Russia at considerable There can thus be no doubt that, in discussing the contemporary affalrs
length, in a passage of book twenty-eight which relates how the Grand of the Russian Church, Gregoras. <131‘1'ied aWaY_bY his hatred of glesxchatin
Duke of Moscow sent, ca. 1350, a large sum of money to the Emperor ]ohn and of the Patriarch Philotheus, was apt at times to select an twist e
Cantacuzenus for the repair of the church of St. Sophia,“ and especially facts to conform with his polemical aims. Even here, however, he seems
in book thirty-six, in which he describes the struggle carried on before reluctant to indulge in downright invention or falsification.” But whenever
the authorities in Constantinople between 1353 and 1356, by the rival can-
didates of the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Lithuania, for the jurisdiction " The Russian sources referring to Alexius, who was canonized by the Russiap gllgplicilo,
are cited and analyzed in Golubinsky, op. cit., II, 1, pP- 171» 5- H181‘ Pg=ise:ctm‘;emarcha_
over the whole Russian Church.” The latter account contains several state- Alexius in the synodal decree of the Patriarch Philotheus, of ]une 30, 13 hac Chisms of
ments that are tendentious and inaccurate. Gregoras’ bias is revealed when- tus Constantinopolitani, I, pp. 336-40) and the synodal_dec_ree lpfélhe lPatr1(;i:vim;n spice
]u1y 1361 (ibid., pp. 425-30). Gregoras picture of Alexius is af e . ess d arm} g;ecom_
ever he touches, however lightly, on the subject of Hesychasm: since
Alexius had been appointed Vicar-General to the metropolitan o Russia ant“ w ryglate for
1347, when the accession of ]ohn Cantacuzenus secured the triumph of mended for the post of future metropolitan by his predecessor Theognoszii, 5-7330 Bonn
the hesychast doctrines of Gregory Palamas, Gregoras had been in opposi- whom Gregoras professes the highest regard (HM- B92“ hb' xxxvl’ cap‘ ’ ’ ’
tion, and in the course of the next few years emerged as the leader of the III, pp. 513-516).
" ., . 34-5, . 518. , , _
anti-Palamite party in Byzantium. As such, and as one who had suffered " $53 setfildlence of Events, and the exact chronology of Alexius and Roman s two loumeys
. - - ' iiferent sources do not always
for his convictions, he entertained a particularly violent dislike for the Pala-
mite Patriarch Philotlieus,” who in ]une 1354 appointed the Muscovite eiub-ss. 1»
to Constantinople remain, admittedly, rather uncertain, as the d

wischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna, 1950), pp. 94- . t is c ear};

it la-

. éd b f 6 the fol-
candidate, Alexius, bishop of Vladimir, to the post of "metropolitan of already in Constantinople in 1353, and that Roman could not ave arriv e or
in .
Kiev and All Russia.” Gregoras’ dislike of Philotheus undoubtedly colored low" %I?l’0eat1l-’1.l6 facts are stated in the synodal decree of the Patriarch Callistu8.’0f I111)’: 15331-
his judgment of the Patriarch's nominee; and the portrait he draws of Alex- (Acta Patr. C0nst., I, pp. 425-'30). Alexius was appointed ju.r;rporroAlrr;: Kucflou Kai rrao-qs
ius, behaving like some villain of melodrama and securing the metropolitan ‘Pritaras
' A(on‘aw
luneGregoras
so 1354-Iwhfle
ibid-. inverting
p- 34°) and Roman "a littleorder
the chronological later"of (rural
these F“‘P'5") ewe‘
appointments,
see by distributing enormous bribes in Constantinople " — a picture which flier?10 the granted to the two prelates in the vaguest possible terms: E1502 yap x¢l"
flatly contradicts the evidence, not only of Russian sources, but of By- porovrjdlvros ivraflfla. rail - Pmpurvoil, twpllflv i""¢"'l
’ 1'" 3*““Orv lrrpos, 1-ol'wop-' ‘M 1 ""1
h - h ' d'
.. ( lo . cit., a . 36, . 519). Previousy e a
“Hist. Byz. lib. xxviii, cap. 34-6, Bonn, III, pp. 198-200. $i§.l”li..l“1i$“..§§§l lréplrili61'. "ill:°’.§i.is'§§@1(“‘: '°° sf P-11 Ri5-1- (aw 1+» M ‘Pg?-
jmflmrjw my M,,p,;.,,,,;(,,,; 151.1,, cap. 84, p. 518), and we are doubtless meant to believe at
" Op. cit., lib. xxxvi, cap. 20-51, ibid., pp. 511-26.
" Cf. Cuilland, op. cit., pp. 34, 40, 51, 97, 226, 289-91. Roman and Alexius were in turn appointed to the same post. th G
0| P sokojov ( Rmgky gr-khisrey iz Vizantii, pp. 376-8) plausibly suggests at regoras
" Ibid., cap. 36-7, p. 519. intermin.gled the facts of Roman's first and second visits to Constantinople (in 1354 and
 30 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 31
Gregoras’ partisan passions were not involved, his treatment of Russia was nople, it seems likely that much of his knowledge about Russia was d;8-
full, careful and well-informed. His remarks on the geography, climate, rived from Theognostus, metropolitan of Kiev. and All Russia from 13
and economy of the country,” on the transfer of the metropolitan’s residence to 1353. Theognostus was a native of Constantinople, and Gregpras wiites
from Kiev to Vladimir because of the devastation of South Russia by the of him with affectionate admiration, partly because of the prestige an in-
Mongols,“ on the division of the realm into three or four states or princi- fluence ho is said to have wielded in Russia,” and especially because Of
palities,“ are clearly the work of a conscientious and acciuate recorder. the vigorous opposition he displayed, on Gregoras Sl1OW1l1g> 1° the doc‘
His remarks on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose rulers had, by the trines of Gregory Palamas.‘° There is no proof that Gregoras and Theog-
middle of the fourteenth century, conquered the greater part of westem nostus actually met, but it is hard to believe that the.le.ader_ of the anti-
and south-western Russia, are equally valuable and precise. He mentions Palamite party did not make the acquaintance of so distinguished an ally
the paganism of their rulers and their successful resistance to the Tatars; °° during one of the latter's visits to Constantinople, or that he failed to obtam
makes some penetrating observations on the ecclesiastical policy of the from him first-hand information on the current conditions and past lplstory
Grand Duke Olgerd" (1345-77), who, though a pagan himself, sought of the land over which he exercised the supreme spiritual authority.‘
to extract from the Byzantine authorities the appointment of his candidate Gregoras’ testimony on the Russo-Byzantine agreement regulating the
Roman as metropolitan of Kiev, as a means of furthering his political de- nationality of the metropolitans of Kiev should not be regarded ai suspect
signs on the Muscovite lands; and supplies us with information, clearly a priori: it occurs not in the later chapters‘ of the beigh. V1"; e1'_°
obtained at first hand, on the age and physical appearance of Roman, and the author, yielding to his anti-Palamite bias, seeks to discredit e atri-
on his kinship with Olgerd’s wife.” arch Philotheus and the Emperor ]ohn Cantacuzenus, but in the first part
If Gregoras’ information on the history and politics of Lithuania was of the same book near the beginning of the section dealing with Russia,
obviously obtained from Roman, whom he must have met in Constanti- where Gregoras’ information is at its most acciuate and reliable. At the
time he was writing the thirty-sixth book — shortly after his release in 1355
ii

1355), in order to bolster up his thesis that the Byzantine authorities, in withholding their
support from Roman, missed the opportunity of converting the latter's sovereign, Olgerd, to
Christianity. In another context, Gregoras has been harshly criticized for stating that a Rus- "Ibid., ca . 24, 27-31, pp. 513-16-
sian ruler (1‘;yq.r<.’w) had been granted the Byzantine court title of 6 e'1ri 1-fie 1'pa1r¢'{'rp: by
“ 154.1,, 1115, xxvi, cap. 47, P. 114. or. Colubinsky, op. ca-. II. 1. pp- 168-9: Cuilland»
the Emperor Constantine the Great (Hist. Byz., lib. vii, cap. 5, ed. L. Schopenus [Borm, Essai sur Nicéphore Grégorfles PP-’41'2- _ _ _ , , _ ,c The
tr One of Nicephorus Gregoras. letters bears the superscription ‘Hp cg; ms rpggreopskussia
1829], I, p. 239). The disregard for chronology is, of course, blatant, but this passage occurs
in a much earlier section of the History, and may well have been written before Gregoras editor of this letter, I. C. von Aretin, took this anonymous addressee E0 a Prm- b b’
had begun systematically to collect infonnation about Russia. Moreover, we know from on the ounds that the title of 6 is-i rijs rpa.-rréfiqe W88. °n Cregmas °Wn sh°wmg> °m Y
Maximus Planudes that in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century a Russian ruler Russiangrrulers (Beytriige zur Gesohichte und Literatur, 4 [Munich, 1805], pp. 609-19.)
did bear the title of 6 e'1rl. rip rpawéfiqq. See H. Haupt, “Neue Beitriige zu den Fragmenten cr. supra, note 32. This view is aceePt°d by R- Cwglifiioeedrmnisfflsgt 5-;:s<;1:§_
des Dio Cassius,” Hermes, 14 (1879), p. 445. Cf. A. A. Vasiliev, “Was Old Russia a Vassal correspondence, who dates the letter between 1325 an H 18512 (Com; “dang? de
State of Byzantium?,” Speculum, 7 (1932), pp. 353-4. Cf. infra, note 41. ably written to the Granli Duke of Moscow, Ivan I llfa ta t( ts f the letter at vague and
"Hist. Byz. lib. xxxvi, cap. 21-22, Borm, III, p. 512. Nwéphme Grégoms [Pa-ml 1927]’ Pp‘entertained
16’ 318-9).a hve.ylc0t1';']eip£J;
ll con en od 1%nce with the addressee
platitudinous, but show that'Cregoras zantine court title of’
“Ibid., cap. 24-30, pp. 513-6. It may seem surprising that Gregoras does not mention
for whom he professed a high regard. It is quite possi e a . . e y _
Moscow which, by the time he was writing, was already in fact the political and ecclesiastical
capital of Eastem Russia. Yet the Byzantine authorities were slow to recognize this fact, and 6Russian
i-= isprinces,
-P-itsaswethat =~=1@s"n is *°""'=@¥'*“ °°“‘“‘?’1i."“i‘“°"”-‘i.‘.i
of lt0vp0'rro.1\.r1'r'r?s was in those p e eorgi p
"I-...“3Z.“.;‘5-6§"i‘fid.°i..‘G.".fl
in the middle of the fourteenth century the primate of the Russian Church still held the title
century (see Constantine Perphyrogemlvs. De Adm5"'~5't"““d° ImPe"f°» °aP- 4 ' e '“D1_"
of “metropolitan of Kiev and of All Russia,” though his predecessors ceased to reside in Kiev
in 1300.
" Ibid., cap. 25-6, pp. 513-4. Though it is possible that this is a reference to the political
and 11- 1» H; Ien1d:=*..[B“‘“.P°“' 19%...."Pi" 233;?'8°§'.€s.?‘"§g°;3‘?":.. .1‘?
byzantinisehe Staatenhierarchie, Sermnarium _ 0v” . 1632 » 3534
V ilie “Was Old Russia a Vassal State of Byzant111m?. sPe°"l“m’ 7 ( )» PP- '
fragmentation of Russia which began in the twelfth century, it seems more likely that
Ha; V’ a ’ corres ondent was really the Grand Duke of Moscow, 9-I1°the1' Pmbable s°“r°°
Gregoras is alluding to the “three or four” rival and independent principalities into which

=1-i M"*s°;'“°;?‘;e:=*s*?,‘;‘;3,“1°‘; ;?*‘j"§f‘;.f.‘§,“f°¥?.Z *.‘*:.*:.*;*:.".r.::.:."::.:.‘:.;*::.

Eastern Russia was divided in the middle of the fourteenth century, i.e. Moscow, Tver’, of oiri:gd)dtl:or’s knolivledge
_ of Russian. affairs
- would be discovered.
' But was 6 irrfilurfis
' rparréfigs
e .
Suzdal’ and Ryazan’. Cf. C. Vemadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven, 1953), p. 206.
" Ibid., cap. 26, 33-4, pp. 514, 517. on the ht e 0 1 Wag?!‘ 1211) 1? 12g_6. Constanting Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis, ed.
rgnth cpn;ury2é (IE thgtenth éesgiw). an,d P5,-Codinus De Ofiiciis, ed. Bonn, p. 35 (in the
"1bid., cap. 34-5, pp. 517-18.
onn, , . ' ’
"' Ibid., cap. 34-5, p. 518.
fourteenth century) -
 32 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 33
from imprisonment in the Monastery of the Chora *2 - he was in Constanti-
consistent with our knowledge of the ecclesiastical relations between By-
nople, and, through the high connections that he had previously enjoyed,
zantium and medieval Russia? _
and doubtless to some extent still maintained, at Court, in the Church, and
3. Is there any evidence suggesting that those primates of the Russian
in the oflice of the Logothete of the Dromos, must have been able to acquire
Church who, in this period, were not directly nominated by the authorities
first-hand information on the problem of the appointment of the metropoli-
of Constantinople, were elected in Russia by the Russians themselves?’
tans of Kiev, particularly since this problem had been recently reviewed,
I propose to consider these questions with reference to two successive
and no doubt widely debated, in Constantinople in connection with the
periods covered by the evidence of Gregoras: the two and. a half ce11tU1'16S
appointment, in ]une 1354, of Alexius to the primatial see of Russia.“
that elapsed between Russia’s final conversion to Christianity in 988 or 989
Gregoras is known to have had access to documents which are no longer
and the Mongol invasion in the fourth decade of the thirteenth century;
extant.“ His leading modern biographer, R. Cuilland, has observed that
and the following century or so, from 1237 to 1354. And, for reasons of con-
the most reliable parts of his History are the later books, including the
venience which will become apparent in the course of this discussion, I
thirty-sixth.“ And there is no reason to tax Gregoras with too much exag-
shall consider the second period first.
geration when, in another part of his work, he asserts that of the events he
describes he has personally seen or heard the greater part, relying for the I
remainder on the exact account of eye-witriesses.“
We may thus conclude that Gregoras’ statements relating to Russia 1. With regard to the period 1237-1354, the first question can be an-
deserve to be taken seriously, since our author, generally speaking, treats swered in the aflirmative: the alternation referred.to by Gregoras is st(rii-
the subject in an acciuate and well-informed manner. At the same time, kingly evident; with remarkable regularity Byzantine and Russian c§nA;
his remoteness, in time and distance, from the events he recounts, and his dates were appointed, in turn, to the metropolitan see of Kiev an . '
occasional lapses into partiality, make it impossible to accept unquestion- Russia: Ioseph (1237-?), a Byzantine; Cyril (ca. 1249-81),-a Russian,
ingly his evidence on the Russian Church, unless it is supported by the tes- Maximus (1283-1305), a Byzantine; Peter (1308-26), a Russian; Theog-
timony of other sources. This applies in particular to his assertion that Rus- nostus (1328-53), a Byzantine; Alexius (1354:-78), a Russian; the list is
sia's conversion to Christianity was accompanied by a Russo-Byzantine complete and speaks for itself.“ _ l _ h h
agreement, according to which the metropolitans of Kiev were to be ap- 2. Was this alternation fortuitous? Historians of the Russian C urc
pointed alternately from among Byzantines and Russians. seem to have shown a singular reluctance to ask themselves this question.
One of the purposes of this article is to discover whether, in the ab- E. Golubinsky, for example, regarded the appointment of the Russian can;
sence of direct corroborative evidence, the relevant sources, Byzantine and didates in this period as due to a historical accident — the unwillingngss o
Russian, provide any indication that such an agreement may, in fact, have Byzantine prelates to face the rigors and dangers. of a prolonged resi encs
existed. Its other, and more general, aim is to reconsider, in the light of in Kiev, devastated by the Mongols in 1240 - which, in his opin10H._Cal1$e'
Gregoras’ testimony, the problem of how the primates of the Russian Church the East Roman authorities to agree to the appointment of a Russian pri-
were, from the eleventh to the mid-fourteenth century, actually appointed. mate ca 1249 and subsequently to accept on several occasions a repetition
These two aims may best be achieved by an attempt to answer three sepa- of this precedent.“ Quite apart, however, from the lack of any'evidei;i9ce that
rate questions: the Byzantine churchmen of the period were quite so pus1llaI11JT10\1$. G01!"
1. Can any regular alternation in the nationality of the metropolitans binsky’s explanation by-passes the main issue — the regular altemgtiolri E1
of Kiev be detected in this period? the nationality of the metropolitans of Kiev for nearly a century an a a .
2. Is the existence of an agreement such as that attested by Gregoras " For the careers of these metropolitans, see Golubinsky, OP» Cit-» H: 1» PP- 50"2255 Am’
" Cuilland, op. cit., p. 245. mann, op. cit., pp. 57-61, 78—84,lgi:9.
" Cf. infra, pp. 38-43.
*- Golubinsky, am, pp. so-1. <- _ _
" It is noteworthy that according to Byzantine Canoff Law» 3 blshgl) W510 refilsii :2
“ Cuilland, ibid.
" Ibid. minister to . the. spiritual needs of the diocese
- -
entrusted
'
to his care falls er t 8: S611. Bil
Rhall
“Hist. Byz., lib. xii, cap. 1, Bonn, II, p. 571. excommumcation for as long as he persists in his refusal (36th Apgstohcéllmon G es
and M. Potles, Eiivrayiia -rifiv 6&0» ital ieprfiv K0-I'°V""'» H [AthenS' 185 1’ P’ '
"I vi
34 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 35
Another Russian historian, T. Barsov, facing the problem more squarely, 3. It is natural to inquire whether the circumstances in which the
expressed the view that this altemation was not adventitious, but was due metropolitans of Kiev and All Russia were appointed in this period can
to the desire of the Byzantine authorities to retain their hold over the Rus- shed any light upon the problem under discussion. Nothing of particular
sian Church without offending the national susceptibilities of the Russians.” interest is known about the appointment of the Byzantine prelates, Ioseph,
S11: (3):1(lt:;)t, hopveverl,-{raise the question as to whether this arrangement was Maximus, and Theognostus, who were sent to Russia by the Patriarch, the
ad h me oi a se -perpetuatmg agreement, or the result of a series of first from Nicaea, the other two from Constantinople." But on the election
oc concessions made by the Byzantines to the Russian authorities. The of the Russian candidates, Cyril, Peter, and Alexius, we are better informed;
3<1)HI§%CUon IZETIWBBIIII the alternation in the nationality of the primates of and the conclusions we can draw from contemporary sources are not with-
It; llssigp 111'C from 1237 to 137.8 and Gregoras evidence is obvious. out interest.
. ppssi e, of course, that our historian, or the source he used, was merely The Metropolitan Cyril, who was probably a monk of West Russian
1I1f6l'I'1Ilg,. from the fact that for the previous century and more Byzantines origin, was chosen by Prince Daniel of Galicia, the most powerful of the
and Russians had regularly succeeded one another as metropolitans of Rus- Russian rulers of his time, was sent to Nicaea ca. 1246 to be consecrated by
sia, the existence of‘a formal agreement on this point between the two coun- the Patriarch as metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, and returned, duly
ltiei, rationalizmg, in other words, a de facto situation. Yet it does not seem invested, a few years later.” There is no suggestion in the sources that the
e y that an arrangement that operated so regularly and for so long appointment of a native candidate, nominated by a Russian sovereign, was
was the result ofichance, or even of a series of ad hoc agreements be- in any way unusual, or that the Patriarch opposed it on canonical or other
tween the authorities of Byzantium and Russia. It is thus probable that grounds.
Gregoras was right in postulating the existence of a general agreement be- The election, and subsequent career, of the Metropolitan Peter pro-
tween the two countries which was effective during the period from 1237 vide us with a few more significant facts. Upon the death of the Greek
to 1378. Metropolitan Maximus in 1305, the Russian abbot Gerontius went to Con-
It will be remembered that Gregoras asserts that this agreement was stantinople, hoping and expecting to be consecrated metropolitan of All
concluded at the time of Russia’s conversion to Christianity in the late Russia by the Patriarch. There is no doubt that Gerontius was the candi-
tenth century. The reliability of this part of his evidence will be discussed date put forward for this office by the senior Russian ruler, Prince Michael
later. It may, however, be stated here that the apparent absence of any of Tver’, who at that time held the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir.°‘ Simul-
regular altemation in the nationality of the metropolitans of Kiev before taneously Prince George of Calicia sent a candidate of his own to Con-
1237 permits us to inquire whether this agreement between Byzantium and stantinople, with the request that he be consecrated metropolitan of Galicia:
Russia could have been concluded in the first half of the thirteenth cen- this was the Abbot Peter, a native of Western Russia. The Patriarch Athana-
tury. There exists, of course, no direct evidence on this point, but it is sius decided otherwise: he rejected Gerontius’ candidature, and instead
tempting to assiune a connection between the regular practice of appoint- consecrated Peter metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia (1308).'“‘ A curious,
mg Russians to the metropolitan see of Kiev and the policy of granting yet significant, interpretation of the attitude of the Byzantine authorities
wide ecclesiastical concessions to the other Slavonic satellites of the Em- to these two Russian candidates can be found in the Vita of the Metropoli-
pire, ‘a policy pursued by the Byzantine authorities during their residgngg tan Peter (who was subsequently canonized by the Russian Church) com-
m Nicaea, and exemplified by the foundation of the autocephalous Arch- posed by Cyprian, Metropolitan of All Russia (1390-1406). According to
bishopric of Serbia in 1219 and by the recognition of the Patriarchate of " See Golubinsky, op. cit., II, 1, pp. 50, 90, 146—7.
Bulgaria in 1235.“ " The sources, and the somewhat uncertain chronology, relating to the election and con-
secration of the Metropolitan Cyril are discussed by Colubinsky (ibid., pp. 51-4) and Sokolov
PP Zé(1qr;s'tantinopol’sky patriarkh i ego olast’ Md russlcoy tserkov'yu (St. Petersburg, 1878), (Russky arkhierey iz Vizantii, pp. 159—63). Cyril’s early career is not precisely known:
Colubinsky (ibid., p. 53) and Vernadsky (The Mongols and Russia, p. 147) take him to have
“ On the foimdation of the Archbishopric of Serbia in 1219 and the establishment of th been a monk in the region of Galicia and Volynia; Ammann (op. cit., p. 58) believes, on
Bulgarian Patriarchate in 1235, see M. Spinka, A History of Christianity in the Balkans (Ch: somewhat inadequate grounds, that he had been the bishop of Chelm (Kholm) in Galicia.
;:§°é8125i§?)ég>§>;93?4-3, 110-2; G- 0$tr<>g0rsl<y. History of the Byzantine State (Oxford, 1956), “ Cf. Golubinsky, op. ci't., pp. 99-101; Sokolov, op. cit., pp. 218-24.
" Golubinsky, op. cit., pp. 101—5.
 86 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 37
C)/P1'iaIl. the Patriarch rejected the candidature of Gerontius because he Moscow. Peter’s close collaboration with the Prince of Moscow: brought him
had been elected by the Russian secular authorities: “it is imlawful ” he is into conflict with the latter's rival and enemy, Michael of Tver’, who, about
said to have declared, “for laymen to make elections to the episcopate.” ‘° 1311, wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople, requesting that Peter be
If the right of election is taken to mean the right (of the Russian rulers) brought to judgment for infringing ecclesiastical discipline.“ The Patriarch
to put forward then‘ own candidates. for the office of metropolitan, it is Niphon wrote back to Michael, suggesting that the Russian metropolitan
probable that the Patriarch said no such thing. His acceptance of Peter’s be tried in Constantinople, and, if found guilty, dismissed; in such a case,
candidature shows that he recognized this right. It has long been clear that the Patriarch states, “we will appoint another [metropolitan], whomsoever
Cyprians account of these events is biased, since during his tenure of the your Piety desires.” “S If the Byzantine Patriarchate, always so anxious to
mfifiopohfiiln ofiice. he fought, with only partial success, this very practice maintain a strong hold over the Russian Church, could make so explicit an
W fir? y meHRussian rulers submitted their own candidates for the pri- offer, we may conclude that it did not regard the nomination of a native
ma-Pat $g@- ‘is bias appears ‘further in his account of Peter’s consecration: candidate by the Russian sovereign as outrageous or unusual.
on e er s arrival m Constantmople, he states, the Patriarch “summons the Peter seems to have weathered this storm successfully, and his position
synod of the most holy metropolitans and proceeds to elect [Peter] in the grew stronger when Michael of Tver’ met his death at the Golden Horde in
’, . . . .
cjwtpimar); manner. ‘T1115 is a perfectly accurate description of the formal 1319. The next Russian to be appointed as metropolitan of Kiev and All
e 9° 8°11 P8 a II18lII0p0l1t-an by the Patriarchal Synod in Constantinople, the Russia was Alexius.“
o-we os ev 'I]].I.OU0'G., and it conforms to the practice current in the Byzantine The circumstances that accompanied the nomination, election and ap-
Church in the Middle Ages.” But in this case the formal election by the pointment of the Metropolitan Alexius are so curious, and their relation
supreme authorities of the Byzantine Church was preceded by Peter’s nemi- to the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras is so suggestive, that they warrant
nation (though to a see different from the one to which he was eventually a fairly detailed discussion.“ The son of a Russian nobleman of high rank,
appointed) by a Russian sovereign, and Cyprian is clearly at pains to recon- himself the godson of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan I Kalita, Alexius had
cile Peter s free election by the Patriarchal Synod with the distasteful fact lived as a monk in a monastery in Moscow for over twenty years when he
that he was recommended by a secular ruler.°° Further it is curious that was appointed, in 1340, by his sovereign and by the Metropolitan Theog-
Cyprian himself involuntarily suggests that the right of the Russian princes nostus as the latter’s coadjutor, with the prospective right of succession to
to‘ put forward their own candidates for the oflice of metropolitan was the primacy. In 1352 Theognostus, whose health had deteriorated, conse-
widely recognized at the tune: Gerontius, he tells us, “went to Constanti- crated him Bishop of Vladimir, again on the understanding that Alexius
nople, as if he already had what he expected.” “I The same conclusion would succeed him as metropolitan of All Russia. In the meantime, Theog-
emerges from the subsequent relations of the Metropolitan Peter with the nostus and the Grand Duke of Moscow, Symeon, had sent an embassy to
Byzantine See. On his retum to Russia Peter became the friend and sup- Constantinople to request the Patriarch and the Emperor to sanction Alex-
porter of the Prince of Moscow, George (1304-25), an association which ius’ candidature. When the embassy returned to Moscow in July 1353,
ed the Metropolitan, in the last years of his life, to transfer, at the instiga_ Theognostus and Syrneon were both dead. Thereupon Alexius left for Con-
tion of George s successor Ivan I (1325-41), his residence from Vladimir to
“ The accusations put forward against the Metropolitan Peter are discussed by Golubinsky
(ibid., pp. 113-15).
KniaSte CF k Rdolo';' - - .
°' Pamyatniki dreone-russkogo kanonicheskogo praoa, part 1 (2nd ed., St. Petersburg,
(st. Pete§sb111'Sl)e1r9’0a8y)a» p1”§Z§g° 0 S my“ m Palm Somme Rmhkh L“°""”y' 21 1908): Russkoya Istoricheskoya Biblioteka, vol. 6, 2nd ed., no. 16, col. 149.
" Cf. Sokolov, op. cit., p . 219, 347, 451, 473- Gol b’ '
“ A stran e and not well authenticated, action is ascribed to the Metropolitan Peter by
“ Knigll St9Penn0!/0, l0c.Pci't. , u msky’ OP. mt.’ P. 145' note 1'
the anonymofis author of his fourteenth-century Vita. Shortly before his death, Peter is alleged
" Cf. infra, pp. 51-2, 53.
to have nominated as metropolitan a certain Archimandrite Theodore (Metropolitan Makary,
"He attempts to do so b s t' th t ' - - -
Istoriya russkoy fserkoi, IV [St. Petersburg, 1886], p. 315). Theodore’s identity, origin and
Peter the fact that he had nolmmlfigdsllniigi fo: tlgudgcecfifrfiieegd §1l:;c1a' cotnglahng from
fate are quite unknown, and, if true, this statement may mean that Peter nominated not his
stantinople ostensibly for a different purpose, and secretly requesiled tlile éearjri :)n§;rf-
successor (as Golubinsky, i'bi'd., pp. 145-6, believes), but the candidate to the metropoli-
synod
gesfion tois appoint
(OP. cit.’him.
H, 1,Golubinsk
P‘ 103, njgteh af)no d'f‘r'i
i cu ltY in
' s h owlrlg
' -
how 1mProbable - si1g_
this is
tan see of Calicia. (See Sokolov, op. cit., pp. 262-4.)
“For an account of Alexius’ appointment, see Golubinsky, ibid., pp. 171, if.; Sokolov,
" Kniga Stepennaya, loc. ci't., p. 324.
ibid., pp. 285-353.
 38 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 89
stantinople, expecting, as the Russian sources imply, to be appointed metro- . . - L d
life, we have decided that tlus shall be, but ni respect only of the 01'
politan. Alexius; and we by no means permit nor concede that any other persophofi
Alexius remained in Constantinople for a whole year; during much of Russian origin should in the future become the primate (0-PX°Z’“’~) mfm;
this time, one is led to suppose, the Byzantine authorities scrutinized his eeunuy; on the contrary [the primates of Rt1SS13..3.l‘8 to”l:p chospanjrj rch
credentials and discussed his suitability. Finally, on Iune 30, 1354, a de- [among the clergy of] the . . . city of Constantiriopleh T at]? a fiqure
cree of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople, signed by the Patriarch interposes a recommendation to his successors‘ to abide, W Inn In cllngegares
Philotheus, formally appointed him metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. appointments to the see of Kiev and All Russia, by U118 111 mg=da1ll f the
It is a remarkable document.“ After a preamble which states that the that Alexius, appointed in. full conformity with the canons an aws o
, cc. f
Church of Constantinople holds the metropolitan diocese of Kiev and All Church, will take possession of his new see just as though he were rom
Russia in particular honor because of Russia's numerous inhabitants, the here.” 7°
preeminence of the power of its king (15-zrepox-5 fiqyixfis éfovo-ias), and the . ' : th
One is immediately struck by two features of Sy1JI'iO(13(l,v(ilt(ZCIE:fthorZ
presence near its borders of a large pagan population,” the decree hints Patriarch’s obvious desire to satisfy the demands o th e usp Kiev and All
rather darkly at “the ways, diverse and most appropriate to the needs of ties; and his assertion that Alexius appointment tgh e it-‘:5 £116 first feature
its administration” (Kani. 1'01); 1ro)\vei5e'ls Kai. cipiorovs rporrovs réiv oixovoiiriiv
afirfis), in which the See of Constantinople had in the past appointed (e’yi<a- Russia by no means customary Il0'r Safe for thl ' mic it ation in east-
1-écrmcre) the primates of the Russian Church; "similarly" (éuoiws) it had ern Europe in the midd e o e our een cen ury. . 1 __
now attempted to find a suitable candidate for this post among the clerics the death of the Metropolitan Peter in 1326 had becpme cletj‘}6llCtl;112:6 eofilfliftfggl
of Constantinople; its choice, however, had fallen upon Alexius, who “was astical capital of Russia, was at that time emerging as c ‘P H
born and brought up” in Russia (émiio-e 'yevv'q9eis mi. »rpa.<;beis),°° because of center east of the Lithuanian border capable of acting as an effecpve 1'3 Y‘
his piety and virtue, and also because he had been recommended for this ing point for the rising national consciousness of the Russianpeop can . as
office by the late Metropolitan Theognostus. The final decision of the Patri- events were soon to prove, of successfully challengmg the hithlirtp Hntprfig
arch and his synod, reached after a careful examination lasting a whole year nable power of the Golden Horde. Its princes, W_h° had embarthe W; "E
(éferzio-ea. 3e8am6'res' ciKpi,Beo~ra'.1'j7 €1ri oltoxltiqpov 'i;'31j €vi.o.v-row), was influenced, blessing Of the Church and the s11PP°rt of their boyars on e Po cy.0
too, by favorable reports on Alexius obtained from Byzantine visitors to
“g3.tl1€I'iI'1g” the Whole of eastern Russia under their sway, Were bewmmg
Russia and Russian visitors to Constantinople, and also by the fact that increasingly powerful and rich. It is not surprising that the Byzaptmf all-
“the great King” (6 p.£")/0.5‘ ME) of Russia, i.e. the Grand Duke of Moscow, therities; whose realm, weakened by the civil war between ]ohn Pa aep ogus
Ivan II, wrote to the Emperor, ]ohn Cantacuzenus, in support of his candi-
dature. The decree then adds the following comment: “although this is by the Serbs and disab e on sea y 6 BIIBIORC
no means customary nor safe for the Church, yet in view of these trust- ’ - - - bl
Venetians, faced financial rum; were ready in 1354 to lend a_f-avora 6
worthy and commendatoiy reports, and of his virtuous and godly mode of ear to the demands of an allied and satellite state from which military and
" The text is printed in Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, I, pp. 336-40. economic assistance could be expected — the Grand Duchl’ of Musctivy
"There is a curious similarity between this passage of the synodal decree and some of and its uéyas jriwjf.“ The policy of granting concessions to Russia was fur er
Gregoras’ references to Russia: both Philotheus and Gregoras describe the Russian people as
-:ro)w<iv0pmros (cf. Gregoras, Hist. Byz., lib. xxviii, cap. 35, Bonn, III, p. 199; elsewhere, - ~ ' ’ " ‘ ‘ ’ iorovs
°' ‘Hyde ei mil oi':3Ev ilv o'iiv'?9¢s 3io)tov 01535 <i0‘<l>°~1\E¢ "'°”T° TU “K'\"7m'q" Gym? am mqlaéww ..
Gregoras calls the Russians €0vo¢ 1ro/\va.v5pw1rci'ra'rovI lib. xxxvi, cap. 21, ibid., p. 512); both KM~ o'vo"ra:ru<as l‘ 1-“J11-ag P~ e P‘-roping _ Kai. rijv
\ c'va'pe-rov
, , Kai,_ ,Heoipwrov
,A)‘, aiirouQ I
. \vaywyflv
at "G8'-¢'<P'-W1I'—“’
axwpovluv "'°'”'°
W8;
give the Grand Duke of Moscow the title of ,5-45 (Gregoras, ibi'd., cap. 28 p. 515)- both A I

refer to the pagan neighbors of Russia, the Lithuanians, as fire worsh' ers (rrvpvolvir cs! 7 ¢vc'o'6o.i. ’ 1r/\'llV
H (is
,, airrov
, 31'] . 1'0vT°V
\ . ..Kai . “ova”
~ ~ my Kvp 0 jiiiuievov
spam-{q,; 6 Loy’ on W7
iipxiepea
I
1)£K€i.O’€
Q Q
P yevcoaai,
» , a.)u\a
, \
' ‘PP cap 26 P 514)
P €v3i3oo.p.ev okws e-repov rivo. ers 1'0 cfns 0.7l'0 ’-r-qs \ , Q K (‘Mme _ Acm
Add Pdtf. C0nstant., l0C. Cit, P. 336; ye’:/os 1rupo'oA0.1'poiiv2 H151. Byz., 119121.,
am‘. -raii-rvjs rfis 9eo8o$iio"rov xcii 6cop.eya¢\vv-rov mu cv3a.i/iovos mvorav-rivovvr . . .
"The words éxdac ycvvwjfleic mi rpapcis, used in the synodal decree, are strikingly remi- Patr. Constant, loo. cit» P- 337-
niSC6nl: Of Gregoras’ expression Ex niiv 'rfi3c qbiiwuiv iijiioii icai. rpacfiévrmv, which Qcgurs in the "°1bid_, . 338. _
passage referring to the alternate nationality of the metropolitans of Russia (cf. supra, note “ On thg financial crisis of the Empire in the. mid-fourteenth
10). They may also be compared to Gregoras’ statement that the Metropolitan Theognostus ' t’ St t ,
. - centu1'Y' see O5t1'°8°1'5kY-
- - <1
. 469-70. It is not impossible that a connection existe
Eqbv -re mi -réflpmrrai in Constantinople (Hist. Byz., loc. ci't., cap. 30, p. 516). £1BLl:t:;gn0tfh:h:lUl:g1€i!nSlll:;P0I: forP.£1exius' candidature and the monc)’ sent ca' 1350 bl’ the
 40 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 41
necessitated by the ecclesiastical situation. Now that the political fabric of
siastical affairs.“ As a leading hesychast and a former monk of Mount
the Byzantine state was irretrievably shattered, the Patriarch of Constanti-
Athos, Philotheus rose to prominence among the “zealots,” who gained
nople was the only force capable of championing the traditional claims of
a decisive and lasting victory over their opponents when the teaching of
the East Roman Empire to hegemony over the whole of Eastern Christen-
Gregory Palamas was officially recognized by the Byzantine Church in the
dom.” But in 1354 the position of the Byzantine Patriarchate in Eastern
middle of the fourteenth century. An important feature of the zealots’ pro-
Europe was gravely compromised: the Serbian Church, since the estab- gram was their insistence on the freedom of ecclesiastical appointments:
lishment of the Serbian Patriarchate by Stephen Dusan in 1346, was in open and Philotheus himself was elected to the patriarchate in 1354 after his
revolt against the mother Church of Constantinople; the Church of Bul- party had wrested from the Emperor john Cantacuzenus a public apology
garia was likewise challenging its authority; its patriarch had recently en- for having, in the past, engineered the election of his own nominees to
abled the monk Theodoretus to gain possession of the see of Kiev, in open the patriarchal throne, and an implied condemnation of the majority of the
defiance of the Patriarch of Constantinople; and Olgerd, Grand Duke of former emperors for doing the same."
Lithuania, was, it seems, threatening to subject the Orthodox population Now from the standpoint of the zealots the appointment of the Metro-
of his realm to the jtuisdiction of the Pope." The Patriarch Philotheus was politan Alexius suffered from specific and obvious defects. Their nature
fully alive to this danger and to his responsibilities; and during his first can be inferred by considering three documents issued by the Patriarchal
tenure of the patriarchal office ( 1354-5) and especially during his second Chancellery between 1397 and ca. 1401, which contain a particularly clear
(1364-76), he strove, with singular energy and remarkable success, to re- exposition of the zealots’ view on ecclesiastical appointments. In the first,
unite the Orthodox peoples of eastern Europe by a common loyalty to the the Patriarch Anthony IV roundly rebukes a monk of Thessalonica for allow-
See of Constantinople.“ It is hence not surprising that, in appointing the ing the clergy and civil authorities (r<)vqpu<¢Bv Kai dpxév-mu) of that city to
Russian candidate Alexius to the see of Kiev and All Russia in 1354, Philo- petition the Patriarch to appoint him as their metropolitan. The Patriarch
theus was concerned to placate the Grand Duke of Moscow who was vir- objects not to the candidate as such, but to the attempt of the authorities
tually the only sovereign in eastern Europe to remain, at that time, in of Thessalonica to by-pass the rules of canonical election." These rules are
communion with the Byzantine Church. stated more clearly in the second document, in which the Patriarch Mat-
Why, then, this grudging acceptance of Alexius’ candidature, and the thew censures the clergy of Anchialus for asking him to appoint as arch-
Patriarch’s observation that his appointment “is by no means customary bishop of their city a candidate of their own choice. Canon law, he re-
I101‘ safe for the Chm'ch” (ci Kai 01:82» rjv o'|5v'r;6es otoltov 068E ciaqbaltés rofiro minds them, requires that the election be made by the bishops of the synod
rfi e'K|<)\1)o'iq.)? This question can best be answered by considering Philo- of Constantinople; they are to select three names, of which the patriarch
theus’ views on the government of the Church. By upbringing and convic- chooses one, and he then consecrates the elected person; the patriarch has
tion Philotheus — like Callistus who both preceded and followed him on no right to suggest any name to the synod before the election; as for the
thelpatriarchal throne (1350-4; 1355-63) - belonged to the party of “zeal- clergy of Anchialus, all they may legitimately do is to recommend a given
ots“ in the Byzantine Church, which, in opposition to the “politicians” candidate to the synod and to the Patriarch; the Patriarch concludes this
or moderates,” had fought for centuries against state interference in eccle- somewhat casuistic exhortation by promising to appoint their candidate,
provided he is one of those elected by the synod.“ The third docu-
Grapd Duke Symeon of ‘Moscow for the repair of St. Sophia. Cf. note 24. ment is a reply of the Patriarch Matthew to the Emperor of Trebizond
The classic expression of these claims can be found in the letter written between 1394 who had requested him to appoint a local candidate as metropolitan of
and 1397 by Anthony IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Basil I of Moscow: Acta Patr. the city. The synod, the Patriarch writes, decided, after a careful study
C0n1.:'tant., II, pp. 188-92; cf. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 492.
‘Cf. Spmka, A History of Christianity in the Balkans, pp. 117-8, 141-3; Golubinsky, ’° On the “zealot” and the "moderate" parties in the Byzantine Church, see A. Vasiliev,
op. 1c1t., II, 1, pp. 179-81; Sokolov, op. cit., pp. 361-2. History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1952), pp. 659-71.
des 38- iltfllfiflgkl, iUl'ld(?;I'lP61'8l(1lI' de Byzance ,5 Borne. Vingt axis de travail pour l'union " See the remarkable speech made by the Emperor to the synod of Constantinople: john
Towarg p ur a e ense e 'lEmp1re dOr1ent, 1355-75, Rozprawy Historyczne Cantacuzenus, H istoriae, lib. iv, cap. 37 (Bonn, 1832), III, pp. 272-5.
ystwa Naukowego Warszawskaego, 8 (Warsaw, 1930), pp. 179-80, 235-42, "Acta Patr. Constant., II, pp. 275-6 (March, 1397).
"Ibid., pp. 345-7 (February, 1400).
 42 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 43
of the Emperor’s petitionary letter, to send it back; out of “friendship and without outside assistance (p.r;3ev5s irépcofiev 1rpocr3e6;usvov).°‘ The decision
love for the Emperor and respect for the candidate’s qualities, it is pre- not to tolerate the election of any more Russian metropolitans after Alexius
pared to grant the request, but only on condition that the Emperor send was to prove quite ineffectual, for during the six years that elapsed after
another letter, in which he would recommend the candidate in general the death of Alexius in 1378, the Byzantine Patriarchate agreed on three
terms, without mentioning the see of Trebizond; for a recommendation different occasions to the appointment of a native metropolitan of Russia.“
for a specific see pro persona (rrepi rrpoa-térrov) is contrary to a strict in- Philotheus’ appeal to the past was equally unfortunate: for, in view of the
t6I'pI'6t&tiOl1 Of the 08110115 (rrapol. rfiv Kavovtxrjv dxpifletciv écrrw) .79 fact that for the past hundred years there had been as many Russian as
These curious documents suggest that at the turn of the fourteenth cen- Byzantine occupants of the see of Kiev and All Russia, his assertion
tury, the “zealot” party in the Byzantine Church was finding considerable that the appointment of a native Russian to this post was "by no means
difliculty in reconciling its principle of free elections to high ecclesiastical customary,” was, to say the least, an exaggeration. The acts of the four-
offices with the opposing claims of the sees dependent on Constantinople, teenth-century synods of Constantinople are, to be sure, sometimes at vari-
and in attempting to eradicate the tendency of local a'uthorities, secular ance with historical fact; and one cannot but suspect that in the decree of
and religious, to propose their own candidates to these offices, in accordance 1354, couched in the expert phraseology of East Roman diplomacy, Philo-
with a practice which the Byzantine Patriarchate, for reasons of expediency, theus and his synod, in their desire to safeguard the freedom of ecclesiastical
had countenanced in former times. elections, and to retain a strict hold over the Muscovite Church, were try-
We may safely assume that the same difficulty faced the Patriarch ing to introduce a new principle in the appointment of the metropolitans
Philotheus in 1354. Alexius had been explicitly recommended for the post of Russia by willfully ignoring the realities of the past.
of metropolitan of Russia by the Muscovite authorities to Philotheus’ prede- What, then, were these realities of the past? It will be observed that
cessor Callistus and to the Emperor john Cantacuzenus. He had further the testimony of the Patriarch Philotheus and that of Nicephorus Gregoras,
been nominated as prospective metropolitan by his predecessor Theognos- which are ahnost exactly contemporary, contradict each other on at least
tus, an act which came dangerously near to infringing Canon Law.” And one essential point: the Patriarch, in defiance of historical truth, writes of
the pressure which had clearly been exerted on the Byzantine authorities the appointment of a native metropolitan of Russia as if it were a danger-
by the Grand Duke of Moscow in support of Alexius could scarcely com- ous innovation; Gregoras asserts that the Byzantine authorities had for-
mend itself to a patriarch who headed the party which insisted on strict- mally agreed in the past to alternate elections of Greek and Russian prelates
ness (a’u<pi,Bewt) in the application of Canon Law, and was opposed to the to the see of Kiev; he does not, it is true, tell us explicitly that this agree-
interference of the secular power in ecclesiastical appointments. ment was kept, but the context and tenor of his words suggest that he
It remains to consider the last objection voiced by Philotheus to Alexius’ still regarded it, at the time of writing, as at least theoretically in force.
candidature: the fact that he was a Russian by birth and education. It is Because Philotheus made a false statement, it does not of course neces-
probable that the Patriarch, in stressing this fact, was moved, not by racial sarily follow that Gregoras was speaking the truth. However, if the con-
or national prejudice, but by the realization that a Russian candidate im- tradiction in their evidence is related to their opposing views on ecclesi-
plied the patronage of a Russian sovereign and hence a capitulation to out- astical matters, we may discover an added reason for giving credit to the
side, secular pressure. This is hinted at in the synodal decree of 1354, which
states that future appointments to the see of All Russia are to be made “Acta Patr. Constant, I, p. 338.
" These native metropolitans were Michael (1378—9), Pimen (1380—9) and Dionysius
(1384-5). Cf. Acta Petr. Constant, II, pp. 12-8, 116-29. Golubinsky, op. cit., II, 1, pp. 226-
"Ibid., pp. 541-3. The letter is undated, but it appears to have been written ca 1401 60. The separate metropolitan dioceses of Lithuania and Galicia, created in the reign of
Cf. the remarks on these three documents by Sokolov, op. cit., pp. 342-4. I l Andronicus II (1282-1328), and abolished and restored several times in the course of the
"The Clalnon Law of the Eastern Church inhibits a dying bishop from consecrating his fourteenth century, were frequently presided over by local primates, recognized by the By-
successor ( omocanon XIV tztulorum, tit. I, cap. 18, citmg the seventy-sixth Apostolic zantine Patriarchate. Cf. Golubinsky, ibid., pp. 96-7, 125-30, 147, 153-4, 157-62, 190-3,
Canon: Rhalles and Potles, Zfivrayna, I, p. 56). Balsamon, commenting on this clause cites 206-14, 342-4. How powerless Philotheus was to carry out his intention of appointing By-
the example of a twelfth—century metropolitan of Philippopolis who wished to resign on zantines to metropolitan sees situated beyond the confines of the Empire is shown by the
‘cpgdligpg ;l£;I:aIt£ia;cl;3l)Synod appointed his own candidate as his successor; his request fact that a few months after Alexius’ appointment he consecrated Roman, the candidate and
a relative by marriage of the Grand Duke Olgerd, to the see of Lithuania.
 44 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 45
latter. It was n t I th . .
tory evasions of the Synod of 1354, Gregoras’ knowledge and experience
S nod f e _ a amite Patriarch who had oonvened the of ecclesiastical affairs, his well-informed interest in the Russian Church,
y Ch 0 ciune’ 1354’ and ePP°mted Alexius to the see of Kiev Their views and his sympathy for the policy of diplomatic concessions, traditionally
On ur administrati t h - ' , applied by the East Roman statesmen in their dealings with the Empire’s
has been 5h°WIl, was a lzzleclilfil-3gmme)mlf‘i=lfeolhfii‘:?‘(zleal 'Ph3-fltheus, it satellites, may be regarded as arguments indirectly supporting his clear
tine Church, Whj h . _ _ ao par. 1n e Byzan-
and categorical statement.
fought for the fre:edIoI:sdfdedtlte' mt'erflerence' m ecclesiastical affairs’ and
an equally prominent Posifioflefilaséilca 3PP01I1tInents. Gregoras occupied II
“ _ . . ” B O ' u as
POtl}.:lIlCl3l'lS who were traditionally incliflgdslzgefieilgg Icipellzllgallzs or
Let us now bring Gregoras’ evidence to bear on the two and a half cen-
infin ei affairs
I f °f the Ch1,1I'¢l1 and, m - accordance with _ the accommodating “age
turies prior to 1237, and attempt to answer, in respect of the Kievan period
P thotp e o economy (omovonta), believed that the Church in its relations of Russian history, the three questions we have considered with regard to
Wi
mises-hm. e State, h uld ' -
If d1esBq’ban1t1ip;1;1trtzi11nsigentll1y -
reject . ’ and c0mpro_
all concessions the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
1. Can any regular alternation between Byzantine and native primates
every other metrop0litan of Ilziefirlfles toail) ever conceded -the principle
waseccleglgiillvqtcindidate,
' that
the Russian authorities, Secular and selectedlhb)’ of the Russian Church be detected from Vladimir’s conversion in the late
tenth century to 1237? 8“ The answer to this question can only be a negative
the “zealot” t b]j . ’ no surpnsmg at
ms, appointnFeaI:t>;;10135ie¢:hl:))/ 1131; fore; of cucumstances to sanction Alex- one. In the first place, the list of these primates that can be collated from
_uSt th , u ave esired to ‘hush up this agreement, contemporary documents and later catalogues 8‘ is almost certainly in-
l as ey Suppressed the fact that for the past century Byzantine d complete, and the exact dates of the tenure of office of more than half of
Russians had ' 1 1 , S an
them are unknown. Furthennore, of the twenty and more primates of the
Chtuch‘. For tllsglzldelrdreicfhded eachtlfthel as Pnmates of the Russian
a art fr _ _ _ _ _ > Owe"-31', e existence of such an agreement, Russian Church of the Kievan period whose names have come down to
p om its intrmsic mterest, would have been a vindication of th . us,” there are only three whose nationality is explicitly attested in con-
piogram, and a proof that the continued loyalty of the Russian Chm-ehetir
temporary sources; of these two were Russians, one a Byzantine.“ The
e See of Constantino le was th 1 f - .. , 0
reasonable concessions gunned bye t;'1(;Sl;otrI:ler&PI;'i)1.l;:5.7 lpf CO(I11C1l13t10I1 ant; origin of several others, as we shall see, can be inferred, but often without
assurance and generally only with the help of later and sometimes question-
East Rome.
reason to feelThus 1‘t ‘seems at least possible . C 5 an who
that Gregoras, emPe1'°1'$
had no0
able documents. Finally, in view of the chequered history of Russo-Byzan-
well-disposed towards the insti ators f th S
“There is some doubt as to the place of residence, and the title, of the primates of the
countered its attempt to suppress the true fagcts b odr 6- ynod 0f.1354’
Russian Church before 1037. Contemporary sources imply, without conclusive clarity, that
the existence of an agreement between Russia and Z1 jgwulg attention to they resi'd e d m' P erey aslavl' and that some of them at least bore the title of archbishop. On
as he himself states, “in order that the link between lab ntllrme’ cenclufi-id, the first point see Golubinsky, op. cit., I, 1, pp. 328-9; on the second point, th see ' Dvornik,
r f
The Making of Central and Eastem Europe, p. 176. After 1037, however, e puma es o
seciued and tifi d ' . e 0_nat10ns’ us the Russian Church were certainly the metropolitans of Kiev: Pooest’, s.a. 1037, 1039; Cross,
undefiled andafincl ahrillflt foeevehgfesewe the .umty of faith Pure and pp. 137-8.
his ’ 9-‘$9 ‘Sta ty for its existence and its strength.” “ On these later catalogues of Russian metropolitans, compiled between the fourteenth
sia thiurtylqyt of ttlge ecglefsiastical relations between Byzantium and Rus- and the eighteenth centuries, see Golubinsky, ibid., pp. 284-5, note.
een - '
“Golubinsky ' '
(:b1d., '
pp. 281-9) lists twenty - thr ee prim
' ates o f the Russian Church up
lead us to
Cession of B the followinancon(elmeentl1FcentuneS
_ 8 uSt0I1S. rom 1237 may therefore,
to 1378 I suggest’
the alternate suc-
to the year 1237, whose existence he regards as well, or fairly well, authenticated. The names
I 0 I d

of six or seven others, either ambiguously alluded to m contemporary sources, or mentione

yzantme and Russian metropolitans of Kiev is reg I d in later and not always unimpeachable documents, could be accepted, or rejected, only
striking. No direct evidence however can b u at an after further investigation. A systematic study of the later lists of Russian metropolitans has
, _ > , e fo d t _ yet to be made.
goras assertion that there existed a formal agreeziento bciloborlr Cre
"' The two indubitably Russian metropolitans were Hilarion (1051-ca. 1054) and Clement ted b
countries, regulating this succession. However the ‘fl1_ een e two (1147-55); the Byzantine one was Cyril II (1224-33) whose Greek origin is attes y
zantine authorities in this period to recognize lhe rigjqt lnfggess ‘of the By- the Laurentian and the Novgorod chronicles: Lavrentieoskaya Letopis’, s.a. 1224: Polnoe
Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, I (St. Petersburg, 1846), p. 190. Noogorodskaya peroaya
to nominate ’ from time to time = native candidates for this P oflice
ussmn Princes
a the no ga-"' Letopis’, s.a. 1233, ed. A. N. Nasonov (Moscow, Leningrad, 1950), p. 72.
 46 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 47
tine relations in the eleventh a d tw - it - seems somewhat un-
11 elfth centuries _sian Prince Andrew Bogolyubsky, states even more explicitly: “we appoint
likely that a regular m th d f .
successfully, even for l?II1i(ll8doP€i'l1::3(l:lat'I?lE;1c'ceS's1olllf cdmld have operated from time to time [pa vremenom] the holy metropolitans of All Russia
invalidate the evidence of Gm - in itse oes not, of course, . . . , we appoint and send them thith ' er”,- 8° and ]ohn Cinnamus likewise
goras. Om‘ historian it '1] b
merely states that a _ . , ' wi e recalled, asserts that Kiev the metropolitan see of All Russia, is govemed by a bishop
between Byzanfimnnazgrgelipspt gegpilahng this succession was concluded
from Byzantium (épxtepeiis . . . éit Bvfiav-riov) .°° What is the exact meanmg
2. Could such an agreement.h e pes not say that it was kept. of these expressions? It is possible — and, iii the Russian documents, prob-
RuSSia.S conversion to Christiani ave Seiiihconcluded at any time between able — that the fact of “coming” or “being sent” from Byzantium to Russia
century? A Positive answer to an . e beginning of the thirteenth implies no more than a journey from Constantinople to Kiev, and that these
acceptance among those historians wtlithefiitlon setfhls llinhkely to find ready words would have applied equally well to a native prelate, elected in Rus-
stantinople, in their irpstiliz
d ' tplefplpththe
k SstlmeChurch
at eunder
patriarchs sia, and dispatched to Constantinople to be consecrated by the patriarch,
invariably insisted, Rlussiapf their of Con-
control,
who would then send him back to govern his new metropolitan diocese.
their own candidates to the see of Kiea,nT;1swe .th centuries, on flPPOinting The Greek statements, on the other hand, seem to imply more than this,
seem to rest on three &I‘g\J-ments- 1 Wldely-held assumPt1°11 W°l1ld and doubtless reflect a claim, put forward by the Patriarchate of Constanti-
nople at various times in the twelfth century, to the exclusive right of nomi-
(8) Contemporary sources th '
. , Russian and B ' nating a Byzantine candidate to the see of Kiev. How little such protesta-
111°‘ granted
chosen, that tha:(;l1s1Znp[;cgh1tpfii;i:fl1(1e;
appointed tr - 0 . wgrergac-:3:-ally,
YZ‘1n1"1°»aPPeaIt° take
in this period. tions could on occasion accord with the true state of affairs 1S evident from
I . 0 I m t
. ’ e ' - the Patriarch Philotheus synodal decree of 1354, and the suspicion a
C (h) Since Russia was a metropolittih dioczse of 3?: gozsitaghtmopleé
onstantinople, Can L - - _ _a ax ate ° such statements of fact, to which the zealot .party . in the
. Byzantine Church
Id
required that the Pfi:i1ate1:Vi'),f1II‘1L;t:iacobntemPfJ_ra1)’ Byzantine interpretation, was apt to resort, may have served to ]l1St1fy claims that cou not
Patriarch. e nominated and consecrated by the always be made good, as well as the somewhat ambiguous terms in
th
which these twelfth-century writers referred to the "sending" of e metro-
(<3) The
_ only metropolitans of Kie ' f this '
poaaiy evidence, are indubitably knownvtg have l?ee<:i011{u‘::i§, film! :IO1i1tem' politan from Constantinople to Russia, scarcely warrant the assumption
an Qlement were elected in circumst ns, i.e. . arion that the appointment of a native Russian as primate of Kiev would in this
.
sians on these’ two occasions defied the aalifies. taken to imPlY that the Rus- period have been disallowed on principle by the East Roman authorities.
fthe B zantin P '
I venture to suggest however thatlih onty 0 Y e atriarch. How far could the Patriarch of Constantmople claim the right to nomi-
. ’ , first of these - - nate the metropolitan of Kiev on the grounds of Canon Law? The question
conclusive and that the other two if e_ arguments is in-
- ’
tions, do not 'ustif th ' = examme (1 without
. '
Preconcewed no‘ is complicated by the relative scarcity of unambiguous canonical rules
eleventh and ltwenfth :18l':$hir111_1;1sP:1;>tIL;1i1a1 the lfyfantme authorities in the prescribing the methods of election of metropolitans in the Byzantine
Church, by the observable discrepancy between the ecclesiastical canons
e Bandidatfiln-to
RuS'l‘il:n ussian ' 1 see' of Kiev.
the - ’ on Pnnclple’
. the aPP°111tme11t Of and the Imperial laws regulating episcopal elections, and by the pecuhar
Kiev, frequently statgn$:a:lZh:1;fi21i11(gp:il:; accessipnnof a metropolitan of interpretation given to both by the twelfth-century Byzantine canonists.
The provisions of Canon Law relatmg ' '
to the appointment of b'ishop s
adding “from BYZantium” ( iz Grek or ' Tsare or apm
rada)
e 1"to S‘Russia’
i1 3911319-11Y
.
can be found in Byzantine sourees. Nilgzs D 9 8 . ar assertions were supposed, in Byzantium, to derive their origm and authority from the
metropolitan is Se t [M - _ oxapatres wrote m 1143 that qa ' I I I c \ s
first Apostohc Canon: emo'xo1r0s X€LpO1'OlJ£LO'0(0 wro enwovcowwv vo 11 TPLCOV
I 8 I s\ A '01

n0Ple”; 88 the Pati'i1arc[liaTI:u1c::es.bywriting

the Patriarch In view of the interest which this canon aroused m Russia, where, as we
ca. 1161oftoConstanti-
the Bus-
"Povest’, s.a. 1051, p. 107- C 1 “Metropolitan Mak ary, Ist 0 ri y a mssko y fserkvi (2nd ed ., St . Petersburg, 1868), HI, p.
(John HI), 1104 (Nicephorus), 13:, (II:-Iice'fi;)((fi<g1"ge)5 Laureritian Chronicle, s.a. 1089 298. The original document is not extant, and we have only an old Russian translation of it.
' de C nst ntino le, no. 1052, I, 3, pp.
Cf. V. Crumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patnarcat 0 a p
M” Nesenev,
ed, 1131 (M1°1“‘°11- 1161 (Theodore).
P_ 32 (Constantine H). 1164 0011.1 IV?, (F0-°““““1“1° 1); Chron.,
11'-st Novgorod "rpm"s.a.Chm.
1167, 114-15.
'° Ioannes Cinnamus, Hi.s't0r., lib. v, cap. 12, ed. A. Meineke (Bonn, 1836), p. 236.
' 0- Pflrthey. Hier0cl' S ed -
w we emus (Berhm 1866)» P- 297; P-G-, cxxxii, col. 1105, '1 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Edweyue, II, p. 1.
 48 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY 49
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW
shall see , it was on s everal occasions quoted, or misquoted, by those who r - ' 1 ' ldevice: the t€1'm$
held that the metropolitan of Kiev could be appointed by the Russian Law ef the early Church’ by.resO1-tmfg te atlllellezdiilgacited above to elec-
bishops, it is worth noting that, as late as the twelfth century, expert opinion Xeiporovéa and K1'3P<g, they Cliitiiiiii); rgltis llgquivocal interpretation enabled
in B . . . - on res e - _ ,
yzantium was divided as to whether the verb xerporoveiaflw referred
ttlllelmalzlo rjzeidiecdsnonical Isluthority for the practice followed H1 eP15°°lPel
in this context, to election or to consecration; Zonaras and Balsamon hold- _ . - ' h h ftheirtime:theeec-
aPPOintments in the C6H;T3iJZ§dth?Z:3l1atI11ndEd(;tel;re0ng of Whom was chosen
ing the latter view - with which modern scholars concur — but citing the
toralhbod)’ of bifi0PS if Efeeprovince who gave his endorsement to the
opposite opinion, based on the fact that the term xeiporovia. in the early
Chiuch generally meant “election.” "2 bl’ e metmpo an . 3 am,-n b‘ h - lect and
election, issued a declaration ('*'° P-TIWF“) n g_ the ‘ls OP ; , )9,
The canons of the Church Co unci'1 s wh‘ich are concerned with episcopal finally bestowed on hirn the sacramental consecration l(r; xeipo as-ii; . the
appointments — notably the fourth and the sixth canons of the First Oecu-
menical Council, the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Antioch of 341 and
the twelfth canon of the Synod of Laodicea — further emphasize and de- emperors of East Home Prescnbed e lorm :1 inpthese)elections. The foun-
their features is the part they ascribe to alymgound in the lzsrd and 137th
fi ne the corporate nature of the electoral process: "8 A bishop is to be
dation of this Imperial legislation 1S to e b_Sho is to be ap-
appointed by the bishops of the ecclesiastical province in which his future
novels of“ Justinian, Which decreed. that. . wheneve;
f t a ' 1 ,, (P ovs
. KXrypucovts
see is situated; the presence of at least three of them is required at the
pointed, the clergy and the l€3.d1li1ighCfi11Z6§§Sloo if tgltge cgnsecrated are
ele ction, the o thers signifying
' ' ' their ' agreement by letter- the elected candi-
Kai. rofis rrpalrovs Tfis rroiteaisl for vy 9 ,e Wgw 1-q. rroi.6'i'.'i/), the final
date is to be consecrated (Xe.-.porove'£a6a.i) by the bishops; while the metro-
politan of the province must ratify their decision, in accordance with his to elect three Persons (Em mlO1 Irpoo-meals nfrfrin the ordination"
choice of candidate resting with pre atemigoffi “pagan T06 X€Lp0mv_
right of giving
' ' his' endorsement (ro‘ Kvp0§‘)
" '
to, or withholding it from, the
election and the consecration. (7-"’°~ - - - 5 eeefimv XHPOTOWBH m Della ensin certain Places, three
Although these canons allow the metropolitan the right to exercise a mew” ) '96persons
And the
eligible arelzsnl novdl, 1etddell
not oun W1 be liflstlie Iggwer of the electors to elect
genera supervision over the appointment of a bishop, his essential preroga-
I 0

two or even one person. °" 0 _ d d

tive remains that of ratifying the action of the bishops. He does not himself .. . . . ' fbh asmclue
consecrate the elected candidate.“ However, in the course of time th Although Jusnman S leglslatlon Oaths elechorficgtwelenotrliseveecular laws
Byzantine Church deviated from this canonical norm, and in the twelfth , e in the Byzantine N°"""°°‘".‘°."‘°’ 6lscrepanclf these elections and the
hi h envisa ed the participation of laymen m . _> _
century we find the oflzicial commentators of these canons, Zonaras and W C lgcanons which restricted this right to b1Sl'l0P$_ (and> Indeed’
ecclesiastica . m ._
Balsamon, attempting to reconcile the current Byzantine practice of having
1 forbade secular rulers to make 6lections _ to ecclesiasti
_
th e newly-e lected bishops
' '
consecrated by metropohtans ' the Canon
with
(ml:
ca ocgbzseegreehded in the course of time to undermine the authority of
’” In Can. I Ss. Ap0st., P. G., CXXXVII, cols. 86-7. For the different meanings of the eccle- _ _ I C . XIX Conc. II Antioch:
siastical term xnporovia in the first six centuries, see the valuable study by M. A. Siotis, Die N In
ibid,, col.Can. IV Cong.
1328. In an.Nwgfgin:f9"'e'
P. C£.t,I0€l)eX1'}l§il3,lII,C((:)cll.f"Il'h8
" . e 1 B t‘ ecclesiastical
hurch are citedcanons
an
klassische und die christliche Cheirotonie in ihrem Verhiiltnis, ®¢o,\0yZa, Bd. 20 (1949),
Heft 2-Bd. 22 (1951), Heft 2 [offprint] (Athens, 1951). and Imperial
°’ See C. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, I pp 539-47 552 720 1005 discussed by law?
I. . resglhlaling
o oov, aallfilgl-lglaiinti ealllizlrefitewky
Vremennik, 22
(1915-6), PP-1934352‘ - ' . Ed. C. E. Zachariae v.
“It is true that the twenty-fifth canon of the Council of Chalcedon appears to suggest an Im _ lust,-m-ang Novellae quae oocantur save constitutzones 94-5. Nov’ 137, cap. 2,
that the metropolitans were responsible for the consecration of bishops: émi8ipr¢p nvée 1-¢3v
].n;'rpo1ro/\ur63v, dis rrepixfidiyiicv, dp.e/\oi'im riiiv iyxexcipiopivwv o.i':-refs rroipvfcuv Kai. ci.va,3ri)\.)\ovra.i res Lingenflfal_» H (I-'eiPzig ’ 1881 [Teubner]):- Nov. 123, tin‘cap. ll,0 Pflmtz
rs gave lthe lait)’ H voice in
xeporovias -rév érrwnévrwv . . . Hefele and Leclercq, II, p. 810. However, the fact that this P' 409' It ls not suggested, of coursefkthaf llcvhaseludnd 1:? least until the fourth century, the
canon was "deviating from the language used at Nicaea and Antioch" (C. H. Turner, Studies the election of bishopsh Iln llefikptzlfit-acEfiell60Part gin, BPisc0Pal
in early Church History [Oxford, 1912], p. 91) does not necessarily mean that it envisaged 1 communityasawotf _ _ _ ' elections.
fl'i'ls Illstinian
dtotheho c0nfil1<.’l3d the
erS0
that the metropolitans were actually to consecrate bishops- the canons ' I th h elzcroral rights *° the ”"°”°‘ we ml:l'heial§ez§ tZ.iZZ.‘Zid§Lg138‘i? (1e:ris.1905),PP-57-8-
high civic positions. Cf. _Pmg011;;6 8 9
politan was generally responsible for seeing that a vacant. bishopric was
imptoy be atfilled
t e metro-
in the
p ro per manner, and his presence (mpuwia) at the consecration of a bishop is expressly re-
W"" Nov.
Cf. thewill
t irif?‘canon 0
1, lbuflltlileu Seventh Oecumenical Council: Rhalles and Potles, 215v-rayiia,
quired by the nineteenth canon of the Council of Antioch (341).
II, pp. 564-6.
 5° DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 51
th f ' ' - -
thzt ;)nrng:;;;n0;'n(;:;efli°£ the P1'm¢1P1B, upheld by the medieval canonists, the different ways in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople responded
in the fourteenth century to the periodic attempts of the Russian authori-
twelfth-centur
name pmvid canonigt aitfihmn
for theS,l takes
.tenes and precedence over a law.
Balsamtzn, asserted that Thus the
the ordi- ties to put forward their own candidates for the post of metropolitan of
in citiz £51 _ ” e ection of bishops by the clergy and the lead- Kiev. It seems fair to assume, therefore, that in the period under discus-
dg tlpns 0 e city was no longer valid.” Nevertheless there is evi
sion ]ustinian’s law providing for the election of bishops by the local eccle-
enc

relating
th
t ' ' ’

_ ”to the election

'
- -

of)b¥h1Scrl:)
. is ops yIliad‘
.
‘Z?
theItclergy
_

ls remarkable
’

that thecitizens
and the leading Provision
‘

of
at time siastical and secular authorities, though discounted by the canonists and
condemned to gradual obsolescence, could yet, by virtue of its inclusion
in the Nomocanon and especially in the Basilica, be cited by those who
e city was retained m the laws of the Macedonian em erors — ' th
supported the policy of oixovopia.
Procheiron 1°“ and the Epanagoge 1°‘ as well as in the Basili P 1°” A d1'n he
Byzantine Canon Law recognized no difference in principle between
twelfth
le .1 ti cen tury th - commanded
. e authority ’ . Byzantium
m _"“'by ]usti11ig_n’5
nmte
elections of bishops and of metropolitans: canonically speaking the two
gis a on was still sufliciently great to enable a Patriarch of Constanti_
processes are essentially analogous. The sixth canon of the Council of Sar-
nople to press, albeit unsuccessfully and against his own synod for the
dica stipulated that “the appointment” (15 :<a.1'<i.o"1'ao'cs‘) of metropolitans
apphcation of another clause of the 123rd novel included in the N
was to be made by the bishops of the same, and also of the neighboring,
canon, but not in the Basilica.“ , Omo-
dioceses.‘°“ However, the twelfth-century commentators of this canon,
S h
event of
.;°...:.:r:$?éi.:‘;"* 5” 2“
nfli t
nfl' t 1;},
-
.
ms s suc as a samon argued that in the
- . ’
. .
ea be Aristenes, Zonaras and Balsamon, state that in their time the practice was
different: according to Aristenes, metropolitans are elected by other metro-
authdri a cod 11° = .9 °a11(_>I1, possessing the double sanction of ecclesiastical politans, while Balsamon asserts that they are no longer “appointed” (é-yi-
Th E ty an £nPenal1'at1fi°at10I1, was to be preferred to the secular law 1°‘ vowc) by bishops, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople.“" However, the
e m . . '
the vie“E,31:; wifelflg in die olther hind, expounded m his seventh novel most important ecclesiastical document on this subject is the twenty-
eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon; the relevant passage states: “the
canonical rescri tiofl (?c.u it a,w (H7; MM-ems 0 vépog) Clashes with a
one Whichpis nmlgre us 3 TPZQ 1€l<;P°9) preference must be accorded to the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses, and they only,
A , I A , e u o e good order of things’ (iwo-vre)\e'o~repcv and further those bishops of the aforesaid dioceses who are among bar-
TD €v‘r0-gig. 'rwv 1rpa'yp.a.'rwv).1°° Th1S contrast between the rigorigt and the barians (év rolls Bapfiapixofs), are to be consecrated (xeiporoveioflai) by
empuical attitudes to Canon Law only reflects the perennial anta o '
the . . . most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople
between the Prinsiples of dkpifiw and 0iK0v<>w?<1 ’ championed
a d ' th £H ..
in th,,e dam?
um
. . . ; the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been stated, are
Hh e”o ce of the Logothete of the Dromos by the zealots and “the to be consecrated by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after agreed elec-
po ticians respectively; an antagonism expressed, as we have seen in
tions have been held in the customary manner and reported to him” (ip~q¢>|.o--
"Aristenes In Can VI Cone Sardic- P G CXXXVI ncirmv 0'v;.i¢c3vcov Kart}. Tb @909 yevopévwv Kai err’ afirov oiva.qSepop.e'vcov).1°8 In
’ ' , ' -- - '3 _ I, col. 1449-2 cf. Balsa IIIOHS
’ C0111-
mental-); on the “Ne
zfiwawm, I’ P. 60' my
_thu_d h
0 apter of the first title of the Nomocanon: Rhalles and Potles, their highly interesting commentaries on this canon, Zonaras and Balsa-
mon explain the electoral procedure followed in their time: the electoral
‘°° Prochiron Basilii, C nst t’ ‘ L - _
berg’ 1837), P. 155’ 0 an m‘ at 90"“. t1t- XXVI“, Cap. 1, ed. C. E. Zachariae (Heidel- body consisted of metropolitans, members of the patriarchal synod; they
”“ Epanagoge Legis Basilii et Leonis et Al ndri ' V . . submitted three names to the patriarch, who chose one of them, whom he
furis Graeco-Romani ineditorum, ed. C. E. Zachfrxigie v ,Lti1rl.genllih’lllljeipszigcfglggtlo lib’???
10¢ Basilica, lib. III, tit. 1, cap, 8 ed_ G E H . _ _ » a PP» — .
1°" Hefele and Leclcrcq, H istoire des Conciles, I, p. 777.
and‘fiiheallos “"112 Can. VI Conc. Sardic.: P. G., CXXXVI1, cols. 1445, 1448—9. The term éyivov-ro,
es Mtlhens’
P tl 1896),
, ' I. Pp. 117-8. _' em ach (Le1Pz'g’ 1833)’
u I’ P' 93; 84- I-
used here by Balsamon, really refers to the whole process of appointment to an ecclesiastical
chesk0g0 kodealla v(:>s::¢11:>Wa1Z"‘M,kI1
S8 : PE. .49
' 50' Cf‘ M’
‘ K1-asnozhen’
’ as Tulkovateli k‘m°ni'
_ oflice, which includes both an election and a sacramental consecration, and is generally de-
P“"ff,°" Y“""°~"<°s° Ufliversifeta. lr9l, Pglsllfi/-glnara I va1sam°“’ U""""!/8 Zariiki Im- scribed as Ku1'if.i7‘ra.0'u:. Cf. Siotis, op. c£t., pp. 105-6. Balsamoifs use of the term is, hence, im-
Cf. Krasnozhen, op. cit., pp, 241_2_ proper, since he liimself admits in another passage that metropolitans were consecrated, but
‘°‘ Les
1944), N lles de Léon VI Ze Sage, ed. and trans]. by P. Noailles
P. 37ove . and A. Dain (Paris, not elected, by the Patriarch. Cf. infra, note 109.
“’“ Hefele and Leclercq, op. cit., II, pp. 815-26.
 52 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 53
ctlgen consecrated; and Zonaras adds significantly that the intention of the
a traditional prerogative of the emperor, a prerogative supposedly founded
1101.1 to prevent the patriarch from domg as he pleases in the matter of
on the twelfth and the seventeenth canons of the Council of Chalcedonf”
appomtmg IIl6tI'OpOl1t3.IlS.1“” The dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, where
reaflirmed in an edict issued in 1087 by Alexius Comnenusf“ reiterated in
3:32 mzfigpgiitpns were elected in the manner prescribed by this canon, are
the fourteenth-century Syntagma of Matthew Blastaresf" and frequently
as fie Ty ba sangon as follows: Pontus extends along the Black Sea coast
HS . re izon , Asia embraces the territory around Ephesus, Lycia, and resorted to in the Macedonian and Comnenian periods.” This is reason
Pamphyha, Thrace includes the western lands as far as Dyri'haQhium_ But enough for believing that the emperors often exerted considerable influ-
the bishoprics within these dioceses which, in terms of the canon are ence in elections of metropolitans, especially in the twelfth century, when
“among barbarians” extend, according to Balsamon and Zonaras 1;mch many of the patriarchs appear to have submitted rather easily to Imperial
izrfhsr afield‘ Bt';l5am°I1, with small regard for historical verisimilitude, control?"
. c u es among ‘em Alania and Russia, the Alans,” he asserts, “belong- One is forced to the conclusion that the practice prevailing in the By-
mg to the Pontic diocese, the Russians to the Thracian”; while Zonaras, who zantine Church in the eleventh and twelfth centuries with regard to the elec-
alps“ hollds lthe Alans and the Russians pertain to this group, states, tion of metropolitans contravened the intention, if not the letter, of Canon
I 0; yls 5 more respect for geography, that these two peoples are Law on at least one essential point. Canon Law stipulated that a metropoli-
d:5Pe° Vi %"hra Jaffillt to (0'vpL11'apaK€Li/'r'cu.) the diocese of Pontus and the tan was normally to be “appointed” (i.e. both elected and consecrated)
siaopese od acepth One may doubt whether this legalistic fiction that Rus- by the bishops of his ecclesiastical province, with the assistance of bishops
cir IOTITIB parifph e diocese of Thrace was taken very seriously by chm-¢h from neighboring districts; while in the case of appointments to sees situ-
C es in Sue -century Byzantium; but Balsamon’s exegesis Provides ated in Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, the Patriarch of Constantinople had the
ous evi ence of the casiustry to which contemporary canonists were right to consecrate the candidates who had been elected “in the customary
forced to resort in order to justify the right claimed by the Patriargh of manner” by the provincial bishops. In practice, however, as a result of the
Constantinople to consecrate the metropolitans of Russia centralizing policy of the Byzantine Church, the electoral powers had by
Imperial legislation offers little material on the general rules governing this time been transferred from the council of local bishops to the patri-
the appointment of metropolitans. It is significant, however, that the evi- archal synod in Constantinople, the o-6110509 év8~qp.o1'J<m, composed of metro-
dence obtainable from this source emphasizes the prerogatives of both the
politans and bishops, appointed by the patriarch, of the higher ranks of
provincial ecclesiastical authorities and the Emperor, at the expense of the
the patriarchal secretariat and of Imperial representatives.” It was this
Patriarch of Constantinople. ]ustinian’s 123rd novel contains a clause which
body that elected three candidates for the vacant metropolitan see, of whom
shows that metropolitans could be consecrated either by the patriarch or
the patriarch chose and consecrated one.“° However, the old canonical pre-
“by their own Synods” (i.e. presiunably by bishops of their ecclesiastical
scriptions, which gainsaid the current policy of ecclesiastical centraliza-
provmces),“‘ and it is noteworthy that this paragraph passed into the
Basilica?" On the other hand, the creation of new metropolitan sees or
"' Cf. Hefele and Leclercq, II, pp. 800-1, 805-6. Balsamon, in commenting on these
more precisely the promotion of episcopal sees to metropolitan status, was two canons (P. G., CXXXVII, cols. 432-3, 499-53), argues that the emperor has the right
to promote episcopal sees to the rank of metropolitanates by virtue of the authority given
“Zonaras (P. G., CXXXVII l. 489 - ' " ' - , to him by Cod (col. 432); Zonaras, on the other hand, regards this practice as uncanonical
, , , ‘ ' ' I \ ”cO \ ) ' OUX 0”? 1891'/“Tat ° Kwvoravrivovrro/\ewq xfitpofopfiqfl (ibid., col. 436).
I“7"'P°""°)\"'°-9; "M '17 W‘ 0-v'r0v 011110309 ras 1//fi¢ovs 1ron§o-c1-ai- Balsamon ibid. col 485 Cf
T. O. Martin, "The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedoii- a Background Notl=:”~ K-onzill “‘ P. G., CXXVII, cols. 929-32. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostra-
von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart , ed b y A. Crillmeier
-' ‘ and H. B ht, ' II mischen Reiches, II (Munich and Berlin, 1925), p. 37, no. 1140.
" _
burg, 1953), Pp. 433-58. ”° (Wm 1“ Eiiv-rayp.a xaxro. oroixeiovi Rhalles and Potles, 2151/*ra'yp.a., VI, pp. 274-6.
n”B l ' ' - " ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ * ' - I \ | I “" Cf. N. Skabalanovich, Vizantiiskoe gosudarstoo i f§erk0o' 0 XI oeke (St. Petersburg,
=Pw0{av3KiL€iI1;(->El,aglblgi-, (£01. \4851;H\E-rrizaxprras 36 (L371 fwai. cv Tons Bapflapou: 1-1;v AAa.w.av, ‘rip: 1884), pp. 269-70, 362; ]. M. Hussey, Church and learning in the Byzantine Empire (London,
Zonaras, ibid-, “:20ll 489“. V yap “VOL T7)” H°w"""i9 5"" 8l0bK'qO'¢u.is, or. 3: ‘Palmer 1'99 ®P‘?"“'"l¢- 1937), pp. 121-2.
111 \ \ “Cf. Hussey, op. cit., pp. 121, 133.
Tm“;
I 8‘ l*"'7"'P°""°)““"°-9 7°95‘ I11") rfis idfas o'uvo3ov 1]“ mro
' l rmv
" P-tJ.K(1pl'.(UTl11'
’ " -
p01'0v0vp.£i/ous! Nov. 123, cap. 3, ed. Zachariae v. Lingenthal, II, p. 298. my Wmpmpxwv X“ ‘“ Cf. Skabalanovich, op. cit., p. 363; Hussey, op. cit., pp. 125-6; Metropolitan Makary,
in ~ -
Basilica, -
hb. -
III, tit. ,
1, cap. 10, ed. Heimbach, I, p. 95; ed. Zepos, I, p. 119_ Istoriya msskoy fserkoi, II, pp. 1-2, ri. 1, 214-8.
“" Cf. supra, pp. 51-2.
 54 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 55
Eztnwgxbtateg fibrtlgatfid; and it is curious to observe that Imperial legis- the Russian archimandrite Michael, renouncing his original intention of
the Bzwilica Sigfliil Ieec auses plftjlustinilan s novels which were included in going to Constantinople in order to be consecrated metropolitan of Russia
by the Patriarch, is said to have observed to his sovereign, the Grand Duke
fies f th i . e ec e . ot _ y e clergy and by the ClV1l authori- of Moscow, that such a journey was unnecessary, because he could be con-
0 6 city, while metropohtans, m certain cases, could be consecrated secrated by Russian bishops by virtue of the Apostolic Canon which decreed
by the bishops of their province. And it seems reasonable to suppose that, that a bishop was to be ordained by two or three bishops?” In 1415 the
$123223 TL1U¢tll11(:::86}preScript1'(pns of the Empi1;e's,civil law were discoun- Orthodox bishops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in a formal statement
declaring that they had elected and consecrated Gregory Tsamblak as
tion of Can)f>n
having a le mm Lawwtlfemslste
, onoltncmes“
emperors (axpzfiaa)
Byzantium, m the
who were mte.rpreta-
recognized as metropolitan of Kiev — an act performed against the express orders of the
g ate concern in the appointment of metropohtans, could Patriarch of Constantinople — attempted to justify their behavior by mis-
when reasons of diplomacy demanded it, impose on their patriarchs a quoting the same Apostolic Canon: “two or three bishops,” they maintained,
moderate and conciliatory policy towards the local authorities, ecclesiastical “consecrate a metropolitan.” 12‘ In 1441 Basil II, Grand Dulce of Moscow,
and lay, who could be allowed a voice in the choice of their own metro- in a letter to the Patriarch complaining of the former metropolitan Isidore
pohtan, in accordance with the principle of oikovopfa. who had been rejected by the Russians on account of his Unionist behavior
. 3. We must now consider, in the light of these facts, whether the Rus- at the Council of Florence, requested the authorities of Constantinople to
sians ever claimed, on the grounds of Canon Law, the right to elect their send him a written authorization to have the next metropolitan of Russia
own metropohtan, and, if so, whether in the period under discussion they elected and consecrated in Russia by the Russian bishops, “according to
succeeded in so doing. the sacred canons,” and with reference to “the holy and divine Greek
I The first Apostolic Canon and the canons of the Church Councils relat- canons." 1*‘ Eleven years later, writing to the Emperor Constantine XI to
ing to episcopal appointments were certainly known in Russia in the Kievan inform him that the Russian bishops had, without permission from Con-
period, and were included in the Slavonic translations of the Byzantine stantinople, elected and consecrated a native candidate as metropolitan,
“Nomocanons,” notably of the Nomocanon XIV titulorum, the earliest Basil II justified this action by appealing to the canons of the apostles
extant Russian manuscript of which was copied in the eleventh or twelfth and of the Church cou.ncils."° Finally, the candidate so elected, the Metro-
century.‘“° The sixth canon of the Council of Sardica, and the twenty-eighth
politan ]onas, declared in an encyclical letter written in 1458-9 that the
canon of the Council of Chalcedon, relating to the appointment of metro- legality of his consecration was founded on the first Apostolic Canon, the
politans, are likewise cited in it.““ This early Russian Kormchaya also con- fourth canon of the First Oecumenical Council, and on “many other canoni-
tains the clauses of ]ustinian's 12-3rd and 187th novels prescribing the elec-
cal rules.” 1”
tion of three candidates for a vacant bishopric or, if need be, of two or It will be observed that in all these cases the Russian authorities seem
even one, by “the clergy and the leading citizens of the city.” 122 to have applied to the appointment of their own metropolitan the provi-
I ‘Tbs? is £0 doubt that, on a nu-mber of occasions, the Russians did sions of Byzantine Canon Law which regulated the appointment of ordi-
Z5:110 6 I'1gtlI21I;;)lZ phnly to elect their own metropolitan, but also to have nary bishops. They can probably be cleared of the suspicion of having acted
their inijiecra e u y e Russian bishops, and that they based this right on in bad faith?” In the first place, the Canon Law of the Eastem Church im-
. . pretation of Canon Law. The most unequivocal evidence of this
is found m the sources of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. About 1378 "‘ Nikonovskaya Letopis’, s.a. 1378: Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, XI, p. 87; Cf.
Golubinsky, op. cit., II, 1, pp. 239-40.
no - , ‘“ Akty, otnosyashchiesya k istorii Zapadnoy Rossii, I (St. Petersburg, 1846), no. 24, pp.
t0lkov11’j.l1bli;l1(egdt l{,)(;t;;bN. Bpggghegiih, Drevne-slcwyanskaya_ K01-mchaya XIV mulov be; 33- 5 .
PP. 62, 894-5, 261, 269, 31%, 345.). e relevant canons on episcopal elections are printed on ““ Akty Istoricheskie, I (St. Petersburg, 1841), no. 39, pp. 71-5; Pamyatniki dreame-
russkogo kanonicheskogo prava, I’: Russkaya Istoricheskaya Biblioteka, VI (1908), col. 530.
"“ Ibid., pp. 284, 125-6. It is interestin t b th t h ' - ~ . “Akty lstoricheskie, I, no. 41, pp. 84-5; Pamyatniki, ibid., no. 71, col. 583. This letter
in the twenty-eighth canon of the Councfi sf oCl:11l‘cl:dorl1 Evlficrélliptrxfiasllftflll-(“aledtilfyfihfg/ifilfffihtd
was never sent: cf. Golubinsky, op. cit, II, 1, pp. 487-8.
can(dl1;:jdfi“;‘:d;g4£g,1g8l(ude Russia, was translated as “v pogan’skyikh" (“among pagans”). “Akty, I, p. 113, col. 2; Pamgatniki, no. 81, cols. 622-3.
“’ The Lithuanian bishops, it is true, misquoted in 1415 the first Apostolic Canon, by
 56 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 57
plied no fundamental difference between the two electoral processes: bish-
verbal and nominal forms of the same root: by postavleniibytioand postma-
ops and metropolitans were to be elected by a council of bishops, the right
lenie respectively; while the term which refers to the ratification given to
possessed by the patriarch of giving his endorsement to, or withholding it
the election by the metropolitan is translated as vlast ,1” The twelfth-
from, the election of a metropolitan being in every way analogous to the
century Byzantine canonists, interpreting this canon, clamied that ‘K0600’-
prerogatives granted to a metropolitan in the case of an episcopal election.”
mo~0a.i and xeipo-rovia. refer here to the election of a bishop by other bishops,
Furthermore, it would seem that the claim made by the Russian bishops
and that rb xfipos means, in this context, not only the endorsement Of the
that they could rightfully, not only elect, but actually consecrate (i.e. for-
election, but also the consecration of the elected candidate by the.metro-
mally appoint) their own metropolitan could find some justification in the
politan.""’ This inference, dubious enough in Greek, cannot possibly be
ambiguous meaning of several technical terms used in the canons. In the
drawn from the Slavonic text of the canon: for postavlenie can sigmfy either
texts to which reference has just been made, the Russians asserted that
the whole process of appointment (including election and consecration)
Canon Law gave them, in respect of their metropolitan, the right of postav-
or simply consecration, but not election alone?“ As for vlast dayatz (ro
lenie; now the term pos-taolenie (from the verb postavlyati) is generally
Kiipos 8i8ocr6ai), it cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to mean
used in the Slavonic Nomocanon to translate either of the two Greek words
“to consecrate.” The usual Slavonic equivalent of rb niipos was blagoslooenie
m-rdm-eats and Xeipo-rovia, which are the technical terms most commonly
(literally “the blessing”); and we may therefore conclude that the Russians,
found in the canons relating to the appointment of bishops and metropoli-
who assumed that the appointment of a metropolitan was essentially analo-
tans: 1) :<arcio~rao'is (from xafiiardv, |ca.9fo'1-ao'9ai) generally means the
gous to that of a simple bishop, were sincerely convinced that they were
whole process of appointment to an ecclesiastical oflice, including the elec-
acting in full conformity with the fourth canon of the F11'SlZ. Oecumemcal
ti0n \,b'ޢ0s) and the consecration xetporovfa, 1') xetpodeoia) Of the suc-
Council by claiming the right to elect and to consecrate their own metro-
cessful candidate; while the term Xeiporovia, which, as we have seen, re-
politan (the right of postavlenie), while admittmg that, to be valid canom-
tained a measure of ambiguity at least as late as the twelfth century, grad-
cally, these acts required the patriarch’s ratification (blagosloveme). Thus
ually shifted in the course of the first six centuries of the Christian era its
Basil II of Muscovy, in his above-mentioned letter to the Emperor Con-
principal meaning from "election" to “consecration.” 13° The ambiguity of
stantine XI, after justifying the election and consecration of the Metropoli-
the Russian term postavlenie is particularly apparent in the Slavonic ver-
tan ]onas by the Russian bishops, declared: “Our Russian Church requests
sion of the fourth canon of the First Oecumenical Council which was
and seeks the blessing (blagoslovenie) of the holy, divine, oecumenical,
cited by the Russian Metropolitan ]onas in support of the contention that
catholic, and apostolic Church of Saint Sophia, the Wisdom of God, 1S
he had been canonically appointed. The Greek text of this canon reads:
obedient to her in all things, . . . and our father, the Lord ]onas, Metro-
'E1rio'xo11ov arpoowjltei ].i¢i)u.o'*ra new 1511-5 wdwwv rcfiv e’v rfi e"n'o.pxiq. :ca9io"rao'9o.i'
politan of Kiev and All Russia, likewise requests from her all manner of
ei Se fivaxepes eir; 1'6 roiofi-ro, '7) Sid. xarerreiyovo-av dvcfxymjv 1") ‘did p/fikos 6806,
blessing (blagoslovenie) and union.” *8‘
€§cf.1rav1'os rpefs érri. To afiro O'Ul/G.'yOf.L€“VOU9, o'up.i[n§¢cov yivopévwv Kai rélv dwdwwv
It is improbable that the Russians discovered only in the fourteenth cen-
Kai 0-vvride/.i.e'vmv find ‘}/p0.[.LfLCf-T(01I, rdre rrjv Xeiporoviav 1roi.e?o'6a.|.' To Se nfipos
tury that their natural desire to have their metropolitan elected by their
rrfiv ‘ya/op.e'vwv 8i8oo'0a.:. lead’ éK(i0'7“1]V évrapxiav 'rc§ ;m7rpo1ro)\iq;.m In the Sla-
own bishops in Russia was in full accordance with Canon Law, and that
vonic version the terms mflirr-ra.o-flai. and Xeiporovia. are rendered by the
even the right claimed by the patriarch to consecrate (if he Was_n9t
-

already in episcopal orders) rested on no firmer foundation than a casuistic

substituting “metropolitan” for “bishop” in its text. They were not, as we shall see (cf.
infra, pp. 64-5) the first ecclesiastics to have done so. The suggestion of P. Sokolov that interpretation of the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon. It
the term “metropolitan” had been fraudulently substituted for “bishop” in the Russian version now remains to inquire whether the Russian authorities put forward the
of the Nomocanon (Russky arkhierey iz: Vizantii, p. 71) is quite gratuitous. The bishops
would certainly have been better advised to cite the sixth canon of the Council of Sardica “' Beneshevich, Drevne-slavyanskaya Kormchayfl, PP- 32'5-
(cf. supra, p. 51). “Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenes, In Can. IV Conc. Nicaen. I: P. G., CXXXVH, ¢°1$-
”’ Cf. Sokolov, Izbranie arkhiereeu 0 Vizantii, loc. cit, p. 251, and supra, p. 51. 236-7
“” See Siotis, op. ci't., pp. 82-101, 105-7. "‘ Cf. I. I. Sreznevsky, Mate:-ialy dlya slovarya dreime-russkogo gazyka, II (5% P°t°"'
“‘ Hefele and Leclercq, Hist. des C0nc., I, 539. burg, 1902), col. 1259. _
“Cf. note 126.
58 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 59
same claims in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and, if so, how far these so much as mention the appointment of any metropolitan of Russia in this
claims were recognized by the Byzantine Patriarchate. A further aim of this period. We must, therefore, in attempting to infer the nationality of other
investigation will be to consider whether, in the absence of any proof that metropolitans of Kiev and to ascertain the circumstances in which they
the agreement between the Empire and Russia conceming the nationality were appointed, resort to the use of circimistantial evidence and later docu-
of the primates of Kiev, attested by Gregoras, was concluded at any time ments.
between the late tenth and the early thirteenth century, the Russian authori- Some of these primates may be considered, with some probability, to
ties succeeded in this period in appointing native candidates to their own have been of Byzantine nationality. Thus the Metropolitan George, men-
metropolitan see. These two aims are not necessarily identical, for the tioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle under the years 1072 and 1073,
candidates put forward by the Russian authorities might conceivably in is said to have experienced doubts as to the sanctity of Boris and Gleb, the
certain cases have been of Byzantine nationality, and, conversely, the martyred sons of Vladimir 1.1” It is highly iiriprobable that a native pri-
patriarch of Constantinople may on occasion have selected a Russian as his mate would have dissociated himself, even for a time, from the nation-wide
nominee. But such cases, if they occurred at all, are not likely to have been cult of the country’s earliest canonized saints which had been spreading in
frequent. It has been shown in the early part of this study that all those Russia for several decades.“° ]ohn II, who became metropolitan not later
metropolitans of Kiev who were appointed by the patriarch between 1237 than 1077, and died in 1089, was in all probability the uncle of the cele-
and 1378 at the request of the Russian authorities were in fact of Russian brated Byzantine poet Theodore Prodromus?“ Nicephorus I, who occupied
nationality. Thus our two remaining problems may best be approached by the see of Kiev from 1104 to 1121, can probably be regarded as a Byzantine
an attempt to ascertain the nationality of as many as possible of the pri- on the grounds that one of his sermons opens with the following words:
mates of Russia in the Kievan period, and the circumstances in which they “Many homilies, my cherished and beloved children in Christ, ought I to
were appointed. preach to you with my tongue and to water yoiu' good earth, I mean your
The difficulties of such an investigation have already been pointed out. souls, with this water; but the gift of tongues, as the divine Paul would
The nationality of only three primates of Russia in the pre-Mongol period say, is not given to me, wherewith I might . . . carry out my commission,
is known with certainty: these are the Russians Hilarion (1051—ca. 1054) and for that reason I stand before you voiceless and am much silent. In
and Clement (1147-55), and the Byzantine Cyril II (1224-33)?“ The spite of the rhetorical ambiguity of his language, we can probably con-
first two are the only metropolitans of Kiev in this period whose appoint- clude that the metropolitan, being ignorant of the Russian tongue, wrote
ment is described in any detail in contemporary Russian sources, which in his sermon in Greek, and had it translated and read out by someone else.”
most cases either fail to record the accession of the primates, or confine ii

themselves to a monotonous repetition of the formula “he came" (from expounded by M. V. Levchenko (“Vzaimootnosheniya Vizantii i Rusi pri Vladirnire,”
Vizantiislty Vremennik, 7 [I953], p. 219). _ h
Byzantium).“" Byzantine sources, with one possible exceptionf“ do not ”' Pooesf, s.a. 1072, 1073, pp. 121, 122; Cross, pp. 154-6. Cf. Zhitzya soyatykh mac eni-
koo Borisa i Gleba, ed. D. I. Abramovich (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 21, 56.
"' Cf. supra, p. 45 and note 86. “° Cf. Priselkov, Ocherlci pa flsierkoono-politicheskoy istorii Kievskoy Rusi, pp. 123-6;
"' Cf. supra, p. 46 and note 87. Golubinsky, op. cit., I, 1', pp. 290-1. _ _ _
"' This is the case of a certain Theophylactus, promoted, according to the fourteenth- 141. on the date of John II's accession see Golubinsky, ibid., p. 286. He is mentioned in the
century historian Nicephorus Callistus (who used an earlier Greek list of cases of translations Primary Chronicle, s.a. 1086, 1088, and 1089 (the last time on the occasion of his death):
of bishops) from the see of Sebasteia to Russia in the reign of Basil I1 (976-1025) (P. G., Pooest’, pp. 136-7; Cross, pp. 169-70. Theodore Prodromus wrote of himself: ]]d1r1rop 8-yap
CXLVI, col. 1196: 8-irl. SE rfis a.i'rr-5: fiyepovfas ®coqbi5)to.x'ros ix 'r-Fri Ecflaamvfiiv sis 'Pw0'fa.v dvdyerac). ' ' II 8 ' ,—K ‘ 6 “ 30' av Xpiorov (l)VO].L(J.0'[.|.€’VOV_’rfi€ 'Pw<7'-"'59 “P” P°"
Honigmann (“Studies in Slavic Church History," Byzantion, 17 [1944-5], pp. 148-9) takes f$:§f“:.“ ,\5-,5; Prodaroniiogcripla Miscellanea, P.G., CXXXIII, col. 1l4112)).dV. G.
him to have been, before his transfer to Russia, the metropolitan of Sebasteia in the province Vasilievsky drew attention to the similarity between the names Christos an rd rqmos
Armenia II, and, subsequently, the metropolitan of Russia. Cf. Laurent (“Aux origines de which Theodore’s uncle must have home (the first being a personal I19-me, the ;°°°nf abs";
l'Eglise russe,” Echos d’Orient, 38 [I939], pp. 293-4). Dvomik, on the other hand, is doubtful ily one), and the superscription “john, metropolitan of Russia, called the prop et o s
of this interpretation and prefers to see in Theophylactus the bishop of Sebasteia under the found in one of the writings of ]ohn II (Trudy, I [St. Petersburg, 1903]. PP- 174"5)- Cf-
metropolis of Laodicea, transferred to an episcopal see in Russia (The Making of Central (3 1 b‘ , . 't., I, 1‘, . 286, n. 4.
and Eastem Europe, p. 179, n. 131). The question remains an open one, though the term O“lall;lil;g’1So5'18clnf6l'8DCBPdI&\VH from Nicephorus’ words by Golubinsky (119551,-. PP- 353-9)-
dvd-yerai, used by Nicephorus Callistus, implying promotion, would seem to favor the view of The text of his sermon is printed in Metropolitan Makary’s Istoriya msskoy tserkoi, II‘, pp.
Honigmann and Laurent. Cf., however, the more sceptical view of Nicephorus’ evidence 349-52. Ignorance of the Russian language was, it seems, by no means uncommon among
 60 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY 61
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW
Finally, the Metropolitan ]ohn IV (1164—6), on evidence which will be
having assembled the bishops.” “° Thfe tfiilljlm Pzitavfistiivlggzii “:§ia:Yb:::
assessed later, can with some probability, in my opinion, be considered a
Byzantine.“3 These, together with Theophylactus of Sebasteia, who in the
opinion of some scholars was appointed metropolitan of Russia in the reign
s own, serve m is?°"::*:‘;:;.:?::;.s"::..::. _ ... .....;
and X@‘P°"°"‘f”'m neither of which’ in the meanmg rtilley fietrl1ilS)O(f:;:sl?l'l16
of Basil II (976-1025))“ exhaust the list of the primates of the Russian
would have been appropriate to the act of’a secular el‘. 1 non h.
Church in this period whose Byzantine origin may be inferred with some
Prince of Kiev Yaroslav. Yet the chronicler s meanmg Seems eare _g '
probability.
Hilarion was chosen for the office of metropolitan by the Russiantiovfiejfizi
We must now consider whether any evidence can be found to support who then caused him to be formally electpg. and consecratqd1:1 or e pesti-
the view that a number of other primates of Kiev in the pre-Mongol period
were native Russians and, if so, whether the circumstances in which they dlal °f St Sophia in Kiev by his biS}l0f.)S' The- Othe£rF“0'Ifli“’ (ll “dldedanie
mony comes from Hilarion himself; 1115 Declaratnzn 0 “'1 Sp f _
were appointed suggest that their nomination was the result of an agree-
ludes with the following statement: I, by the mercy o - -
ment between the Byzantine and the Russian authorities. It is the quasi- 2;“: o lhconc e monlc and priest Hilarion > was by His will , consecrated
. . and en-
unanimous belief of modem historians that, at least after 1039 — the date
throned (svyashchen bylch i nastolooan) by the pipius bishqps in tl%<-airs:
at which the subordination of the Russian Church to the See of Constan-
and God-protected city of Kiev, to be the If1etT°P° tar} m ‘P I ‘E; ( Ka an)
tinople is first unequivocally attested in the Primary Chronicle 1“ — and
d in the year 6559 [A.D. 1051], in the reign of the pious g h-
until the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century, all the metropolitans of
Kiev were Byzantine prelates, appointed, consecrated, and sent to Russia
by the patriarch, with the exception of two — Hilarion and Clement, ap-
pointed by the Russian authorities in 1051 and 1147 respectively. Further-
to
('ll‘:1.rrrd“slav . ” 1“ The verb Svyatiti (from which

exactly to éy:<a.6£8pvcr6ai, a ternjiuseq tp signify the so emn in

we
A the _ Passwe Parnclple
. ‘wyasd S

6£8 vow) of a newly appointe pre a e. _ _ . .

more, for the great majority of these historians the appointments of the
pScholars in recent years have generally assertedfhat’ lssfgisinisg
two native primates, Hilarion and Clement, are exceptions which prove
the rule, and were nothing but rebellious attempts of the Russian Church to be appointed’ the Russian rulerrgamslav was trthmg derl in assuII1Ption
independence of Constantinople. Apart from e un S Yregared in this
to shake off the tutelage of Byzantium.
I submit that these views are not warranted by the evidence, and that
there are grounds for believing that in the period under discussion the Period to countenance the appomtmellt of a Eahve this vlfew seems to rest
the accuracy of which has been questioned a ove — ded b a war between
Byzantine authorities agreed on a number of occasions to sanction the
appointment of a native candidate, elected and perhaps even consecrated largely on the fact that Hflanon S elechon was (lligce s dehided bl’ a fierce
in Russia. To support this submission it will first be necessary to re-examine Russia and the Empire‘ This war tlroke “Ht m 1 , a ere defeated and
naval encounter in the Bosphorus in which the Ruisslenfi Was a ointedi as a
the evidence we possess on the appointments of Hilarion and Clement.
Hilarion’s elevation to the see of Kiev is described in two contemporary ended in the Same Yeafm The Suggesuon thal Htlbanénidtinth-I<):IdnturY Rus-
result of these hostilities was already ‘made in etsiét b the evidence‘ In
sources. The Primary Chronicle, in an entry dated 1051, states: “Yaroslav
sian Nikon Chronicle?” Yet this view 1S not suPP°r 6 Y
appointed (postaoi) the Russian Hilarion as metropolitan in St. Sophia,
160
the Byzantine metropolitans of Kiev; an example cited in the fifteenth century shows that Pav est’ , sa
_ _
1051 , P . 104-, Cross (P ' 139) has misfrflnslated this passage.
it could lead to curious results: Basil II of Muscovy, in his above-mentioned letter to the "' Cf. supra, pp- 56—7- _ _ us M tr litan Makary (op. Cit-2
Patriarch Metrophanes, supports his request that the Russians b e all owe d to appoint their “' This is the interpretation given to the passage by e e oPo
' . 300 . . B h ' hi
own metropolitan by the additional argument that the necessary discussion of state secrets
with the metropolitan must take place, if he is a Greek, in the presence of interpreters, young H , ‘I‘)’Pam!l0tniki dreone-russkvgfl l“1"°"f°hesk°€° Pmwi H’ 1’ ed’ V" N ems ewe
men whose discretion cannot always be trusted and who thus endanger national security. ka Istoricheskaya Biblioteka, XXXVI (192 0), p. 103. R - M cow,
Hus?” Sq: for instance. D. S. Likhachev (Natsfmmrme Mmosozmnle dfwney um [ Os
Cf. note 125.
1945], pp. 17. 5-) and “ma dsky (Kievan
' Russia
i war[New Haven’
of 1043 {Q 48]. P. 82)-
” Sudost-Forschungefl. XII
“‘ Cf. infra, pp. 68-70.
“‘ Cf. note 138. “‘ See G. Vernadsky, The BYzantm°'Huss an '
“‘ Cf. note 1.
(Munfihl
ll‘
lgzzfilirfdle
0 no
Letopisey I IX ’ s.a.1051 (5t'PeteTsb“1'g» 1862)’ P- 83'
 62 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM. KIEV AND MOSCOW 63
the first place, peace was restored between Byzantium and Russia in 1046,
this passage to vindicate the action of Taroslav and olffiiglie eleylaritgi $:1t;;};
and, probably at the same time, a treaty was concluded, by the terms of
which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of Kiev, was to marry a close relative, Russian bishops in gratuitously llscnbmg to them t clipllm the Russians
probably the daughter, of the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the AP°st°h° Canon» bl’ analogy with die Tgluzflilltsthteconslecration of the
child of this marriage, the future prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomalch, was in tile fol;ftee§;ht;:?0§:r:;1?:)Pc::lu;;ets ti; ]s1ameyApostolic Canon was, as
me o 0 an ' _ . . . - _
bom in 1053.1" It is scarcely probable that the friendly relations between
the dynasties and govemments of Byzantium and Kiev, restored by this
marriage, were broken before 1051, the year of Hilarioifs appointment;
ltandlélriiintillilg
or is s tlt'l:3rec1lf1ll'I;n(i:((:l:3:f:);la:l1m8nt:ri?hat the Russian bishops
. in 1051
and supporting evidence of ecclesiastical relations between the two coun-
had no desire to sever their canonical dependence on tbs BYZaI:1:;v€hiLsug::
tries in that same year is provided by the Nikon Chronicle, which tells of
and that no such severance did in fact take pllace. T e allainian chron-
the arrival in Russia from Constantinople, in 1051, of three experts on
pressed even more explicitly by the seventeen. -ct;1'1l‘\l;}.' _ a com nation
church singing together with their families, who were to instruct the Rus-
icler Zacharias Kopystensky, who asserted in Pp mo ryéa Her sofimes _
sians in the Byzantine chant?“
based upon an encyclopaedic, if at tiiiies uncritica , use o Eagle ratification
Further grounds can be found for the view that Hilarion’s appointment
was neither preceded nor followed by any ecclesiastical rift between Kiev
that Hilarion obtained “the blessing (b1"$°*l°”“;“(‘§> mt‘ um 16
(stverzhenie) of his election from the Patriarch o . ens 9-till} t £8 -election
and Byzantium. Referring to this event, the Primary Chronicle observes:
All this evidence strongly suggests, m my op1n10;l_, h as at the insti-
“Cod inspired the prince, and he appointed him metropolitan” 1” - a sig-
and consecration of Hilarion in Kiev by the I]lil(1i$¥E3-11thg$P:£iarch of Con-
nificant comment, if the deference generally shown by the compilers of this
gation of Prince Yaroslav were accepted =15 Vad Y t in Sn oft of this
document for the Byzantine Church is borne in mind. The Nikon Chronicle
stantinople, and were ratified by him. An adde argulinell f 51% rimates
is even more explicit: “Yaroslav,” it tells us, “took council with his Russian
conclusion is provided by the fact that the later cata }ogi;eIscov Coftain the
bishops, and they judged according to the sacred canon and the apostolic
of Russia, based on the ofiicial diptychs of the Churc oh 16$ ,we shall see
commandment as follows: the first canon of the holy Apostles [rules]: let
two or three bishops consecrate a bishop; and in conformity with this sacred name of Hilarion’ whereas the Metropohtan Clement, wti De aauthorities and
was appointed a century later m defiance of {I139 Byzan n
canon and commandment of the divine apostles, the Russian bishops,
contrary to their wish, does not figure them. ’ 1 _tS
having assembled, consecrated (postaoisha) Hilarion, a Russian, metro-
We do not know whether the Patriarchate of Constantmople glellvefilist
politan of Kiev and of the whole Russian land, neither severing themselves
approval to Hilarion’s appointment before or. after the ‘event. 1351 fni ht
from the Orthodox Patriarchs and from the piety of the Greek religion, nor
' the concession granted to the Russian authorities m ‘g
disdaining to be consecrated (postaolyatilsya) by them.” “’° It is possible, altemauve d t ome of the negotiations between Byzantium
of course, that the sixteenth-century chronicler was merely attempting in
Peldhllgls
an ievb:1::1;gl;3:w::1 Each; of 1043 and that, led, as we have Seen, t0
“’Povest’, s.a. 1043, 1053, pp. 104, 108; Cross, pp. 138 (who mistranslates: “after peace a political rapprochement between the two countries. Next to the agrgfsmplilt
had prevailed for three years thereafter"; the true meaning is: “peace having been concluded that the son of the prince of Kiev was to marry a Byzanttnfieprinpl m;u0-
three years later”), 142. Vernadsky suggests that after peace was restored in 1046, relations
between Kiev and Constantinople were broken off once more, in 1048, and that the final agree- permission given to the Russians to elect and to consecrate en‘ ow
ment was not concluded till ca. 1052 (op. cit., pp. 65-6). This conclusion, however, is, in
my opinion, supported by no convincing evidence. For the view that the marriage agreement 1"
1“ Cf. . -54-5-
Pam-?;Z':ik‘PPp0lemwhesk0y literatury 0 Zdpadnoy Rust, I.. Russkaya Istoricheka
s ya
was reached in 1046 or 1047 see Dolger (Regesten, II, p. 7, no. 875) and V. Moshin (“Russ-
lcie na Afone i Russko-Vizantiiskie otnosheniya v XI—XII vv.”, Byzantinoslavica, IX, 1947, Biblioteka, IV, (1878), cols. 10091;-150‘; Th;-r(iZ.us(~)t1i1:;ianChOvéogies
icl §;>et=‘i1eeven further:
Patriarch Hilarion,
Michael Cem_it

pp. 74-5). That the Byzantine princess who married Vsevolod of Russia was the daughter asserts, was appointed (P1;st¢'E:l:n Hy l 2128) B an imp;-gper statement, since his postavlenie
of Constantine IX is stated by the seventeenth-century Gustin Chronicle (Polnoe Sobranie lajiius (.P0lnoe iogilpfrzfrla) wi!;C31',I'iI;tl out by the Russian bish0Ps' but one which may be
t xaraarams,
Russkikh Letopisey, II, s.a. 1043 (St. Petersburg, 1843), p. 267. . . - - ‘ " ) of the appointment.
f 1 1 to the Patriarch s ratification (1-o meow M '
‘“ Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., IX, s.a. 1051, p. 85.
“" Povest', s.a. 1051, p. 105; Cross, p. 139.
“keg E§’i.T°iZi ::nl>1e= Novgorodskfllla Pmflyfl Leora» @d- 4- N- N“°“°" ( °s°°“'
1 950) , pp. 163 , 473 ; Voskresenskaya Letopis"' Polnoe Sobr. Hussk. Let., VII (St. Petersburg,
“Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., IX, p. 83.
1856), p. 239. Cf. note 34-

l
ta
 64 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM. KIEV AND MOSCOW es
politan would have served the best interests of the Empire’s foreign policy; - ' d thority on
by Clement himself, a man of great.lea1_‘mng and a recogmzé bflio the
to placate the Russians by these concessions, to prevent the recurrence of . . on Canon Law. 15 P5’ Y
ecclesiastical matters,162 based their new - ' generally
their attack of 1043, and to reconcile them to the spiritual jurisdiction of , 1; metro olitan. It is
clalmed, have the Power to consecra e a P h fi t A ostolic
the Patriarch of Constantinople — these aims would have commended them-
thou ght that they were referring. — albeit Wr°ng1Y - . "' bto- ht e rs - 1415,
P who
selves to the diplomatists in the government and Church of Byzantium
Canon. This at least was the belief of the Lithuanian 1S. ops in d t d
who favored the policy of oixovopia. On the other hand, it is not im- _ . f etro olitans, an (1110 6
misaPP lied this canon to the appointment - - o' In ' P _ of
nsecration
possible that the Russian authorities, convinced that they were acting in , - hf their own co
Clement s consecration 6 as *1. Precedent
. - lus ymg b‘ h f Chernigov was
conformity with Canon Law, requested the Patriarch to ratify Hilarion’s
Gre gorY Tsamblak.‘ 3 But it is. possible . that the , f th is op 0st searching _ study
consecration post factum.‘°° also appealing to Canon Law m a wider sense, or e mo _ t his
The appointment, nearly a century later, of the Russian monk Clement tron 8er ar giunent aga111S
of the Nomocanon
_ would. have
- revealed no S ered to consecrate Clement
of Smolensk as metropolitan of Kiev is usually considered‘ an event analo-
contention that the Russian bishops were empow
gous to the consecration of Hilarion - that is, as a second, and equally - il of Chalcedon, whose relevance
thHn the twentY -eighth canon of the COIIHC - n con-
unsuccessful, attempt by the Russians to shake off Byzantine ecclesiastical . - h le the same Nomocano
to Russia was, to say the least, doubtful, W . 1 '1 oE
control. In my opinion, the two events differed radically in their nature,
t am
' ed several clauses
. , —. drawn
, from the__SIXth 11 . h
canon of the -
Councid to
ld be interprete
their causes, and their results. Clement was appointed by the Prince of
Sardica and from justinian s l28rd novel W 16 <30“
Kiev Izyaslav II, and consecrated by an assembly of Russian bishops in
mean th at an assembly of bishops had the right to consecrate a metropoli-
Iuly 1147, after the previous metropolitan, Michael, had for unknown
ta.I1.164 . ' . - f enfs aP_
reasons laid the cathedral church of Kiev under an interdict and departed
for Constantinople. Clement's consecration was preceded by a stormy dis- _ The minority party,
. which
- impugned
11 antheexlegitimacy o aser; 1‘f011t of
ert canonist
cussion among the bishops as to whether this act was legal. A minority, P ointment’ and which_ included
. S116 P ' ; th fo nd nothing
Novgorod)“ agreed
_ with their opponents on one tPomt Russian
eY _u and that
led by Nifont, Bishop of Novgorod, and Manuel, Bishop of Smolensk, took
the view that it was not, and refused to recognize Clement as their primate. abnormal or Improper m the £a.ct th-at Clemfllhewirlsltia ation of the Prince
he had been elected by the Russian l)1Sl'1OPs’ 3' _ g , th
The Russian Hypatian Chronicle, our principal contemporary source in this
() fKiev. It 15
' obvious from the text of - the
- - Hypatian
f h Chronicle
- that ey
matter, gives the following account of this discussion: “The bishop of tr litan-elect to
disapproved solely of therefusal, 01‘ 11‘-ab1htY> P t 6 line _oPO h. 1
Chernigov said: ‘I know that it is lawful for bishops, having assembled, to . - l me = 1'0 KvP°9) Of 15 66°‘
obtain the patriarchs ratification (blagos ove . _
consecrate (postaviti) a metropolitan.’ ” The protests of the opposition are - tification would confer unme-
tion; and they made it clear that such . a ra t 1 gest that
recorded as follows: “it is not in accordance with [canon] law for bishops
d’19-te validitY on the whole Pr°CeedmgS'
. These ' factsbno the
on entire
y Sllg Russian.
to consecrate ( staoiti) a metropolitan without the Patriarch, but the Patri- ’ e lection was recognlled Y
the method of Clements
arch consecrates (stacit) a metropolitan”; and, addressing Clement, the . . ' th anonical rules of the East-
opposing bishops added: “we will not recognize your authority, nor will 9P iscoP ate as being in full
_ agreement with - e c f ti tro olitans
ern Church; the)’ also imP1Y that the aPP°mtment O na V6 me P
we concelebrate with you, because you have not obtained the blessing
by the Russian authorities, subject to the patriarclys confirmation, was a
(blagoslooenie) of St. Sophia [ of Constantinople] nor of the Patriarch: if
practice not unknown
_ .at the time. . from an unexpected alld
you remedy [this omission], and obtain the Patriarch’s blessing (blago-
Th'1S last inference 1S corroborated by evidence . - _ N_
slooishisya ot patriarkha), we will then recognize your authority.” 1°‘ - _ R n historian, V.
hitherto neglected_ source. The eighteenth century dl1§$19- 1 d ents that
This remarkable text clearly shows the difficulty of the problem that Tatishchev, who is known to ‘have had access to me ieva ocgm H dl
faced the Russian bishops in 1147. The majority party, doubtless briefed have sin' Ce perished » quotes in his History of Russia the wor s a ege y
1'“ This view is put forward by the Metropolitan Makary (op. cit., II‘, pp. 6-7) and by 162 Cf_ Sokolov, Russky arkhierey :2: Vizantii, pp. 61—3-
Golubinsky (op. cit., I, 1', pp. 297-300), who suggest, rightly in my opinion, that Hilarion’s
1” Cf. Supra: P’ 55'
appointment was recognized in Byzantium. in 5-up-fa, PP. 51--2,
mlpatievskaya Letopis’, s.a. 1147: Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., II, p. 30.
1“ Cf. Sokolov. PP- 67-8~
 66 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 67
Spflken by Izyaslav II of Kiev to the Russian bishops just before Clement's tory,"‘ and shows obvious signs of doctoring, which is probably due to the
election. They are, if genuine, of considerable importance. “The metro- fact that the chronicler felt obliged to expurgate the Prince's indiscreet
pohtan of Russia,” the Prince declared, “is now dead, and the Church is speech. Thirdly, the content of Izyaslav's speech, as quoted by Tatishchev,
3311: gglrlfiluégljhephegcéand a spiritual head and govemor; whom formerly accords well both with the national policy of the Prince of Kiev and with
be cOnSeCratedf?f:;([10 usiia] nsed to elect and send to Constantinople to the political situation of the time: his blunt denunciation of the Byzantine
Emperor’s intervention in the internal affairs of Russia is an obvious allusion
it is not ossible to semdwhimll mthmy Palaver t? elect [a nleh-oPohtan]’ but to the efforts which the government of Manuel Comnenus was making at
of the cfrrent
method disturlzll
of consecratjnances Znod ili(lbpamal-ch
iindant strife;Constantmople lm account
moreover, owing to this that very time to extend its influence in eastern Ein'ope, and to draw its
rulers into the net of Byzantine diplomacy. In his attempts to play off the
incurred lb uS]',the
archs in Ru);Sia andBa
gbme
ove. 050
a , tlhins,
oughgrea-t
this and mlnecessary
authority held byexpense is
the Pam- different princes of Russia against each other, the Emperor was then sup-
which is contra; to yifiintine egiperors seek to rule and command us, porting Yuri Dolgoruky of Suzdal’ against Izyaslav of Kiev.‘°° It is no won-
der, therefore, that Izyaslav was anxious to shake off the embarrassing tute-
the hol
two A ostlgls
or fin61:3 bishoan(durf
S ho ’llhlorém adwlntaga
e 6CllI'lI)1l€I11CEll Acclordlng.
Councils, it 1S tolaid
lhedown
canonsthat
of lage of this powerful sovereign of the Byzantine metropolitans of Kiev, and
and th p , aving assem ed, should consecrate one [bishop], to ensure that the primate of the Russian Church should not act in his
‘ere are more [than three] of you here; for this reason elect a worthy realm as an agent of Byzantine imperialism.
[candidate], and consecrate him metropolitan of Russia.” 1“ Izyaslav’s assertion that in former times the princes of Kiev chose their
It must be admitted that the uncorroborated evidence of an eighteenth- own metropolitans, and sent them for consecration to Constantinople,
Cfintury historian, who used sources which are no longer extant, may be might, in view of his hostility to Byzantium, be regarded as a piece of
izllgjfzis fl; hl:I];dle,_ and fihat Tatishchev's reliability in such cases is a special pleading. Yet the Russian bishops seem to have taken their right to
honesty anvg Cgnsciiéssgian sc olars have not always agreed. Yet his scholarly elect their own metropolitan, subject to the patriarch’s confirmation, for
historians would non ouspess are generally acknowledged today, and few granted, and certainly there is nothing in the sources to suggest that this
right was a novelty at the time. The remarkable, and possibly novel, feature
eating were
ments evidence . Ind sw venl cases,
evera me to Tatis
sugglfst th’at
chev he ever
s preyiously guilty of fabri-
unconfirmed state- of the events of 1147 was the intention of the Prince of Kiev to dispense
prove to be true by subsequently discovered documents, and with the patriarch’s ratification. The open revolt of Izyaslav II and of the
present day scholars are coming more and more, whenever his evidenee majority of the Russian episcopate against the See of Constantinople placed
seems inherently credible, to rely on him as a primary source.‘°' In the the Russian Church in a state of schism for eight years, at the end of which
present case, there appear to be several reasons for regarding Tatishchev's time communion was restored in circumstances which, for our present pur-
account as trustworthy, in substance if not in form. In the first place, even pose, are highly instructive.
if we make allowances for possible rhetorical embellishments, it is highly On Izyaslav's death at the end of 1154, his rival Yuri of Suzdal’, the
improbable that he invented this speech of Izyaslav. It is much more likely ally of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, became Prince of Kiev. One of
|Il1lilitll;l6l1l'6, as in many other cases, he was quoting from a medieval Soul-¢e Yuri’s first acts was to depose Clement, thus restoring the authority of the
\(>:vl c as not come down to us. Secondly, if we compare the accounts of Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Church. In 1156 a new metro-
ement s appomtment given by the Hypatian Chronicle and by T;-nigh- politan, Constantine I, appointed by the patriarch, arrived in Russia from
chev, we shall. easily observe that the latter is the clearer and the more Constantinople."° His origin and nationality are not mentioned in any con-
consistent, while the former is on certain points confused, self-eenh-adic- temporary source. Tatishchev, however, tells us that Constantine had for-
1°C
merly been bishop of Chernigov, and that, after Clements deposition, he
gtoglya Ross~i"i.i>~ka;{a, II ( Moscow, 1778), p. 801.
‘°' n e genera va ue of Tatishchev's evidence, see V. S. Ikonnikov, O t k is; ' - ‘°' The confused nature of the Chronicle's account of Clement's election is noted by
Golubinsky (op. cit., I, 1‘, pp. 302-3) and by Sokolov (op. cit., p. 65).
slmfiinl. 1 (Kiev. 1891). pp. 50, 117-9, 123; 11, 1 (1908), pp. ass-s; R..§i..fZ§gfZfi.hZ§@ ‘°° Cf. C. Vernadsky, "Relations byzantin0—russes au XII= siécle," Byzantion, 4 (1927—8),
-Umr, vol. Suvorova-Tkachev (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 332-46; N. L. Rubinshtein, Russ-
ya istoriografiya (Moscow, 1941), pp, 77-9, pp. 269-76; Kievan Russia, pp. 217-8.
"° Ipatieuskaga Letopis’, s.a. 1156; PSRL, II, pp. 79-80.
 68 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 39
was elected by Yuri and several Russian bishops, and sent to Constantino le
in order to be invested by the patriarch with the dignity of metropolitan P show that he was conveying to Rostislav some offer from the Emperofl
“the Emperor says to you: ‘if you accept with love the blessing of St-
of Kiev?"
Sophia. . . .' ” 1"‘ There can be little doubt that the envoy s speech was fol-
Constantine's career as metropolitan was brief. In 1158, after Yuri's
death, the sons of Izyaslav II occupied Kiev. Personal sympathies and family lowed by Rostislav’s reply which the chronicler, or perhaps a later copyist.
loyalty alike prompted them to reinstate Clement, and Constantine aban- felt obliged to suppress. This reply, however, is cited by Tatishchev, a
doned his see, escaping to Chernigov. But, in their ecclesiastical plans, the passage which in other respects closely follows l'.l'16.ChI'0I11.C1e; It must 1"‘
new masters of Kiev met with the stubborn resistance of their uncle Ros- deed have seemed to the pious, law-abiding Russian scribe too embar-
tislav, whom they had invited to reign in Kiev. Rostislav flatly refused to rassing to quote: “The Grand Prince replied: this ‘metropolitan llohn
accept Clement as metropolitan, “because,” he stated, “he did not receive IV], for the sake of the honor and the friendship which the Emperor he-S
the blessing from St. Sophia and from the Patriarch.” "2 The sons of Izya- shown [me] , I will now accept, but if in the future the patriarch Should,
slav, on the other hand, declined to reinstate Constantine. In the long and without om‘ knowledge and decision and contrary to the canons of the holy
acrimonious discussion that ensued between uncle and nephews, one of Apostles, consecrate a metropolitan for Russia, not only will I not accept
the latter, Mstislav, according to Tatishchev, argued that Clement had him, but we will make a law for ever [prescribing] that [the metropohtans
been lawfully appointed by his father and the Russian bishops, and stood of Kiev] be elected and consecrated by the Russian bishops by order of the
in no need of the patriarch’s consecration; for the patriarch himself, he grand prince. > >> 176 _ _ _ 1 I f
asserted, is chosen by the emperor and consecrated by bishops and metro- Historians have differed in their assessment of the historica ’va ue o
politans, his ecclesiastical inferiors, “and is not sent anywhere to be conse- Tatishchev’s evidence on this point. Some have dismissed Rostislav s speech
crated." "3 Eventually a compromise was reached, and it was decided to as the product of Tatishchev’s fantasy or misinformation, or at least have
ask the patriarch to appoint another primate; this was the Metropolitan cast doubts on its authenticity?" Others have accepted it as a wholly, or
Theodore, who arrived from Constantinople in 1161. The Hypatian Chron- substantially, true record.“ The sceptics have, in my opinion, failed to prlq-
icle notes his accession in terms which might be taken to imply that his can- duce a single convincing argument in favor 0f.|Zll61I'.V16W..I‘IBl'6 agam Taltli -
didature had been suggested to the patriarch by the Prince of Kiev: “Prince chev’s testimony is not only inherently plausible; it clarifies ‘an comp e es
Rostislav,” it states, “had sent for 1" the account given by the Hypatian Chronicle of the Byzantine embassy. to
The Metropolitan Theodore died about 1163. Meanwhile, however, the Russia, probably identical with the embassy sent by the Emperor to Kiez
deposed Clement had for some unknown reason gained the favor of Ros- in 1165 which brought about a treaty between Manuel Comnenus an
tislav, who now sent an embassy to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus with Rostislav, and which is described by.Cinnamus."° . t
the request that he be acknowledged metropolitan. But the Russian envoy Rostislav’s speech, which, I submit, should be accepted asgenuine, a
was forestalled by the arrival in Kiev of a Byzantine embassy, together with least in substance, sheds some additional light on the problem of appoint-
a new metropolitan ]ohn IV, sent from Constantinople. The Hypatian Chron- "“‘ Ibid., s.a. I164, p. 92.
... . h , _ 11., III, .142.
icle tells us that Rostislav at first refused to accept the patriarch's nomi- ‘"Th:s:<fe;t‘1cso’i?n (fhis mattper include Golubinsky (op. Cit-. I» 1:; PP- 313'5lv M' H.111‘
nee, but was eventually induced to do so by the Emperor's lavish gifts and shevsky (Ocherk istorii Kievskoy zemli ct smerli Yaroslaoa do kontsadJ;IV stolet§;as(I;ll:)1;::;
1891], pp. 363-4; the earlier opinions of Russian historians are cite ere), an
by the persuasion of the Byzantine ambassador. The text of the Chronicle,
however, is, in this place, obviously defective: in all the manuscripts the (OP;"'cfi.'alf'l;) -f1§2—31Zl1.8 older historians like the Metropolitan Makary and S. M- $010‘/iev,
speech made by the Byzantine envoy breaks off at the very beginning — in who regarded 1'l1ostislav's speech as genuine ' more _ recent scholars, such as F. Chalandon
- -_
(lean II Comnéne et Manuel 1" Cqnifléfle _[P9-1'18, 1912]» P; 482)» S‘ P‘ Shestalgw
one manuscript a blank space was left — but the words that remain clearly sky posol na Rus’ Manuil Komnen, Sbormk statey 0 chest D. A. K01't:;lek00¢lAct[ Zzallliltflarca;
pp. 366-81), Dtilger (Regesten, II, p. 77), and Crumel (Les Regestes s ‘erg u R ti lav
"‘ Tatishchev, Istoriya Rossfiskaya, III, pp. 36, 98, 117. ' le I 3 no. 1056, p. 118) state that as a result of these negotia ons os s
mlpatieoskaya Letopis’, s.a. 1159, ibid., p. 85; cf. Golubinsky, ihid., pp. 312-3. de cm;antl.fln011v' huf on condition that in the future no metropolitan of
accecptiedlfgy the »patriarch without his consent This view implies a positive assessment Kiev W35 1° be
of
"' Tatishchev, op. cit., III, pp. 117-9. app in '
mlpatievskaya Letopis’, s.a. 1161: PSRL, II, p. 89. T t' hchev’s evidence. _
a 1f"Ioannes Cinnamus, Histor., lib. V, 0811- 12 (B°""> 1836l= PP- 235_6'
 70 -I DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 71
ments to the see of Kiev in the twelfth century. (a) In the first place, the essentially different from Hilarion’s appointment to the metfigpoglli-11113::
Russian sovereign claimed that the patriarch had no right to consecrate a in 1051; the former act was performed m defiance of the Byzan f eKiev and
metropolitan of Kiev without his previous knowledge and consent. It should ties, and led to a temporary schism between the Churcf es o after the
be noted that Rostislav, in matters of Canon Law, was not an irresponsible Constantinople; the latte; act vzgs sanctioned, either be ore or
person; he had himself in the past refused to recognize Clement on the
event, b the Byzantine atriar . , _
grounds that he had not obtained the patriarch's confirmation."° And if the (b) )The circumstances and the aftermath of Clement s aPP°1:t1:?::
Prince of Kiev considered himself entitled to exercise his right of “deci-
cannot, any more than Hilarion’s consecration, be used as zglntzrglnlfilddle of
sion” in choosing a candidate and then requesting the patriarch to conse-
the view that all the primates of Russia between I039 an ts} relates
crate him, it is probable that some precedent existed on which this claim
the thirteenth century were, with these two exceptions, Byzanb eflpe am:
could be based — the same precedent, in fact, as was invoked in 1147 by
elected in Constantinople and consecrated and sent to Russia 5' th P 0-
Izyaslav II.‘°‘ (b) Secondly, in threatening to institute a new law prescrib-
arch. The evidence of the sources adduced above suggests, irideeC,h °1‘:Paf’nd
ing that metropolitans of Kiev should, in the future, be elected and conse-
site. Both in 1051 and in 1147-65 the leaders of the Ruslsian ncilfzt least
crated in Russia, presumably without reference to Byzantium, Rostislav
State seem to have been genuinely CO1'1V1I1C€d‘ that Canon azv 9; diet own
implied that he recognized that the patriarch still possessed the right
in the second case, historical precedent, entitled them to e ec 1 occasions
to endorse or veto the election, and doubtless also to consecrate the elected
candidate, subject to the patriarch s confirmation; antclllion seveliadon and to
candidate, a right so tactlessly questioned by Izyaslav II. (c) Finally, his the Byzantine authorities appear to have accepted s con e
appeal to “the canons of the holy Apostles” is yet another reference to the
Canon Law of the Eastem Church, whose provisions on episcopal appoint- haw? crllufilid
6 i'etl:lndi(ffi1c(:)iil::y seems to have arisen over the question
. of Whether
-
ments — laid down in the first Apostolic Canon and in other clauses of the
the consecration of the metropolitan-.elect'was the prerogatg/e offihfulgii:-:-
Byzantine Nomocanon — were, as we have seen, from time to time invoked
arch of Constantinople or of the Russian bishops. ThefEast omfm metro-
by the authorities of the Russian Church in support of the right they claimed
to elect and consecrate their metropolitan. “GS; “"“° a‘ ma‘ “me held *1“ View that *1“? Plwer °b°Y11e$Z faimi’.
It is remarkable, furthermore, that the Byzantine authorities seem to politans in the Byzantine Church was the vlslllb e SYT Oluctant tl)) concede
have accepted, in practice if not in principle, Rostislav's first contention; $Pi1'itua1 lmisdiction Over them’ were .natura y mos fnlrlil 'on’s consecra-
tliis right to the Russian bishops. Their acceptance 0 arlh th ma
for as soon as the Prince of Kiev had agreed to recognize the new metro-
tion in Kiev is the only case prior to the fifteenth century vivh entheyhang
politan nominated by the patriarch, a treaty was concluded between him
in practice, have conceded this privilege. ‘The Russians, on e o er th .,
and the Emperor Manuel. This treaty, as several scholars have pointed out,
in this eriod to have held conflicting opinions on whether en‘
must have included an ecclesiastical settlement; “'2 and it is surely signifi-
fflgfiopolitan clluld lie consecrated by their own bish0PS' Tlle Igalofify :1}-1:
cant that ]ohn IV's successor as metropolitan of Kiev, Constantine II, was,
pear to have recognized the claims of the Byzantine PZtrLa;'csa:;r;11c0n_
according to Tatishchev, a Russian bishop chosen by Rostislav, and sent by
matter and to have believed that the rights of then‘ OW? C15 PL on the
him to Constantinople where he was confirmed and invested by the patri-
fined to electing the primate. However, the provisions o anon aw -
arch who dispatched him back to Russia in 1167.1” . f bisho S and metropohtans, which in some respects con
The circumstances in which Hilarion and Clement were elected and con- E?I:0:1ntm'etll1t ilie cengalized administration of the medieval Byzantllle
(g e W1 , .
secrated metropolitans of Kiev can thus, if they are examined without pre-
Church, the ambiguity of the Slavonic term postaoleruquvvhich served to
conceived notions, lead us to the following conclusions:
render b0 tli tlii,6 GEethe
ek _Words
ml rsica.1-oio'1'a.o':.s
to ain asand much independence
x€Lp01'OVL(1, and as
thepossible
under
(a) The elevation of Clement to the see of Kiev in 1147 was an event
“° Cf. su P’a » P . 68.
EtandaBbleai('l:ilineecEntrolucontiibuteg to the rise of another, and more nation-
“‘ Cf. supra, p. 66. I°m Y’ 3 - 110015 of
”' Cf. note 178. alistic, current of opinion; and the conflict between these two sc
“'Tatishchev, op. cit., III, pp. 151, 157. Constantine II’s arrival in Russia is mentioned
in the First Novgorod Chronicle, s.a. 1167, ed. Nasonov, p. 32.
 72 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 73
i1h0l:ght goes far toward explaining the passionate discussions that arose The list of metropolitans of Kiev nominated, on Tatishchev’s evidence,
L1 Uuisia over the legitimacy of Clement s consecration, as well as Prince by the Russian authorities could perhaps be extended by the addition of
os s av s.angry appeal, when he was confronted with a Byzantine metro- another name. In 1089, the Primary Chronicle tells us, Yanka, the daughter
politan umlaterally appointed by the patriarch, to “the canons of the holy of Prince Vsevolod of Kiev, retiuning from Constantinople, “brought back
Apostles.” [to Kiev] the Metropolitan john.” Historians have generally concluded
Our investigation has also revealed some grounds for believing that, from this text that this metropolitan, ]ohn III (1089-90) was chosen for
apart from Hilarion and Clement, several other metropolitans of Kiev in his Russian post either by Yanka herself or by her father.‘°°
this period may have been selected by the Russian authorities: Constantine This reconstruction of the list of Russian nominees to the see of Kiev
I (1156-8) and Constantine II (l167—?) were, according to the evidence in the eleventh, twelfth, and early thirteenth centuries relies heavily on
ff Tat:h¢1he\', Candidates Selected‘ by the Princes Yuri I and Rostislav I the evidence of Tatishchev. His testimony has been doubted or impugned
espiec ve y, and sent tg5Constantinople to receive the Patriarch's conse- by reputable historians, and the highly critical attitude adopted by such
griithorg/Ior confirmation. It quite possible that both were Russians by scholars as E. Golubinsky toward his unconfirmed evidence on the nomina-
also 1;av§1l')e°Ve1', fl1edl\i/fietgopplllgan 'Iiheo1<lore (l161—ca. 1163) may perhaps tion of several metropolitans of Kiev by the Russian authorities has tended
. een a can a e o ostis av. Two further metropolitans of the to relegate it to the lumber-room of groundless hypotheses or pet precon-
Ilsevfn Pe;11°d Were, a¢00rding to Tatishchev, nominated by Russian rulers; ceptions. This scepticism provides a strange contrast to the reliance that
19° Elf ( 22-6), he claims, was sent as a bishop to Constantinople by modern historians are increasingly placing on Tatishchev’s evidence on
the Prince of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh, and was there appointed b the other matters, evidence which has often been found to rest on medieval
Patriarch metropolitan of Russia?" Tatishchev maintains that Nicetaz on dociuiients no longer extant. It would doubtless be rash to assume that
his journey from Kiev to Byzantium in 1122, accompanied Vladirhir’s every time Tatishchev asserts that a certain metropolitan was nominated
granddaughter who was going to contract an Imperial marriage. From by the Russian authorities, his statement is necessarily true. On one occa-
other sources we know that she was to marry Alexius, the son of the Em- sion at least, when his testimony appears to contradict the evidence of an
Perot lohn H C°mTl@111l$. in 9-¢C0rd&nCe With an agreement recently con- earlier source, it should be treated with reserve?" However, his evidence on
jluded bqplwkeen Russia and_the Empire. Several details supplied by Tatigh- ”°Pooest', s.a. 1089, p. 137; Cross, p. I70. Cf. Vasilievsky, Trudy, II, 1, p. 36; Priselkov,
ev on marriage, which supplement the evidence of other sources, op. cit., pp. 163-4; Sokolov, op. cit., p. 153.
have been accepted as reliable by modem historians "*8 and there seems to One might feel tempted to add two more names to this list: (1) the Metropolitan Efrem,
mentioned in the Primary Chronicle s.a. 1089 (P0oest', p. 137, Cross, p. 170), is said in a
p; no vahd ifieaipon for rejecting his testimony on the metropolitan Nicetas. contemporary source to have been, before his consecration, a member of the household of
Prince Izyaslav I of Kiev (Nestor's Life of St. Theodosius: Chteniya o Moskooskom Istoriches-
m edmfytzlefi ave here a further example of an ecclesiastical concession kom Obshchestve, III [I858], 3, p. 75): this suggests that he may have been a Russian.
3 ‘B 0 e. IIISSHIIIS by the Byzantine authorities within the framework of (2) According to the seventeenth-century Gustin Chronicle, a certain Cyril was consecrated
a wider political settlement. The other metropolitan on whom Tatishchev metropolitan of Kiev in 1225, and was a Russian (Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., II, s.a. 1225,
provides original information is Matthew (T1220), who, he asserts, was p. 335). Both cases, however, are dubious. Efrem, though the Nikon Chronicle calls him
“metropolitan of Kiev and of All Russia” (Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., IX, s.a. 1091, 1095,
appointed by the Grand Prince of Suzdal', Vsevolod III.“° 1096, pp. 116, 125, 128), in all probability was only the bishop of Pereyaslavl' and bore the
honorary title of metropolitan: Cf. Golubinsky, op. cit., I, 1', pp. 287, n. 2, 328-9; Sokolov,
"' Cf. supra, pp. 67-8, 70. op. cit., p. 53. As for Cyril, his very existence is dubious: the Gustin Chronicle, followed by
"' Cf. supra, p. 68. the later catalogues of primates of Russia, mentions the appointment in rapid succession of
flan“Tatishchev, op. cit.,
atlrd tbs ilypafifi II, . 225.
Chmnigles’ s.a.On N’ t as ’ accession
112gee ' to the see of Kiev,
- see the Lauren- two metropolitans of that name: the first Cyril, a Russian, consecrated in 1225; the second
one, of unspecified origin, consecrated in I230. We know from earlier and unimpeachable
“atiscevis eonlysour t ' th - . . sources that between 1224 and 1233 the see of Kiev was occupied by Cyril II, a Byzantine
and to state that the marriage, ohhe Gag-Zzd uissnia£121c:;;:;y;2r ‘zfvzhmeggsmul P1'm°:19» prelate sent from Nicaea (cf. supra, note 86).
youthfulness of the bride and bridegroom. Cf. Kh. Loparev, “Brak Ml;m1a\:l;mF1{;2)§ "‘ Thus Tatishchev asserts that in 1096 the prince of Kiev, Svyatopolk II, chose Nicephorus,
Vizantiisky Vremennik, 9 (1902), pp. 418-45; S, papa 1- itriou, “Bmk msskoy knyazhn'y Bishop of Polotsk, for the ofice of metropolitan and had him consecrated by the Russian
Pps
M 73_\ggy D obrodeiI s grecheskim' tsarevichem
' Alekseem Komninom,
- n ibid., 11 (1904), bishops (op. cit., II, pp. 169, 479, n. 421). A Metropolitan Nicephorus is mentioned by the
Nikon Chronicle s.a. 1097 (Polnoe Sobr. Russk. Let., IX, p. 132), so that Tatishchev's
"' Tatishchev, op. cit., III, p. 365. evidence is not prima facie incredible. However, in that same year a Metropolitan Nicholas
 74 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 75
th
ofefllgevanl ' metropohtans- accords well, m . my submission,
. . . the history
with between the Empire and medieval Russia. The attempt to assess the relia-
that base? Bslizsttllpaltlfelations between medieval Russia and Byzantium, bility of this evidence has led us to reconsider, within a somewhat wider
Russian bgrgle e d eme of article. The speeches of Izyaslav II to the framework, several aspects of these relations between the early eleventh
are not f 15 OQS, all Of Rostislav I to the Byzantine ambassador, if they and the late fourteenth centuries. Although no direct evidence has come
subbct 01;1g<-H138‘, must be regarded as illuminating contributions to the to light to corroborate Gregoras’ statement that a formal agreement con-
twejlfth un er iscussiori. They show that at least in the middle of the ceming the alternate nationality of the primates of Russia was actually
eentury a tradition existed in the ruling circles in Russia that the concluded between the authorities of Byzantium and Kiev, circumstantial
metropohtans. of Kiev could be, and were from time to time, elected by evidence tends to support his testimony, especially in the period between
the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the country 1237 and 1878, when Byzantine and Russian prelates were appointed in
vie“(,)I:1 11%-1:‘: lptificecof evidence can perhaps be adduced to support this turn with striking regularity to the metropolitan see of Kiev by the Patri-
- e rand Duke of Moscow, Basil II, in a letter to the Patri- arch of Constantinople.
arch of C°n5tant1n°P1@, after reminding his correspondent of the circum The lack of any similar observable alternation in the nationality of the
:Il;i1;ll:f3S“s(')JlfeII1IuSSia sdcongersion to Christianity, made the following state- metropolitans of Kiev in the earlier, pre-Mongol, period of Russian his-
(is gthene an ‘confirmed by piety, the sons, grandsons and great tory has led us to investigate in some detail the methods and machinery
gran ons [of St. Vladnnn-] . . . received from time to time the most holy by which the primates of Russia were then appointed. This investigation
:):1:;;:::ansGm tie“ °°‘“_1t1')’ f1'°m the Imperial City [of Constantinople], has called in question two widely held assumptions: the belief that the
b th a rec , sometimes a Russian from their own land, consecrated patriarchs of Constantinople in the eleventh and twelfth centuries invari-
y e most holy Oecumenical Patriarch.” 1" It is possible cf ecu;-Se that ably insisted on selecting their own candidates for the see of Kiev, and the
this alternation of Byzantine and native primates so strik,ingly described view that all the primates of the Russian Church in this period, with the
by the words “sometimes . . . sometimes” (ovogda . . . inogda) should exception of Hilarion and Clement, were Byzantine nominees of the patri-
be taken to refer to the regular succession of Greek and Russian metro arch. The evidence of contemporary sources, and in some cases of later
Pohtans 0f Kiev, which we observed between 1237 and 1378. Yet the ene- authorities, notably the testimony of Tatishchev, suggests, in my opinion,
ral terms in which Basil II's statement is couched and his mention ogf th that a number of metropolitans of Kiev in this period had, prior to their
immediate descendants of Vladimir I, seem to suggest that he was alluding consecration or confirmation by the patriarch, been nominated in Russia
Lqjiosradition which was thought in his time to go beck to the Kievan by the local authorities of Church and State, and that the Byzantine Patri-
archate, no doubt for reasons of temporary expediency, accepted and
tolerated this practice.
III We also considered the grounds, ecclesiastical and political, on which
The results of our inquiry must now be briefly summarized It has b this practice was founded. The Canon Law of the Eastern Church, in
shown that the text of Nicephorus Gregoras which mentions the Rusfsffin its prescriptions concerned with the appointment of bishops and metro-
Byzantine agreement stipulating that the metropolitans of Kiev were to politans, envisages the active participation of the local episcopate in
be appointed in accordance with the principle of alternate nationality _ the election and consecration of these dignitaries. Even the twenty-eighth
a text accidentally omitted from the Bonn edition of the ‘Io-ro ia ‘P " ’ canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which granted to the Patriarch of Con-
and consequently neglected by historians — deserves to be relstoredoptbuifs stantinople the power to consecrate the metropolitans of certain specified
proper place in the thirty-sixth book of Gregoras’ work, and should be con- ecclesiastical provinces - and which twelfth-century Byzantine canonists
sidered as a source providing
' ' fresh evidence
- . .
on the ecclesiastical relations took, with some casuistry, to apply to Russia as well — stipulated that the
metropolitans of those provinces were to be elected by the local bishops.
is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle (Povesf sa 1097 174- (3
fu . b tw th _ _’ , . .' , _p- ', _ross, p. 191). A een-
bifi1t(;,li e een e names Nicholas and Nicephorus is certainly within the bounds of possi- However, by the time the Russians were converted to Christianity, the
growing centralization of the Byzantine Church had caused the prerogative
"' Cf. note 125. of electing metropolitans to be transferred to the Patriarchal Synod in
 76 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM, KIEV AND MOSCOW 77
Co t tin 1 - . _ _
mtgjpiztafilzg ifaggnglefifiangnfi £91113-1'Ohflte, m accordance with a new ing or nominating him, is an outstanding and contemporary example of this
ecclesiastical diplomacy?“ It would be surprising if the Imperial govern-
Church should strictl sawalffn cub y held that the -Primate of the Russian
ment had not been prepared to concede a somewhat more modest privilege
in
TheConstantin
Bus . op,1e — s hyould
Pebe, m
.g’ other
e elected’
words, appomted
-an dpxiepefi;and °°n$e°1'9»t@d
éx Bvfiawiov 1” to the Russians, and to permit them, from time to time, to nominate their
sia
st.2:11:25’ ~ - -
ts on a number of
centuries — and claim illlh e- (Eleventh, twelflh’ fourteenth’ and fifteenth
'
- own candidate for the metropolitan see of Kiev. Such a concession would
have been all the more justified, since ]ustinian’s legislation on the appoint-
ment of bishops and metropolitans - which was included in the N0m0-
consecrated by their dwn l)eISll1g t lo have dhelr metropolitan elected and
O S’ m ' 0 I .

_ often a forced one — of C3.110II)1 Lawaccor ance Wlth than mterpretauon canon and in the Basilica - allowed the local authorities a leading part in
the electoral process, a clause of his 123rd novel even recognizing the right
Th nfli . ' . of the provincial bishops to consecrate their metropolitans, and since the
appointment to vacant metropolitan sees was acknowledged in Byzantium
the intervention of theCs)e::li}fla:'atethb)ltilhe
au ori es. 'I1llitms10n
e rincesof of
Political factors
Kiev and Mos and to lie within the emperor's legitimate sphere of interest.
.2;;...:..:.@;;“:i:"°“."*an
f H th d f
the I-qw
P . . .

rally anxious to hfve at an trPllihn1aI'ch m Orthodox Christendom’ were natu-

by
cow,
The often competing interests of the four different parties concemed in
the appointment of the metropolitan of Kiev — the Russian bishops, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, the Russian princes, and the Byzantine Em-
of their Church and son O f timfluence on lhe selection of the primates
peror — could, it seems, have been reconciled in the following manner:
known
Im _ to I have dhafed 1.l)IlI(1Ie
‘ erothe El?’tant, notably
but quitethe twelfth
overt, Century»
hegemony 31'e
cf the Whenever the requirements of Imperial diplomacy demanded it, the Rus-
f p$'ia overlord of their Byzantine metropolitans. The Byzantine emperors
sians were allowed to select their own candidate; this choice, however,
or ' . _ 1
agentselrcapargil regardfd 'll’16_met1'opohtans of Kiev as valuable diplomatic amounted simply to nomination, and was not considered by the authorities
, pa e of usmg their considerable moral and spiritual authority tc of the Byzantine Church to constitute a canonical election; the election —
e th d fxitht)’Pf:1s<:i$e¢11l'e
azilulihasce ili -
fthetilliance of the powerful Russian realm; in this case a PUI6 formality — was made by the Patriarchal Synod in Con-
stantinople, the 015110309 évS1q;im'Ja-a; finally, the candidate thus “elected” was
faced in this eriod with WI; or e ImPenal- govlernment’ so frequently
consecrated by the Patriarch, or, if he already possessed episcopal orders,
And yet £1St becaus $1 tatry and economic cmes’ a Prime necessity-
was formally proclaimed by him as the appointed metropolitan of Kiev.
nomic resodrdes comm ed dlfia was a country whose military and 660-
This procedure, which was resorted to during the appointment of the Rus-
Perors
bala couldf not £11a thtoanreahze
e. °that
’°‘P°°*
their °fBYZa11fiH<~= $tat@$m@I1,tl1e
aim of building em-
up a favorable sian Metropolitan Peter in 1308,19‘ and which the Byzantine Patriarchate
nce o '
actually recommended to the local authorities of Anchialus and Trebizond
in the early fifteenth century,‘”° must have been employed on a number of
estill knew
_ the wisdom _ ,. vlfliich thrl
eir0macy' The most
predecessors hadclefmsighted °f them
gained through long other occasions. While satisfying the desire of the Russian authorities to
XP£:1‘1ence of negotiating and fighting with the barbarians of acquiring have their own candidate appointed, it enabled the Church and government
us 111 d - . _ * _
of the Empire to achieve a compromise between the demands of canonical
nafional sddcggtibflggzfsllngdpoteflhhahifioes by hmely concesslons to their
rigidity (aixpifieia) and a policy of reasonable concessions (oixovoaia).
its northem nei hb l d , as - e tog.’ of the Empirek relations with
in g °1'5, an particularly with the Balkan Slavs, so clearly The working compromise on the nationality of the primates of Russia,
"Suites, these concessions were apt to include the antin t th described by Gregoras, would have fitted well into this pattem of ecclesi-
lite states of a measure of ecclesiastical self-gcvemmeff th 8 0 _e_ Set;l_
th1: E mperor B as 1.1 II about 1020 of the autonomy of the; Bulgariane recognition astical diplomacy. Whether the agreement between the Empire and Rus-
Church,y

:..:z;s::s; P , e ~* to be b.1.. ....

mperor reservmg for himself the right of appoint-
"‘ Cf. B. Granié, “Kirchenrechtliche Clossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios II. dem auto-
kephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenenPrivilegien,” Byzantion, 12 (1937), pp. 895-
415; Ostrogoi-sky, History, p. 276, note 1.
1”‘ Cf. supra, pp. 35-6.
‘°' Cf. supra, p, 47,
"° Cf. supra, pp. 4I—2.
78 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
sia, embodying this compromise, was made, as Gregoras himself believed,
at the time of Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity in the late tenth century,
or whether, as seems perhaps more likely, it was concluded in the first half
of the thirteenth century when the Imperial authorities resided in Nicaeaf"
its existence, which the evidence cited above tends, in my submission, to
confirm, may provide a further example of that genius for combining a
program of Imperial hegemony with a policy of concessions to the national
aspirations of Byzantium’s ecclesiastical satellites, which was displayed on
so many occasions by the Church and Empire of East Rome?”
"' Cf. supra, p. 34.
"" Some of the views expressed in this article were put forward in a tentative and pre-
liminary manner in a paper read by the author at a symposium on “Byzantium and the Slavs”
held at Dumbarton Oaks in April, 1952; also previously, in a shorter form, at the Eighth In-
ternational Congress of Byzantine Studies at Palermo in 1951. A brief summary of this com-
munication (“Le Patriarcat Byzantin et les métropolites de Kiev”) is printed in Atfl dello
VIII Congresso Intemazionale di Studi Bizantini, I (Rome, 1953), pp. 437-8 [Studi Bizantini
0 Neoellenicl, 7].

Dumbarton Oaks Paper, XI. Harvard University P|'e33 1957_

 VII BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA

relations with Russia, after a temporary eclipse due to the

Mongol invasions and to the Latin conquest of Constantinople,
revived in the fourteenth century,1 though the benefit they
brought to Byzantium was reduced by the fact that the Black
Sea trade was then controlled by the Genoese and the
Venetians. However, food supplies from the northern coast of
the Black Sea remained of vital importance to Constantinople,
and the expulsion in 1343 of the Genoese and the Venetians by
BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA IN THE the Tatars from the port of Tana near the estuary of the Don,
LATE MIDDLE AGES and the subsequent siege by the same Tatars of the Genoese
colony of Kaffa in the Crimea, resulted in an acute shortage of
bread and salted fish in the Byzantine capital and other cities
of the empire.’ Russian money was as necessary to Byzantium
as Russian raw materials. The authorities of Constantinople,
‘R ' 38 I have said
~ earher,
- - a highly
. faced with the financial ruin of their state, reduced to pawning
h 1115513, 1S populated country -
t e ength and breadth of the land occu ied b ' ' ' ’ the Crown jewels and to using leaden and earthenware goblets
t ll . _ p y its inhabitants at the feast of the emperor’s coronation in 1347,” were now, for
Faun‘? at a "faS11Y b6 measured , fhfi fl1111ual.produce harvested any extraordinary expense, wholly dependent on foreign aid. In
rom
_ its cro P s 1S v ery large and varied ,. a considerable amount of
silver is p rod uce d from there, mined - - the country; and I 346 an earthquake seriously damaged the church of St Sophia.
b in
ecause that . . The ruler of Muscovy sent a large sum of money for the repair
from the suncountry ls gr1PP¢d by cold owing to its distance of the building.‘ A further sum was sent in 1398 by the grand
, nature, as you would expect, breeds a large
number of thick-fleeced animals which are hunted and Wh()$¢ prince of Moscow, Basil I, to the aid of Constantinople,
h'd -
i es are exported by the local inhabitants . to every Othgr land blockaded at that time by the Turks; a donation intended, in
d - . . . . the words of a contemporary Russian chronicle, as ‘alms for
an Qty’ brmgmg thfim much gain And in the nei hbo ' those who are in such need and misery’.5 Each of these gifts was
ocean fishes are caught some of whose
' urmg
bones p1‘QV1d¢ usgful
obtained through the good offices of the primate of the Russian
°n.l°Ym¢1'1t for satraps and princes and kings and for nearl ll Church who, as an appointee of the patriarch of Constantinople
those who lead a refined life and are distinguished me Iyfa
bear to in
menti h ’ 11- OI‘- and the representative of the emperor, was expected to promote
Obtain ad((13i1:iOfi\A;)much more abundantwealth the Russians both the ecclesiastical and the secular interests of the empire in
description Written Y SXPOTHHS these Ob_]CCtS abroad.’1 This Russia. A further contribution from the Russians was sought in
B _ =h_ _ a out I 355 in Constantinople by thg 1400: the patriarch of Constantinople wrote to the primate, the
_ Yzantlne 1St0r1an Nicephorus Gregoras illustrat h
interest which the Byzantines retained after: four des If 1?‘ Metropolitan Cyprian, urging him, ‘as a friend of the Byzan-
centuries of t d ' ' - ’ . an 3‘ a tines’ (6); q>L7\0ppo'ap.ou.0g divflpomoq) to start another fund-raising
ra C Wlth Russlas in the economic resources of the campaign; he was to assure his Russian flock that it was more
°°‘mt1‘Y,
th t and particularly in the raw mat eria ' l s exported from
C S °PP¢S and forests north of the Black Sea. Their trade 1 For trade relations between Byzantium and Russia in the late Middle Ages,
see M. N. Tikhoniirov, Srednevokovaya Moskva v XIV—XV vekakh (Moscow, 1957),
8 1 NiceP h orus Gregoras, Hzstorzas
- - Byzantines,
. . xxxvi,, cap 21-2, iii (Ban -
hb 121-31 ; ‘Puti iz Rossii v Vizantiyu’, Vizantiiskie Ooherki, ed. Tikhomirov (Moscow,
I 5 ), 512. Th ' . ' -_ n
to (iscovcr, ovfiiggag lgéaitlalglgiégfi qeiéulumate sentence of this passage is hard 19 6* 1). 3-33 .
Nicephorus Gregoras, Hist. Byz., lib. xiii, cap. 12: ii, 683-6; cf. W. Heyd,
Phatthchewhite
F, is alluding to the
Sca and theivory obtaiiibd
Arctic Ocean fregorlis languagm
rzlifiittge gigléfitpf V' Parisot
wyalruses believed
aind narwhals Histoire du Commerce du Levant au Moyen Age, ii (Leipzig, 1936), 187-8.
instruments) ma uf t d f ' - ' ’ , _ ° _ “X ury_ 6 .g. m usic
' al ‘ See G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (Oxford, 1956), 469-70.
Grégmm (Paris, 1%5 ;=‘~)<i 1;Ié%_71éom it. Lwre XXXVII do Z Histoire Romaine de Nicéphore 4 Nicephorus Gregoras, Hist. Byz., lib. xxviii, cap. 34-6: iii, 198-200.
‘ Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, xi (St Petersburg, 1897), 168.
248 24-9
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
_ meritorious to contribute money for the defence of Con- _ _ . - 'th hich Byzantium had
stantinople than to build churches, to give alms to the p oloi‘, 'or tra-dmons of Kulvaln Rluifiaalnadsifilftiiiillly beneficial relations in
elI11J0Y6(l1 Plslliligllleagllglgl ffhc Musgovitfi princes, thrifty, persistent
to redeem prisoners: ‘for this holy City’, wrote the patriarch t eear y i - _ - f b- t Submis-
‘is the pride, the support, the sanctification, and the glory of t first a policy 0 3 J“ _
Christians in the whole inhabited world’.1
It was not for economic reasons alone that the Byzantines
H “-“d ““§iZ“§i.‘i1‘€§"§id‘Z§”ii$’§§.at.d
sivenes ’ embarked,
. with theh blesimg
f their boyars, on t 6
ms O
of the Church and the $11PP°rt 0 _ . B the
became, in the second half of the fourteenth century, increas- , - , f t Russia under their sway. y
ing
' 1y aware of the advantages to be derived from their relation s gatlhtfrilig fblhlrdgzih gefifdr:/rlzlhe power
fin
. ° - of
ses of its
Musc0VY 'had greatly
eventual triump h over
with Russia. The military and political situation of Byzantium
. .fi
]usti ed the gravest anxieties. The Ottoman Turks established incrlasighinglgf =lil1csi1<:a<:llii11i1ext to the support ¢°nS1S§f“‘1Y
1tS rlva . _ i h ‘b 1° fwhic was
in Europe since the middle of the century, took n6 more than
fou r d eca d es to seize
' '
most of what remained of Byzantine given to ‘ts rulers by the Russlfm chug/:[h t cWiS1illOn€ strong
growing in Russia that the prince of d oscowhi W Om day the
territory, conquer Bulgaria, and crush the resistance of the enough to stand up to the Tatars an to achi c f _th ac uircd
Serbian st a t e . B y t h e end of the century, except for its
' de- - ' ' f th country. T s 8.1 q
pendency in the Peloponnese and a few islands in the Ae ea lmbgtawebltitilil
su s anc , Ilgtdbrailllitnothe
, Russian tro0Ps» commanded byt
the empire was reduced to Constantinople, and the position 8 11>
of f d1¢Tatararmya
Dimitri, prlnce ofR1Moscc]1)\w(;,I1dt€]<é¢)81:1t;tmgOr?;‘T§, Russian Sources
the capital, blockaded by the Turks, seemed des p crate . It was Kuliklqyso theas Jigrgat tiiumph for Muscovy and for the
clear that only foreign military aid on a massive scale could save
the dying empire. The emperors’ hopes were mainly focused on hailt l “C Orv - ' tofview
Christian faith; gndglthfigzghlifiigmy a Z<-2:111:21
Moscow
obtaining help from the West :_]ohn V’s visit to Italy (1369-71)
f . . . _ . Kulikovo Prove a yrr 1 — ' —'t if ct on the
ailed to achieve anything, Manuel II’s Journey to Ital y, Pa ris '
and London (1399-1403) was not more successful; and the was Saclmd by a‘ Mongol vfsll/I‘<1>sb)ct)"wT1l1dbltll1i irlsidg 8.(I'1(l outside
H .
ungarian attempt to reconquer the Balkans from the Turks pmstigc of ths Rrmclpd ltyngiderable ,
o 0

came to ruin at the battle of Nicopolis ( I 396). In their desperate Russia’ was laltmg dfrlernment
Th; Byzantiifnetgng was of
the balancc well aware
power in ofthethese
landschanges
to the
searc h for allies, the Byzantine authorities could not fail to whic were a ec . - Middle
observe the significant changes that were taking place in the hl h, ce the with
north of tn: B1acl;1Sdqfl,1(:lnI}1aag;’tag ‘;_’ad°sC$§nizcd early Peculiar
second h a If o f t h e fourteenth century on the confines of eastern AQCS, {I16 1IT1PCI‘1 h fP- ndshi and of thfl PQOPICS WI10
Europe. In the Russian lands, which around 1300 had formed a
con . f . . . . . . careii Totfiinsure thfidrliifin a (pardinal principls of the empire,s
geries 0 petty principalities virtually independent of each
other and subject to the formidable power of the Golden Horde dW¢- t in - S arca ' ' - the mnth,
day in ' tenth an d e leventh
I
foreign policy during its lie)’. d mstige thmughout
two political structures had now emerged, competing for the centuries when Byzantine 11'1l'll.l€I1C€. an P d I
allegiance of the eastern Slavs: the grand duchy of Lithuania ’ ' ht ' in the fourteenth an ear y
eastern E111‘0P° We“? at than hag. ’ second-rate Power»
and the principality of Moscow. The territories of the former fifteenth centuries, Whfin Byzanuum was 3' ' lthan
comprised most of western and south-western Russia and since - - - 1' h dbecome more essentia _
3 9 fighting for 112: lligrsfigg gffiifilt :0 implement. The Byzantines,
about 1362, included the ancient Russian capital of Kiev;
uscovy, still the smaller of the two, was claiming with row- Ever. It waiillsltield two trump cards: ' the fascination exerted by
8
ing conviction and success, to embody the political and cultural
3 Owfiveri
- ' 1 n the minds of the men 0_f eastern
_
lillm
111°clpdtlir-0£Il3OI:I1t(:'n1l1I:1l;))’IlI:g0fOrCC
= _ of Orthodox Cl1I‘1SlZ1a.1'11lly>}?f
'1 as t e
1Tb ydzg xauxnbua 1'<'Iw eirrcotvrotZ ofi sq "g oi:-tou év "qr; xptortozvmv, " -ta which the BYZ&1'1t1I1CS were rfigardcd (at hast mm I439)
orifiptyua, cityiotop. e; xoti 177 8650: I) it Mg tor v otiirr) wiglcity ct. Acta Patriarchatus
Constantinopolitani, ed . F . Miklosich and I . Miille r, ii
results of this appeal are unknown.
" (Vienna, 1862), 361. The
1 Sec D. 0b<>1¢n=1*Y= s Th? P"“‘."
' '
1“ ahd Methods of Byzantine DiplOm9-CY’,
r i (Belgrade 1953). 45-61-
Actes du XII‘ C0"£'3‘ Intemamnal d Iyzan mes ,
2 50
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA

most authoritative exponents, and whose adnrinistrative centre policies and aspirations of the princes of Moscow. It was only
and spiritual heart were in Constantinople. In the absence of a natural that Moscow’s rivals for the still contested political
fircggn policyl based on power, the Byzantines were reduced in hegemony over Russia sought to deprive their opponent of the
D e ourtelent century to playing these cards as best they could, considerable moral and political advantages derived from the
firing t e period between I 350 and 1453, Byzantine foreign presence within the city walls of the chief bishop of the Russian
pohcy in eastern Europe was increasingly driven to rely on the Church. Their best hope lay in persuading the Byzantine
good oflices of the Church, whose supreme executive organ, the authorities to set up separate metropolitanates in their respective
Oecumenical Patriarchate, in striking contrast to the versatile territories. Throughout the fourteenth century Constantinople
opportumsm of the imperial government, was assuming the role was bombarded with such requests—from the princes of
of chief spokesman and instrument of the imperial traditions of Galicia, from the grand dukes of Lithuania and, in one case,
East Rome. Hence, in practical terms, the authorities of from the king of Poland; these demands, usually backed by
Byzantium were faced with a double programme of action: they promises, threats or financial bribes, were often successful; and
were impelled, on _the one hand, to consolidate and extend with bewildering and unedifying frequency the emperors and
the spiritual authority of the Oecumenical Patriarchate over the the patriarchs of Constantinoplel set up in the fourteenth
nations of eastern Europe; and, on the other, to ensure the century separate metropolitanates for Galicia and for Lithuania,
loyalty of these same nations to Byzantium by making dip10_ only to abolish them a few decades, or years, later.” The rise of
matic concessions to their national susceptibilities ' and this these splinter churches signified the retreat of the Byzantine
u , Q
particularly in the fourteenth century, meant granting ii authorities before the political or economic pressure of rulers
measure ofself-government to those churches outside the empire who controlled portions of west Russian territory; while their
which owed allegiance to the see of Constantinople. The fact successive abolitions represented as many concessions made by
that the empire’s foreign policy in eastern Europe was then the imperial government and Church to the wishes of the
primarily directed towards these two goals explains the Muscovite sovereigns who, for political reasons, were anxious to
Cl0tII11I1&lI;1Z role played by ecclesiastical affairs—and to a large exercise through their own metropolitans an ecclesiastical
ex em _ Y ¢¢Cl<f$13-Stffifll d1pl0inacy—in the history of Russo- authority over the Russian communities outside the boundaries
Byzantine relations in the period under review. of the Muscovite state. The Byzantine authorities undoubtedly
The ecclesiastical relations between Byzantium and the preferred to see a united Russian Church governed by a single
Rififialii lands in the fourteenth century _were mostly concemed primate: tradition, administrative convenience, and a re-
Wld t c lyeélced problem of the Jurisdiction, place of residence, luctance to submit to foreign secular pressures, caused them to
IE; ml:-rt Ip _of appointment of ‘the primates of the Russian
th urcd: ‘Hill. the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century 1 The prerogative of promoting bishoprics to the rank of metropolitanates was,
at least after 1087, generally considered to belong to the emperor. Alexius
C ese igmtaries, who were appointed by the patriarch of Comnenus issued a law to this effect: see Migne, P.G., cxxvii, cols. 929-32
onstantinople, resided in Kiev. In I 300, owing to the political (no. 7). Most Byzantine canonists seem to have accepted its propriety: see
Balsamon, In Can. XII Conc. Chalced., P.G., cxxxvii, cols. 432-3 (for a contrary view,
fragmentation of the realm, the devastations of Kiev by the however, see Zonaras, ibid., cols. 433-6); and in I3%5 this imperial prerogative
11;I°n_g°1$,hand the growing pOl1_ll1C8.l. ascendancy of north-east was vindicated once more by Matthew Blastares ( tfivroiviioc xovrciz orotxeiov,
ed. G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Efivrayua rifw Below xocl lepibv xowovoiv, vi (Athens,
lussia, _t e metropolitan moved his residence to Vladimir, i859), 274-6). Imperial initiative in the creation and abolition of metro-
w €I1C(il1I(li 1328 it was transferred to Moscow. These successive politanates naturally tended, whenever the sees in question were situated outside
the empire’s confines, to link very closely the decisions taken in Constantinople
moves a as yet no significance dejure, and the primate of the to organize or reorganize the ecclesiastical administration of these territories with
Russian Church retained until the mid-fifteenth century his the interests of Byzantine foreign policy.
' See E. Golubinsky, Istoriya riiiskqv tserkvi, ii, 1 (Moscow, I900), 96-7, 101-4,
traditional title of ‘Metropolitan of Kiev and of All Russia’ In i2 5-30, 147-8, 153-4, 157-60, 177-87, 190-3, 206-i i, 342, 388-9 ; A. M. Ammann,
practice, _ however, from the early fourteenth century the Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna, 1950), pp. 88-98, 106-io, 120-3;
A. V. Kartashev, Ocherki pa istorii russkqy tserkvi, i (Paris, 1959), 297-9, 303-4.,
metropolitans increasingly identified themselves with the 313-23, 332-3. 338, 346-
252 253
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
favour a centralized solution; and in the second half of the towards the Byzantine empire, an attitude closely linked with
fourteenth century this solution became the more acceptable to the development of post-medieval Russian nationalism.
them, as it coincided with the wishes of the Muscovite rulers, All these factors were already present in some degree in the
whose power commanded increasing respect, and whose circumstances that attended the appointment 1354: if £25
military and economic resources the empire in its dire pre- Russian bishop Alexius as metropohtan of iev an
dicament so desperately needed. Russia. The decree of the Synod Of thfi BYZantm° Church’
The problem of the extent of the Russian metropolitans’ signed by the Patriarch Philotheus on 30th June of that year,
jurisdiction was bound up with the question of how, and by states unequivocally that the Synod’s decision to fl..pp91I'1l£‘
whom, they were to be appointed. On this question the Byzan- Alexius was influenced by the wishes of the great king o
tines and the Russians held strong, and often conflicting, views. Russia} But it also claims that the appointment Of 91 119-t1V¢ to
The former, who regarded the metropolitans of Russia as the metropolitanate of Russia is an unusual and dangerous
valuable diplomatic agents, capable of using their moral and step, which must not be regarded as a precedent. This synodal
spiritual authority to ensure the loyalty of their Russian flock decree at times evasive and disingenuous, clothed in the expert
to the empire, were naturally anxious to retain control over the phraseblogy of East Roman diplomacy, is remarkable for its
appointment and consecration of these dignitaries; and, for desire to satisfy the demands of the Muscovite authorities,_and
equally obvious reasons, the Muscovite sovereigns, while for its assertion that the appointment of a native Russian 1S by
accepting the principle that their metropolitans were to be no means customary nor safe for the Church’. The first of these
approved and consecrated by the patriarchs of Constantinople, features can be explained by the political and (j3CClC}S11ifli1t1§l?l
wished to have as much influence as possible on their selection. situation in eastern Europe: in I 354, the very year in w c_ ‘c
These conflicting claims were for a long time resolved by com- Ottomans established themselves on European soil at Galhpoli,
promise: fi‘om I237 to I378 Byzantine and Russian candidates and in which the Venetian ambassador to Constantinople
were, with striking regularity, appointed in turn by the informed his government that the Byzantines would readily
patriarchs to the metropolitan see ofKiev and All Russia. There submit to any power that would save them from the Turks and
are grounds for believing that this regular alternation was the the Genoese,” the East Roman government was not unnaturally
result of a special agreement concluded between the Byzantine disposed to lend a favourable ear to the demands of a friendly
and the Russian authorities} The problems involved in the state from which at least economic assistance could be expected
appointment of the metropolitans of Russia became the central —the principality of Moscow and its ‘great king’. The patriarch,
issue in the diplomatic relations between Byzantium and too, had his reasons for being conciliatory towards the Mus-
Muscovy in the late Middle Ages. Its historical importance far covite ruler. Philotheus consistently strove to consohdate the
transcends the level of the obscure and often discreditable authority of the see of Constantinople over the nations of
manoeuvres ascribed to both parties in the documents of the eastern Europe. The Balkan Slavonic churches were in 1354
time. Behind these dubious operations, affecting their outcome slipping away from his control; the more reason for making sur?
or flowing from their cause, we can discern the diplomatic of the continued loyalty of the Russians, the most numerous o
techniques employed by the Byzantine patriarchate and by the the foreign proselytes of Byzantium. Yet tlns concession to the
Muscovite experts on foreign affairs ; the conflict and alignment Russian demands must have been costly to the patriarch’s
of different ecclesiastical programmes within Byzantium and conscience‘ for it involved a betrayal of his conviction that the
Russia; the changing pattem of power politics in eastern Church should not submit to any form of secular prcsSur6-
Europe; and—the most significant in the long run of these
factors—the slow crystallization in Muscovy of a new attitude d ' ' t d in Acta Patriarchatus Comtantinopolitani, _i,
33l5-’I41c1>(?'1t"Iii:t l\(;IillSt:1;Vll:c;:§n(l:_iI;rlIér:I1C(Zl 6 p.éY§¢Q t5fi§,__ 31% aclinoyvledgment is
‘ See D. Obolensky, ‘Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow. A Study in Ecclesiastical made of the pre-erriinence of his power (1§flEP°XYl E5"lY'-KT)‘; W0 0“; -
Relations’, Dumbarton’ Oaks Papers, xi (1957), 23-78. ' See Ostrogorsky, H1’-$300? Q)’ the Bilanilm S14", 473» 475-
254 255
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
Philotheus was a leading member of the party of ‘zealots’ in the as we learn from a Byzantine source,1 the patriarch’s commis-
Byzantine Church, who, in opposition to the ‘politicians’ or sion of inquiry found these accusations devoid of substance, and
‘moderates’, insisted on the freedom of ecclesiastical appoint- was impressed by Alexius’ immense popularity in Muscovy.
ments.1 The acceptance of a candidate for a high ecclesiastical He was allowed to retain his authority over the Muscovite
post in deference to the wishes of a secular ruler—and a foreign Church.”
one at that—was a serious derogation of the principle of These dubious manoeuvres were scarcely calculated to
‘strictness’ in the application of canon law and a capitulation enhance the popularity of the emperor and patriarch in
to his opponents who, in accordance with the opposite principle Muscovy. The Russians found it hard to forgive the humilia-
of ‘economy’, believed that the Church in its relations with the tions which the Byzantine authorities had so unjustly imposed
secular powers, both at home and abroad, should not in- on the Metropolitan Alexius, who was not only a highly
transigently reject all concessions and compromises. This respected spiritual leader, but something of a national hero.
painful dilemma in which Philotheus found himself in 1354. 13 54 no The patriarch’s decision to appoint Cyprian as primate of All
doubt accounts for his cavalier treatment of historical truth: for Russia while the case of Alexius was still sub jua'ice—taken in
the Synod’s bland assertion that the appointment of a native order to please the Lithuanian ruler—was, despite the fact that
Russian to the see of Kiev and All Russia was ‘by no means it was later rescinded, felt to be a bitter humiliation. The
customary’ is contradicted by the fact that for the past 1 1 7 years Byzantines themselves were impressed by the ‘great tumult’,
there had been—if Alexius himself is included in the list—— list- the ‘uproar’, and the ‘attitude of revolt’ which this affair
three Russian and three Byzantine holders of this post.2 provoked all over Russia.3 And in I1378
378 Cyprian complained
The Synod’s resolve not to tolerate any more Russian metro- that as a result of these events the Muscovites ‘were abusing the
politans proved wholly ineffectual, for during the six years that Patriarch, the Emperor, and the Great Synod: they called the
elapsed after Alexius’ death in 1378, the patriarchate agreed on Patriarch a Lithuanian, and the Emperor too, and the most
three different occasions to the appointment of a native honourable Great Synod’.4
primate.“ Its inconstancy was further demonstrated by its But worse was to come. In 1379, a year after Alexius’ death,
failure to give adequate support to Alexius himself, who until his successor-elect, the Russian cleric Michael Mityai, chosen by
1361 had the greatest difliculty in maintaining his rights over the grand prince of Moscow and already accepted by the
Kiev against Olgerd, grand duke of Lithuania, and his nominee, patriarch, set out from Moscow to Constantinople for his con-
Roman, whom the patriarch had appointed metropolitan of secration. But as the Russian ships sailed down the Bosphorus,
Lithuania in 1354. In I1373
373 the Patriarch Philotheus sent an a few miles from his destination, Michael suddenly died. His
envoy to Russia, to investigate the complaints received from the Russan escort, thoughtfully provided by the prince of Moscow
Lithuanian ruler about Alexius’ conduct. Two years later this with blank charters adorned with his seal and signature, and
patriarchal envoy, Cyprian, was appointed by the patriarch
with a considerable sum of money, used the former to sub-
metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, with the proviso that the stitute the name of one of their party, the Archimandrite
latter half of his title, which implied jurisdiction over the Pimen, for that of the defunct Michael, and distributed the
Muscovite Church, would become effective as soon as the
accusations against Alexius could be substantiated. However, * The decree of the Patriarchal Synod of June 1380: Acta Patriarchatu: Patriarcliatus Con-
stantinopolitani, ii, 12-18.
' See Golubinsky, op. cit., ii, I, 1, 182-215; Ammann, op. cit., 95-loo; 95-ioo; Kartashev,
1_On the_ ‘zealot’ and the_‘mode1-ate’
1_Qn tlie_‘moderate’ parties in the Byzantine Church, see A. op. cit., i, 317-22.
Vasiliev, Hzstorjy
History qf the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1952), 659-70. * ®poi3c;
Opoiic; 8’€m.YsEpe'rou.
8’€1t|.YsEpe1.'ou. |.tEv
uev r:7\e'i.'o'ro<; &v6r.
dwdr. 'n.'5'£o'otv
nioav 'n‘;v pmctxfiv ErmpxlotvErtetpxlotv xozl
mil.
2 On this point, and for an analysis of the Synodal decree of3oth_]une, 1354, see ordtotq xotl.
ardtotq ital. dxkqotc
dxkqotq 015 p.t.xpo't:
p.txpo't: Synodal decree of I380: 1380: Acta Patriarchatus Constan-
Obolensky, ‘Byzantium, Kiev K_iev and Moscow’, loc. cit., 37-4.4.
37-44. tinop0l1'tan1',ii,
tinopolitani, ii, 14.
' See Obolensky, op. _c1t.,
_cit., 4,3,
43, n. 82. Later, however, the Patriarchate was ‘ Russkaya Istoric/uskaya Biblioteka, vi (St Petersburg, 1880) 1880),, col. 185;
185 ; the abusive
more successful in enforcing its will: there were no native metropolitans of Russia term ‘Lithuanian’ was clearly intended to suggest that by appointing Cyprian the
between 1390 and 1448. Byzantine authorities had shown favouritism to the Grand Duke of Lithuania,
Muscovy’s political rival and enemy.
256 257 s
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
money as bribes to officials in Constantinople. With the help of the authority over Russia of the patriarch but not of the
these forged documents they persuaded the Patriarch Nilus to emperor is, as Antony points out, a contradiction in terms: for
corisecrate Pimen as ‘Metropolitan of Kiev and Great Russia’. ‘it is not possible for Christians to have the Church and not to
This sordid and disreputable deal, for which the Russian envoys have the empire. For Church and empire have a great unity
and the officials of the Byzantine patriarchate must bear joint and community; nor is it possible for them to be separated
responsibility,1 resulted in a period of extreme confusion in the from one another’. And, in an attempt to save Basil I from the
affairs ofthe Russian Church, which lasted for twelve years and consequences of his grievous error, and in pursuance of his own
ended with the acceptance by the Muscovites of Cyprian as duty as ‘universal teacher of all Christians’, the patriarch
metropolitan of Russia (1390). solemnly reiterates the fundamental principle of Byzantine
The Muscovite Prince Dimitri, who on these two occasions political philosophy: ‘The holy emperor,’ he writes, ‘is not as
(in 1375-6 and in i379—8o) found himself a victim of these other rulers and governors of other regions are . . . he is
machinations of Byzantine diplomacy, could hardly have been annointed with the great myrrh, and is consecrated basileus and
expected to entertain feelings ofgoodwill towards the authorities autokrator of the Romans—to wit, of all Christians’. These
of Constantinople, and especially towards the emperor, whose other rulers exercise a purely local authority; the basileus alone
influence on the appointment of the metropolitans ofRussia was is ‘the lord and master of the inhabited world’, the ‘universal
I-1S_ua._lly_ only too apparent. It is, however, in the reign of emperor’, ‘the natural king’ whose laws and ordinances are
Dimitri’s son and successor, Basil I (1389-1425), that Qcgurmd accepted in the whole world. His universal sovereignty is made
the first recorded instance of a revolt by the Russians, not indeed manifest by the liturgical commemoration of his name in
against the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church, but the churches of Christendom; and, as the patriarch’s letter
against the claims of the Byzantine emperors to exercise a unequivocally implies, the grand prince of Moscow by dis-
measure of direct jurisdiction over the whole Orthodox continuing this practice within his realm had deliberately
Christian world. Some time between 1394 and 1397” Antony rejected the very foundations of Christian law and govern-
IV, patriarch of Constantinople, sent a letter to Basil I of ment.1
Moscow, rebuking him for having caused his metropolitan to There are few documents which express with such force and
omit the_emperor’s name from the commemorative diptychs of clarity the basic theory of the medieval Byzantine state. The
the Russian Church.” The patriarch reprimanded the Muscovite Patriarch Antony’s letter contains a classic exposition of the
ruler for having expressed contempt for the emperor and having doctrine of the universal East Roman empire, ruled by the
made disparaging remarks about him. He took a particularly basileus, successor of Constantine and vicegerent of God, the
grave view of the fact that the Russian sovereign had declared: natural and God-appointed master of the Oikoumene, supreme
‘We have the Church, but not the emperor’. To acknowledge law-giver of Christendom, whose authority was held to extend,
at least in a spiritual and ‘metapolitical’ sense, over all Christian
‘ Oqr principal sources for the history of this affair are the fourteenth-century
8&8 0_ the Synods of Constantinople and the sixteenth-century Muscovite rulers and peoples. The fact that this uncompromising pro-
_ ronicle of Nikon. Golubinsky (op. cit., ii, 1, 242 ff.) and Kartashev (op. cit., fession of faith was made from the capital of a state that was
i, 323-303) suppose, on somewhat inadequate evidence, that this fraudulent deal
was initiated by the Byzantine ofiicials. On the other hand, an attempt (likewise facing political and military collapse, only emphasizes the
Lll?COlI(l1V1I'lC1Ilg) to exonerate the Patriarch and to place the entire blame on the astonishing strength and continuity of this political vision which
s gu ers of the Russian envoys, is made by A. A. Takhiaos (’Em8pd;oet.<;
1:0 ijouxotouou elr; rijv éxxlnatuortxijv noltrtxiqv év ‘Pcoolqt, 1328-1406 pervades the entire history of the Byzantine body politic. ‘The
(Tliessalonica, 1_962), pp._ 113-15). doctrine of one oecumenical Emperor,’ writes Professor
492 Fr?!‘ Ithe dating of this letter, see Ostrogorsky, History qf the Byzantine State,
, . . 1 ‘Hear what the prince of the Apostles, Peter, says in the first of his general
R ' The text. is prmted in Acta _Patnarcha_tu.s Constantinopolitani, ii, 188-92 , cf. epistles, “Fear God, honour the King”. He did not say “Kings”, lest any man
usskaya Istorwheskaya _Bzblzoteka, vi, Appendix 40, cols. 265-76: an English trans- should think that he had in mind those who are called kings promiscuously among
lation of about two-thirds of the letter can be found in Social and Political Thought the nations; he said “the King”, showing thereby that the universal King is one.’
in Byzantium, ed. Ernest Barker (Oxford, 1957), 194-7, Acta Patr. Con.stant., ii, igi ; Barker, op. cit., 195.
258 959
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
Ostrogorsky, ‘had never been laid down more forcibly or with . - ' ’ 1
source of all piety and the teacher of law and sanctification .
more fiery eloquence than in this letter which the Patriarch of This statement clearly implies the.existence_of an earher letter
Constantinople sent to Moscow from a city blockaded by the —not extant—written by the Russian sovereign to the emperor,
Turks.’1 in which the former explicitly aCl<n;>W1¢<(11g§d the 1¢€%l:::1a‘:;
What significance should we attach to the refusal of the authority of the baszleus over Russia. An 111_ I452» Y
Muscovite sovereign to recognize, in the late fourteenth century, before the fall of Constantinople, the grand prince of Moscow,
the universalist claims of the Byzantine emperor? This question Basil II, wrote to the last emperor of Byzantlllms C<t?11i$Ig‘11::1I1€:‘i
can best be answered by considering how far, and in what sense, 0 G
XI, in these terms: You have received yourllglifa Ortllfodox
these claims were acknowledged in Russia before and after the sceptre, your patrimony, in order to confirm a tte to our
reception of the patriarch’s admonitory letter by Basil I. Direct Christians of your realm and to render great assis ance
evidence on this point is not abundant, and doubtless for good Russian dominion and to all our religion’? The ldfia that 1116
reason: the Russian rulers, however genuine their reverence for emperor enjoys certain prerogatives in Russ? 15, th°1t18}1(1tsVf1I1;is
the city of Constantinople and its supreme authorities, were in diplomatic language, clearly apparent int eie igv0 :1tin-C col-
always careful to safeguard their own political prerogatives and universal authority was further emphasizedin t 6 Yza _
anxious, within the scope allowed them by their Mongol over- lections ofcanon and imperial law which enjoyed great authority
lords, to be seen to exercise their national sovereignty. Some in Russia throughout the Middle Ages.“ And the teachers an f
indication of their attitude to the emperor of Byzantium has guardians of canonical rectitude in Russia, the prlmfllfis 0
nevertheless been preserved in the documents of the time. In the the Russian Church, could be expected, especially when they
late thirteenth or early fourteenth century a Russian ruler is were Byzantine citizens, tp instil in their ‘flock a(1}1ha_\:;-Zgglrfril
said to have borne the Byzantine court title of ‘steward of the reverence for the emperor s supreme position in ri _ -
Emperor’s Household’1—a sign of his recognition of the It would be quite misleading to try to interpret the relatigns
traditional right of the emperor to bestow such titles on dis- between the emperor and the princes of Ruiia in germsiiqittinfili
tinguished subjects or dependent princes; and the same ruler is of medieval suzerainty and vassalagfif, 01' Oft C $11: ‘énzamincs
said to have sent an envoy to Andronicus II, who conveyed to tion between sovereign and dependent states. t_ e Zfcastem
the emperor ‘the reverent homage’ of his Russian master.“ The ‘themselves sometimes thought ofthe Cl1i‘1Sf.12l1'1I521d1OI1Sib€d their
authenticity of this form of address is possibly suspect, and its Europe in terms of Roman admimstration, an. escr 1 f
servility may reflect no more than the wishful thinking of the relationship to the imperial government with the hefp 19
Byzantine author who records the event. But it is not impossible . ' t
techmcal terms once used to designate the statgis 9 Hi;
that the Byzantine title was borne by at least one Russian ruler. ‘foederati’ and ‘socii popuh Romani , autonomous su _]€C -a
The next piece of evidence comes from the mid-fourteenth of the Roman empire.“ However, in the last resort, any attempt
century. In a letter written in September 1347 to Symeon, the
grand prince of Moscow, the Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus , - 1 ‘ 1 ‘ o'er 1:06 6:06 p.eYo'0m
stated: ‘Yes, the Empire of the Romans, as well as the most holy t><:<iiiei‘:Gi:’i‘aoi:Ut‘Y‘Po§=’i>=1;‘mx“§ti£‘g’i’ &T);?"lOi1?i‘"x°“a°'éh$a£<"’:=‘l5¢l:‘i¢ W 8'-8°f5°"°‘.}~,‘§'=
, I - , 0 I 0 . e

voiiofiecilotq 1': xotl. eiyiaouoii. Acta Patrtarchatus omtantmopolitani, 1, 2 3

Great Church of God is—as you yourself have written—the - - l .
“‘¥°iZ‘”..fZ‘y"’L’l°§f‘03§h3.§?‘§Z§°§?‘fhZ‘§’fl‘%Z’?Z?‘1§i?;Z’51 John <1m<=u=<=ms-. We
q - 2 1 , ‘ ‘ IV C3-P. I (Bonn)! 111! 94"
6 Buotksuq "row Pmooiv. Cantacuzenus, HMWW» '. ‘ii Id haw
1 History of the Byzantine State, 4?2.
1 A rough English equivalent o 6 (ml. ‘r-fir; rpunéllnq.
It <=-=1 b= ==g~d=d s
dreamt of acknowledging that the asi sus was
s R 1;
‘t°‘”~F"°" *htt.:°..%r:::i.‘i::..:'si.
It ' he k a Biblioteka, vi, col._ 577-
p
s =0 Bqtatlebq 56)» 'P.¢1>q 6 inl. 1-‘tit; rpunéfinq 1."7]:; Eitylatq gotatltelciq aou 4 5;" jag- 1‘)i;,‘§_k¢fn‘§,‘:,, Wart’ Moskovskikh Gosudarqy (S1 P°1°"b1"'8»
npooxuvet Souktxtoe 1'i;v_ at-yiotv Baatlelotv sou: H. Haupt, Ne_ue eitrage zu den . . . .. . -6; V 1889)»
'1' ,
13-g20;l§1.RSok_olov, Ru.Esk); etierkgwggzglgiiéqntfij $263)» 35"9» 305 asi iev
Fragmenten des Dio Cassius , Hermes, xiv (1879) , 4.45 ; see also Nicephorus Gregoras
(Hist. By/z_., lib. vii, cap. 5,__i, 239) ; cf. A. Vasiliev, ‘Was Old _Russia a vassal state Wit-tsce F. 1fimik,
avassa so
‘Byzantine _
Political -1
Ideas ',in Kievan
". ' Russia
-, , Dumbarton Oaks
of Byzantium?’, Speculum, vii (1 932) , 353-4 ; Obolensky, Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow,
3o-1, ns. 32, 41. 6
Pa€‘S’iieb‘O,6dlIefgkj:,7'lL-Iii Qlifinoiples and Methods Qf BJ'Z4"‘i"‘ D1Pl°'"4‘)’o 56"8'
26o 26 1
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
to define the political relations between Byzantium and Emgm
sent a largecsunimolffinllqnpgltczzxltlltilethg erorofManuel II respect
profound for the
medieval Russia in precise legal or constitutional terms will
Obscure and distort their true picture. It is certain that, in d“fi1‘1nCch‘)h Ollswe have? seen Basil I’s successor addressed the
practice, the Russian sovereigns would never have tolerated, int‘; W ale eh?before the fall of Constantinople strongly Suggests
except in ecclesiastical matters, any direct intervention of the tliztmio lbng as this city remained in Christian hands, the
emperor in the internal affairs of their principalities; and that Russians never again revolted against the ordered hierarchy
their relationship to the basileus was something different from of the Byzantine Oikoumene.
their very tangible allegiance to the khans of the Golden Horde
who, between 1240 and 1480, imposed tribute and conferred The preceding survey will have suggested that the attitude of
investiture upon them.1 But at the same time it cannot be . - - ' A to
the Russians towards Byzantium in the late Mlddlfi 8'65 W?Sth
doubted that from the conversion ofRussia to Christianity in the ked employcd
a I3?-11;)ds degree ambiguous : thus theirauthorities
by the Byzantine strong resentmfint 0
in the second¢
tenth century to the fall of Byzantium in 1453, the Russian m .
authorities—with the sole recorded exception of Basil I of half of the fourteenth century in ' '
making appointment s t o th e
Muscovy—acknowledged, at least tacitly, that the basileus was Russian metropolitan see did not prevent them from contribut-
the supreme head of the Christian commonwealth, that as such in enerous sums of money for the architectural and military
he possessed by divine right a measure of jurisdiction over gtf f Constantin0P1e' and Basil I’s ill-temP¢1’Cd gesture of
Russia, and that, in the words of the Patriarch Antony, ‘it is not Ifieavficfo
ra against the emperor’s authority
_ should not obscure - the
possible for Christians to have the Church and not to have the fact that both his predecessors and his successor recognized, at
empire’. The difficulty of reconciling the national aspirations of - ' ' ' ' ‘ b 'l . This
least tacitly, the oecumemcal jurisdiction ofotlge Z this
the Russian sovereigns of the Middle Ages with their acceptance emotional polarity in the Russia-I1 1‘¢SP°11sc _ Y _ ’ bl
of the emperor’s supremacy will largely disappear if Russo- complex amalgam of attraction and repu1S10T1,h1$htraC¢a_ C
Byzantine connections are viewed not from the standpoint of . 0 ' 5 I 0 t
through the entire history of Russia s relations wit _ e emp. st
modern inter-state relations, nor in terms—unhappily fashion- The memories of the wars waged by the ' Russiansdagain
able—of a struggle between Russian ‘nationalism’ and Byzantine . . ' ' e
Byzantium in the tenth century, whose .more vivid _¢P1$°d es WE;
‘imperalism’, but in the context of a supra-national community dl recorded by Russian chromclers, contribute to e
of Christian states—the Byzantine Oikoumene ofwhich Constanti- p'mu fy national heroic tradition which left its mark on the
nople was the centre and the whole of eastern and south-eastem nSiin(lry"‘s
C0 medieval literature ' in the struggle for native
3 metro- I

Europe the domain——and which, as most Russians thought until _ . - d h d its

politans, which began in the eleventh century an reac e
1453, was destined to foreshadow on earth the Heavenly climax in the fourteenth, the Russians came to resent the
Kingdom, until the last days and the coming of Antichrist.” ' ' tence of the patriarchs on selecting their own . candidates
insis
We have no direct knowledge of the effect which the whgn they felt strong enough to do so, and to despise th e ease _
patriarch’s letter had on Basil I. It seems likely that the with which whenever the empire was weak, the BYZan11nc
emperor’s name was restored before long to the diptychs of the au thorities yielded on this issue to Russian secular pressure - or
Russian Church: for already in 1398 the Muscovite government - 1 th erior
1° the lure °fMuSF0v1tl‘ gold’ ‘imd mlfre gegliialtbwafdiulliussia
skill of the Byzantine diplorilatlstss W °$¢ P _Y _ d
1 It is noteworthy, however, that the title of tsar (the equivalent of borileus) was,
in general, applied by the Russiansdin this period only to the Byzantine emperor was aimed
. at securing military- and economic 3.i1S1Sl%€lzl]C€, stan-
an
an to the khan of the Golden Hor e.
‘For the idea of the Byzantine Oilcoumene, see the following studies by G. ensufmg ‘ha loyaltll of h.eRusslfnf to tlfetlifildilclolfllatifzngame
Ostrogorsky, ‘Avtokrator i Samodriac’, Glas Srpske Akademije Nauka, clxiv tinople,1 tended to instil in the victims o 1 P
(Belgrade, 1935), 95-187; ‘Die _byzantinische Staatenhierarchie’, Seminarium
Kondakovianum : Reeuezl d’Etudes, vui (Prague, 15936), 41-61 ; ‘The Byzantine
1 S b 3 ' . . In ' " ' ,
Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order’, The tavonic and East European Review,
xxxv (1956-7), 1-14. 1 S66 l\/Il)Y\f. lisevchenko, Ooherki pa istom russko-vlzdfltttsttt/‘,1 “"0-‘h‘"J’ (M°3°°W
=95 6 ) , 4-41 andpassim. 263
262
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
of chess a distrust of Byzantine motives and a conviction that and in close contact with the contemplative schools of Byzantine
‘ h s . . . ,
ntl0e1eGr¢?;1l: iawlpre. political intriguers and niueh too fond of hesychasm.1 But the prevailing attitude of the Russians towards
thfi prigsent daP’ °1‘1_$IT1dtbe Greeks have remained tricksters to Byzantium was not simply that of pupil to master: it was, in a
sense, more simple and spontaneous, and is perhaps best epit-
or early tW6lftll,(lTC(l'l)1I1li11I‘cy , 2 was
Y a Ruflslalh
no Cflromcler of thg clevtmh
' omized in their reverence for the city of Constantinople, which,
qugted in medieval Russia. on t mquently and pomtedly in their own language, they called Tsargmd, the Imperial
1 fl‘ ‘hm accumlflflted 1e8aCY Of pride, bitterness and distrust City. In the eyes of the Russians—and indeed of all eastern
pa e before the vision, revealed to the Russians of the Middle Christendom—Constantinople was a holy city not only because,
Iiltfllges, what Byzantium stood for in the things of the mind and being the New Rome, it was the seat of the basileus and of his
t e spirit. The immensity of the debt which their country owed spiritual counterpart, the oecumenical patriarch. The city’s
to _ th e civ
' il'ization
' ' was apparent wherever they
of the empire essential holiness lay in the supernatural forces abundantly
Iilllglflt look: religion and law, literature and art, bore witness to present within its walls: the many relics of Christ’s passion and
t e t lifzt
Cultuigl th 1:113 Russians,
' - -
for all the 0I‘1g1I‘l3.l. . their
features in . of the saints; the numerous churches and monasteries, store-
In the fou>rtc thttens grid Stlu Were, the pupils of East Rome. houses of prayer and famed shrines of Christendom; and above
_ en an early fifteenth centuries Byzantine all the patronage ofthe city’s heavenly protectors, the Divine Wis-
3111
mfl‘1@n¢¢$,.efter _a period of decline due to the Mongol dom, whose temple was St Sophia, and the Mother of God, whose
tine paiz’tg’:e1'FhreV1;1n£’I 111 RUSSIE}; and the work of the Byzan- robe, preserved in the church ofBlacher1iac, was venerated as the
Russia and r de°Pd"11fi§5> W110 lived for some thirty years in city’s Palladium.” These visible signs of divine favour sur-
_ p o uce is masterpieces in Novgorod and (after rounded Constantinople in the eyes of all eastern Christians
1395) In MOSCOW, Shows how close was the connection between with an aura of sanctity which could only be rivalled by the
1 - . . .
ate medieval Russian painting and the Palaeologan art of glory ofJerusalem : indeed, Constantinople was often thought of
GOI1Si2lI1lL1I'10plC.3 The devotion of the Russians to the mother as the New Jerusalem. The Russian pilgrims and travellers
O;’v(g:I;)SIlZi2:11;1tI'i1£lIL)laC and to its patriarchs was, despite the who visited the city in the late Middle Ages and whose writings
have come down to us display, before the number of its
and
_d notf once > _at least until)p0mtrd?dltS‘
_ I439, 1 theygenuine and
seriously profqund‘
entertain the relics and the holiness of its sanctuaries, the same open-eyed
1 ea 0 §e"¢1'1118 their canonical dependence on the see of wonder and religious awe which they reveal in their descrip-
g$_’i”S‘5t‘i‘;1I§1i1;:P:1l;§0:V:1l11<i3:1l:)Afea3t bplpk to the.earlY days of'Ru_ssian tions of the Holy Land ;3 more than one of them dwells on the
tion. The Byzantine meg; Y _ ere was indeed much justifica- breath-taking beauty of the church of St Sophia, and on the
opolitans of Russia were for the most loveliness of the liturgical chanting therein; and occasionally
P3-Ft Werthy and zealous men; the emperors and the patriarchs they seem to catch an echo of that excitement with which
;l”;1:isl‘1fti:1nR€J<?S1;il1a1h\‘2:l'dclqncerned to see _ the Christian. faith the envoys of Prince Vladimir of Russia are said to have des-
traditions of COn;tantin0l1lSS13.l'1 Cilrnfiasticism, nurtured _in the cribed to their sovereign the public worship in St Sophia in
the late tenth century: ‘We knew not whether we were in
second half of the
the leadership ofstfourtee
Ser _ n ihecentury
an ount Athos’
powerfully itsm
reviving the
under heaven or on earth; for on earth there is no such beauty or
gius ofthe Monastery of the Holy Trinity splendour’.‘1 For the Russians of the Middle Ages Constanti-
1 It is not th th ' - .
nople was indeed, as it was for its own citizens, ‘the eye of the
Slavs, invarighljf referrefd iii $6 "}(1]fft2RCLff1aé.IIi1s(,l fiaoiviislllfhs the‘ Balkan
a -1-he R - - . , 1 ornaiot. " 1 For the hesychast influences upon the monastic school of St Sergius, see
Peretts and“ Pfiiiefiloifih (Foam wminnykh “"’- Cd’ V’ P1 A““""°""' Takhiaos, op. cit., 42-60.
Cross and O_ P 'ShcrbOwit W °3°°Wi I950)_, 1, 50; English translation by S. H,
a Scc V. N .Lazarcv ‘E-t ectlzor (Cambridge, Ma,’sg_, 1953)‘? 33_ 1‘ See N. H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), 24o-60.
1' See Itinéraires russes en Orient, translated by Mme B. De Khitrowo, i, 1 (Geneva,
1953), 244-58" 1889).
€Moscow, ,96I5_ viii (1 95,6) ' Iyu
43 _’§ 5»cl 11*
-Fcofanc
(1956),Grcke ’ V‘z““““"9’
193-210; Vffmmikl
Feqfan Grek V11
i ego shkola ‘ The Russian Primary Chronicle, i, 75; English translation, 111.
264 265
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
faith of the Christians’ and ‘the city of the world’s desire’. 1 In the course of the next twenty years a number of works
dealing with the Council of Florence were produced in
ta Th_<i:1 yiisioni
' ' '
of C_onstantinople as the New Jerusalem was Muscovy; they included a brief and artless travelogue by a
Grills _6 an partially. obscured in Russia as a result of the member of the Russian delegation to the Council; a slightly
ouncil of Florence, which marks a decisive turn in the relations longer and far more informative report, later included in
b elwccn
t -
Muscovy and Byzantium. . on 6th
The proclamation several sixteenth-century Muscovite chronicles; two successive
J11: Y, £439, of the union between the Greek and the Latin versions of an account of the Council and of its reception in
c urc es was an event of .l'I'lEl_]OI‘ importance for the whole of Muscovy by the monk Symeon, another member of the Russian
Christendom: but it was in Russia that its long-term efllggtg delegation; and finally, A Selection from Holy Scripture against the
¥;1;6 L12;éI1?1Stbf3.I‘]?I‘.il3.Cl'l.II1g and significant? Russian delega- Latins and the Story 0]‘ the Convocation of the Eighth Latin Council, a
All ’R _ ¢ Y S1 OTC, the Greek metropolitan of Kiev and turgid and repetitious pamphlet of uncertain authorship, which
ussia, attended the sessions of the Council, and its two appeared in 14,61 or 1462.1
3fi$éhp)1LsérIsid?rpJa_nd Avraamy (Abraham) of Suzdal’, signed The historical value of these writings as documents on the
ee o nion. In March 144,1 Isidore, now 3, gardinal Council of Florence is slight. These Muscovite pamphlets are
gltiigg igofitfilic 1683-'56, Tfiturned to Moscow. The Latin too biased, their special pleading is too crude, their authors’
_ W c . e_caus_ed to be carried before him while entering understanding of the discussions at Ferrara and Florence too
the city, and his hturgical commemoration of Pope Eu cniug IV deficient to make them of much use as independent sources on
in the cathedral of Moscow, exacerbated the Muscoviffes’ the Council itself. But their interpretation of this event gave rise
and resentment at their metropolitan’s behaviour at the Coiihiilr to a historical myth which acquired body and consistency in

_Kifliiiiiiiiiigisa~l’ii’aiil1°f‘heO‘§1h°d°“ai‘h' BY °“’°’
_ _ 381 si ore was eposed, arrest d d
Russia during the decades that followed the Council of Florence,
and which, illustrating the changing Russian attitude to
imprisonedin a monastery; months later he escaped aliiroaand Byzantium, is highly germane to the subject of this essay. The
perhaps with the connivance of the Russian government, premises of this myth were simple in the extreme: the Greeks,
Muscovy thus explicitly rejected the Union of Florence.” by signing the Decree of Florence on terms imposed by the
pope, betrayed the Orthodox faith, and the emperor and
A 1 T71‘;
- , Xptoriavihv
. bqifialgiov fmci PX o uoocv 1:: ( creme: L. Sternbach, ‘Analegta
patriarch fell into heresy; the principal cause of this regrettable
x;:!T§:&;1;6té17:=T:té>z,§€fr1%y gglthe éicadtimy of Cracow, _XV_ (I900): 304-.__=I-I
Grecques, IX (I896) 33. G. om nunc thc Rhodmn’ In Rm” des Etud”
lapse was the Greeks’ fondness for money, for they had been
= Th tr ’ - . . shamelessly bribed by the pope; by contrast, the Orthodox
will becdisciliehfrtgiiigoiiiigii °‘Lfli"f“£°d°“ the Russia“ a“““d° t° Byzanfium
available. See in partiCularY,F D6 1&1; tli;eatmen_ts of the problem ar¢_ readilY faith is preserved untainted in Russia, thanks to the Muscovite
drevne-russkikh skazany o Florientiicslioyorflrliii’ Kg'1hlz1iin(h-lblltiilgzgrtsfihcail oalmor sovereign Basil II, who exposed the traitor Isidore and con-
P
igfggshehe3278,
' cric (_lt1lY, X895), I31 _84,. -’ -
Pierling, La_1i’_ussze. et5”“ Pm "080
le Saint-Siege, firmed the true religion of his ancestors. The contrast between
> I 9 l» 7 104» E- G°1ub1n5kY» 185011)/a russkcp» tserkvi ii 1 (Moscow 1
81;‘: Sevéenko, ‘Intellectual Repercussions of the Coiincil of Fl(,)I‘C?l(:2%Z, the tragic inconstancy of the Byzantines and the inspired
TC to ' __ . - ‘ _ 2
faithfulness of the Russians is vividly drawn in the two following
Council sf %,l,OI}‘:;1lIC 5lf<iIbsh2i»v’32'l:iidM.
Ghemiavsky’ Thc- Rcccpnon of thc
Brest (1439-1595) (Rome I 8) ,2i1 :,é4'gl5%,‘O. Halecki, From Florence go passages of the Selection: addressing the Emperor John VIII, the
Florcnce, The American glazgg 741% . 6 , Muscovy and the Council of
,1 .d = _ _ ast uropean Reomo, xx (1961), 339_4_o;_
si ore, a trained theologian, had played a leading part in secui-in G 1.; 1 The text of the first four of these works is printed in V. Malinin, Starets
égreementhto the Decree of Union. His Russian companions at Fgn-gm 1:51 Eleazarova monastyrya Filqfei i ego poslaniya (Kiev, 1901), Appendices, 76—127;
oren , , . _
dimssfjm gfiflir 52-’lflf§1i_ tgcgaggvgggiloP¢:)°F1Yci\“-;qu1PP¢:18 foil the theological for a German translation of the travelogue, see ‘Reisebericht eines unbekannten
_]. Gill’s view (The Council of Florence (Cambrigge 1',6?)07 5') gwcycr’ Father Russen (i4,37—i4.4o)’, trans. G. stem, in Europa im XV. jahrhundert van Byzantinem
gesehen [Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, hersg. von E. v. Ivanka, ii, Graz, 1954.],
for _\(a=i1i's [i-¢- Basil II’:-1 1'°j¢¢tion ofIsidore and his nissiénawl t ‘"1,‘h° ’°“°“’
p_ohtica1’ is scarcely convincing. The Muscovites may not halviaplliodably purely
149-89. The Selection is published in A. Popov, Istoriko-literatumy obzor drevne-
views on the Filioque, but their opposition to Latin doct ' d a very char russkilch polemicheskikh sochineny protio Latinyan (XI-XV v.) (Moscow, 1875) , 360-95.
the Papal claims were genuine and long-standing rmcs an customs and to For a discussion of these documents, see the works cited above (p. 266 n. 2)
and also H. Schaeder, Moskau dos dritte Rom, 2nd edn. (Darmstadt, 1957), 21-38.
266 267
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
author exclaims: ‘O great sovereign Emperor ! Why did you go
to them [i.e. to the Latins]? How could you have entertained a of the theory of Moscow the Third Rome.1 But the Muscovite
good opinion of such people? What have you done? You have ideologues of Basil II were not yet ready to draw the logical
exchanged light for darkness; instead of Divine Religion you conclusions from their view of the Greek sell-out at Florence and
have accepted the Latin faith; instead ofjustice and-truth you from their belief in the historic destiny of their own nation.
have embraced falsehood and error. You who formerly were a Hesitantly and ambiguously at first, they groped for new
doer of pious works, how could you now have become a sower formulae to express the link they felt existed between the
of tares of impiety? You who formerly were illumined by the Byzantine betrayal of Orthodoxy and Muscovy’s mission in the
light of the Heavenly Spirit, how could you now have clothed world: and it remains to consider how the Muscovites sought to
yourself in the darkness of unbelief?’ And in the contrasting determine their country’s relationship to the empire during the
tones of exultation in which the author addresses ‘the divinely twelve years between Isidore’s expulsion from Russia and the
enlightened land of Russia’, a new and significant note is fall of Constantinople in 14.53.
sounded: ‘It is right that you should rejoice in the universe To the Muscovites, who were consistently opposed to the idea
illumined by the sun, together with a nation of the true of doctrinal agreement with the Latin Church, the acceptance
Orthodox faith, having clothed yourself in the light of true of the Union of Florence by the supreme authorities of Byzan-
religion, resting under the divine protection of the many- tium came as a severe shock. Four and a half centuries of
splendoured grace of the Lord . . . under the sovereignty of unwavering loyalty to the Church of Constantinople had left
. . . the pious Grand Prince Vasily Vasilievich, divinely-crowned them unprepared for the sudden discovery that-—-as the primate
Orthodox Tsar of all Russia’.1 of the Russian Church expressed it so tersely in 1451-—~‘the
The inversion of the former relationship between Byzantium Emperor is not the right one, and the Patriarch is not the right
and Russia is not less striking here for being implied: the one’? Their embarrassment was increased by the urgent need
emphasis on the universality of the Orthodox faith, the title of to appoint a successor to Isidore; and so, once again, the
tsar applied—still prematurely——to the Muscovite ruler, and question of the appointment of the metropolitan of All Russia
even. the imagery of light, with its religious and imperial became for a while the crucial issue in the relations between
associations, all suggest that for the author Moscow and not Russia and Byzantium.
Constantinople was now the providential centre of the true After Isidore’s flight from Moscow in September I441 three
Christian religion. It should be remembered, however, that this courses of action were open to the Russians: they could break
passage was written eight or nine years after the fall of Con- off canonical relations with the Patriarch Metrophanes, on the
stantinople, in the last years of the reign of Basil II, at a time grounds that by accepting the Union of Florence he had
when Muscovy, having weathered an acute political crisis and become a heretic, and proceed to elect a new primate; or they
a civil war that had lasted through most of the second quarter could take the latter action without rejecting the patriarch’s
of the fifteenth century, was fast evolving into a centralized jurisdiction, in the hope that the Byzantine authorities could
autocratic monarchy, which during the next twenty years wag eventually be induced to sanction the election; or else they
to .11'I1POS€ its sovereignty over the greater part of Russia and could play for time, pretend to ignore the union between the
gain its final freedom from Mongol domination.” This new Greek and Latin churches, and meanwhile seek permission from
conception of Muscovite Russia, no longer on the periphery of Constantinople to elect and consecrate their metropolitan in
the Byzantine Oikoumene, but now the very centre and the heart Russia, hoping that the anti-unionist party in Byzantium,
of Orthodox Christendom, was later to form the starting point known to be on the ascendant, would soon triumph over the
1 Popov 9 op.
_ cit. s 372_ s 394-5 . Cf. Cherniavsky
I ' ‘ , op . cit ., _ 352 -3, 1 An analysis of the theory of Moscow the Third Rome, which acquired final
' For the internal history of the principality of Muscovy in the fifteenth century, form in the sixteenth century, lies outside the scope of this essay, which is concerned
see
wkakh (M0860VI;,pII;1go), 71;a;ofz;_anze rues ogo tsentra 1'izovannogo gosudarstva v XIV_XV
L. V. Che e ' , Ob ' 1; with_ the relations between Byzantium and Muscovite Russia until the fall of the
empire in 1453. _ _ _ _
' Russkaya Istorzchcskaya Bibhoteka, vi, col. 559.
268
269
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
adherents ofthe Florentine agreement. The first course of action without a metropolitan. For Basil II these were difficult years:
was far too drastic and revolutionary for the conservative and he had a civil war on his hands, and for several months in 1445
law-abiding Muscovite churchmen, and there is no evidence to he was a prisoner of the Tatars. The next move to end the
suggest that the Russians in 1441 seriously contemplated a move ecclesiastical impasse was made in December I44-8» Wglfllz 3-
which would have cast them adrift from their mother Church. council of Russian bishops, convoked by Basil II, elected is op
In fact they adopted the third, and later the second, course of Iona of Ryazan’ as metropohtan of All Russia. _
action. In 1441 Basil II wrote a letter to the patriarch, saluting The die was cast‘ Iona’s election and consecration were a
’ I

him as the supreme head of Orthodox Christendom, complain- direct challenge to the patriarch’s authority. It seems that tlge
ing of Isidore’s treacherous behaviour, and mentioning the fact Russians, even at this late hour, W61“? ¢Xt1'¢m°1Y Pcrturilfid _ Y
that before the latter’s appointment as primate of Russia the consequences of their own audacity. An influential minority
(1436), the Muscovite authorities had vainly attempted to in Musco held that Iona’s appointment was uncanonical.1
persuade the emperor and patriarch to appoint as metropolitan For morelihan three years the Russian authorities awaited the
the Russian Bishop Iona (Jonas). Courteously and with curious . . . . . - ' '1 II
Byzantine reaction in anxious silence. Finggy, mdI452t]§:51neW
diffidence, the Muscovite sovereign then proceeded to ask the wrote a last letter to Constantinople, a resse_ 0 _
patriarch, and through him the emperor, for a written emperor Constantine XI. It was as respectful in tone as his
authorization to have a metropolitan elected in Russia by a lgttgr of ’1441 : indeed,
- he went as far as to acknowledge tha t th e
national council ofbishops, tactfully avoiding any mention ofhis emperor possessed by virtue of his sacred otfice certain pre-
own candidate, Bishop Iona, and stating the ostensible grounds rogatives in Russia? But, behind the now expert phraseology of
for his request: the authority of canon law ; the difficulties ofthe Muscovite diplomacy I two new notes are sounded in this letter:
long journey between Moscow and Constantinople, made more I I ' ‘

self-justification for what, from the Russian as_wqll aslgpltaliltlae

h

hazardous still by the Mongol incursions into Russia and ‘the Byzantine point ofview, was an act of ecc esiastica infs h t
disturbances and upheavals in the lands that lie near to ours’ tion; and an allusion, veiled yet pointed» to lhf’ act t 3' la
(perhaps a semi-ironical allusion to the parlous state of the considerable section of Byzantine society remained §1‘0ngl;
Byzantine empire) ; and—rather surprisingly—the fact that opposed to the government’s acceptance of 1;1Ii11niI1tVI:;tthwh0aI:'1:~;€
discussions of state secrets with the metropolitan must be held, ‘We beseech your Sacred Majesty not t0 t
if he is a Greek, in the presence of interpreters whose discretion have done we did out of arrogance, nor to éilgmé lg fit: £32
cannot always be trusted and who thus endanger national
security. And Basil II concludes his remarkably shrewd and Writing ‘° Y°“" S°"e‘"F‘g"‘Y beforchandi’ Wll iii‘ t ssweohold to
necessity, not from pride or arrogance. 11 3- 1118 _
skilfiilly argued letter by declaring his intention to maintain the ancient Orthodox faith transmitted to us [fr°m_BYZ3;::;m]>
the close relations which had always existed between Christian and so we shall continue to do . . . until the en? iii tlrsrilg m nil;
Russia and ‘the holy Emperor’ and to continue to recognize the Russian Church, the holy metropolitanate 0 ‘1_ > ‘L 1.
spiritual jurisdiction of the patriarch} a and seeks the blessing of the holy, d1Vm@> 0¢¢\1m¢n1¢al> (lat 0d1<_3>
The fate ofthis letter is unknown; there is indeed no certainty and apostolic Church of St S0ph13.,' the Wisdom of Go<_1» all 15
that it was even sent. For the next seven years Russia remained obedient to her in all things according to the ancient faith , and
1 Russkaya Istorichei-ka_ya Biblioteka, vi, cols. 525-36. The same letter, with appro- 1 See Kartashev, 813- Cit-i is 36°-
priate variants, was addressed two years later (1443) to the Byzantine Em eror 3 S b . 2 I. , .
_]ohn VIII. See Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, vi (St. Petersburg, 1853), 162-7.
The arguments of A. Ziegler (Die Union ales Konzils oon Florenz in der russischen
Kirche (Wtirzburg, £338), 102-7) who regards the letter as spurious and maintains only strong 0 S 0- C umo
Impsrial Palm, While
1°“?=.t.*.t::;*;rs;;;:.%::.;i:'r.:;si1tits: in at:
' '
‘h° '°I“““““"g Pam 0fothch Bizantine capital (as well 88
. Russkaya Istoricheskaya
that it was compos m the 1460s, in order to justify postfactum Basil II s decision Mount
to have Iona consecrated metropolitan in Moscow, seem to the present writer . . Athos)
- remained entirely devoted
eh f to exaggeration
rt o oxy . this
_ _state_me_nt show‘
unconvincmg. For discussions of this letter, see Golubinsky, op. cit., ii, 1, 470-8.;
Kartashev, op. cit., i, 357—9.
f;£i*::L"sr.a.<::;2.it.T.‘:rs‘;.::.“1a sat
in Constantinople.
theW-Um»M»
270 27I
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA
our father, the Lord Iona, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia oecumenical authority, and so his prerogatives in Russia; a
in accordance with the same faith, likewise requests from her all
dogged and umbrageous striving for political self-determination
manner of blessing and union, except for the present rcggntly-
—yet a perpetual longing for the fruits ofByzantine civilization;
appeared disagreements’. 1 scandalized horror at the readiness of the Byzantine authorities
This final attempt of the Russians to square the circle by to barter the Orthodox faith for the empire’s security at the
reconciling their traditional loyalty to the Churgh of Con- Council of Florence-—yet an equally strong reluctance to sever
stantinople with their unwillingness to remain dependent on a the canonical dependence of their Church on the patriarchate
unionist patriarch, was soon rendered obsolete by rapidly of Constantinople: the two panels of the diptych that was
moving events. On 7th April, 1453, Mahomet II laid siege to medieval Russia’s image of Byzantium seem to be poised in
Constantinople, and on 29th May the city fell. The Union of continuous equilibrium.
Florence collapsed with the Byzantine empire, and the Church Yet this last impression is illusory. For the Russian view of
of Constantinople reverted to Orthodoxy. Basil II’s letter Byzantium was in the fifteenth century no longer part of a fixed
remained unsent in the state archives of Muscovy.’ The and incontrovertible vision of reality; it was being subverted
theological obstacle to Russian ecclesiastical dependence on and refashioned by the rapidly developing national conscious-
Constantinople had disappeared, only to be replaced by a ness of th Meuscovites and by a series of violent shocks ad-
political one, which in the eyes of the power-conscious ministered from the outside world; two of these shocks had
Muscovite rulers proved the more insuperable of the two: the something of a traumatic impact on Russia : they were provoked
Church of Constantinople was now in the power of a Moslem by the Council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople; their
state, and the patriarch received his investiture from the Ottoman
effect was both immediate and delayed, and they produced
sultan. And so the Russian Church retained the autonomous waves ofreaction whose repercussions are traceable well into the
status it had acquired defacto in 1448, a status which in 1589 sixteenth century. The immediate effect of the Council of
by common consent of the other Orthodox churches, was Florence was, we have seen, one of alarm and consternation;
converted to that of an autocephalous patriarchate. and only gradually did the idea gain ground in some official
Thus at the end of our story, in the final chapter of the history circles in Muscovy that the Byzantines, by uniting with the
of Russo-Byzantine relations, there comes to light in the Latins, had forfeited their right to be regarded as the leaders
Russian attitude to Byzantium, the same polarity, the same
of Christendom. As for the fall of Constantinople, it had on the
ambiguous blend of attraction and repulsion, which we dis- minds of the Muscovites an impact even more powerful; and
cerned in the earlier phases of this relationship. A distrust of
the Russian reaction to this event was marked by the old and
Byzantine diplomacy and an abhorrence of its works—yet an now familiar ambivalence. The more sententious of the Mus-
open-hearted and probably disinterested desire to come to
covite ideologues proclaimed that the fall of Byzantium was
the aid of the holy city of Constantinople; resentment of
God’s punishment for the Greek betrayal of Orthodoxy at
the emperor’s endeavours to control too closely the affairs of
Florence, a view which was then fairly current in the eastern
the Russian Church—yet a willingness to acknowledge his
Christian world, and indeed among the Greeks themselves.‘ The
:Ru.s's/cajia Istoricheslcaya ljiblioteka, vi, cols. 583-4. first to expound it in Russia was the Metropolitan Iona, in these
that(-t;h)i:ul’::lt1t’:ili}\'/veils)lficifhi‘ ,8€f1,ll iifl'4li;e'l:a£iiseaf1l'li: ls/Iatgldlwiilzlri ziglihoiiii? i,h362') sllggcst
words from a letter he wrote in 1458 or 1459: ‘As long as its
Bf the sglemn proclamation of the Union by Cgqstantinc XI in1S1:S§0p3I:;1;1§‘)nCf.;I5: people adhered to Orthodoxy, the Imperial City suffered no ill;
..:i;?..:a1*.s:.i.f.¢:;2:3.:;t;.“tt:'..::g::5:t::. ;"1;.;‘;. ?.: ?t: *.:i: .‘: :.‘: 0" but when the city turned away from Orthodoxy, you know your-
8:3:::tt';*.i‘.::‘ft; s;“.:.;i::i.2::‘dztzszddérstizfi.ti:;s:;::";s;i;.1::“s;i:Z:i
of the growing military isolation of Constantinople, which further increased with
selves, my sons, how much it endured’! And in another letter,
1 Sec Sevccnko, Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence, 300, and n. 60;
Gill, The Council of Florence, 391.
go‘;;l;>:'1nl:$t1°n, In August 1452, of the Turkish fortress of Rumeli Hisar on the ' Russkaya Istoricheskaya Bibliotcka, vi, col. 623 ; cf. Sevéenko, ibid., 309; Schaeder,
Alaskan das dritte Rom, 4.4.
272 273 T
 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY BYZANTIUM AND RUSSIA

written in I460, the metropolitan was more explicit still: refer- city; and stunned by the magnitude of these disasters, the
ring to ‘God’s punishment’ meted out to Constantinople for its author can find no analogies save in the great catastrophies of
rejection of Orthodoxy, he quotes the words of St Paul: ‘If mankind: the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ’s death on the
any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy’ cross, and the last days of the world.1 _
(1 Cor. III, I7).1 Side by side, not always or necessarily in conflict, these two
But the spontaneous Russian response to the fall of Con- reactions to the fall of Byzantium, the nationalistic and the
stantinople did not wholly accord with this factitious, meta- apocalyptic, are traceable through Muscovite literature of the
historical theory which seems to have been propagated in late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The latter left
ecclesiastical circles close to the Muscovite court. There is traces in an account of the siege of Constantinople by Nestor-
reason to believe that the feelings first aroused in Russia by the Iskender, a Russian conscript in the Turkish_army who took
events of 2gth May, 1453, were those of horror and pity. The part in the capture of the city ; and in an early sixteenth-century
destruction of the Christian empire, the end of 1,100 years of historical compendium, the Chronograph of I512. The former,
history, the desecration of St Sophia, the sufferings now nationalistic, interpretation became one of the elements in the
endured by the Byzantines—these events, whose magnitude tradition glorifying Moscow as the Third Rome, which was
it was diificult to comprehend, invited comparison with the given substance and form in the sixteenth-century writings of
greatest calamities of human history and suggested that the end Philotheus of Pskov.2 Gradually, as the spiritual and emotional
of the world was near.” Soon after the fall of Constantinople, a shock caused by the fall of Constantinople wore off, and the
Byzantine writer, John Eugenicus, wrote a lament ‘on the Muscovites became increasingly conscious of their own national
capture of the Great City’.3 Translated into Russian not later heritage, this interpretation carried the day, and in the sixteenth
than 1468, it became part of Muscovite literature, and can thus century there were few Russians left who, from the self-
be held to reflect a common attitude of Greeks and Russians contained, self-satisfied, and power-conscious world ‘of Mus-
to the fall of Byzantium.‘ With impassioned rhetoric and covite nationalism, could still look back with nostalgia to the
moving despair the author mourns ‘the glorious and much oecumenical traditions and European horizons of Byzantium.
longed-for City, the mainstay of our race, the splendour of the
inhabited world’, the church of St Sophia, ‘that heaven on
earth, that second paradise’, the schools and libraries now
destroyed, and the citizens of Byzantium, ‘the holy nation’,
‘the people of the universe’, now driven from their homes and
scattered like leaves in autumn; the Mother of God, age-long
guardian of Constantinople, has now, he says, deserted Her
1 Ibid., vi, cols. 648-9. Europe in the Late Middle Ages. Ed. J .R. Hale,
* For the belief, current in Russia, that the world would end in 1492, see J.R.L. I-lighfield and B. Smalley. Faber and Faber 1965
Malinin, Starets Filqfei, 427-43; Schaeder, op. cit., 49-51 ; A. Vasiliev, ‘Medieval
ideas of the end of the world: West and East’, Byzantion, xvi, 2 £1942-3) 462- 02.
* One of the manuscripts of this work—-Toii vouoqabkaxog ’ mdtwou Stozxgvou
106 Eoyevtxoii p.ovcp8lot rcl. rfi 6t).dJae|. 7?]; e~{ot7to1:67keoa<;—-was published by
S. P. Lambros in Néo; ‘E70\-qvouvfi ow, v, 2- llgo8), 219-26. On john Eugenicus,
the brother of Mark (the celebrated’Metro ollitan of Ephesus) see K. Krumbacher,
Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2nd) edn. (Munich, 1897), 1 17, 495-6 ;
Gill 3 op. cit. 9 passim.
‘ The Russian translation is still unpublished. See N. A. Meshchersky,
‘ “Rydanie” Ioanna Evgenika i ego drevnerussky perevod’, Vizantiisky Vremennik,
vii (I953), 72-86; I. Dujcev, ‘La conquéte turque et la prise de Constantinople
dans la littérature slave contemporaine’, Byzantinoslavica, xvii (1956), 280-3; idem,
‘O drevnerusskom perevode “Rydaniya” Ioanna Evgenika’, Vizantiisky Vremennik, 1 Lambros, loc. cit., 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225-
xii (1957), 198-202. ' For these works, see Schaeder, op. cit., 38-49, 65-31-
274 975
 VIII

MODERN RUSSIAN ATTITUDES TO BYZANTIUM

In marked contrast to the peoples of Western Europe, the Russians

inherited from their medieval ancestors a variety of attitudes towards Byzan-
tium. This inlierited tradition was compounded of several elements. It was
based, at least in the case of the educated classes, on a considerable body of
historical knowledge, derived in part from the excerpts from the works of
Byzantine historians — notably John Malalas, George Hamartolos, John
Zonaras and Constantine Manasses - which had been incorporated, in Slavonic
translations, into medieval Russian chronicles‘). It implied the view that
the history of Byzantium had a special relevance to the destinies of the Russian
people, a relevance illustrated by the fact that the dated section of the Russian
Primary Chronicle opens and closes with an event of Byzantine history:
the accession of Michael III and the death of Alexius Comnenusa). And above
all it was distinguished by a set of value-judgments, in which the intellectual
and emotional attitudes of the medieval Russians towards the Byzantine
Empire are most clearly revealed: on the one hand, a deep-rooted loyalty and
devotion to Byzantium which had given the Russians their religion and much
of their medieval culture, and to Tsai-’grad, the Imperial capital, which for
them, no less than for its own citizens, appeared as “the eye of the faith of
the Christians”, and “the city of the world's desire”; on the other hand, a
certain distrust of the Byzantines and a suspicion of the motives of their
Imperial diplomacy, coupled after the Council of Florence with the belief
held by some Muscovite ideologues that the Greeks had forfeited their right
to the spiritual leadership of Christendom, and that the providential centre
of the Orthodox faith had now been transferred to Moscow, the Third Rome”).
Q--.~ .._-1'--_-._..

1) F. Ternovsky, Izuehenie vizantiiskoy istorii i ee tendentsioznoe prilozhenie v

drevney Rusi, I, Kiev 1875, pp. 4-153; V. S. Ikonnikov, Opyt russkoy istorio-
grafii, II 1, Kiev 1908, pp. 81-96; A. A. Shakhmatov, “Povest’ Vremennykh
Let i ee istochniki", Trudy Otdela Drevneruaskoy Literatury 4 (1940) 41-80.
') Povest' vremennykh let, ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretts and D. S. Likhaehev,
Moscow-Leningrad 1950, I, pp. 17, 202.
‘) D. Obolensky, Byzantium and Russia in the late Middle Ages, in: Europe in the
Late Middle Ages, ed. J. R. Hale, J. R. L. Highfield and B. Smalley, London
1965, pp. 203-vs.
 VII
62 Dimitri Obolensky , Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium 63

This emotional olarit i ' - . .

ambiguous blend of alttractibn Endhfepilzizlrinsifilitilrleldetllel tiklm,fills your lands too Orthodoxy has been tainted by the oppression of Mahomet
the Turk”°).
in altered circumstances and different forms, is reflected in the 'ges an ’
This tendeiitious use of Byzantine history in support of power politics or
pressed by Russian statesmen, eeclesiastics, philosophers and histliijvvs ext‘
ecclesiastical reforms was resorted to half a century later by Peter the Great.
more recent times. The role played by Byzantium in the historical lane 0
The examples which the Tsar found in this history were distinctly unedifying:
of the Russians since the seventeenth century can perhaps best b collsepts
thus he maintained that the fate of “the Greek monarchy” was an instructive
under three headings, corresponding to three largely successivee coéisi ered
lesson of how a state is brought to ruin by civil disobedience, treachery and
overlapping periods: firstly, the seventeenth and early ei hteenthan P8-Izfily
the neglect of warfare“). Nor could the past history of the Byzantine Church
when Byzantine history was put to didactic and often higfil tend 05I'llJ1J1'l6S,
find much sympathy with so revolutionary and pro-Western a monarch as
‘by adlvocates of particular policies in Church and State- seliondlyentliliuililiilee
Peter: his indictment of Byzantine monasticism is worthy of Voltaire or
cent centur , when certa' ' - ‘ . ’ '
Gibbon. The bigotry of the Byzantine emperors, and even more of their
debate on philbsophical, l1lBl)IOI"ir(l§la:n(:2l’lIiZ:EIl‘1t1;1llIl:'pl’:yed ‘apart m the gr?“
wives, led — Peter claimed — to the gangrenous proliferation of monasteries
intellectuals; and finally, the academic traationledfsgogahlifited byhliussuln
iii the Empire; on the shores of the Bosphorus alone there were some 300
which was established in Russia in the 1870-ies. y ne Sc 0 arshlp
monasteries; consequently, when the Turks laid siege to Constantinople, less
The seventeenth centur sa ' - - - .
than 6000 soldiers could be found to defend the city’).
of educated Russians. One oi,‘ its“s;irl1;ttdd)i1sev:::Znl':ie(::etd1In}t1St0?lal honzon
In these polemical utterances by Russian statesmen and churchmen of the
of the Greek Orthodox world, an interest stimulated b the ‘lull’ m llhg fate
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries there is little evidence of independent
ecclesiastics from the Ottoman Empire who sought finandial andn “X 10 ~ reek
historical thinking. Moreover, their use of Byzantine history was highly
for their churches from the Muscovite government This fr “L01-3;, sl1PPOrt
selective and overtly pragmatic: some particular feature or event of Byzantine
Greek culture produced conflicting reactions in Muscovite 8001:: .1mgac; of
history, real or imaginary, was adduced either to stimulate imitation or to
zeactions, in their turn, elicited different views of Russia’s Byzazlhflllg inthjlsie
provide salutary warning. It was not until the third decade of the nineteenth
a .
_ ‘Es: - -
.
-
by
_ y was superior to the temporal power by
Zppealing, somewhat inappropriately, to Byzantine precedents: Nikon took
'
century that Russian thinkers began to submit the whole of Byzantine history
to a critical interpretation and to examine it in the light of their own historical
and philosophical conceits. In the passionate debate which raged in Moscow
El§Z?§§”...§’
_ .§ §§§’i3I§ZZ.§§‘..'i lT..l’.’”l‘i.e"°Christian
‘°‘“*“°“Commonwealth
°‘ “‘° P"°"°g““i"°s °" thein
contained
in the eighteen-thirties and forties between the Westerners and the Slavo-
philes, Byzantium not infrequently appeared as a witness, now for the prosecu-
the nm"h"’entur-Y EPa"°'8°S°I and in 1653 he had Leunclaviu’s Jus graeco tion, now for the defence. This debate, which owed much to the influence of
roman/um, which
nationalistic, contai
party ' -
_I11Zi11eth;Z.t3ei'1;ll1édtr?:i3sll(t;.ti=.;1e;:lpe .
Sl,£:|VOI1l04)-‘A11 _ '
0PP_0sing, European romanticism and of German idealist philosophy, was concerned
with Russia’s mission in the world, and in particular with her relationship to
P1‘0_gI'a-mme of reforming the Russian Church in accordfnce witIl:sG’::dl< Iliilbldlsllsfii Western Europe. The Westerners held that Russia was and should continue
tlgegxlgader, the Archpriest Avvakum, later burned at the stake for refusing
to be an integral part of European civilization. The Slavophiles, by contrast,
pt these reforms, reiterated the doctrine of Moscow the Third R
emphasized the distinctive elements in the Russian national tradition and
3’:cil<:;e(l11fl-ii tformulated 150 years earlier by Philotheus of Pskovlzmlfe regarded this tradition, based on the living organism of the Orthodox Church
_ 0 the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria- “() -
and the social virtues of the peasant community, as superior in every way to
menical doctors! Rome fell long ago and lies unregenerate the P hecu
the rationalism, materialism and legalism of the West. The most extreme of
perished with her and have become for ever enemies of the Christian‘; Bliss:
ii
Russian Westerners, Peter Chaadaev, argued in the first of his famous Lettres
4) V. S0l<ol’sky, Okharakterei znacheniiEpanagogi Velzantiisky V,-amen .161 (1894) 50 Philosophiques, written in 1829 and published in 1836, that the sterility
G. Vernadsk , D‘ 1;‘ 111; h_ - - ' _m 3 ,

das russische gebeiie in’imX\:II 'pdlsillirslihe

"11¢lJehm- derByzanttnisch-ncugricchigchg
6115. In: EPMIEPKG und ‘hr Emflufl auf
Jam.
biicher 6 (1928-9 119-42-W - ‘) Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma, ed. N. K. Gudzy, Moscow 1960, p. 101.
') Ternovsky, op. cit., II, Kiev 1876, p. 263.
PP- 177-9, 232-i. ' ' K‘ Medlm’ M°s°°“‘ ‘md Ea“ R°m°- G°11°v@ 1952. ") S. M. Soloviev, Istoriya Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, IX, Moscow 1963, p. 506.
 64 Dimitri Obolensky ’ _ . 65
Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantlllm

of Russian cultiue was due to the legacy of “la miserable Byzaiice, objet du _ _ . - 1-,‘ histor , which began 150
profond mépris”, which cut off the Russians from the civilized brotherhood It was inevitable tshaifthe ligggressizoilp aligzslénze distinc); political flavour.
of Christian peoples”). And in a letter written in 1846, he singled out the -‘§P1'e9'd in Russlan some 3‘ er ‘ - ' d the ob'ects of Russia’s
A vague °°1111e°t1°n - between Byzantine
. studies
- an J Such events
subordination of the Church to the imperial power as the most deplorable _ . ' th hteenth century.
element in Russia’s Byzantine inheritance”). Not all the Westerners, however, foreign policy had’ been establisflipldeigmtfl 88711) and Catherine IFS “Greek
thought badly of Byzantium. Indeed one of their leaders, Timofei Granovsk as Peter
. » the Great 8 campmgn 0 a section
d to - ' °P1111°11
of pllbllfl ' ' that a knowledge
_
published in 1850 an eloquent apologia of Byzantium and a plea for serious Y»
Pmlect (1782) had suggeste = aration for the task of liberating the
Byzantine studies. Granovsky was a professional historian, and his views on of Byzantine history was a necessarY_P1'°P _ , 1. k between “By-
. Turkish yoke. The missing in _
this subject, which seem to bridge the gap between Westerners and Slavo- Orthodox in the Balkans from _ b P lavism which
. . ,, 2 tion” was provided y 8-I13 = _
philes, foreshadowed the emergence twenty years later of a genuine tradition zantinism and the Eastern Ques d 1878. it found notorious
of Russian Byzantine scholarship. “We received from Constantinople”, he grew out hile teaching
. 1 between 1856 an , _ _
. of- Slavop
~ k 7 s famous Wor k Rossi Y a l Evropa,
_
wrote, the best part of our national inheritance, that is religious beliefs and
eXpress1:1n- 111135311;-’;l;a:rgf1):d1tfl:: Illussia alone had the right to Constantinople
the beginnings of education. The Eastern Empire brought young Russia publishe m ’ - - - tore the East Roman Empire’ like the
into the community of Christian nations.” Only Slav scholars, he claimed, and that he‘ h"‘°"° mlssm was to res - ' th W t- and he ProP0sed
are fully qualified to resolve the problems posed by Byzantine history. Indeed, Franks had once restored‘ the R0m‘i:inEn1llIiereSl:v czuntiies, the Greeks, the
Granovsky declared, “we have in a sense the duty to evaluate a phenomenon the creation of a federation compel r tie political leadership of Russia and
to which we owe so much”1°). Rumanians and tlge Mtagjgars, l11I;.3)e
The Slavophiles displayed in their attitudes to Byzantium the same with its capital in ons an. inop e . . f It _ the work of Konstantin
Russia-centred bias, the same penchant for judgments of value, and the The influence of Danilevskyhis stfipélglis zonfinated by the highly ind;_
same ambiguity. Thus, while Ivan Kireevsky contrasted in 1852 the artistic,
L-eontieli 1831-91), lalidvnlilllied hlldojfeated for himself. He shared DanilevskY’s_
contemplative culture of the Byzantine world with western Catholicism,
perverted by Roman legalism and rationa1ism,11) the leading Slavophile v1du‘l’1v1sl20nW7’B1?:'li‘1n
hosti _ ity _ o _ es e . culture
. - = the Slav0Pl1iles’
1 P belief. in
lavists the sl1Pe1'1°1'1l5Y
, dream of Russian 01
philosopher and theologian, Aleksei Khomyakov, passed a more ambivalent Russia’s 1I1d1S@11°“S ”’stmltl0n1s‘ llnll llieiediflgifd profoundly 11°11‘ the ‘W0
judgement on Byzantium. He, too, paid glowing tribute to its spiritual achieve- sovereignty over Constantinop e. e _ _ and in 0 using
ments, in theology, monasticism and missionary endeavour, of which the 1 1"tt'31’ groups in rejecting the concept of Slavonic cultural unity PP _
. - from Turkish rule. His outlook was a curious
- ' _ _
Russians were the beneficiaries. But on the debit side he stressed several the liberation of the Balkan Slavs . . d olmcal
. - ~ - dental mysticism 8-I1 P
times - and particularly in an article written in 1852 - that the law and the blend of romantic aestheticism, tianscen _ _ _Sl V anSW0,._
, . - ' ' din his essay“V1Z&I1l>1ZI111 3* Y
state in the Byzantine Empire were Roman, and as such were open to the "°"""”°”' H18 thought ls best epltomlze ' f th “Eastern Question”.
-
published - 1875 and Pal’tly inspired
in _ by the
_ revival .o I of 8 “B zantlmsm
_ _ W, by
charges of paganism, formalism and institutionalism. “Rome’s juridical
chains”, he wrote, “clasped and choked the life of Byzantium”11). The hope of the world, he belleve i d lay in the surviva
. . Y _ _
Soclaj me-
. ' lgam of political autocracy,
this concept he meant a P6011111“ 3’m"'_ _ . t- and was
.. , fl hdnBzan1um
1) P. Ya. Chaadaev, Sochineniya i pis’ma, ed. M. Gershenzon, I, Moscow 1913, quality and Orthodox my§t1°:1m gglis Byzlintinlism had sustained
p. 85. The Lettres Philosophiques were written in French. 3'd°P15°d by the Russlans In e - , ’ a. sured by the fact that-
') Ibid., pp. 271-2.
1°) T. N. Granovsky, Sochineniya, 4th ed., Moscow 1900, pp. 378-9. Cf. I. N. Bo- .. the SplI‘ll5>
Russian - society
- Priniclplespzlnvaélg
' in' the p<l”s't;flRusS1&oi’I§;:;i’itihani
uence
the whole of Russiwsi Social
like the _ ,, 14)_texture
complex
orgamsm
rozdin, T. N. Granovsky i voprosy istorii Vizantii, in: Vizantiisky Vremenmik ll
(1956) 271-8. of a nervous sys B111, - d ite their
_ . t, th Slavo hiles, e$P
11) I. V. Kireevsky, Polnoe Sobranie Sochineny, I Moscow 1911 p . 174-222.
11) A. S. Khomyakov, Po povodu stat’i I. V. Kireevskogo ‘O kharaktere prosveshche-
I I P Leonmev,
differing Damlevsklf
appreciation o “PR1,yzan
to :'l8i:ll1e”ex:.ll1
in , injefzted inlto this concept a
niya Evropy i o ego otnoshenii k prosveshcheniyu Rossii‘, Polnoe Sobranie Sochineny ________.__ _ _ I _ .b 1339, pp. 398-473-
13) N_ Ya_ Danjlevgky, Rossiya i Evropa, 4th ed., St. Peteis iu'g
4th ed., I, Moscow 1911, p. 217. Cf. P. K. Christoff, An Introduction to Nineteenth-I . - ' tvo”,Sobranie. Soch1nenY~V»M°3°°w
- I912.
Century Russian Slavophilism. A Study in Ideas I: A. S. Xomjakov, The Hague Ml L‘ L"°n"’ev’ “Vost‘ok' Rosmyal Slavyans K stantin Leont-’ev. Paris 1926.
1961, PP- 150-1, ii. 30. pp_ 111__26(), (mp, p. I39. Cf. N. Berdyaev. on.
pp. 175-219.

'»
Byz. Jahrb. XV
VIII VII
66 Dimitri Obolensky
Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium 67

strong dose of positive value-judgment. Their nationalistic aspirations caused . . - - - - ' ' t -
universities and public opinion Ito recognize Byzantine studies as an au ono
them to ascribe to the “Byzantine inheritance” a powerful and constructive "1' 'th' wnri t. _
role in the growth of Russia’s cultural and political self-determination. A
mousltdljvig hrbtli lilintilalthle 1875-ies that all three conditions were fulfilled in
startlingly different view of Byzantium and its works was propounded during
Russia However, both the study of Byzantine sources and the emergence of
the last two decades of the nineteenth century by Vladimir Soloviev (1853-
dev oted and enthusiastic scholars in this field had begun a hundred. years
l900), the notable philosopher, theologian and poet. His rejection of secular
earlier and we may rightly regard the period from 17 70 to 1870 as an impor-
nationalism and his view of the Roman Church as the providential centre of I . . . ¢ n R ' '

tans preparatory phase in the history of Byzantine .S0l'10l&1‘Slllp' in ussia

Christian unity appeared to him valid reasons for condemning Byzantium as
The ioneers of these studies were the German academicians settled in Russia —
harshly as Chaadaev had done sixty years earlier. But while Chaadaev had
G SpBayer G F Miiller A L. von Schlozer and J .G. Stritter in the eighteenth
confined himself to a few uncomplimentary remarks, Soloviev delivered
celntlur J., P. Krug and A. A. Kunik in the nineteenth"). Particularly
himself in two of his works — La Russie et l’Eglise Universelle (1889)15) and
' tlalnt were the publication between 1771 and 1779, of a four-volume
Vizantinizm i Rossiya (l896)1°) — of a lengthy and passionate indictment of
lmlllorton of B zantine sources concerned with Eastern Europe, trfl-11818-tfid
“1’empire pseudo-chrétien de Byzance”. The Byzantines, he argued, betrayed
in
f30t(f?[J;tirl and Zdited by Stritter”) ' and the scholarly contributions of Kunik,
Christ’s legacy to mankind. By concentrating unduly on the exteriials of . - ' ' d th
who in 1853 read a paper in the Imperial Academy of Sciences up, er ‘e
religious observance and by abdicating their duty to Christianize the social
title: “Why does Byzantium still remain a. riddle in wprld l11Sl3(:1‘€;1? R1:;?;':
and political order, they built an empire that was more pagan than Christian;
was an enthusiastic propagandist for Byzantine studies :' Does no e
by losing sight of the universality of the Christian tradition they allowed
people” — he asked rhetorically — “owe its Christian faith to lBt'§l'71Z¥iHt111H1,u:;::
churchmen like Photius and Cerularius to lead them into schism; and their . . - - - n
did not this faith give the Russian princes and people the aiirreng 18:11; (Elliot true
spiritual leaders, by slavishly submitting to the tyranny of the state, promoted
to resist Ilam and finally to free themselves from its firiot e . the reflectim;
the baneful “Caesaropapism”, whose pervasive effects caused Byzantium to
broadly speaking, that the greater part of R»118Sl8»11. s ory is t_
resemble more closely the empire of Nebuchadnezzar than that of Christ").
of the history of Byzantium?” Yet Kunik ends this passage on a cau igus
In passing final sentence on Byzantium, Soloviev appealed to the verdict of
and even pessimistic note: “Where — he asks — shall we find enough y-
history: “L’histoire a jugé et condamné le Bas-Empire”1°).
zantinists to enable us to take our stand in this field alongside other na-
None of these nineteenth century writers, with the possible exception
of Granovsky, could in their treatment of Byzantium be regarded as scholars tionsKun1k’s
rm-)' statements exposed the two principa
' ' l weaknesses
. h oft the .emergent
the lack
in the modern sense of the word. The significance of their views lies rather in
Byzantine studies in Russia in the middle of the I1lI18t»88I1t». cen ury. . B
the interest in Byzantine history which they stimulated in Russian political
of qualified cadres and the almost exclusive preoccupation of Russian
opinion; in the role played by their concepts of Byzantium in the development . ’. - . -
zantinists with the history of their own country: the 0l}:0lG8d&I;(fla‘|;I‘63:;1’1B1:ve:e
1-. y}
in Russia of historical and philosophical thought and of ideas of national self-
their themes, and their approach to their sub]ect, is olvlilfet Whichyhad a
determination; and in the relevance of some of their ideas on Byzantine
interested almost solely in those aspects of Byzantine ii; orydieval Russia
history to Russia’s foreign and domestic politics. A genuine and continuous
bearing on and could illuminate the history and culture o me -
tradition of Byzantine scholarship required the fulfilment of three conditions:
1. a readiness to start not from preconceived “metahistorical” concepts, but _

from a critical study of the documents; 2. the appearance of scholars willing 1°) V. Buzeskul, Vseobshchaya istoriya i ee predstaviteli V R099“ V XIX l “whale
to devote their lives to specialized research in this field; 3. the readiness of XX veka, I, Leningrad 1929, pp. 7-16. _ _
-
no) Memo,-ia¢ populomm. Olim ad Danubium, Pontum Ewmnum, Paiudem Mdeotzdem,
cam Mare Oaapium, at winds magic ad Septemtriones mcolentmm, e scnptoribua
1‘) V. Soloviev, La Russie et l’Eglise Universelle, 5th. ed., Paris 1922, pp. XXIV—LI.
ml; zantinae erutae at digestae a I. G. Strittero, I_IV' St P°t°1‘5b\"‘8
1‘) V. Soloviev, Vizantizm i Rossiya, Sobranie Sochineny, 2nd. ed., VII, St. Peters-
117871 9 Sltrittefs great work appeared in a Russian translation in St. Petersburg
burg, n. d., pp. 283-325.
between 1770 and 1776. . . --
1") La Russie et l’Eglise Universelle, pp. ibid .; Vizantizm i Rossiya, pp. 286-9,
") A. A. Kunik, Pochemu Vizantiya donyne ostaetsya zagfidkly ‘I’;’I‘§'°;':;§;)Z2‘;lf:;l’
315-19.
1') La Russie et 1‘Eg1ise Universelle, p. L.
UchenyeZap1IskiI 1.90 ¢_ 111290 _o¢del_em/ Imzwp Aka;‘iemf§1_\;1‘uA-knot 1( (1922) n5_16.
Cf. F. Uspensky. Iz istorii vizantinovedeniya v ossii. 1 ' 3!

51
 VIII
68 Dimitri Obolensky Modern. Russian attitudes to Byzaiitiuiii U9

This intermittent and applied character of Russian Byzantine studies lasted in Russia“). A highly prolific scholar, he contributed most to the study of
until the 1870-ies. the social and economic history of Byzantium, of Byzantine religious. and
The founder of the scholarly tradition of Byzantine historical studies in philosophical thought, and of Byzaiitine-Slav relations in the early Middle
Russia was Vasily Vasilievsky. Originally a classical scholar and a pupil of Ages. His works on the latter topic were, originally at least, iiifliieiicedby the
Mommseii, he began to teach Byzantine history in the University of St-. Peters- Slavophile views of his teacher Lamansky. Uspensky was the most vigorous
burg in 1870. By the time he died in 1899 he had contributed works of major champion, before 1917, of the view that the occupation of the Balkan Peninsula
importance in the fields of Byzantine social and administrative history, liagio- by the Slavs profoundly altered the social and economic structure of the
graphy and Russo-Byzantine relations; had etablished Byzantine studies in Empire’s European provinces in the seventh and eighth centuries, and in
his country as an autonomous and respectable discipline, of growing interest particular that the peasant commune of the Farmer’s Law was of Slavonic
to the educated public; had founded the well-known periodical, Vizantiisky origin. His devotion to pure scholarship did not, however, prevent him on
Vrem.enm'k, whose first volume appeared in 1894; and had so increased the occasion from seeking in Byzantine history political “lessons for his con-
international standing of Russian Byzantine studies that Krumbaclier himself temporaries. Some of these “lessons” clearly reveal the influence of Panslavist
found it necessary to learn Russian and to make his pupils do the same. ideas. In the preface to the first volume of his “History of the Byzantine
The two central themes of Vasi]ievsky’s work were Russo-Byzantine relations Empire“, written in 1912, he declared: “The lessons of history should be
and the agrarian and social history of the Byzantine Empire. The former carefully considered by those who, at the present time, are awaiting the parti-
subject he inherited from his Russian predecessors; while his interest in social tion of the inheritance of ‘the sick man’ of the Bosphorus”. And 111. the main
history, stimulated in part by the contemporary liberal and socialist move- body of the book, published in 1914, he wrote: “We would be deceiving our-
ments in Europe, proved of great importance in the subsequent development selves if we thought that we can avoid an active part in the liquidation of the
of Byzantine studies in Russia"). It was shared by Vasilievsky’s younger inheritance left by Byzantium . . . Russia’s role in the Eastern Question has
contemporary, Fedor Uspensky, a figure of comparable importance in the been bequeathed to her by history, and cannot be changed by arbitrai'y
history of Byzantine studies”). An admirable organizer, Uspensky took a decision25)“.
leading part in the development of this subject in the University of Odessa Russian Byzantine studies between 1870 and 1917 were marked by three
(1874.-94); directed, from 1895 to 1914, the work of the Russian Archaeologi- main characteristics: by their high scholarly quality, probably unrivalled by
cal Institute in Constantinople; led the Russian archaeological expedition to any other branch of historical studies in Russia, which enabled them to
Trebizond in 1916 and 1917 ; and in the years between the Revolution and equal, and in certain fields perhaps to surpass, the works of contemporary
his death in 1928 attempted to salvage what remained of Byzantine studies Byzaiitinists in W'estern Europe; by their concern with social, administrative
and economic history and with the problems of Russo-Byzantine relations:
32)
On Vasilievsky, see: P. Bczobrazov‘s obituary notice in Vvlzantiiaky Vreme-nnik: 6
and by the debt which they owed to the great theological academies, particu-
(1899), 636-52, and the bibliography of Vasilievslcy‘_s works, ibid., pp. 652-8;
A. A. Vasiliev, Moi vospominaniya 0 V. G. Vasil’evskom, in: Amiales de Plnatitut larly those of Moscow and St. Petersburg“). _ _
Kondakov 11 (1940) 207 -14; P. B. Striive, V. G. Vasil’evsky, kak issledovatel’ It remains to say a few words about the role played by Byzaiitiuin iii the
sotsial’noy istorii drevnosti i kak uchitel’ naulci, ibid., pp. 215- 26; G. Ostrogorsky, historical concepts of scholars in the Soviet Union. It is not my intc11tl011 ‘J0
V. G. Vasil’evsky kak vizantolog i tvorets noveishey riisskoy vizantologii, ibid., attempt a survey of the development of Byzantine studies in the USSR,
pp. 227-35; Z. V Udal’tsova, in: Ocherkil istorii iistorifcheslcoy nauki 1* SSSR II, ed.
nor an analysis of the work of individual Soviet scholars in this ‘field. I will
M. V. Nechkina, Moscow 1960, pp. 513- 15, 521 -F’.
23)
On Uspensky, see: H. Gregoire, Les études byzantines en Russie soviétique, in: confine myself to pointing out the increasingly ‘important positioii which
Bulletin de l’Académie Royals de Belgique, cl. des Zettres, 5e série, 32 (1946) 194-219; Byzantine studies have come to occupy in Soviet historical studies since 1939.
B. T. Goryanov, F. II. Uspensky i ego znachenie v vizantinovedenii, in: Vizantzlialcy i

I-"remenniik 1 (1947) 29-108; A. G. Gotalov-Gotlib, F. I. Uspensky kak professor 2‘) On Byzantine studies in Russia during theufii-st ten years agter t1,iLe_J’~@;;0l11tt:I0(11l,9§<£>;*)‘
i naiichny rukovoditel’, ibid., pp. 114- 26; A. A. Vasi liev, History of the Byzantine G. Lozovik, Desyat’ let russkoy vizantologu (1917- 27), in: storz : 1. ar 8‘!-8 .-
Empire, Oxford 1952, pp. 35-8; Z. V. Uda1’tsov a, in: Ocherki istorii iatorilchealcoy 228-38.
nauki '1) SSSR II, pp. 515-19; Udal‘tsova, Vizantinovedenie v SSSR posle Velikoy 25) F_ L Uspensky, Istoriya Vizantiiskoy Imperii I, St. Petersburg 1914, PP-. XII, ‘19-
Oktyabr’skoy Sotsialisticheskoy Revolyiitsii ( 1917- 1934 gg.), in: V'aIzant1I'iaky “) On the theological academies, see G. Florovsky, Pllti 1'1lSSk°E° bogoslovlym Pm“
l’rem¢=»n-'n1Ik 25 (1964) 3-16. 1937, pp. 355--90.
 70 Dimitri Obolcnsky Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium 71

and to indicating briefly the central problems of Byzantine history selected by cities in the Byzantine Empire“); and the role played by the Slav invasions
Soviet scholars for special study. in the development of the social structure of the Byzantine Empire: these
The death of Uspensky in 1928 was followed by a decade which witnessed are some of the problems of the internal history of the Empire which Soviet
an eclipse of Byzantine studies in his country, during which, in the words of Byzantinists have approached from the Marxist point of view. On the problem
the leading Soviet Byzantinist M. V. Levchenko, “scholarly research in this of the Slav colonization of parts of the Balkans, Soviet Byzantinists today,
field.of learning was temporarily interi'1ipted”-‘"). A gradual revival of these despite some difference of opinion, seem agreed that, though Uspensky’s
studies began in 1939, and gathered momentum after 1944. Its main land- views suffered from exaggeration, the social structure and customary law
marks were the creation in 1939 of a Byzantine section at the Institute of of the Slavs influenced the development of the Byzantine commune, and that
History of the Academy of Sciences“), the simultaneous formation of a their invasions contributed materially to the collapse of the “slave-holding
Byzantine group in Leningrad"), the appearance in 1940 of Levchenko’s formation” and to its replacement by feudalism”).
History of Byzantium“), the publication in 1945 of the Vizantiilsky Sbomik The work of Soviet Byzantinists further suggests that the relations bet-
prepared by the Leningrad group“), and the reappearance in 1947 - after ween Byzantium and Russia is a subject that will always loom large in Russian
an interruption of some twenty years - of the Vizantiisky Vremennilk"). Byzantine scholarship“). This problem, of course, is part of a more general
These were the essential stages by which Byzantine studies, through the one, whose importance and difficulty were so clearly illustrated by the discus-
devoted efforts of their genuine protagonists, regained their place as an sions provoked by several papers presented at the Congress of historians in
autonomous historical discipline, and Byzantine history became once more, Vienna”). To recognize that the influence of Byzantine culture on the medieval
as it had been between 1870 and 1924, accessible to the Russian educated culture of Russia was pervasive and far-reaching and that, in the words of
public. Karl Marx, “the religion and civilization of Russia are of Byzantine origin”3°);
‘Soviet. Byzantinists inherited from their pre-revolutionary predecessors a yet to acknowledge that Byzantine influence was not an omiiipotent demiurge,
dominant interest in two themes: the social and economic history of the acting on a passive receiver, and that the Russian people often showed a
Byzantine Empire, and the relations between Byzantium and medieval creative response to its challenge by selecting, accepting or rejecting this or
Russia. Both these themes, of course, are treated by them in the light of that element of Byzantine culture - is to posit in general terms a thesis
Marxist historical concepts. The development of Byzantine feudalism, which which would require to be substantiated and empirically verified at every
they regard essentially as a social and economic factor, and as a term that point of investigation. Soviet scholars, I venture to suggest, are in principle
adequately describes the social relations in Byzantium"); the history of well equipped to study this dialectical process. And, in their continued research

3‘) Ibid., pp. 18-24. Cf. N. V. Pigulevskaya, E. E. Lipshits, M. Ya. Syuzyumov

'7) M. V. Levchenko, Zadachi sovremennogo vizantinovedeniya, in: Vizantilisky and A. P. Kazhdan, Gorod i derevnya v Vizantii v IV-XII vv., in: Actea du
Sbvrmk, ed. Levchenko, Moscow-Leningrad 1945, p. 4 XII" Gongres International d’E'lu.dea Byzantines I, Belgrade 1963, pp. 1-44.
“) Levchenko, ibid., p. 6. 3‘) Goryanov, F. I. Uspensky i ego znachenie, loc. cit., pp. 39-54; V. I. Picheta,
"l N- 3- Lfibedfivi Vizantinovedenie v SSSR za 25 let, in: Dvadtsat’ pyat’ let istori- Slavyano-vizantiiskie otnosheniya v VI-VII vv. osveshchenii sovetskikh istorikov
ihaeskoy nauki v SSSR, ed. V. P. Volgiii, E. V. Tarle and A. M. Pankratova, Moscow- (1917-47), in: Vestmlk D1-evney Istorii 3 (1947) 95-9; Uda1’tsova and Litavrin,
' ningrad 1942, p. 217; Lebedev, Vizantinovedenie v SSSR 1936-46, in: Byzam Sovetskoe Vizantinovedenie v 1955 - 60 gg., loc. cit., pp. 9 - 11 ; M. Yu. Braichevsky,
tmoslavzca 9 (1947-8) 98. Problema slavyano-vizantiiskikh otnosheny do IX veka v sovetskoy literature
*°) M. V. Levchenko, Istoriya Vizantii, Moscow-Leningrad 1940. French translation; poslednikh let, in: Viizantiislcy Vremenmlk 22 (1963) 80-99.
Byzance des origines s 1453, Paris 1949. "°) See the detailed study by I. Sevcenko, Byzantine Cultural Influences, in: Rewriting
*1) See note 27. Russian History. Soviet interpretations of Russia’s past, ed. C. E. Black, London
1*’) The editorial of the first volume (pp. 3- 7) was sharply criticized from a, chauvinigtig 1957, pp. 143-97. Cf. Levchenko, Problema russko-vizantiiskikh otnosheny v
standplpint the editorial. of the ‘second: Protiv burzhuaznogo kosmopolitizma v russkoy dorevolyutsionnoy, zarubezhnoy i sovetskoy istoriografii, in: Vizantiislcy
govetsh om vizantinovedenii, in: Vzzanmsky Vremenmlk 2 (27) (1949) 3- 10. Cf. the Vremennilc 8 (1956) 7-25; Udal'tsova and Litavrin,1oc.cit., pp. 29-34.
renc "1JI'8.I1Bl8.tl0I1 of the secondeditorial by M. Canard, Vizantiiski Sboi-nil; 91; 3') L’Acculturation, in: X II8 Congréa Intemational des Sciences Hilstorilques, Rapports I,
N Vizantiiski Vremennik, in: Byzantzon 21 (1951) 471 -81. Vienna 1965, pp. 7-93.
) V. _Uda'l_ tsova and G. Litavrin, Sovetskoe Vizantinovedenie v 1955-60 gg., 3") K. Marx and F. Engels, Sochineniya IX, Moscow 1933, p. 439. This passage was
in: Vizanmaicy Vremenmlc 22 (1963) 3-17. cited in 1945 by Levchenko in his editorial contribution to Vizantiisky Sbormlk (p. 4).
72 Dimitri Obolcnsky, Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium

into the history of Russo-Byzantine relations, they will, we may hope, in-
creasingly bear witness to the fact that Russian Byzantine studies have in
former times and at the peak of their achievement derived their vitality from
two sources: the sense of continuity with the scholarly tradition of the past'
and the willingness to advance the frontiers of knowledge in collaboration
with the scholars of other nations.

Cyril and Methodius

Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Bvzantinischen Gesellschaft, XV.

Verlag 1-lennaim Biihlaus Nachf. Graz-Koln 1966
 IX
Sts. Cyril and Mcthodius, Apostles
of the Slavs

The aims of this paper* are to outline the story of an attempt, made in
the second half of the ninth century, to create in Central Europe a Slavonic
vernacular Church under the joint auspices of Byzantium and Rome; and to
assess the significance of a. cultural movement which spread in the early
Middle Ages from Moravia to the Balkans and to Russia, and exerted a pro-
found and lasting influence upon the religions and thought-world of the Slavs
who lived in these areas. This attempt and this movement are associated with
the names of the two great Byzantine missionaries — Cyril and Methodius.
The recorded history of vemacular Slavonic Christianity begins in 862.
That year an embassy arrived in Constantinople, sent to the Emperor Michael
III by a Slavonic ruler in Central Europe, the Moravian prince Rastislav.
The purpose of this embassy was twofold: the Moravians, whose realm at
that time included Moravia, Slovakia and part of present-day Hungary, were
hard pressed by their neighbors, the Franks and the Bulgarians, and wished
to conclude a political alliance with the Byzantine Empire. The second aim
of the embassy was destined to be, in the long run, of a far greater importance.
It was to request the Emperor to send the Moravians a Christian missionary
acquainted with their own Slavonic language. Christianity had already spread
to Moravia during the first half of the ninth century, but its preachers were
German missionaries from Salzburg and Passau. It is possible, as several
scholars have recently argued, that Irish missionaries had also worked in
Moravia in the late eighth and the early ninth centuries;‘ though the evidence
on this point seems to me still inconclusive. Rastislav no doubt realized that
the German missionaries threatened the precarious independence he had
recently wrestled from his overlord, Louis the German, King of Bavaria. To
secure for his country a measure of political and cultural autonomy he needed
priests who could preach the Gospel to the Moravians in their own Slavonic
tongue.
The Byzantine govemmcnt, mindful of the advantages — spiritual and
temporal - to be derived from these distant solicitations, responded readily
i

' Read at St. Vladimir’: Seminary on 12 April 1962 and baled on one of the Birkbecli Lectures, de-
livered by the author under the auspices of Trinity College, Cambridge, on 25 April 1961.

1
 to Rastislav’s request: an alliance was concluded with Moravia, and the
Church books of the Orthodox Slavs are printed in a slightly simpllfifid £01111
choice of ambassadors to head the Moravian mission fell on two brothers from
of this alphabet to the present day, and the modern alphabets of the B\118_a1"
Thessalonica, Constantine and Methodius. They were both at that time
ians, the Serbs and the Russians are all based on Cyrilhc. Yet the 1I1V(;3I'll'.l0I(;
famous men, distinguished in the service of Church and State. Their lives
of Glagolitic, which, despite its relative complexity, was admirably akapge
and activity, recorded in detail in contempora Slav, Greek and Latin
IV to the qualities of the Slavonic tongue, was undoubtedly the 1 0_ ta
sources, have for more than a century been the subject of careful scrutiny
linguistic genius, and Constantine must rank among the greatest p .1 0
and extensive research.”
Europe has ever produced. Before leaving‘ Constantinople, Constantipiis W1
The younger of the two brothers, Constantine, more widely known under the help of his new alphabet, translated into Slayonioa selection p essogs
his later monastic name of Cyril, had held a teaching post in the University
from the Gospels, intended for liturgical use, starting with the opening wor S
of Constantinople under Photius, the future Patriarch and the greatest scholar
of St. ]ohn: “In the beginning was the Word.”5 _
of his age. Methodius had been a governor of a Slavonic province of the
Thus was created a new literary language, ba5@d 011 the 5P°kf"m filalefit
Empire, and had thus come to know the Slavs early in his life. But both
brothers soon experienced a call to the religious life. Methodius abandoned of the Macedonian Slavs, modelled on Greek, and largely ecclesiastlcal 111
his career and became a monk. Constantine was ordained priest. Soon the character. It is known to modem scholars as Old Church Slav0_I11¢- In the
two brothers became known as outstanding missionaries and diplomatists. In ninth century the different Slavonic languages were .Sll1ll sosimllflr 111 Struaure
860, for instance, they headed an important and successful Byzantine mission and vocabulary that Old Church Slavonic was as .1I1lZ£ill1g1bl€ to the Slavstlof
to the realm of the Khazars, north of the Caucasus. But their strongest quali- Moravia as, in the course of the next two centuries, it proved tohbe toh ti
fication to lead the embassy to Moravia was their intimate knowledge of the Bulgarian and Russian Slavs. It became henceforth and remained t lioug Otld
Slavonic language. Thessalonica, their native town, was in the ninth century the Middle Ages the third international language. of Europe and t e sacr;
a partially Greek city with a Slav-speaking hinterland; and according to the idiom of those Slavs-— the Bulgarians, the R11S_S1fln5 and the _serbs:lTw 0
Slavonic biography of Methodius, written soon after his death, the Emperor, received their religion and culture from Byzantium. Constantine, st31o;en-
in urging the two brothers to go as his envoys to Moravia, adduced this erated by all the Slavs as St. CYTH, was not °nlY> wlth his brother Me Ills’
argument: “You are both natives of Thessalonica, and all Thessalonicans the greatest of all missionaries who worked among the Slavs; he W85 3 $0
speak pure Slav.”3 the founder of Slavonic culture. _

Before leaving Byzantium, Constantine, according to his ninth century In the spring of 863 the Byzantine embassy arrived .111 M0I‘flV1ai Vghers
Slavonic biography, invented an alphabet for the use of the Moravian Slavs,
Prince Rastislav received it with honour. The two. immediate tasks that ac;
the missionaries were to train a new Slav-speaking clergy and to glve t 6
his future flock. This alphabet he adapted to an Old Bulgarian spoken dialect
Moravians a liturgy in their own language. A iew Christian texts had Pr?‘
of Southem Macedonia, from the neighbourhood of Thessalonica. I cannot
viously been translated from Latin into .Sl8.V01'l1C and transcribed in gaatlg
enter here into a discussion of the diflicult and controversial problems raised
characters — such as formularies of baptism and COI1fCSS10I‘l: the_ Gr;/F ail
by the fact that the oldest Slavonic manuscripts are written in two different the Lord’s prayer.“ Of these translations, which were current in. (c1.>ra\1;ita
alphabets, the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic. Over the questions as to whether during the first half of the ninth century, Constantine and Methodius Eu. -
Constantine invented both of them, or if not, which of the two, philologists less made use. But the liturgical oflices had so far been celebrated in ifiitltllp
have argued for well over a century. Most scholars today are convinced, with which the Moravians were unfamiliar. Constantine, in the words o 18
however, that the alphabet invented by Constantine for the Moravians was contemporary biographer, soon translated “the wholi ecclesiastlcal 056%,
the Glagolitic, and that the so-called Cyrillic, which bears Constantine’s Matins, the Hours, vespers, Complies and the Mm 7
monastic name of Cyril, resulted from an attempt by Methodius’ disciples in
The question of what rite was used by Constantine for his Old Cgllzlffih
Bulgaria to adapt Greek uncial writing to the Slavonic tongue.‘ If Cyrillic
Slavonic translation of the liturgical ofiices has long been debated, P11 :_ 1:
is very largely an adaptation of Greek, Glagolitic is a highly distinct and
some extent still an open one. In the passage from Constantine? Life 5°
original alphabet whose inventor, Constantine, seems to have adapted in a
I have just quoted, the liturgical terminology seems to be Byzantine, ’¢° J“_S'°
modified form certain Greek, Hebrew and other Oriental letters. Of the two
at least from the fact that the Slavonic term for “Compline — Paveichermtseg
alphabets, Cyrillic was to be historically by far the more important, for the — corresponds to the Greek Apodeipmn and not to the Latin Co-mpletoirium.
2 3
 F thi
W2: ' seems difficult
fir; igfisfgttzireaspfs it ~ . liturgy
to doubt that the Slavonic .
not in Latin, as the Westem custom, now rapidly becoming a fixed tradition,
commanded, but in Slavonic. Was the Pope to sanction this innovation which
however
the that
R0m>an in then
Mass Ora“?
whcqprie Icoordmg
o time to ihe Byzantine
Constantine rite‘ It
also translated andis p°ssible>
adapted might create a dangerous precedent in the Western Church? Or was he, for
_ > _ 1_¢ t _ 6 earlier Frankish missionaries had introduced into the sake of an established custom, to surrender effective control of Moravian
ggizzlgéizverzl dizrgigsished modem authorities, Father Dvomik and Dr. and Pannonian Christianity to the Frankish clergy? Hadrian II was a states-
Mas S Fm, elleve that the oldest Slavonic formulary of the Roman man: he -accepted the bargain. He gave his unqualified support to the work
b C5, Preserved in part in ‘the Glagolitic Kiev Leaflets, is 3, translatjgn made of Constantine and Methodius, and commanded that the Slavonic liturgical
y onstantine from the Liturgy of St. Peter itself a Greek adaptation of the books be placed on the altar of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore and
R M . - ’ . that the Liturgy be celebrated in the Slavonic language in four Roman
botfliuihe
the secondRzbssmaliieaiiilttliis
half of th ‘e thyzantine 1Bmay’- thelie an? cogent
liturgies reasons forinto
were translated supposing
Slavonicthat
in basilicas. The two Greek brothers from Thessalonica, who barely six years
Y _ _ e nin century. And it is quite possible that the liturgical earlier had set out from Byzantium on their mission to Moravia, could not
tradition eventually_adopted in the new Slavonic Church in Central Europe
have dreamt that their work would be crowned so soon and so magnificently.
represented a blending of the Byzantine and the Roman rites But Constantine soon after fell seriously ill. Feeling the approach of death,
fromThethetra '
B;1z$3l‘a11;1i<;Ig ' '
;Ji)i:£1lTi60lflt‘l.:iI'eg‘:,CaIl1a(fi'I1:lr(:‘.iS -
ingola vernacular language was, he became a monk under the name of Cyril. In 869 he died in Rome and, at
his brother’s request, was buried in the Basilica of St. Clement. His last words
self, when later defending the Slavbnic litu an Sgltuluatei Constalitme him- to his brother were to implore him not to abandon their common work for
cited the example of many nations of Easte€i)iI]glii*iiii:eiitdd1rfitIv:lih0Ij:r:? ‘filers:-j the Slavs, even if it meant never returning to the Monastery of Mount Olym-
- . . ise
glgggiggrstizg iglggrgafiflssiaallrlltggg KIIBILI wpiga the Annenians, the Persians, the pus in Asia Minor, where Methodius had received the tonsure. This injunc-
Latin was then recognized as the on? _ .ut the. I/.Vestem Church, in which tion, recorded by Methodius’ ninth century biographer, provides a moving
illustration of the perennial tension between the missionary calling and the
ship, had every reason to look askanze :€1i11»:naiie 1d1.0m for sacramental wor- contemplative life: “Behold, my brother, we were both harnessed to the same
stamine and Methodius. an the more so e itlrgglcal €XPeI‘lII1BI'1tS.0f ‘Con-
within the jurisdiction of, Rome It is not S; as. . oragia was ecclesiastically yoke, ploughing the same furrow. I am falling down by the gate, my day’s
in Moravia, Whosg position was -greatl strenI‘?l1;1S1I1fi L at the Frankish clefgl’ work finished, but you have a great love for the Mountain. Do not, for the
sake of the Mountain, abandon your teaching. For how better can you be
of Prince Rastislav to Louis the Gerrriran in g86Zne' Y the force? Libmlssmn saved?”“
two Byzantine brothers with hostile Sus _ _ 2 viewed the activities of the
picion. The rest of Methodius’ life was spent in loyal obedience to his brother’s
But th tt't d . last wish. Armed with the Pope’s approval of the Slavonic liturgy, he returned
German cfegyl Llzijeofethe 1}aPa¢Y I?I‘0V@Cl to be different from that of the
to Central Europe, where, as Archbishop of Pannonia and Papal Legate to
Methodius travelled tr: Iirs a Mir
Omea their amval
111 response to a m Moravia’
summons Constantine
from Po e Ni h and
l the Slavonic nations, he continued the work of building a vernacular Chris-
1. In R ih - P ° ° as tianity, translating the remaining parts of the Scriptures and training the
The Papacy was at that timeimfint t° Plead their cause before the Holy See. next generation of Slav-speaking priests. Yet the foundations on which he
built were precarious. The East Frankish and Bavarian clergy, whose earlier
had recently scored a sens tirynlg secure Its hoki over the Balkan Slavs; it prerogatives in Pannonia and Moravia were annulled by Methodius’ new
hOpes were entertained
. . athe
in om‘Papal
’ 1 ePhem@1‘al,
Chancellerytrlumph in whole
that the Bulgaria. High
Slavon' jurisdiction, took advantage of the increased power of Louis the German in
World
of Id ' ' - ofI ;13.}lI110:l'lS
R0n‘;°11ThZ0::“joli)i(1;:e - , homage to the Bish0P
that Paid 1° Moravia to secure the arrest of Methodius. Condemned as a usurper of
' s 1'1 , ~ episcopal rights by a local synod presided over by the Archbishop of Salzburg,
on the work of Constantine and M6th0dlfi1S'(_lt‘l71e(3K xiii; to look lrmh favojjr he spent two and a half years in prison. It was only in 873 that the new
Slavs h d be h. hl . _ - _ nary wor amongt e
Pope, john VIII, having learnt at last of Methodius’ plight, forced Louis
widely :dmii~:i- .-lid ihiuccessful’ the" Personal Pwtw and leamins were the German and the Bavarian bishops to release him.
Central
was onlyEuroPe,— b Raitisilere
one embanyassin Ciav oftllslngly Packed
oravia by theofSlavonic
and Kocel rulers
Pannonia. °f
There But Rome was fast losing interest in the Slavonic liturgy. The Papacy
g rcumstance: they celebrated the Divine Office was now showing a growing unwillingness to risk, for the sake of this liturgy,

4 5
 a l'I'l3._]0I‘.COI'lfllCll with the Frankish Church. John VIII still loyally supported Clement was sent by Boris to Macedonia; there he was consecrated bishop
Izfetlhcidius. But his successors, turning their back on the achievements of and workediamong the Macedonian Slavs for thirty years, preaching the
(1.1: o as I and Hadrian II, banned the Slavonic liturgy. In 885 Methodius Gospel in Slavonic, celebrating the Slavonic liturgy according to the Byzan-
ie ' in Moravia, his work among the Slavs on the brink of ruin. His principal tine rite, translating Greek religious writings, and training a native clergy.”
disciples were arrested and exiled from Moravia; others were sold into slavery. Thanks to St. Clement and to his co-disciple and collaborator St. Naum,
Slavssoasgiigd the hfe work of St. .Cyril.and St. Methodius, apostles of the Macedonia became for a century one of the foremost centres of Christian
unders.of Slavonic Christianity. It must indeed, at the time, have culture in Europe, and its capital, the city of O_hrid by the beautiful mountain
seemed a tragic failure. The Slavonic liturgy and the new Slavo-Byzantine lake of that name, was the cradle of Slavonic Christianity in the Balkans.
culture appeared to be on the verge of extinction. Yet it took more than Meanwhile, at the opposite, North-Eastern, extremity of the country, in the
Elwo cenguries to wipe out the last remnants of the work of Cyril and Metho- Bulgarian capital of Preslav, another school of Slavonic literature was de-
Sius 111. entral Europe —- a sure sign ‘of its vitality and appeal. Old Church veloping under the patronage of Symeon, Boris’ son and successor. It was
avonic literature and the Slavonic liturgy flourished in Bohemia until the here, probably in the closing years of the ninth century, that the Glagolitic
end of the eleventh century,_and Croatia had in the tenth and eleventh script, invented by Constantine-Cyril, was replaced by the simpler Cyrillic
gillgugezhad a gtrlp/pghSlayonic liturgical tradition which went back to the alphabet, more obviously based on Greek. During the next hundred years, the
Slavonic pg; 8? . et odius. On the coast and on the islands of Dalmatia school of Preslav produced a remarkably rich crop of translated literature.
go itic missals are still in use. But in Central Europe the Roman Theological extracts from the Greek Fathers, Byzantine chronicles and en-
policy of centralization and linguistic uniformity destroyed Slavonic vernac- cyclopaedias, and a Byzantine treatise on poetics were thus made accessible
ular Christianity in the late eleventh century.” to Slavonic readers. It was mostly a literature of translation and adaptation;
These ‘developments, however were of secondary iI1‘1p()1‘ta,n(§e_ The future but some original works were also produced, such as the first grammar of
of Slayonic Christianityolay elsewhere. Expelled from Moravia upon their the Slav language, and at least one remarkable poem in Old Church Slavonic.
mlasters dleath, the disciples of Methodius found refuge in another land. This literary movement has been compared with the vernacular culture of
desfiijl wor was saved for Europe and the Slavs by the Bulgarians, whose Anglo-Saxon Northumbria which flourished two centuries earlier. But its
y it was to enrich this vernacular culture and to transmit it to the other historical importance, I would suggest, was greater: for, by making Byzantine
Stays who owed allegiance to the Orthodox Church — the Russians and the sacred and secular literature accessible to the Slavs, it fostered for many
r s. centuries the cultural life of the peoples of Eastern Europe.“
-lb -IF ‘X’ -ll-
_ ghe Bulgarian ruler Boris was, together with many of his subjects, bap-
tize into the Byzantine Church in 864, two years after Cyril and Methodius If one were to attempt a general assessment of the work of Cyril and
started on their mission to Moravia. By 870 Bulgaria was firmly attached to Methodius, its significance, I suggest would be seen to lie in its unifying
the ‘Eastern Church and placed within the sphere of Byzantine culture. But tendency and creative character. In a Christendom that was beginning to
Boris and the Bulgarian nobility, while wishing to benefit from their associa- feel the growing tension between East and West, they sought to reconcile
tion with the Empire, were yet afraid that the Greek clergy which controlled and to unite three important elements in the civilization of Medieval Europe:
their Church might prove to be the instrument of Byzantine political domin- the Byzantine, the Roman, and the Slavonic.
ation. Slavonic priests and the Slavonic liturgy would, they must have for- Cyril and Methodius were citizens of the East Ro-man Empire, and" never
zpen, provide an admirable solution to their dilemma. The vemacular tradi- ceased to regard Byzantium as their fatherland. As ambassadors of their
on of. Cyril and Methodius would allow Bulgaria to enjoy the benefits of emperor to Moravia, they loyally performed the mission with which they were
Byzantine civilization without prejudice to her independence as a Slavonic entrusted. By training and vocatio-n they belonged to the Byzantine élite of
$t1OI‘1.. And so, when the disciples of Methodius, after their expulsion from their time. The remarkable revival o-f monastic culture and secular learning
oravia, travelled ‘down the Danube valley and arrived in Bulgaria, they which began in the middle of the ninth century and which some historians
were cordially received by Boris. The leading member of this group was have termed “the Byzantine Renaissance” was imprinted on their outlook and
Clement, a. Byzantine Slav, whose contribution to the history of Slavonic activity. Methodius the monk and Cyril the scholar, sometime professor at
vernacular culture was surpassed only by that of Cyril and Me1;h0diu3_ the University of Constantinople and a friend of Photius, the greatest human-

6 7
 ist of the age, embody two of the most striking features in the medieval cul- unless we recognized that their attitude to the Roman see and its bishop in
ture of Byzantium. Typical of this culture was the belief in the one universal no way differed from that of most of their Byzantine contemporaries.
Christian Empire, the pattern and prefigurement of the Kingdom of
The debt which the Slavs owe to Cyril and Methodius is great indeed. A
T315 View _15 ‘,5,XP11¢1tly ascribed by Cyril by his ninth century biographer: mission, whose original purpose was to preach Christianity in the idiom of
ur Empire, he declared to the ruler of the Khazars, “is . . . that of Christ,
the Moravians, led to the rise of a whole Slavonic civilization. A Slavonic
88 the prophet said, ‘the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, which shall
pets/‘Er be destroyed. : and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but liturgy, in a language rich, supple and intelligible; the Christian Scriptures,
it all bilegk in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand translated into the same vemacular tongue; access to the treasury of Greek
or ever. The Byzantine authorities, for their part, gave their Qgntinued Patristic literature and Byzantine secular learning : truly a new world was
opened to the Slavs by the work of Cyril and Methodius. The two brothers
$11PP01't_t0 two brothers and to their disciples. In the last years of his life
'1;4;;l1:<1}Esl;isited l?OI1StKI'li.lI10plC, at the invitation of the Emperor Basil I.
were fully aware of the importance of their mission. This is apparent in their
biographies, in the writings of their immediate disciples, and especially in a
to M0;aVia l<;%tI‘1t1):hpI'dt;_s us, he was warmly received and, before returning
remarkable Old Church Slavonic poem, which many modern authorities
books 16 Tlie keen ont im a lpirgist and a deacon with the Slavonic liturgical
ascribe to Cyril himself, and others to his pupil Bishop Constantine who wrote
Slavohic Htur in erest vy the ‘Byzantine authorities showed the
in Bulgaria at the tum of the ninth century. Whether written by Cyril or not,
that mcunedgxs 3-3168;; Oh evangehzing the Slavs is seen also in an episode
this poem, which is a Prologue to the Slavonic version of the Gospels, ex-
Venice noticed n a er et odius death. An envoy of the Emperor, visiting
presses faithfully and eloquently the ideas prevalent in his circle. "3 The author
_ > _ a group of slaves, offered for sale by JCW1Sl'1 merchants. On
enquiry, he discovered that they were disciples of Cyril and Methodius, whom compares people without sacred books in their own language to a naked
body and to a dead soul; and laments the misery of those who, deprived of
E151 Moravians had sold heretics. He bought them and took them back to
garia to contiiiue their work." This active support given to Slavonig letters, can neither hear the peals of thunder nor smell the scent of flowers.
vemacular Christianity by the Byzantine authorities was part of the intense And, turning to the Slavs, the poet triumphantly exclaims: “Then hear now
missionary activity then displayed by the Eastem Church, which led to the with your mind, since you have learned to hear, Slavic people! Hear the
conversion of the Balkans and of Russia. And in this too, Cyril and Methodius, Word, for it came from God, the Word nourishing human souls, the Word
the apostles of the Slavs, embody that Christian universalism, which, in their strengthening heart and mind, the Word preparing all to know God!”'9 It is
noblest and most successful hour, the Church and Empire of East Rome perhaps worth noting that this poetic eulogy of the vemacular language has
preached to the newly converted nations of Europe. a parallel in a passage written almost simultaneously at the other end of
Europe, though in sober prose: “For it seems well to me,” wrote King Alfred
th And bthe Old Rome, too, welcomed and blessed for a while the work of
of England, “that we also change into the tongue that we all know the
e two rothers. It was the Frankish clergy, with its urge for cultural domin- books that are most needful to be known by all men” (The passage is taken
fmon and Pohtmal °°mI‘01, that destroyed the Slavonic vernacular Christian- from Alfred’s preface to his translation of Gregory the Great’s Cum Pas-
ity that was planted in Central Europe by the common action of Byzantium 1010113).”
€$;1tI{}:>£1i;f;I'hedpersisteince of ‘the schism. between the Churches of East and This vindication of the vernacular language fostered in its turn, among
and Byzantiuti: iristp;te_ $116 historians 'V1CW of the relations between Rome the followers of Cyril and Methodius, a particular outlook, part religious and
relations were on th nip I century. ‘It is well to remind ourselves that these part national, which is not without interest for the historian of ideas. A
at times in vioient vi w .0 e,‘ t(1]1Ll1tC friendly. Their leaders may have engaged national language was held to be sanctified by being used liturgically, above
all through serving as the language of the Mass; and thereby the nation
to differ
the ave one the do:i)Fm1cfwli
B Zant'I‘1I18 foflt e.dach other,
ouble their theologians
procession of the I-_Iolymay iwe
Spirit. begun
Yet for which spoke this language was in its turn raised to the status of a consecrated
city of gigpetzr a 0' be time, the Old Rome remained the venerable people. This idea is suggested in the letter sent in 863 by the Emperor Michael
H ” - _ 2 If‘! H18 lshop, the .P2lllI'18I‘(fl‘l of the West — the “Apost- to Rastislav of Moravia, and cited by Cyril’s biographer: the newly invented
o cus, as he is C21ll6(l.1I1 the Slavonic biographies of Cyril and Methodius —
Slavonic letters, the Emperor states, are being sent to the Moravians as a
was vested with the primacy of honour in the whole of Christendom. I believe
priceless gift, “that you too may be numbered among the great nations who
that we would fail to grasp the significance of the work of the two brothers praise God in their own languages.”2‘ The same idea is implicit in Cyril’s
8 9
 spirited defence of vernacular languages during his disputation with the
Venetian clergy.” For all tongues are equal in the sight of God; and it is NOTES
I 5” _]_ (jibulka, Velkomorirvskj Kostel U. Modré ii Velehradu a zaldtlcy kfestanstvi
through the language that is man’s most intimate possession, through his no Morave (Pragiie, I958) IWiih_summary in German] ; ]_. P0;1_|ik.T:\¢_€;fllI;5ét':g_l‘:“I
mother tongue, that Cod can come into closest contact with the human soul. ologieal Discoveries from the Period of the Great _M0_fdvw" 1"1_P!_' »_\ _ _ I
Thus, in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, was the idea of a consecrated (P a ue I959) 24-7- Z. R. Dittrich, The Beginning of Cllrl-rtt¢'I18¢"0" '" 0"“!
Miirgiiiei, in Thi Sliivonic land East Europeim Review, XXXIX (December, 1950)» PP-
nation combined with the concept of a plurality of languages equal in status I64-73. _ . .
before God, and nationalism was sublimated by the notion of an (ecumenical 2 See F. Grivec and F. Tomiif, Constantinus_et Methodius Thessalonicense_s. l'o_nte_.:
(Zagreb, I960). [Radovi Starosliivenslio_g Iristituto,_4]. See also the f9l|9WiI1§t_b12:_
society of Christian peoples. It may be said, in other words, that Cyril and Qqfaphiggfl G. A. Il’insliii, Opyt sisterriatieheslcoi I{mllo-Meforl ¢'USll_I0t_btbl|Qgt’flfiI,g:?4
Methodius transmitted to the Slavs the idea that underlies the whole of their fia. 1934) ; M. Popruzhenlio and S. Rpmansliii, l(tI1l0t:£l0dl¢U;ll,¢ b::?£0fi:‘¢l'I:_1‘::ce_ F:
I940 god. (Sofia, I942). The following modern _W1:l’ 8 ;I'¢_ 0 wig) _ F Baum“ -L“
missionary work: that every nation has its own particular gifts and every Dvomik, Les Slaves, B_yzance et Rome aii [Xe side e ( 3";-I c i93'3)_ F Gav“
people its legitimate calling within the family of the universal Church.” Legendes de Constantin et de Methods vues do Byzance ( _ 38“ t » - >
Konstantin and Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Wicsbaden, 1960).
These ideas became the inheritance of those Slavonic nations which ac- 3 Vita Methodii, V. 8 (Grivec-Tomfiifi, p. I55.)
cepted the Christian faith from ‘Byzantium. Their influence was particularly 4 See Handbook of Old Church Slavonic, n lb? R- A\"Yl (I-'°"d°“» 1960) ' pp‘ "14’
felt in Russia, whose medieval writers, for all their indebtedness to Byzantium, 5 Vita Constantini, XIII, I4 (Grivec-Tomlili, p. 129.) _ {W v_
soon began to display a native originality, conscious as they were that in the 6See A. V. hair-nko. Zaiiatky vzdelanoiiti vo Vel’komoravsk¢) R"! (T"l'¢13"5l‘Y
Sv. Martin, 1948 [With summary in Russiaii].
common patrimony of Christendom their own newly baptised nation had its 7 Vita Constantini, XV, 2 (Grivec-Tomiic, p. I31).
own and not unimportant place under the sun. And upon the humble folk 5 Sci: Grivcc, Konmivitin und Method, pp. 179-84. . _ . _
the legacy of Cyril and Methodius had an impact that was no less powerful. 9 Sm F. Dvornili, The Slavs, their early History and Civilization (Boston, 1955).
For the Slav peoples of Eastem Europe received Christianity in a language
pp. as, 166-7;Grivei~.,op. cit., pp. 119-a4. _
1° Vita Constemtini, XVI, 7-8 (Grivcc-Tomiili, p. l34l~
that was close to their vernacular. They listened to the Gospel as it was read il Vita Methodii.VII, I-3 (Grivec-Toinlic, p. 157). . _ . _
in church and could grasp something at least of its meaning. Above all was I? Sec F. Dvornilc. The Slavs, their early History _and Civilizotion, pp. l_70-7; K-
- _ ' ' 1| G .d ls ' d Kir hengescliichte des Mittelolters.
the Slavic liturgy a source of ever renewed inspiration. The liturgy of the
A/feariliin-l.iilh:riUniiiersitit, Hall:-Wiitenberg, V1
Eastern Church is one of the great original creations of Byzantine genius. On (I956-7). pp. 27-39. _ __ _ .
the Russians of the Middle Ages it produced an impression of overwhelming ii See N. 1.. Tuniiskii, Sv_. Kliment. epwkvr_stvv¢"~g<" (I§¢'8":' P°§j3;e:u9‘§§,5v*fi
Kusseff, St. Clement of Ochrida, in The Slavonic and ast in-op an ,
beauty: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth,” so did the (l948),pp. l93-215. _ _ . .

...:.‘.‘P';.=.*:...’:f.":‘;:.~.f'.;.".£: :.fi'.t:. ‘!.:; :%;::.:.;i:£:':;::.: 2'i..;i is

. ' " 9 '1 L i f (I-""‘pz'gs
Russian envoys of Vladimir describe to their sovereign the service in St. Sophia
in Constantinople in the late tenth century.“ Translated into Slavonic, this
Raztivietht rm biilgarskato literature v IX-X v. (5058. 1952)-
liturgy, with its eucharistic drama, the poetry of its hymns, and the dogmatic
symbolism of its setting —,the church with its mosaics and frescoes depicting
" V-'=== @~~i~~'*"‘» Xi 5“ ‘ °""“’°""°"“*" """ "-“"”;.‘3.l".h‘..lf.;.’?.?“1‘-lit:
Political Theory in the Lives of the Slavic Saints Constantine an
vard Slavic Studies, II (I954). pp. ll-38. _
the heavenly hierarchy dominated by the majestic figure of the Pantokrator— I6 Vita Methodii, XIII, 5 (Grivec-Tomiilf, p. I63). . _
Christ the All-Ruler — entered the very core of Slav Christianity. Its role was '7 Vita S. Naovm. ed. M. Kussefifi in Tl" sl‘w°'"" Md Fla“ Emopmfl Rmuw’
thus described by the English Byzantinist, the late Norman Baynes, eighteen XXIX (1950-1). P- 142- . _ . . . . _
18 Si-c El Gcorgir-v, Kiril i Metody, OSIIOU0fi0l0ZllHILL!dtli‘Sl:Utd1I;f’tl€‘l£t;:;d-Ilift g??-
years ago: “Still today it is the common liturgy which is the bond between fia |q55) pp, I65-90;F. Grivcc, Konstantin and Met 0 . ¢ Y" 4 -- - »PP
the separate branches of the Orthodox Church — the liturgy in the vemac- Zl.
h ' 1 ' , 23-27.
ular tongue which was the gift of Byzantium . . . that liturgy which may yet
ggiiieldeiiiva Rbaliisiiznsofliealigiihiiis iiiiiirihe Rise of Western Culture (L0"<l°I1. 1950)»
even in the Russia of Stalin see a resurrection and reassert its claims against . 103. _ .
the propaganda of a godless creed.”25 P 11 Vita cpniientini. xiv, 16. _(Gngcs-1131"!!!» F5413)-
Such, in brief, are the main achievements of Cyril and Methodius, Byzan- ” Vim R.
23 gm Cmmmmmi 1-"(VI (Gn'\c(:- om
jakohson, vl']liIe(?;€gi)ning.s 204 ‘Al pi‘). al Sell-Determination in Europe, in
4°ation
tine missionaries, apostles of the Slavs and saints of the universal Church. T}; Review of Politics. i ~PP- ' *- _ -
‘"4
i Proves!
' - Vrernennylrh Let. ed. V.
- P. ' Adrianova~Pcretts and S.
lation by S. H. ross anLighghg
.
(Moscow-Leningrad, l950l- It P- (5: Enghsh ital“ . _ _ 1953 ’ _|H_
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, VII. New York 1963 Slierbowiiz-Wetsor: The Russian Pnmod’ Ch"°'"‘l' (Camb"dgc' Ma“ ‘ ) P
Z5 N. H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955)» PP- 21'2-

10
 X
I
THE Russian Primary Chronicle, in a passage describing the measures
taken in I037 by the Russian sovereign Yaroslav to provide his subjects
with Slavonic translations of Byzantine books—a passage written in the
eleventh or early twelfth century—makes the following observation: “Great
THE HERITAGE OF GYRIL is the profit obtained from book learning: for through books we are taught
the way of repentance, and from the written word we gain wisdom and self-
control. Books are rivers which water the entire world; they are the springs of
AND METHODIUS IN RUSSIA wisdom; in books there is an unfathomable depth; by them we are consoled
in sorrow; they are the bridle of self-control. . .. He who reads books often
converses with God, or with holy men.”1 Such statements are no doubt a
commonplace of mediaeval literature; yet their conventional character cannot,
even today, wholly obscure the genuine emotion with which the chronicler,
who was probably a Russian monk, affirms that the life of men can be greatly
This paper was read at a Symposium on “The Byzantine enriched by the reading of books. And, as the context of this passage plainly
shows, the chronic1er’s emotion is heightened by his knowledge that his com-
Mission to the Slavs: St. Cyril and St. Methodius," held at
patriots have now been provided with books in their own Slavonic language.
Dumbarton Oaks in May I964. Except for the notes, it is This he gratefully attributes to the enlightened action of the rulers of his own
printed here in substantially the same form in which it was land—Yaros1av, Prince of Kiev, and his father Vladimir who converted Russia
delivered. to Christianity in the late tenth century. So concerned is the chronicler to
extol the virtues of these two Russian sovereigns in promoting the Slav
vernacular culture that he fails, in this passage, to mention the fountainhead
of this culture—the work of Cyril and Methodius. Yet, as we shall see, the
Russians of the Middle Ages were well aware of the true origins of their ver-
nacular literature, and cherished with gratitude and veneration the memory of
the two Byzantine apostles of the Slavs; and the same Russian Primary Chronicle
contains other passages which clearly acknowledge that the Russians owe their
alphabet, their literature, and their scholarly tradition, to the Moravian mis-
sion of Constantine and Methodius. One of the aims of this paper is to demon-
strate that the importance of this mission, and its relevance to the cultural
history of the Eastern Slavs, were appreciated in mediaeval Russia ; the
second aim is to outline the history of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in
mediaeval Russia and to assess the role it played in the culture and thought-
world of the Eastern Slavs: I would emphasize the word “outline”; for it is
clear to me that the “Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia” is a problem
too vast and complex to be treated, within the scope of a single lecture, in any
but a fragmentary and tentative manner.
1 Povest’ vrememiykk let, ed. by V. P. Aclrianova-Pei-etts and D. S. Likhachev (Moscow-Leningrad,
I950), I, pp. 102-3; English translation by S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge,
Mass., 1953), p. 137. In subsequent references to this document the original will be cited as “Povest’,"
and the translation as “Cross.”
47

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIX

Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies 1965
 48 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 49
I. propose to approach my subject chronologically. I shall concentrate them in the Slavonic language strongly suggest that the Russian ecclesiastical
maglnlylon the period which begins with the official acceptance of Christianity leaders and intellectual élite of that time were building on earlier foundations;
in e ate tenth century and ends in the early twelfth. It was then, notably and it is only natural to suppose that these older foundations were such as to
in the eleventh century, that Russian literature was born‘ it was then too ensure the survival of the Christian community in Kiev as a going concem for
thafi fiL1SS18.l'l national consciousness found its first articulate expression. The more than a century before Vladimir; that this community, in other words,
centr Pgfll of my'theme—the heritage of Cyril and Methodius in eleventh- was provided with an effective clergy, intelligible Scriptures, and a liturgy
cen ury uss1a——will be introduced by a brief sketch of its antecedents on capable of satisfying the spiritual needs of the Slav and Varangian converts to
Russian soil, and will be followed by an epilogue illustrating its impact on the Christian religion. We would expect, in brief, to find traces in Russia,
late mediaeval Russia. between 860 and 988, of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition of Slavonic vernacular
Christianity.
II
These traces, however, are singularly insubstantial. The evidence which
1?? stlory begins with a puzzle, which has taxed the ingenuity of many a scholars have extracted from the sources, or dug out from the ground, amount
so phar. . he first recorded conversion of the Russians to Christianity took place to a few meagre crumbs: it has been maintained, for instance, that the Slavonic
in the Sl)}ilZl6S of the ninth century: contemporary Byzantine sgurgeg inform texts of the Russo-Byzantine peace treaties of the tenth century, preserved in
us at2t is conversion closely ‘followed the Russian attack on Constantinople the Primary Chronicle, prove that the Russians could by that time read and
in 860; that by 867 the Russians had accepted a bishop from Byzantium ;3 write in Slavonic, although we do not know for certain when or where these
and that about 874 an archbishop was sent to them by the Patriarch Ignatius.‘ documents were translated from the Greek ;8 the observation that Princess
This first ecclesiastical organization on Russian soil seems to have been sub- Olga, at the time of her baptism and visit to Constantinople in 957, knew no
me1'€ed»_15fte1' 111 the centuiy. by a wave of paganism which swept away the Greek and relied on the service of interpreters has led to the suggestion that
pro-Christian rulers of Kiev and replaced them by a rival group of Scandina- the liturgy may have been celebrated in Slavonic for her benefit in Kiev ;° the
vians frgm North Russia. Yet there is little doubt that a Christian community fact that in the eleventh century the Russians had some acquaintance with
‘S;11I'\;1V6 1; at least in Kiev, attracting a growing number of converts throughout the Glagolitic script has been taken to mean that they imported, not later
_ e ent century, until Russia s final conversion in the reign of St. Vladimir, than the middle of the tenth century, the Slavonic liturgy and books from
in 98.8 or 989. Some of the Russian envoys who ratified the treaty with the Macedonia, where the Glagolitic tradition was still in existence;1° a Cyrillic
Empire in Constantinople in 944 were Christians, and a Christian church inscription, consisting of a single word, was discovered on a clay vessel during
ministering to a numerous community, existed in Kiev at that time;5 in 957 excavations near Smolensk in 1949, and was dated by its discoverer, D. A.
Princess Olga, regent of the Russian realm, was baptized in Constantinople? Avdusin, to the first quarter of the tenth century :11 all this, in terms of direct
and 1Il 983, a few years before Vlad1mir’s conversion, two Christian Varangians evidence, does not amount to very much.
were martyred in Kiev for their faith.’ And yet it seems likely enough that well before Vladimir’s conversion, by
It is apparent from these facts that the beginnings of Russian Christianity the mid-tenth century at the latest, the Christian community in Kiev was
coincide in time with the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius and familiar with the Slavonic liturgy, with Slavonic translations of parts of the
with the. CO11V631'S10I1.0I Bulgaria to the Christian faith; and that a Christian Scriptures, and with Slav-speaking priests. It is permissible to speculate where
community existed KlBV,.COI'1'£11'111011Sly or with brief intenuptions, for I25
years before Vladimir s baptism. Moreover, the comparatively rapid establish- ' See D. S. Likhachev, in Povest', II, pp. 257, 278. For the text of these treaties, see Povest’, I, pp.
mept of a diocesan organization at the end of the tenth century, the perceptive 24-9, 34-9, 52; Cross, pp. 64-B, 73-7, 89-go. Cf. S. Mikucki, "Etudes sur la diplomatique russe la plus
191111 mature understanding of the Christian life revealed by Russian writers of ancienne. I. Les traités byzantino-russes du X" siécle,” Bulletin international de l'A cadilmie Polonaise
ales Sciences at des Lettres, cl. de philol., d’hist. et de phi1os., no. 7 (Cracow, 1953), pp. 1-40; I. Sorlin,
e next two generations, and the high literary standards attained by some of “Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au X= siécle,“ Cahiers du monde msse et soviétique, II (1961),
3» PP- 3I3-5°- 4» PP- 447-75-
‘ Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis (Bonn), I, p. 597. Cf. P. A. Lavrovsky, "Iss1edo-
' Theo_phanes_Continuatus (Bonn), p. 196,
vanie o Letopisi Yakimovskoy,” Uchenye Zapiski Vtorogo Otdeleniya Imper. Akademii Nauk, II, 1
2 ggotius, Epistolae, PG, 102, cols. 736-7.
18 6, . 1 9.
I (lrlunlg-3-4;)-'3. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden ales ostromiscken Reiclies, ( it )SeI; Speransky, “Otkuda idut stareishie pamyatniki russkoy pis'mennosti i literatury P",
Slavia, VII, 3 (1928), pp. 5:6-35; B. S. Angelov, “K voprosu o nachale russko-bolgarskikh litera-
P°”°~'>'t' ' I ' _ P- 39'CI'0SS
' _- p - 77 - The Russo-Byzantine treaty . dated b y the chronicler
‘ '
to 945, was in turnykh svyazey,“ Trudy Oidela Dreimerusskoy Literatury, XIV (1958), pp. 136-8. On the Glagolitic
fact %);:.,ClI:fI6;l in the previous year. See Povesf, II, p. 289; Dolger, op, can I_ p_ 3o_
tradition in mediaeval Russia, see V. N. Shchepkin, “Novgorodskie nadpisi Graffiti," Dreimosti.
A H 85 . . P11 44-5. Cross, pp. 82-3. For the date and place of Olga's baptism, see G. Laehr, Die Trudy Imper. Moskovskoga Arkheologieheskogo Obshchestva, XIX, 3 (1902), pp. 26-46; G. Il'insky,
"l¢m_€@_ (135 ""5-"$553" Rum?-5 IBBTIII1. 193°)» PP- 103-6 ; F. Dvornik, The Slavs Their Early History “Pogodinskie kirillovsko-glagolicheskie listki,“ Byeantinoslavica, 1 (1929), p. 102.
and Civilization (Boston, I956), pp. zoo-1. '
"' Povest', I, pp. 58-9; Cross, pp. 95-6.
11 D. A. Avdusin and M. N. Tikhomirov, “Drevneishaya russkaya nadpis’," Vestnik Akademii
Nauk SSSR (1950), 4, pp. 71-9.
4
 50 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 51
these may have come from. Common linguistic and ethnic ties, and the political aware of the Slavonic origin of Russian Christianity, but deliberately avoided
relations which existed in the tenth century between the Eastem Slavs on the any mention of it, in order to give greater prominence to the story_ of Vladi-
one hand, and the Westem and Southern Slavs on the other, may well have mir’s baptism by Byzantine missionaries, to present the conversion as ‘an
facilitated, or even provoked, the spread of Slav priests and books to Russia exclusively Greek achievement, and thus to justify the claims of the Byzantine
either from the former territories of Great Moravia, or else from Bulgaria." clergy to ecclesiastical hegemony over Russia.“ This thesis should be con-
Some of these priests and books may even have come from Constantinople sidered in a broader context: for the past fifty years it has been fashionable
where, at least in the second half of the ninth century, the Byzantine authori- to regard the authors of the Primary Chronicle as men moved by political
ties assembled Slav-speaking priests and stockpiled Slavonic books for the passions and factional loyalties, propagandists not averse to suppressing,
needs of missionary enterprises beyond the Empire’s northern borders. We twisting, or inventing evidence to gratify their prejudices or to flatter their
have no direct evidence to show how far, before or after the time of Vladimir, ecclesiastical or secular patrons. This view is best epitomized in the well known
the Byzantine missionaries in Russia deliberately encouraged the Slavonic history of Kievan Russia by M. D. Priselkov, published in 1913, who carried
vemacular as a means of evangelizing the country; however, the rapid estab- to extreme, and sometimes absurd, lengths the more balanced and cautious
lishment of this tradition in Russia after Vladimir’s conversion, to the virtual conclusions of his teacher Shakhmatov, that unrivalled authority on Russian
exclusion of the Greek language from the liturgy at a time when the Russian chronicles." The problem of the reliability of the Primary Chronicle is too
Church was governed by prelates appointed by Constantinople, strongly sug- large and too complex to be discussed here. I can only express my personal
gests that the East Roman authorities acknowledged that the tradition of belief that, although the compilers of the Chronicle did at times show a personal
vemacular Slavic Christianity, which had already yielded rich dividends in bias in the selection and presentation of their material, to maintain or imply
Bulgaria, was the only one that could reasonably be imposed on the numer- that they were wholesale forgers, playing an elaborate game of hide-and-seek
ous population of their powerful and distant northern proselyte.13 with their mediaeval readers (and with modern scholars as well), is to overesti-
This introductory survey has rested less on direct information—which is mate their ingenuity, to degrade their sense of history, and to ascribe to them
fragmentary and equivocal—than on circumstantial evidence and on later motives which are, to say the least, anachronistic.
material derived from the eleventh century. It is customary to blame the What Niko1’sky called “the mysterious silence” of the chronicler about the
Russian Primary Chronicle for our inadequate knowledge of the beginnings of early introduction of Slavonic letters into Russia C3.I1,.1t seems to me, be
the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Russia. It is indeed at first sight surprising explained more satisfactorily if we suppose that he was ignorant of the facts,
that this document, compiled in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, rather than that he took part in a conspiracy to suppress them. He. had, as
which treats in such detail of the earliest history of the Russian people and is we shall see, precise and detailed information on the Moravian mission of
so plainly concerned with the fate of Russian letters and learning, has nothing Constantine and Methodius; but the circumstances in which ‘the fruits of this
precise to say about the channels through which the Slav vemacular tradition mission were first acquired by the Russians must have remained unknown to
came to Russia. It attributes, as we have seen, the introduction of book learn- him. The Soviet scholar V. M. Istrin has plausibly suggested that this ignorance
ing to Vladimir and his son Yaroslav. Are we then to conclude that the author, may be explained by the gradual, sporadic, and undramatic way in which the
or authors, of the Chronicle knew nothing of any earlier beginning, and that Slav vernacular tradition filtered in to Russia in the tenth century; and by
they believed that the Christian community in Kiev before Vladimir's time the fact that among its carriers—Slav-speaking priests from the Balkans or
celebrated the liturgy in Greek? Different answers have been given to this the West Slavonic area——no memorable personality emerged of the calibre of
question. The Russian scholar N. K. Nikol'sky, in a study of the Russian Cyril and Methodius and their immediate disciples."
Primary Chronicle, published in I930, argued that its compilers were perfectly
III
1' On Russia’s relations with Bohemia in the tenth century, see A. V. Florovsky, Chekhi 2' vostoclmya
slavyane, I (Prague, 193 5), pp. I-44. On Russia’s relations with Bulgaria in the same period, see M. N. It is scarcely possible to doubt that elements of the Cyrillo-Methodian
Tikhomirov, “Istoricheskie svyazi russkogo naroda s yuzhnymi slavyanami s drevneishikh vremen
do poloviny XVII veka," Slavyansky Sbomik (Moscow, 1947), pp. 132-52. tradition—priests, books, and the liturgy—came to Russia before the time of
1' For the Byzantine attitude toward the tradition of Slavonic vernacular Christianity, see F. Vladimir. It would, however, be unwise to exaggerate the extent and import-
Dvomik, Les Slaves, Byzance at Rome au IX‘ siecle (Paris, 1926), pp. 298-301; I. Dujéev, "Il problema
delle lingue nazionali nel medio evo e gli Slavi,“ Ricerahe Slavistiche, VIII (1960), pp. 39-60; I. Sev- 14 N. K. Nikol'sky, "Povest' vremennykh let, kak istochnik dlya. istorii nachal (nogo perioda russkoy
éenko, "Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission,“ The Slavic Review, XXIII (1964), pp. pis'mennosti i kul'tury," Sbomik pa Russkomu Yazyku 2 Slovesnosifz Akatiemn Nauk 5551?. II. I
226-32. The problem is complex and requires further investigation; in the meantime, it may be ten- (Leningrad, 1930). See the review of this work by G. Il’insky, Byzantmoslavwa, 2, 2 (1930), pp. 432_-6-_
tatively suggested that the farther a given Slavonic country was situated from Constantinople, and 1‘ M. D. Priselkov, “Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoy istorii Kievskoy Rusi X-XII vv.," Zapiski
the less chance there consequently was of Helleniziiig its culture, the more ready the Byzantine ist.-filol. fak. Impemt. Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, CXVI (I913). _ _
authorities generally were to consolidate its Christianity and to ensure its loyalty to the Empire by 1' V. M. Istrin, "Moravskaya istoriya slavyan i istoriya polyano-rusi, kak predpolagaemye istoch-
encouraging it to acquire and develop the Slav vernacular tradition. niki nachal'noy russkoy letopisi," Byzantinoslavica, 3 (I931). PP- 327-32. 4 (1931), PP- 51-7-
4i
 52 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 53
ance of this penetration. It was only after Russia’s official conversion to
Christianity in 988 or 989, which led to the strengthening of the links with
Byzantium and the establishment of a nation-wide ecclesiastical structure
was invented in Moravia, an 1a owar e _its ?Ym.:1‘:.*;“~ Z23‘.E“?..§‘i¥Z“éZ.3f.‘Li.§.
_
'

taught in Bulgaria; in one case, however, the R11‘55l119-11 ¢1i1(1°n\;fi:dr Egricfit 5?;
' b t

under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, that the problem of pected of deliberately deviating ‘from his sourcesd be 3;: $0 ac g but makes
building a Slav vernacular Church became really urgent." For this new period, work oi Constantine and Methodius was supports I3)’ ble daP tOY;mti_ROman
which spans and slightly overlaps the eleventh century, we have considerably no mention of their stay in Rome; this om1SS10I1.lPT0 E) Y tgeor earl twelfth
more information ; and much of it comes from the Russian Primary Chronicle.
In an entry dated 898, the Chronicle gives a fairly detailed account of the Censorship’ Suggests: ihe hand of a Fevlsor of the €i)te fa wen to ain }i'ound in
century, when hostility to the Latin Church was 68111111118 5 3
Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius; this is preceded by a brief Russia.” _ _ Z t-
note describing the invasion of Moravia by the Magyars; the introductory As source material on the Moravian mission, the Tale abontthe Tran;att0_11»
section of the Chronicle has a further entry which refers to the earliest history of Books is wholly derivative and of no ‘great lvaluf to :Zl'l(:)th1i_lZ)O‘:'(l;.I1£ha€it1l11;
of the Slavs and to their dispersal from their primeval European home.“ This other respects this documentis of. considerab e inIeres . if (ponstantine and
introductory entry is linked with the later note on the conquest of Moravia by Russian chronicler was fH.I'1‘11l1$.; viitéil the writteq( fizzt<l>1ing the authentic
a common emphasis on the ethnic and linguistic unity of the Slav peoples; th d‘ ; 't h s how a es avonic wor , _
and both the entry and the note are connected with the account of the Mora- ggiritooiuihel C;ri(ll:i-Methodian tradition, could be adapted to a Sp6C1fiC8.ll)](
vian mission by the importance they all ascribe to “Slavonic letters” (gramota Russian situation; and, whether in its orig1nal_0f_%daP€ed fi1t1'r1§J»u1tti;1lat§ fiat
slovénsskaja) as a force expressive of Slav unity. The scholars who have studied shall presently suggest, a small but not insigni can co
these various entries in the Chronicle—A. Shakhmatov, P. Lavrov, N. Nikol'- tradition. . -
sky, V. Istrin, and, most recently, Professor Jakobson-—are agreed that they . . 1
The emphasis which the Tale repeatedly lays on the un1ty.o.f_thf=’2§ EIVOHIC
are all fragments of a single work, stemming from a Cyrillo-Methodian environ- language; its manifest pride in the fipower-. andh $ntelligfibill1ity'it te()L{SlI:l1(;
ment, and brought to Russia from the West Slavonic area.1° Shakhmatov, Slavonic letters created by Constantine and“ Met ‘o iusthvg gm, arians and
who called it The Tale about the Translation of Books into the Slav language
(Skazanie 0 prelozhenii knig na slovensky yazyk)—the name has stuck- explicitly’ are a Colrimon piitnmony of ‘Eh? ' oralilimsi " thatgbéte noire of
the Russians; its critical attitudeto the tnlingua eresy. T d hara-
plausibly suggested that it came to Russia in the eleventh century; and the Slavonic apostles and of their d1SC1pl6SI24 these are fami iar ant C 1
Professor Jakobson has described it as "a Moravian apologetic writing of the . . . . - - _ . one u-
teristic ingredients of the Cynllo-Methodian thought world But in 1 ihc Tale
very end of the ninth century.”2° ' t which obviously bears the mark of a Russian I'6V1S10IL _@
For our present purpose, the most interesting of these surviving fragments guegkgaiiew
1' ground I and claims that the heritage of Cyril and . M6th0d111$ - has'
is the account of the Moravian mission. It has long been known to contain . - .- ' ' f ll t
four separate quotations from the Vita Methodii, and to be generally based on arguments: the Slavonic letters were brought ‘y ons aiglavs and Speak the
this work, with several borrowings from the Vita C0nstantini.21 On several to the Moravians; the Russians, like the _MOr1~¢:1V&8-15;, ilffhe Rugsians too are
points, however, the version of the Russian Chronicle deviates from the vitae of
the apostles of the Slavs: on none of them is the Russian version reliable; most Same
pupils Slav
of thelanguagei; the Conduslon
Slavonic apostles; ls lmpli/Ib01'aV11=1
i111‘fhB1‘I1101'B, 'a andelized
Pannonia itheAndm_
b ét lands
of the divergences may be ascribed to error or confusion on the chronicler’s
part: for instance, he states quite wrongly that Kocel, as well as Rastislav and of Methodius, Spintual Junsdlciwil’ ha.d om; ifndeVai1C€.1S was tlie disciP1e of
nicus, one of Christ’s seventy disciples, but I1f1'011st Paul is the teacher
1" For Russia’s conversion to Christianity in the reign of Vladimir, see Povest’, I, pp. 59-81; Cross, St. Paul, who himself preached in Moravia. ere ore -
pp. 96-117, 244-8; Laehr, Die An/tinge des russischen Reiches, pp. 110-15; G. Vernadsky, Kievan
Russia (New Haven, 1948), pp. 6o-5. For the establishment of a Byzantine hierarchy in Russia, see
" See akobson, ibid., p. 41- _ _ - - _ _ , 1; _
D. Obolensky, "Byzantium, Kiev, and Moscow. A Study in Ecclesiastical Relations," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 11 (1957), pp. 23-5; L. Miiller, Zum Problem rles hierarchisehen Status and der jurisdiktionellen
Abhfingigkeit der mssischen Kirche var 1039 (Cologne, 1959) (Osteuropa and der deutsche Osten, III,6).
=- 11 of
" Povest’. ’, I, p.
me" *1"°"*“?"“i*:i°“*?*”°;:?:;:a:.izl:k;.::;:i::;€'.:.:.1.:§..°.
. 22: "Certain
- men rose up agains _ em i.e. lphabet,
a except for the Jews,- the Greeks .
1' Povest’, I, pp. 11, 21-3; Cross, pp. 52-3, 62-3. and “V1113: It 15 mt fight fol: an): Reopl? 1:? have its own a d to be inscribed on the Lord’s cross'."
1' A. Shakhmatov, "Povest' vremennykh let i ee istochniki,“ Trudy Otdela Drevne-Russkoy Litera- and the Latins, according to Pilate s inscription. W1'11¢1}11e Cause - th om
tury, IV (1940), pp. 8o-92; P. Lavrov, "Kirilo ta Metodiy v davn'o-slov’yans'komu pis'menstvi,“ Cf. Cross. 63. The H trilingflal
- - heresy,_-I based on the view, tb_ hat Hebrew,
Ta her toGreek, andclerics
the Latin Latin who
are opposed
B Y
Zbirnik Isl.-Filol. Viddilu, Ukrai'ns'ka Akademiya Naak, 78 (1928), pp. 129-136; Nikol'sky, op. eit.; legitimate. liturgical languages. - - is ascribed- byC0I181=fl}1t111@
11 d t 8d 1°_Sth Pthe former in, Venice.. See V,-M cow
Istrin, op. cit. ; R. Jakobson, “Minor Native Sources for the Early History of the Slavic Church,“ C;on=;’1apt1)I§Ia1:9M(;?V)Id11is5n
S411 ‘I724, 1 1 -I _ 1 1Ig\(lIII1a91ngo:iti?nti:E.:
0 I D eil llyithodius Thessalonicenses.
-t t ' ' I I31’Fontes, ed. o
I34. I41.
Harvard Slavic Studies, 11 (1954), pp. 39-47.
1° R. Jakobson, "Comparative Slavic Studies,” The Review of Politics, XVI, 1 (1954), p. 79 F. Grivec and F. Tomsifi (Zagrflbl 195°) (R“d'91”_ stayoszavenslwg Ins“-u a PP bl ma dens Hague
'1 See Shakhmatov, Povest’ vreinennykh let i ee istochniki,“ op. cit., pp. 87-9; Jakobson, "‘Minor Vita Methodii. VI. 3'4. ibid., 1?. 156.211 the :'tI'1]:1ng‘lI|8£.h8i§S?2é size (]:)ol:1)sét6a’\;£tiIPl§1t1:i3losi)phe-Cyrnle on
Native Sources," op. cit., p. 40. nazionali nel medio evo e gli Slflvl. 0?-$11-F “iv ac “'1
Moravia," Byeantinoslavica. 24 (I963). PP- 111-3-
 54 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 55
of the Slavs, and the Russians, by virtue of being Slavs and pupils of St. _ 30
mainly derived from the (phronjclesl0; John l\/i3.l8.l8§r31.:I}l1(i gitérgg :11:-3FL1:;E1<Z1°E'l»1e
Methodius, are likewise disciples of St. Paul.” By means of these complicated
t t th t hen the Lor scat ere IS PBOP B 0V _ _ _*
constructions, and by appealing to the current though legendary tradition that
prgisfisne lingvuistic and ethnic unity of mankind gave way to a multiplicity ti
Paul and Andronicus preached in northem Illyricum and Pannonia, the Rus-
languages and nations. The Russian chronicler deliberately links 1111115 liibllc
sian chronicler traces the spiritual ancestry of his people back to Cyril and
introduction to his account, which follows immediately, of the. earfy ishog
Methodius on the one hand, and to St. Paul on the other. The conjunction of
and dispersal of the Slavs, by placing them b0’th amizng Sh? heuicshg _I~_l;5ere of
names is significant, for the veneration of St. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles,
and among the seventy-two nations which were sclat erel rogihed to Sn est
is an essential feature of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition.” _
Babel. The conclusion seems inescapable ‘that the C rOH1C BI‘ W g€_t
There is clearly something artificial in these putative spiritual genealogies;
a contrast between the former multiplicity of tongues and th§ Present um Y
even the syntax of this passage in the Chronicle is awkward: there are eleven
of the Slavonic languages, a unity to which Cyril and Methodius gave a new
causal conjunctions in nine lines. The chronic1er’s patent embarrassment
si nificance' and that he did so by implying that the Slavonic letters are an
doubtless stems from his inability to identify the historical channels through
eftension of the miracle of Pentecost whereby the Holy Spirit rescinded the
which the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage penetrated from Moravia to Russia; and
confusion of tongues which sprang from the Tower of B8.b6l..Th1S1CE)1l:1l2I'3.St
it confirms the view I expressed earlier that his silence on this point comes
between Pentecost and Babel, which gives a new and more universa unen-
from ignorance, not from bad faith. At the same time he is conscious, and
sion to the work of Cyril and Methodius, is not, as far as I know, explicitly
rightly so, that the Slav vemacular tradition which flourished in Russia in
drawn in any other work of the mediaeval Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. One
his day has its roots in the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius. - ' ' : th
or the other of the two contrasting themes is touched upon oc<:1S_1011i3{1LY b ,5
Two Scriptural quotations inserted in the Tale seem to me of special interest,
Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages are mentione £111 t 1'8-_
and suggest that the chronicler, or his source, did more than just reiterate
celebrated defence of the Slavpnic letters, written in Blplgarira ilnatsi Ehgvfnflllghe
the classic themes of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. The first of them is
or the early tenth ‘century? aild, 1-15 PTQfe55C;r J3 0 S? C In and M;_3th0_
embedded in the phrase: “The Slavs rejoiced to hear the mighty works of God
Pentecostal miracle 1S alluded to in a troparzon o ha paéiolil 3 eggived the grace
in their own tongue”; and in a later passage the Pope is made to declare:
dius, dating from the same period, which states ,t32a .yri r th P Z 6
“All nations shall tell the mighty works of God, as the Holy Spirit will give
of the Holy Spirit equal to that of the Apostles. It is true that e rlq Olgu
them utterance.”‘~" The latter citation is taken from Pope Hadrian II’s letter - ' rs
to the Holy Gospels, an Old Church Slavonic poem pttribjiited blyirrlllangl Egnfirzst
to Rastislav, Svatopluk, and Kocel, as quoted in the eighth chapter of the
to Constantine himself, seems to go some way d0§1Vf=t1£:h1_T1}cP lémis to ather
Vita Methodii ;28 and both of these quotations in the Chronicle are also derived,
between Babel and Pentecost: its third line rea s.P I r15 Ehronicle agre the
practically verbatim, from the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, verses
the nations and tongues ;33 but only in the Russian rimary
four and eleven, which describes the descent of tongues of fire upon the Apostles
two terms of the contrasting parallel clearly brought out.
at Pentecost. So far we are on familiar Cyrillo-Methodian ground, for the gift
The origin of this idea is not hard to find: the contrast between Babel and
of tongues is a theme closely related to that of vernacular languages, and the
Pope’s citation of Acts II in the Vita Methodié implies that the appearance of
the Slavonic liturgy and books can be regarded as a second Pentecost. How-
ever, these two Pentecostal quotations acquire an added significance if we
Pentecost . ’ and
in
. the belief that
- the latter has cancelled
feast makes the point with particular clarity.
- the former, are repeatedlly

_ Hi b tic hen Hegdistrib

' f t

down and confused the tongues, he divided the nations. u w

relate them to the introductory part of the Primary Chronicle, which immedi-
°° Sh khmatov, i'bz'd.. PP- 44-5. 72-7- _ . - -- - _
ately precedes the first fragment of the Tale: this introduction, based largely, '1 Foi-l the text of Khrabr's treatise O P1Sfl£8efl80h’?n 33¢ P-
€—;"1;;’»s1Z::;Z::2L;’xgmggigofiimfié1-
though not exclusively, on the Slavonic translation of the Byzantine chronicle - dreimezshey
mya - -»
Sl6lUyG?tSf;O_']i P1;O1:81gl£}S' 1'Ljskinsiptgyrini
' a .iz1930 Y“ 2nd ed.
Makedoniya, (Sofia, 193x), pp. 442_6_
of George Hamartolos,” begins with the story of the division of the earth N““k1f_5€R)' ppi I%2_4’ O", vg'Che1'_nori§e1;s Kb;-abiir ” Khilyada i sto godimi: slavyanska pismenost,
QTIK 3- 1'» See _- neg” ' . . . ' _ - A.D tal, "Les origines de
among the sons of Noah after the Flood, and ends with a brief account of the 863-1961 5”°"“k ” ‘hm "I? KM '- Mam-y (Sofia: g9)63)' P§5€_°.%‘%'. Tkad(l)§1k, “Le moine Chrabr
building of the Tower of Babel. The Russian version of the latter episode, l'Ap°k.)g.ie slave ,Pa"r.Chra'br’ za”tm0€lam;caa"24 ( 9 3 '5 . 75-9l 2. The older literature
. on the
based, it would seem, on a Slavonic version of a lost historical compendium et1i':i;gis?Iisdt§d1iéii:rGmi1;ie
811 J ' ' IlflliiiigkyBgggiltzfimzffisaefksoglII(i'i:ill£11l4e/od’avskoy
' . - - - - - bibliografiz
_ (Sofia;
0 (1519354).
0 a,
pp_ 27-3; M. Popruzhenko and St. Romanski, Kmlometodzevska biblzografiya za I934 I94 g0
" Povest’, I, p. 23; Cross, p. 63.
" Cf. jakobson, "Minor Native Sources,“ op. cit., pp. 43-4.
*7 “I radi bysa slovéni, jako slysisa velictja Bofisja. SVO2lII1b j3.ZYk0Il1b . . .. Vsi vszmglagoljutn jazyki I94:;)'Rpp_I:1fo_l:ison “St Constantine's Prologue to the G°3P°1-“ 9- Vlmimirls seminary Quarterly’
velicsja Boisja, jako fie dastn ims Svjatyi Duchrs otvé§éevati": Povest’, I, p. 22; Cross, p. 63. V11, 963), p. 15. Cf. Lavrov, Matefialy, p. 113 jno. 22). ' _ H .. tr h
" Vita Methodii, VIII, 13 (Grivec-Tomsié, p. I 58). '3 £(€I‘i1'iStOSL gredeti, jezyki ssbi-a.ti'_‘: Layrov. ibid-»‘}1>}fl:3g;"_¢1: 2’-':;1;¢:B?: Uggizfiifriéggljasi’
*' Povest’, I, pp. 9-ii; Cross, pp. 51-2. Cf. Shakhmatov, "Povest’ vremennykh let i ee istochniki," starocerkvenoslovanslcih izvii-nih pesnitev. R¢ZP"“W _ -7 _ . i the Praia W
op. cit., pp. 41-5; Povest’, II, pp. 203-13; Cross, p. 231. filozofska-filoloéko-historiéfiwi mmd, I (1943). pp. 76-122. for an 1311511811 ’"a11$13~'°‘°“ ° 3 '
see jakobson, op. cit., pp. 16-I9.
 56 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 57
uted the tongues of fire H 3,11 - =»
this idea, which is so slucceiilictljaldeaiiljiileidiedoignflliyo (:4 W1: dad“: know whether and Symeon (who died half a century before the former’s accession) by refer-
of Pentecost and is also to be found in th ' ' e tee an Iavonic service ring to the statement of the Byzantine chronicler Cedrenus that Romanus,
-
was directly .
applied to the Slavs b the v]:-‘gm tings - of several
, Gre B k F at h ers, 35 son of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter, assumed the name of his grandfather Symeon.”
found it in his source the Tale abollt the usslan chronicler’ or Whether he Romanus is believed by some historians to have been tsar of Bulgaria between
. that the
may, the notion i Slavonic peoplesB shliiizrtsii
T l z‘lflii fiiiiihiihlie - lfihat It- about 979 and 997. However, though Romanus was undoubtedly a contempo-
ofBabelcanbere a ro5 a io n rary of Vladimir, it is far from clear that he ever reigned in Bulgaria.3° A
Methodian ideas‘ 8&1‘ dd ' '
B as a significant --
addition to the storehouse of Cy;-i110-
further statement in the “Chronicle of Joachim” seems to confirm that Vladi-
The chronicler’s ada t t' f . mir’s clergy was partly of Slavonic origin: the Byzantine authorities, it asserts,
shows how close was th€l)CE1"l1I'Cl)(l‘.?ClI(l)OI1tlIl11ehé‘£fi'lelI16:Ib¥)u€[ the {lfianslatwn of Books sent to Vladimir the Metropolitan Michael, a Bulgarian by nationality, to
Russians to Chrisfianit _ _ _ _ e ween e conversion of the head the Russian Church.“ This Michael, we may note, is mentioned as the
y and their acquisition of the C '11 '
nacular tradition; by Contrast as We h _ Yri 0-Methodian ver_ first primate of Russia in several sixteenth-century sources.“ However, tempt-
how this tradition first came to Rus ' ave éeenl he did not know when and ing though it is to accept the statements of the “Chronicle of Joachim” on
. pomt
this . when he Comes t th . sla . He is_ not _ much more informative
' ' on
the penetration of a Slavonic clergy and books into Russia in the late tenth
that the establishment of Chrigtishgibyoisviliglgglg Yet. ci)mri1O1;.Sense Suggests century, there are, in my opinion, too many uncertainties connected with
have been impossible h d t _ e re igion in is reign would this text to make it possible to regard it as reliable evidence.
Celebrated the liturgy i: ti‘: V: Clgrey Plreaghed the Gospel and The earliest trustworthy account relating to the use of Slavonic in the
next to nothing. It is true that the so can d "W1 e sca e. ut of this we know Russian Church does, however, come from the reign of Vladimir; and it is
- Chronicle of 11' ” -
tfienth-Qentury Compilation no Ion er e .l08.C 11'1'1, 8. SBVBIL supplied by the Primary Chronicle. In an entry dated 988, the chronicler tells
.
discovered and quoted . » t b 3 F-‘X tant . based on d‘
me. iaeval sources, and us that after the Russians had been baptized Vladimir “sent round to as-
Contains Several Statenlllgnggrwh¥C1E1h€i;31§Il:l1f(:€I:‘l;l(g1-(;(€;Htl1Ty historian Tatishchev,
semble the children of noble families, and gave them to be instructed in book
need After Vladimir,S conversion £0 Ch _ ._ _u give us just the facts we learning.”42 It is prime facie highly improbable that the teaching in these
'_ “ms tianit Y. _we are t 0 ld in ' this ' source,
Symeomt fB .

been abandoned by historians

iii?
e o oac im” is a fabricat' b T '
Ion y atlshchev has
earliest known Russian schools was conducted in Greek; some knowledge of the
Greek language was doubtless imparted to the members of Vladimir's jeunesse
dorée who were destined for high office in the Russian Church; but there is
- accepted as genuine by a number
15 generally."
of Scholand this P 3.I‘lIlC1.1l ar Piece
' of evidence
- every reason to believe that by “book learning” (uéenbe kniérioe) the chronicler
.A
meant literary instruction in Slavonic. Evidence that this was so is provided
Sky attempted to “Plain away the anachroillili-itic sc§:figc1E:1iSofi8l§6t P. A'\i]a:1’-M‘
e ween a imir by the chronicler’s comment on Vladimir's schools, in a passage which im-
“ ‘Ore |<crra(5dz; €Kd3"£Y
-re; 7('<i>r<I7dOrS O'UVéXEE, Siellépicsv EBW1 6 _ Y\jJIO'To§- 51': T017 rrupos "réxg yllcbocrocg Siéveiiisv,
El; év6_m_m Tréw
Q5
mediately follows the account of their foundation: “When these children
" The idea that iii‘i§.f.1‘;’.l‘3‘l‘ZZi’Z.‘l¥.’§i’;”“Z°“"°" [i:Pm°- I883]. P- 400).
' , 1 1'6
;°(T;1f11§1fi'1 <::fo1;ongu)es which followed the buildinggbf till:lI\iJ1:P§e:1;? ]13aaIbge1laigrT;51?idtl1:e saith’ 15P°21°d the " Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, II (Bonn), p. 45 5; P. A. Lavrovsky, “Issledovanie o Letopisi
' » -I12 . was explicitly form u I a t e d b y Gregory Nazianzen . ' (Oratzo _ XLI'Y H8811 1-: enesim,
in Pente te Yakimovskoy,”op.c it ., pp. 1 47 -8 . Cf . V . Nikolaev , Slavycmobiilgarskiyat faktor v khristiyanizatsiyata
epmolam I ad Coy. Hamil“ XnXXl?.yios11;cémL(}l{)p Sonata Pentecoste, Homilia II, PG.. L. 001.44%)? Iii
PG, XXXVI, col. 449) J01-1 C rm Kievska. Rusiya. (Sofia, 1949), pp. 8o-8; V. Moshin, "Poslanie russkogo initropolita Leona ob
H. PG. LXIX . . _ . . col. 296). Cyril of Alexandria (Glaphym in Genejn-m opresnokakh v Okhi-idskoy rukopisi,” B3/zantinoslaviea, 24 (1963), p. 95.
_ ' °°1s- 77» 3°). Cosmas Indico le t T}; . " Romanus, together with his brother Boris (the former tsar of Bulgaria) fled from Constantinople
120%‘ bl: %I- PP- 95-7). and the Iismegeior I.:_d”V$IhEl)?i’aIti€bpg1€ll:;?ilr:i)‘,ZEd.zby Qpwinstedt t ° Bul 8 aria about 979. Boris was killed on the way, but Romanus succeeded in joining the Comitopulus
- - - . ors , er Turmb B - . ' "" "05 81¢. G. CVII, Samuel, who led the anti-Byzantine revolt in Macedonia. The statement of the eleventh-century Arab
der Spraehen urid Volker, I (Stuttg‘:;t?01’:;57j;beL Ggsgiwhte d" M'”m‘"€¢"1 fiber Ursprung imd Vielfalt ' was a cce p ted by V . N .
historian Yahya of Antioch that Romanus was proclaimed tsar of Bulgaria
anzen expressed the contrast between Babel Sp;-1 12 9’ 246'_ 249-5°. 252' 262-3» 3°2- G1'e8°1'Y Nazi- Zlatarski (Istoriya rm Billgarskata Dwirzhava, I, 2 [Sofia, 1927], pp. 647-59) and by N. Adontz ("Samuel
ml 1‘) 'rr<x7\orid: Bicdpecig -ro'Z'>v ipcovcbv (1‘|vli<or 16" Wpy: - elgtjcost in the following terms: l'l7\1)v tirouve-r1‘) pgv l’Arménien, roi des Bulgares," Mémoires ale Z’/I cadémie Royale de Belgique, classe des lettres, XXXIX
'rcl'av vfiv 'roA|.i66¢( -|-ms). Tfi, Yam Tfig ~
Qwvns fijq é
v <»Pi<o How ol i<on<6':§ Kori dzflécog buoqawvofivre so db °'Tl'€p Kai [1938], p. 16). However, S. Runciman (A History of the First Bulgarian Empire [London, 1930], p. 221)
drfiie-ii-crave-rco-répci Sé 1) vfiv ficrvua-roupyQ(,,,¢,,,.|_ .A:g $3 -rb <;1|-16Y§¢;uov, Tfiv gyxelpnqw g;(W.fl,. and G. Ostrogorslry (History of the Byzantine State (Oxford, 1956], p. 267) point out, probably with
“<*’“"
st G WvdrflwP (PG. XXXVI ' A11 Old°° 1 - _449)- PChurch S13.VOI‘11C.
“°"’°§ "'"° Ow X‘-'9El°°IiB|Sl-llavdi
translation l
of this sermpdlrivllt better reason, that Romanus, being a eunuch, was disqualified from occupying the throne.
T5801? on entecost, preserved in an I ‘° Tatishchev, Istoriya Rossiiskaya, I, p. 112.
thirteenth Cenlillr)’ at the latest - s XIII6izoh
. . Irnper. eventhmentury man“s°“p" m Russ“ ' exlst° d (=11 °"° "1
on8'he ya B ogoslooa '
v dreimeslavyimskom perevode thea
41 Nikonovskaya Letopisfl s. rz. 988: Polnoe Sobrariie Russkikh Letopisey, IX (St. Petersburg, 1862),
rukopzsz Publiclmoy Bibliote; XI
_ e 1 veka, ed. by A. Budilovich (St. Petersbur 8 p. 57; Kniga Stepemmya Tsarskogo Rodosloviya, ibid., XXI, 1 (St. Petersburg, 1908), p. 102. Both
27°-32.esp.
N,-cm‘ Fathgs.28 . F21;‘ZiiagggzzrzflrgséatgonIpf
of like E - . sermon. see A Select Library of zliihinllihhi)
this , these sources describe Michael as a Syrian. Michael is also mentioned as the first metropolitan of
Russia in several fifteenth-century manuscripts of the Church Statute o f Vl a d'imir:
' See Pam y atniki
I955), pp, 373_35_ » - Y -- Schafi and H. Wace, VII (Grand Rapids, Michigan, drezme-russkogo kano-nicheskogo pram, pt. 2, fasc. 1, ed. by V. N. Beneshevich: Russkaya Istoricheskaya
" V. N, 1"atishchev,
'1 ' - Rossiiskdya.
Istorzya .. I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1952), p_ In Biblioteka, XXXVI (Petrograd, 1920), p. 4; cf. E. Golubinsky, Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, I, 1, znd ed.
See S. K. Shambina o "I 1; . , ,, , . (Mosco w , 1 9 oi) , pp. 277-81 , 621 , note 5 .
M. N. Tikhomirov, in Tagishchg?-, 11.1231‘-/'sl;;,1§;;;,)‘LetoPis I Istorzcheskie Zapéski, XXI (1947), pp_ 254_7o; 4* “Poslav-1. naéa poimati u naroéitye éadi déti, i dajati naca na uéenhe kniznoe." Povest’, I, p. 81;
Cross, p. 1 17.
 58 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 59
were assigned to study books in various places, there was fulfilled in the land _ . - - ' d th enin section of the
of Russia the prophecy which says: ‘In that day shall the deaf hear the words the Russian PI1H13.;'§E:Cl11;:0n1€IilI€13eJ;z giégctgzngafgis {Eds eoophe fifilowing conclu-
of a book, and the tongue of the dumb shall be clearly heard.’ "43 There is, I fifteenth chapter o ons an - _ . C t "Mm;
sions: firstly, borrowings - by the Russlan ' Chromcler _from the . Vita b ons a the
k to
submit, much significance in this Biblical quotation. It is a composite one, and
are not confined to the early S@<3t1°n5 ' 0 f the chronicle which . go ae- 1 b
is drawn from two different chapters of the Septuagint version of the Book of - - dly the Russian chronic er, Y
Isaiah, the first half from Isaiah 29:18, the second half from Isaiah 35 :6.“ In Tale about the Translation of B00/es, 5e¢°11_ » _ _ t. from
- f the Vita Constantini and quo ing
its original context it describes the change in Israe1’s relation to jahweh, by making use.of the fifteenth chapter '0 _ _ mm and
-it implied
- - a parallel between t he introduction _ of the Slavonic
f C t tine 83’ and
which the people’s blindness and stupidity will give way to knowledge and joy. ’ . - - he combined efforts 0 OHS an
“The words of a book” (7\6yc>u§ Bi[57\lou) are the commands of jahweh, and Scriptures into Moravia through t _ the initiative of Vladimir; and
these will be accepted when the book is unsealed“. These words of Isaiah are Rastislav,
_ and their. transmission - to Russia on 1 d _ _ , ducationa _ 1 meaeu res
in the Primary Chronicle adapted to the Russian people’s new relationship to thirdly, U1; ((31l11i‘:(]i)1I11(%€f-W8§1g10;'lfViI£,l1(;6(;l,el£.1'riilE:uYa: irgdition in Russia: in
God after their conversion to Christianity; and "the words of a book” (7\6YOl really mar e e egmn th ect.
[5i[5Mou), by a translation both semantically accurate and creatively fitted to which belief’ as we have Teen’ he was nOt- al't9ge51 e\:OT1(lICrSCl'1OOlS' their begin-
a new situation, are rendered in Slavonic as slovesa kriifénaja, an expression - We know regrettably htfle about Vladlnhlrf 'ad83 from the chronicler’s
which refers to the Christian Scriptures, but is also a technical term for the nings cannot have been altoget her smoot , 0Ii J11 ted pupils “wept Over them,
Scriptures and liturgy translated into the Slavonic tongue. ironic statement that the mothers of these consc P _ h must have
The idea of applying the words of Isaiah to the Slav vernacular tradition as though they were dead. ” 47 The brighter of these alumni, dW th0 ucleus of
was not an invention of the Russian chronicler. It has not, so far as I know, become adults by the year rooo at the latest_, doubtless forme . 1.e t11 t re In _
, - - liest works of Russian 1 era u
been observed that his confiation of the two quotations from Isaiah 29:18 and that educated elite which produced this ea-1'_ . t- of
d th following
the first half of thetelpventh C(j:Ii1‘l;:IgéIt 'fr1'11tSh2.I;eCOn(Z1 of Russia’sgenera 1°11
educational
Isaiah 35 :6 has an exact parallel in the fifteenth chapter of the Vita Constantini,
where they are likewise combined and placed in a similar context. This chapter, scholars. must have a en an. H6 . . d t h'ch I alluded at the
which describes Constantine’s work in Moravia, opens with the following reforms,
_ _ promoted . by Vladimir - s son Yaroslav_
' band ' 0 thW 1 Primary
_ .
Chronicle
words: “When Constantine arrived in Moravia Rastislav received him with beginning of this P&P@1‘- Thls reform ls descn 8 m,, e II h- h
under the yea; I037. §C(1aif"oslai;,n1t';pe$£;flYa::n3:y d anasgglibled
1 r of books, W 10
many Scribes
great honour and, having assembled some disciples, he gave them to him to be
instructed. He soon translated the whole of the ecclesiastical office, and taught he is said to ave rea Tequ _ ’ - A d the
them the services of matins, the canonical hours, vespers, compline, and the and had them translate from Greek into t he _ Slavonic b language. I1 were
ent passage, Y
sacred liturgy. And, according to the words of the prophet, the ears of the wrote many books), These books, lwebalifiit t((:)}l1(3.1r1(I:1h3.0?11Stsegiiphia in Kiev, the
deaf were unstopped, and they heard the words of a book (kni§’naa slovesa), deposited by Yaroslav in the new y
- - ' land.”
and the tongue of the dumb was clearly heard.”4“ The similarity between these Prmclpal cathedral 11.1 the. » known. That some
two passages in the Primary Chronicle and in the Vita Coristaritini is striking: The origin and nationality
. of Yaroslav s translators
d_ Oth are un a have been Gree k S
both contain the same composite quotation drawn from two different chapters of them were Russians can scarcely be doubte ers m y
of the Book of Isaiah; both apply the prophet’s Aéyoug Bieliou to the Slavonic or S1 avs_ from Byzantium ' It is very probable that the f groups whoincluded
had fledB11153‘
their
vernacular ; and there is an obvious analogy between Rastislav’s and Vladimir’s rian priests and scholars, some 0f them Perha-PS_re uge?
- t in 1018. It is not impossible that some
educational measures: both are said to have assembled pupils and to have land after the Byzantine Conciizfezsd that the traces of various Slav languages
assigned them for instruction. There can be little doubt that the passage in were
" "Sim 2e razdajanoms na ucense knigamii, S'bbyS‘lIl>Sj3. proroéestvo na rusiistéi zemli, glagoljuscee:
foundCzechs.
in someIttrans
has] aEéen
ions suggent
curr in Russia at the time indicate that Yaroslav’s
‘Vo ony dniiusl y sati, g lu sii "s1 ovesa kn'iinaja, ' i' ]asn's
' '
budetb ]azyk'i> '
gugnivych '“ ' '
, ibid.
“ Kori &i<o\'1oov'rori Ev "rij fiuépq éi<siv1_1 Kooqaol Myoug [5i[37\iou (Is. 29: I8) . . . Kori 'rpoiv1‘] icrrcii y7i6'.>o0cr iioyi7\d:- 4" Povest’, I. P- 313 C1'°55~ p' 1 nth century see M N SperanskY- Istoyiya dywney msskoy
as On the Russian' lite ra t ur eo
eeeve i - - 0"0 heyk istorii. drevnerusskoy literatury
-
Awv (Is. 35 : 6). _ _ _ 5,. V. M. Istrin, H mmm
'5 See The Book 0/ Isaiah, translated from a critically revised Hebrew text with commentary, by E. ]. literatury. 3rd ed-. _I (M°5°°w' I920)’ pp H3 34 8- - A. S. Orlov, Drevnyaya russkaya 1 8
Kissane, I (Dublin, 1960), p. 320. Cf. Is. 29: ii. domoskovskogo peywda (Pen-ograd, -I132?’ (T?1.i)dzu Isizriiya cirevney russkoy literatury. 6th ed. (Moscow.
“ “DO§b(lb§l1 ie jemu Moravy, S'I> velikoju ésstij u pfijfitb jego Rastislav], i uéeniky siibravii i viidasts
(Moscow-Leningrad’ Ig45)lEl3p.l¥ ii’ s1a.tion' .P},1:'Si07’y Of Early Russian Literature (New York, 1349).
i uéiti. Vzskoré fie V'I>SB crskovnyi éini, priimi. nauci je l1tI'bI1iCi i éasovomh i vecer’nii i paveéer'nici i 1955)‘ PP‘ 45-89’ 96-104: "ngC.1h Iii:-gsk i h' ht der altrussischen Literatur im 11., I2. un I3-
tainéi slui‘bé. I otvrszose se proroébskomu slovese usesa gluchyichs i uslysase knii’naa slovesai PP_ 34-146,- D.Tsch.iiewsk1J
' ( _ yz Y)’ Ge“ m'6 i 8 _99; 1d,,
- History
- of Russian
‘ Literature_ /mm
jezyki. jassns bysti, gugnivyichsz” Vita Constantini, XV, i-3 (Grivec-Tomsié, p. 131). In their trans-
lation of this passage Grivec and Tonisié erroneously derive the citations et apertae u t <Fw*~*"" am ‘°?§2’§§;0iZi ?i.;’i.a.. the wile; °*
the Eleventh c”€]iuU_5),‘ to than yllaififand Grace by I-Iilai-ion, metropolitan of K16V,(;S the‘ E;1;DJ;f:n_‘: 6;:
_ plana facta est balborum from Is . 35 : 5 and Is .3 2 :4, respe ct'iv el ys ('iiib id,. . p.. aures
surdorum and et lingua 202). thls1it°"at“r°' B firms” “ll D M tro oliten Ilarion Lobre e au tl 1
They have also failed to observe that the words ut audirent verba so-ripturae are a. quotation from excellent critical edition and study by L. Mu er, es e 11
Is. 29 : 18. Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntriis (Wi°Sbaden' I962)‘
ll Povest’, I, pp. 102-3; Cross, PP- 137-3'
X
60 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY X
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERIT AGE IN RUSSIA 61
translators formed a'kind of international commission.“ Here, however, the
, - f St. Vitus, the MartYTd°m °f_ St‘
historian finds himself on peculiarly slippery ground: he cannot safely venture
over it before he has an answer to three questions: VVhat writings of Greek Appolinariiis of Ravennaiaii _ allllfglihe OriginalofSlavonic
we Klevan Penod, were thed1\€utyndl)cl1’1s (I)..ife St. Wenceslas of St
Lives of BOh€II11a,—-
Wenceg-
religious and secular literature were available in Russia in the early Middle
Ages? Which of these translations can with reasonable certainty be attributed all translatlons fr(?m the a ml f th se two Czech saints in Kievan Russia is
to Russian hands? And of these Russian translations, which were executed in '85 and St. Ludmllaififi The qldlaged efcample of the close cultural and religious
a Striking but by no means is ' h ' in the late tenth and in the
the reign of Yaroslav, that is, between I019 and I054? On none of these ;inks which existed between l.EL1SS1§.OE;.1I;ilng'OWE'l;'1l§i11 a living repository of the
questions do philologists appear to have reached a consensus of opinion. A. I. eleventh century, at 3- Pine 3 en
Sobolevsky supposed that nearly all the extant translations made in Bulgaria 4:yI'lllO—M6th0d1&HtI(»'i3:.d1lI]llOfliv[ thodian tradition in eleVenth_centm_y Russian
in the ninth and tenth centuries were available in Russia during the first Evidence _ of the y1‘1 0- e 1 ' ' '
ritings '
1mp0 rt 6 dinto Russia
centuries after Russia’s conversion.“ The same scholar drew up a tentative
list of thirty-four of these translations which, in his opinion, were done by literature ls not Configelg
from the Balkans an 0tgegilii -Célighcilficigrfiiidgevg
_ - of this tradition canRussian
osed in the also be
Russians in the pre-Mongol period. These include the Life of St. Andrew Salos, found in the eairléelst Piocépcts) nprtiig lgigrggtgighsqrngipe (5kazam'e), written
the Life of St. Theodore the Studite, the Monastic Rule of Studios, the Chris-
recension of O1 um av l t d scribing the murder of the
tian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, Josephus Flavius’ History of the
in the late eleventh or early twelfthalllill ilsrdriaxefn between their martYrdom
Jewish War, the Romance of Alexander, the Bee (Mémwu), the Physiologus,
and the Devgenievo deyanie, generally regarded as a fragmentary Russian saintly Princes Bons and G1efDBbli)eaiiIiia'58 and as Professor ChYzhevskY has
translation of an early version of Digemfs Akrz'tas.52 V. M. Istrin, in his monu- and that of S1? Wei‘?C6518: oi Gumpold's Life ‘of St. Wenceslas can probably
P°inted Out’ t e m uenc . ‘t Cht mle of Boris an
mental edition and study of the Slavonic version of the Chronicle of Hamar- be detected in the approximately coiiliten;/Izpgagy é/ti ééeodfisiuls of the Kiev
tolos, has argued that this work was translated in Kiev, in the forties of the Gleb by the monk Nestgr, ilflld lflmlg author 59 Thé Connection between the
eleventh century, by a Russian member of Yaroslav’s pool of translators.” Monastery of the Caves y e sa . - . added significance
‘
But this view has been disputed, or at least modified, by several scholars.“ cult of SP Wmeslas- and that °£ Boris and Gleb acquires
-
Russian
-
saints were
<1 ep0
_ _
sited lnside the_
Philologists are always reminding us how difficult it is to distinguish on lin- if we recall that relics of these two . h t _ tant Center of the Slavomc
guistic grounds an Old Church Slavonic text written in Russia from one altar of the Abbey of Sazava in Bohemia, t 3 1£1P°r
composed in Bulgaria or Bohemia, so homogeneous, until the end of the liturgy and literature in the eleventh <1:1eqti1i;"3;.hat the influence of the Cyrm0_
eleventh century, was the common Slavonic written tradition.“ And the It has been Suggested by Several Sf: d)ih the attempts of some early Russian
historian who seeks to avoid the dangers of overemphasizing the cultural Methodian tradition can also be cletec e _ _ . . e Christian com-
achievements of Kievan Russia must surely heed these words of caution. writers to d e fin6 the place occupied by their nation within ' th ' _
He will admit the contribution made by Russian scholars, in the eleventh - ' “Th B innings ofNat10I18-1
mum Y‘ 't Professor
_ . Jakobson
. in
’ ~ an essay entltled e eg
d that a distinctive feature of the
century and later, to the available store of Old Church Slavonic trans- Self-Determmation _ in . Eur0Pe» has argue ' th t l n uage used for the C6
lations from Greek; he will acknowledge that many, perhaps most, of the CyI‘ll.lO—M6thOd1{;iI1 l1BI‘1lZ3.ge i;:;€Sat:1aCC1lgl.§8é:harZCt; awgich is than assumed by le-
translations available in the Kievan period came from Bulgaria; and, to bration of the _ itur8Y 9-cqu . _ t tion' that every nation has its
complete the picture, he will also recognize that some literary works stemming the Pe0P1e which Speaks 1t» and the cogna 6 n9 . - '
. - - ' thin the universal familY
from the very area where Constantine and Methodius had worked—Moravia own particular gifts and_its own legltlmaife Caumg W1 . . t
. . al lf-determination, he 5l_1€€e5 §»
and Bohemia—were brought to Russia in the eleventh century. Among these
works, written in the Czech recension of Old Church Slavonic and available in of Chnstlan peoples. Thls Conctlpt Oiittitslogf lgigevan Russia;6i and with this
shaped the outlook of the ear y W
5° See Chyzhevsky, Gesckichte der altrussischen Litemtur, pp. 69-7o, 84. . - 56° R‘ ,-Ia.kobson, “$01116
5° On these and other works brought
_ from
H Bohemia
.
' t o0 K 1 evan
' t d I I01
Russia, . at d H1570,”
. 0,.,m;a1¢_;
. _
*1 A. I. Sobolevsky, Perevodnaya lilemtura Moskovskoy Rusi XI V-X VII vekov (St. Petersburg,
I903), p. v.
Russian Echoes of the Czech Hagiograggy-hA”:“m;; dfiil I7:€)zh:OOiI' Dvornik, The Makgg of
etslaves, VII (I939-44% PP‘ I55 — 80 I yz ev 5 2Y’ 2-73' Iakobson.
" ‘ The' K-‘-‘"181 0f C omparative avw
" A. I. Sobolevsky, “Materialy i issledovaniya v oblasti slavyanskoy filologii i arkheologii,” Sbomik Centyal and Easter; Europe (London, I949)» PP 4 8
Otdeleniya Russkogo Yazyka i Slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk, LXXXVIII (1910), no. 3, pp. 162-77.
5’ V. M. Istrin, Khronika Georgiya A martola v dreimem slavyanomsskom perevode, 3 vols. (Petro-
' 1. -41- .. -8, -I.15-99-
grad, 1920-2, Leningrad, 1930), esp. vol. II, pp. 268-309.
L“€ias:;eFii>1;ovsky. Chew i P°$‘°°""‘>Y*" s.“g’j"§”e;,§'i,)§i§.1i§Ab2§1£vi¢n(Peuogmd. 1916). p- 33-h
5' Zhitiya svyatykh muchemkot:‘Borisfz i e flziie éumpoldslegende des hl. Vaclav in der altrussisc eii
5‘ See N. Durnovo, “K voprosu o natsional'nosti slavyanskogo perevodchika Khroniki Georgiya.
Amartola," Slavia, IV (I92 5), pp. 446-60; P. A. Lavrov, “Georgy Amartol v izdanii V. M. Istrina,“ M D' Cyievékyj (chyahevskd)
ibid., pp. 461-84, 657-83. Legeiide des hl- FB0d°$1J “nd as gnkblsgiedg
to 'Origiiialitat' der slavischen mittelaltei-lichen Werke,
_86_
Wiener Slavistgscheé ]F¢}I'g:?:)w:fcSl1;yI £;95c<;g. 71106-7, 128. . E ope I) The Review of
5‘ See R. Jakobson, “The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature,“ Harvard Slavic Studies, I
"° Ibid., p. 4; C - ,* .' " ' - 1f-D t "nation in ur I
(I953). PP- 37-41- Q1 R_ Jakobson, "The Beginnings of National Se 6 611111
Politics, VII. 1 (1945)- PP- 29-42'
 62 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 63
view the late George Fedotov, to judge from his book The Russian Religious
Mind, would have concurred.” If the ideological basis of the Cyrillo-Methodian “T” t C b 0°k S W ith Russian words ' "66 The- interest of 'this '6? text,
' which
' the isauthor's
clearly
|b;lh‘(!(l on the eighth - chapter of the Vita CO’VlSt6l7'li2-722, 11€S In h I which
movement be thus defined, the theme of this paper could legitimately be -
widened to include a discussion of national and patriotic motifs in early Rus- nuunipt to interpret the P8559-€_e= 5°_ hotly debated _ h by modern sc o arS,
. the Winter of 8604
sian literature; and of the attitude of its writers to the Byzantine Empire lll‘SCI'lb€S how ((;:OI1Sll?.Htl;1I1(i( dglgliflga l 11)SSgates; ivnrgttsgsozsiileymi pismeny It is
and to its claims to world supremacy. But these are problems too large and discovered a Ospe 0° . - C t gm‘
. ' t th assage of the Vita ons an
complex to be discussed here. Enough, I think, has been said to show that the i'\lI‘lO1lS to I;lO'E8l;li112Lt ghe att;gPtiIfigé2tZ1(’1P1': Slalfifnic alphabet before Cyril_a
Cyrillo-Methodian inheritance was a vital force in eleventh-century Russia. lo mean_ t at . e avs - I es__gO6S
(-(cw gull vigorously championed by some East E urop ear1 scholars
hack to an anonymous Russian ' Patnot ' O f the fifteenth century. . - - terest
IV ' ' ' d the somewhat antiquarian in
We cannot, for lack of information, trace the continuous history of the _ These belated and . factitious claims, - ' an hey reveal, bear some characteristic
Ill the work of Cyril and Methodius which t _
Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Russia after the early twelfth century. It is . . . - t R _ a. 1And yet t h e R 11$_
marks of lZl'1:i%"11SlI0fi.i3El.l lI£11I'1l;1i1§u(1)(I1 €i1.VI£C)l(1 1;/;1IIS1()Z(g;7t1e:re;‘1S5§i1 point to a genuine
only in the late Middle Ages that the evidence becomes clearer and more sians of the teen cen ur , . ' - d-t- was
abundant. And this evidence suggests that in the late fourteenth and in the - - 7 he Cyrillo-Methodian tra i ion
-ind recent instance which showed that t _ kb
fifteenth century interest in the work of Cyril and Methodius, which may have ‘ . . - ' ' . About I 378 a Russian mon y
still a vital and creative force in their country Z _ _ this
flagged somewhat after the early twelfth century,“ began to revive, and that the name of Stephen Went to Preach the_ Gospel _ ,to the pagan YY1anS- t of
attempts were made in that period to claim that their missionary activity, and . . lived in the northeastern par
East Finnic people, RHOWI1 today as Komli _ th sub-ects
particularly that of Constantine, had been directly connected with Russia. - - - ' he Vychegda river, and were 611 l
liuropean Russia, in the basin of t _ _ _ _ St h H learnt
The motive forces behind these unhistorical constructions were probably a -
of the republic of Novgorod. Before em barking on his _ mission, ep 6
renewed interest in Russia’s past history and international connections, a . -
their language, 1I1V6I1t@d a ZYT13-n 3 _
' lphabet _ 1
and, with .
the =1PP1'
-
°HVal ofC655-
the
nationalistic desire of the Russians to claim some of the brothers’ achieve- -. - - books into Zyrian. e suc
Muscovite authorities, translated the liturgica _ _ ffi .n their
ment for themselves, and, doubtless, genuine error. Thus, the anonymous Greek . . . . hing and singing the o ces i . _
fully Chnstlamzed h1S.fi0ck by preac b 'ldin churches 8.l'1dlII'8.11'111'1g
“philosopher,” who in the Primary Chronicle delivers a. speech of inordinate vernacular, disputing with the pagan shamans, 111 8 I ' t the last
length, and dubious orthodoxy, to persuade Vladimir to accept Byzantine . . <1 Bishop of Perm, and SP6“ _
d15C1P1es' In I383 lie was Consccmt-I ' ' Z ' d'ocese. He died in
Christianity, is in two fifteenth-century chronicles given the name Cyril;“4 a fourteen years of his life ably administering 111$ Ynan 1
Greek account of Russia’s conversion to Christianity, the so-called Banduri 1396, and vias , later canonize ' d by the Russian _ Church.” Pt St h of Perm and
Legend, preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript and partly based on a The striking analogy between the achievements of D . ep en
lost Slavonic source, contains the colorful story of the dispatch by the Empe- . .. ' ' 1 N odnogo Prosveshcheniya,
°° V. Istrin, "Iz oblasti drevnflélgs$0ll’iggraiggésiihllzifiyiwyiziglfigdsilgvyziiskoy i russk0Y Stagnx
ror Basil I to Russia of two missionaries, Cyril and Athanasius, who baptized CCCLV October. I904)» P- 3443 “- ' '. Otd I ' Russkogo Yazy a 1
the Russians and taught them the Slavonic alphabet ;“5 finally a Russian text, 0 iserkoilno-slavvanskols.Y“"ke'1 "§§”d°”“>"”’S ’;‘2>8"iZf3-’iZ.’;”;‘.3f‘3.’i1”£Z‘.§.a.”1§13'7 26-1: .B-. S~ ~.=e1<w-
Slovesnosti Inip. AkacZemz_i_Nauh). (1 15-'9Zn-SE0-edinstvo V Staroslavyanskite litemtum. Slamsmken
found in a manuscript of the Tolkovaya Paleya, copied in I494 and subsequently “Kirilometodievoto deg); Idea-Yagl za S avy kh 1 t
inserted in an account of the death of Cyril and the conversion of Vladimir, Sb c):;n%/it“
'k, IIConsmmm-,
(Sofia. I95 VH1,
» PP- 47‘ ' _ _. p. 109). Cf. Shakhmatov
I5 (Grivec-Toméié, " , “Po v est’ vremenny 6
contains these words: “Be it known to all nations and all men . . . that the 1° 39,;'stochniki," 01>. cit-.words
The controversial P- 35-are: H I obrét , ze tu :gV?egfcT%I116gi
- ' I§)rflg.:g.‘(:>I,1i1gl:S(I;:
' kt}I'1I:1lv]zew
' ismenythat [var. rosmsky
the Passage
Russian alphabet was by God made manifest to a Russian in the city of Cherson ;
Pismenhl P153110", Grivec'TOm$1é' pp‘ Io-9’ In’ ' (Slav anskaya I>is'memzost’
of thedoVita
Kirilla z Me/0.-
from it Constantine the philosopher learned, and with its help he composed and refers to ..RussianJ.~ i.e. Slavonic, letters is E. Georgltev. te1_};_et this passage Consldniimi
" G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mimi (New York, 1960), pp. 405-12. difl/a [50fifl. 1952]» Pp'.48_;5-2)‘ For earher attglonptsanfillilh Pgpruzhenko and Romanski, op. cit-, P- 561
" See N. K. Nikol'sky, "K voprosu 0 sochineniyakh, pripisyvaemykh Kirillu Filosofu,“ Izvestiya $33 the bibliographies in .11 msky' op‘ -mt" pp‘ h Zr’ ued that rusbskj/mi is a mis$Pelling for surbskymi
pa Russkomu Yazyku i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk SSSR (1928), I, 2, pp. 400-2. More convincing is the view of A. Vaillant, W °_ dg C "Emmi" .. Revue des éfudgs slaves, XV (I935)»
ie Syriac letters: “Les -lettres russes de la I/Eel le sue Syriaéue H Annuaiye dc Vlnsmut dz _p}"'10]0-
'4 Povest’, I, pp. 6o-74, II, pp. 330-5; Cross, pp. 97-110; Novgorodskaya Chetvertaya Letopz's',
' ' 75-7. Cf.
pp, Jakobson. “Saint Constantine
_ a an
, 8 -6. For a - general discussion
. - o fthe
n 0 P roblem
_
s.a. 986: Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, IV, 1 (Petrograd, 1915), p. 61; Sofiiskaya Pervaya
Letopisfl s.a. 986: ibid., V (St. Petersburg, 1851) p. 115. Cf. A. A. Shakhmatov, Razyskaniya 0 drau-
gig at d'Hismw (mmmles at skwest ViF1'1£IfI.?g9C1:L42-Bllfipg Sllai/onic alphabet. see I. Duléev. VuProsut za.
neishikh russkikh letopisnykh svodakh (St. Petersburg, 1908), . 1 .
" The complete text of the “Banduri Legend" was published PP 51-3.
by V.231.
Regel558 (Analeeta Byzantine- of possible afcemptskgeforfinggifieigz Ii vizantiiskite opiti za sfizdavane na slavyanskidfzgukf P1-Z:
"izantiisk°'s
.. avyans
- '1 e 0 ' - ‘ B “I ska Istoriya ' Bfilgarska 8- 61111??-
Russica [St. Petersburg, 1891], pp. 44-51; cf. ibid., pp. xix-icxxii) and by I. Sakkelioii (Aifiyqaig pm-vata polovina na IX vek.- ” Izvestiya na Instztuta za '1‘ €“” _
dn<pi|5i’|g 611mg €(5ori'i-rlcr6n -ro 1-o'Iw 'PcZ>acov Efivog, Ex -iron-u1on<o\'J xeipoypdiipou £1<8i8oiiév11 (Athens, 1891)). The N kite, VII (1957). PP- 94?-67' ' ' h t chaiiic reprint with an
scorn poured on this work by Golubinsky (Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, I, 1*, pp. 247-52) is not altogether mi’ Zhitie 811- 5"f“”“- ‘?”‘Fk°Pa fem;kiiefhidiifguf'i];);;1)zh<131imé-pL;t$iI: "PYatiS°fl°tie “Wan-
justified. For a more balanced assessment of its historical value, see I. Dujcev, "Le testiinonianze introduction by D. CifievSk_iJ_(ChYZ evs Y ' h '- CCXXX (1883), pp. 275-32f_3; id..
bizantine sui Ss. Cirillo e Metodio,” Miscellanea francescamz. Rivista di scienze, letter: ed am‘, LXIII
(Rome, 1963), pp. io-14. Zyryamsky kray P" ¢ 15 °
Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, H. I» PP- 262"96'
 64 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA 65
th f C
mgsqoqtenqnianting - _ . is
. pointedly
. emphasized . by Stephen , s b10g1‘apher
.
New Phfloslg hairy), pig (aimus the Most Wise. He calls Stephen “in truth the l.u‘t that a historian who is not a trained philologist cannot, in discussing the
champions thi call anf escnbes him an accomplished Greek scholar; (Iyrillo-Methodian heritage in Russia, do justice to what he must surely ac-
_ se 0 vemacular liturgies and Scriptures by quoting exten- knowledge to be an essential, perhaps the essential, component of this heritage.
sively from the defence of the Slavonic letters by the monk Khrabr that I refer to the Old Church Slavonic language, acquired by the Russians partly
lI{<I;11gl1‘|Z-€I‘1'8.I1lZ of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition‘ and even improves on in its Moravian but more especially in its Bulgarian recension, which became
Iab 1' b Y $118geSt1ng ' that although St. Cyril- and 'St. Stephen were equal in . l|l(§ medium for their religious expression and the foundation of their mediaeval
goodness and wisdom, and though they performed tasks of the same im- literature, sacred and secular. Blending in the course of time with the native
portance, Stephen’s merit was the greater, for whereas Cyril was assisted by vernacular speech, later re-injected several times into the secularized Russian
his brother Methodius, Stephen had no help save from God.” language by dictates of literary fashion, Old Church Slavonic has never ceased
Thus. at the end Of 0111' $’£01’Y, in the Russia of the late Middle Ages we find to enrich the vocabulary and the thought-world of the Russian people. The
th 'talit
re;li‘;11iScen}g;3Sf - _
tIl:fiMt(:hOCl18.I1 . 1I11l16I'1t8.I1C€
. . .
maiiifestednot only in. ’ literary
. vernacular tradition which it created may have acted to some extent as a
screen between the Russians and the culture of antiquity, and have been partly
_ _ » e examp e of a man who in his personal life em-
bodied the ideals and emulated the achievements of the two Byzantine mig responsible for the fact that a good knowledge of Greek was comparatively
siolpanes. But in contrast to their performance the work of St. Stephen proved rare in mediaeval Russia. Yet we must not forget that Old Church Slavonic
ep emeral. In the centrahzed Muscovy of the sixteenth century there was no was itself modelled on Greek; and that it enabled the Russians to produce an
P19-ee ‘fer the rights of vernacular languages, and the liturgical books of the abundant literature of their own, which ranks high in the history of their culture.
Zynans gradually fell into disuse." Yet Stephen’s missionary achievements were One element in this Church Slavonic tradition has proved of peculiar strength
applauded by the Russian Church; and, above all the memory of those who had and vitality: the Christian liturgy, which so moved the Russian mediaeval
- . d h, _ _ 1 .. '2 _
;n5Pfi1‘e_ 18 hfe work St. Cyril St. Methodius—-continued to be reverent- chronicler that he attributed the conversion of his country to the beauty of
y c erished by his compatriots. It is significant that the great majority of the the public worship in Constantinople," and which, in its Slavonic version,
F1:t anRmanuspripts
t ' _complete or fragmentary—of their . two b10gI‘3,ph1e$
. . eome continues even today to bear witness to the undying strength of Orthodox
111 ussia. orty-‘four out offifty-nine for the Vita Constantini, fourteen out Christianity in the midst of the Soviet atheistic state.
of sixteen for the Vzta Methodzziz Liturgical offices for Sts C ril and M th d' I would justify this concluding reference to a contemporary situation, which
are included in the early Russian Menaia the oldest of whllch go baclk ts some of us may be disposed to view with optimism and hope, by appealing to
1fee
t ‘_31eVent_h Centu1'Y-- One of these early’ hymns addresses Cyril. as follows:
the very nature of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. For surely hope and
G It/P1, glorious teacher of virtue, you taught the Moravians to give thanks to optimism, and their spiritual counterpart, joy, are a central theme of this
tradition: joy which springs from the knowledge that the commands of the
frgm 1?}1:511‘
t '
ii/Zn iinggpge, by translating ‘
God 1 s religion
- -
and its
.
righteousness
.

_ _ e e avonic language; therefore the Slavonic nations now Lord are no longer a sealed book, that the Word has been made manifest to
rejoice and glorify God. 73 men, that the confusion of Babel has been repealed by the Pentecostal gift of
fieI 1:1ggficluailsggl
' ' pager, I feel 11'1‘1p6l.l€(I.
’£c1111S - .
to express a feeling of doubt that tongues, and that “the divine shower of letters""'5 has been sent down upon
q y 1 e me uring its preparation. I am acutely conscious of the the Slavonic nations. This sense of triumph is conveyed most powerfully in
the opening verses of the thirty-fifth chapter of the Book of Isaiah, the very
7° Zhitie
- 5”‘ Ste/‘ma’ - PP- 3» . 69.' 7°-3- The analogy
. , may be carried
_ further by observin g th t b th th' verses from which the authors of the Vita Constantini, of the Russian Primary
Chronicle and of the Life of St. Stephen of Perm',7° quoted to describe the
of the Muscovite secular authorities ,wh<§Isei3;<I gilgiggfilfinigf oilgxiggdlfilgolfgg theflactive suppgt
Novgorodiari lands along the Vychegda. river which the annex d ' th fif H. m uence over e bounty of the Slav vernacular tradition: “The wilderness and the dry land
relations between Stephen and Prince Dimitri‘of Moscow lhee Zhitfie $11? Steaanzreenth century. Fol. he shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus it shall
-- fpilygian
. mission,
.. see Ocherkz_ Istoru__ SSSR,
- Period
_ Feodalizma,
. ,p.59;f th lt 1
IX-X V 2%., 2e(l\I/I(c))slch(i:, blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing... . Then the eyes of
. " s ear y as e fteenth century Slavonic began to replace Zyrian in the liturgy of St. St h ’ the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then
gfegghfigggezgfi Zylgeélé igiriiacplgir was still used in monastic offices in the Komi reglibria shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be clearly
Istonumkaya grammgka komz; “Z kan, 1P3éalL.<:t0tlel1:e zyryanskogo kraya, PP. 296-9; V. I. Lytkin, heard.. . . They shall see the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our God.“
(Moscow, I952). pp‘ 5o_9. 63. 75. J’ JV - ( Y Yv ar, 1957)» PP. 40-1; Id., Dre1mePermskJ' yazyk
7‘ Povest’, I, p. 75; Cross, p. 111.
-is See B. S.A118el0v, "Slavyanski izvori za Kiril i Metody,“ Izvestiya ria Diirzhavna Bibligfgka "5 “Trébujusée dbzda Boilii bukvb”: Prologue to the Holy Gospels, in Lavrov, Materialy, p. 197.
“Va8ilKl
and " 6
mnetEe‘:'$’_ce'?tcOé£;ié:°fie, I953). pp. 181-6. Angelov , s list
. includes
. ,
incomplete manuscripts " Like the author of the Vita Coristantini and the Russian chronicler, Epiphanius, in his biography
of St. Stephen, combines the two quotations from Isaiah 3 5 : 6 and Isaiah 29 : 18: Zhitie sv. Stefaria,
"" Lavrov I Materialy
‘ 1 _p - 115 . Cf . R , Jakobsoii ' "The Slavic R es t B - H pp. 66. See supra, notes 43 and 46. Seveeiiko has pointed out further parallels between the Vita
du XII‘ Congrés international d'études byzantiries, I (Belgrade, 1965???? g2;_Z_zantme Poetry’ Act“ Constantim‘ and the Life of St. Stephen, which strongly suggest that Epiphanius made use of the former
document (Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission, p. 225, note 19).
5
 XI

CYRILLE ET METHODE
ET LA CHRISTIANISATION DES SLAVES

Le 1100°m° anniversaire dc la mission de St. Cyrille

et St. Méthode en Moravie, célébré en 1963, fut marqué
par la publication, dans de nombreux pays, de symposia et
de volumes commémoratifs consaorés a Poeuvre historique
des deux apotres des Slaves. Deux choses apparaissent
clairement dans ces ouvrages: la richesse presqu’inépui-
sable de la bibliographic actuelle du sujet; et Pextréme
complexité de certains problémes historiques ct philologi-
ques que Pinterprétation de cette mission byzantine et de
ses résultats continue a poser a la science moderne. I1 est
évidemment impossible, dans le cadre d’une conférence
sur un theme aussi général, d’évoquer plus qu’une infime
minorité de ces problémes épineux. D’autre part, il ne
me semble pas trés utile, dans ce méme contexte, do
me contenter d’un simple résumé des principaux événe-
ments de la vie de Oyrille et Méthode - événcments qui
vous sont sans doute connus — pas plus que d’opérer un
sondage en profondeur en vue d’ofl'rir une solution nou-
velle de tel ou tel détail de leur mission que nous présentent
les sources. Mon intention ici est plutot de suivre une via
media entre ces deux extrémes, et de tenter une sorte de
compromis entre les méthodes de synthese et d’analyse.
Je voudrais évoquer devant vous les principaux faits et
résultats do l’oeuvre Cyrillo-Méthodienne, non pas dans le
 533 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET METHODE 589
cpntezite d unréc1t hlstorique continu, mais en les groupant
rcprésentants typi.ques, quoique éminents, de l’é1ite cultu-
e en es étudiant sous deux aspects: ces aspects peuvent relle de leur époque 1. Le renouveau de la spiritualité mona-
etre ,formulés sous forme de deux questions: 1 - Quelle
stique et dc la science profane, qu’on observe des le milieu
§i“1‘§‘§1Z2d§.d§ ",¥Zes»
Poeuvrg de C du,
31 °P111‘°n Pllbllque de lEmpire, envers
du IX° siecle et que certains historiens qualifient de << Re-
naissance byzantine », resta gravé sur leur pensée et leur
Y“ 9 811 Méthode‘? 2 - Et deuxiemement, carriére. Méthode le moine et Cyril1el’érudit,professeura
quelles furent les réactions des peuples slaves du Moyen l’Université de Constantinople et l’éleve de Photius, du
A89 devant cette mission byzantine dont ils furent les bé- plus grand humaniste de l’époque, personnifient admirable-

le
tion C}?1'illo-lliéihodtinge mild response, envllsager la tradi-
ment ces deux aspects de la civilisation byzantine du Ix°
siecle. Ce fut une époque ou les intellectuels et les hommes
d’état de Byzance croyaient plus que jamais a la mission
desla civilisation
de I I b yzan
en?-3me ans
avec 16lescadré d'une culturelles
aspirations rencontre
oecuménique de leur Empire. La Vita slavonne de Constan-
Pellp es s aves — rencontre qui fut a la fois tension et tin (pour donner a Cyrille le nom qu’il porta avant sa pro-
synthese —- cette méthode nous permettra, je l’espere, de fession monastique) nous présente son héros trés conscient
voir notre tlieme plus clairement sous son triple aspect re- de son role de porte-parole de l’impérialisme byzantin. Au
hgieux, politique et culturel. Khalife arabe, chez qui il alla oomme ambassadeur de By-
La premiere chose a nous rappeler c’est que Cyrille zance vers 855, il déclara fierement: << c’est de nous que tous
gt; 1214:f11]:<l);ii‘A<ita2ent a la ibis missionnaires ct diplomates. les arts sont sortis» 2; et en 861, a la cour du souverain kha-
du We ‘é lo e .1611‘? au hen ,1nt1me qtu, surtout a partir zare, il proclama hautement sa foi clans l’universalité et
‘s1 c e, existait entre lidéal evangéhque de l’Eglise l’éternité de l’empire chrétien dont il était le représentant:
byzantllle 611 la politique étrangére de l’Empire. Ce lien — << Notre empire, dit-il. . ., est celui du Christ, oomme l’a
giggle _P1£g£ef;$@(1i1P Belcli nous parlera sans doute tout-a- dit le prophete: Dieu suscitera un royaume qui ne sera
et la P Of _ .8-118 equivalence entre la Pam Roman“ jamais détruit et qui ne passera pas a un autre peuple; il
aw rzstzana, s exprimait dans la conviction des brisera et anéantira tous les royaumes, mais lui-méme du-
89115 dc. Byzance qu’eux seuls, les Rhomaioi consacrés rera éternellement » 3. Plus tard, pendant leur mission chez
EHHEZIQZZZ du Ch-“st P31‘ Pempereur Constantin, étaient les Slaves et jusqu’a la fin de leurs vies, Constantin et Mé—
_ peuple élu, dont 1e d6V01I' était de porter l’évan- thode servirent loyalement leur souverain temporel, l’em-
gile aux barbares du monde entier. Oeci explique le double pereur de Byzance: Constantin, a la veille de sa profes-
Zglsodg II1lSS1(2lt'11'1&11‘6 byzantinz. a la fois figure apostolique,
(1) Voir F. DVORNIK, Les Légcndes dc Constantin at do llféthoda vu-ea do By-
et aribalsgzdeufndirelfies
accompagné de la 6 lmpi§9nt'1éres du la
rialisme do Royaume d? Dieu’
Rome orientale, zance, Prague 1933.
(2) Vita Oonstantimi, VI, 53: F. Gntvno et F. ToM§I5, Comtantinus at Metho-
_ _ _ _ pompe et de la ma]esté de son souverain dius Thessalonicenses. Fontea, Zagreb 1960, p. 105; traduction francaise, Dvora-
politique. Missionnaires et diplomates byzantins, Oyrille mx, op. cit., p. 357.
et Méthode étaient aussi des Byzantins de leur temps, des (3) Vita Gonstantini, X, 52-3 (Gmvno-ToM§1é, PP- 116-17; Dvonmx, p
365).
 590 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET METHODE 591
sion monastique a Rome, 50 jom-S a,-Va, t
propres langues >> 7. Nous manquons - hélas-de renseigne-
se considérait encore au dire de sa Vii: @3312:rtlen 86?’
ments sur les rapports de Constantin et de Méthode avec
teur dc 1’emPe1‘<">11I‘>>“; et Méthode de meme deue s'erv1_ Byzance dans les amiées qui suivirent leur arrivée en Mo-
aava ntA S3’ mat en 335, 611V0ya sa bénédiction . .’ solennelle
X Jours
ravie en 863. La situation de ce pays, qui au point de
u meme empcreur 5.
vue ecclésiastique dépendait de Rome et au point de vue
Si done l’activité missionnaire de C 13 t ' - '-
politique se trouvait dans l’orbite des Francs, les oblige-
thode cadre parfaitement avec les l)1ftr;S(?t:1 l: et
rent, on le sait, a se tourner vers le pape. Le résultat fut
étrangere de Byzance dans la seconde moitié du rig léqlle
, si c leur voyage a Rome, l’appui accordé par le Pape Adrien
011 peut s attendre a voir cette activité soutenue ar le’
II a leur oeuvre missionnaire - et tout particulierement a
autorités de l’état responsables de cette politi ue- ll; ’ es
la liturgie slave - et, apres la mort de Constantin-Cyrille
bien ce que nous voyons dans les sources et] en. e C381;
1i d 1 . _ , premier — la nomination de Méthode comme archevéque de Panno-
si€Z)lI11naa1;1:3sS E:’r:';l;)gI‘&I)l11::S'Sl&VOI1I16S des deux freres mis-
nie et légat du St. Siege aupres des nations slaves. Il se
t , \ , San IX siecle. La Vita Constantin/i racon- peut qu’u1i certain éloignement se soit produit a cette épo-
B que, epres l arrivee a Constantinople en 862 de l’a,mba,g que entre ces deux serviteurs de la papauté et leur patrie
::.:. 1‘;.P§;?§?.“ °;?~@
d d

foi chrétienne
'
'

dznslln& lmsslonnldre
-

angue s ave (dapable de Précher

es Moraves
d
,

1’em la8-
, '
as byzantine, surtout pendant le conflit qui, entre 863 et 877,
mite aux prises les Eglises de Rome et de Byzance autour
de l’affaire du Patriarche Photius. Il n’est pas impossible
re ur e 1; ses conseillers
' ~
demanderent , ’ d’entre-
a Constantin P
que cet éloignement ait été a l’origine des bruits que les pre-
prendre cette mission lointaine. L’instrument néceggajre
tres francs, adversaires acharnés de Méthode, firent courir
pour en assurer le succes, l’alphabet slave man quail; enco
sur son compte en Moravie: <<L’empereur — disaient ils — lui
“'3' Get 3*lPh3»b<‘>15, 811 dire de l’empereur Michel III , ses deu _ en veut, et s’il l’attrape, il n’en sortira pas vivant » 8. Ces
prédécesseurs, Théophile et Michel II, l’avaient vainem I
bruits, en tout cas, s’avérerent faux: vers 882 Méthode
chemhé 6- El? a'P1'éS1’i11V9T1l5i°11 P3»? Constantin a Peu d e t emen - se rcndit a Constantinople, sur l’invitation de l’empereur
apres, des lettres slaves, c’est-a-dire de l’écrituI‘e glagol:
Basile 1°’. Son biographe nous dit qu’il y fut bien recu par
“que, l’empereur se montra pleiiiement conscient de l’uti l’empereur et par le patriarche Photius et que, avant de re-
lité _ d e ce1; instrument
' -
destiné . .
a facihter , _
l6xpa.ng1Qn du' tourner dans son diocese dc l’Europe Centrale, il laissa a
;7a1:$ft;fl;1£;lI;eRchez les peuples slaves. << Accepts - écriv-it Constantinople deux de ses disciples, munis dc livres d’Eg-
e ' _
lise que lui et son frere avaient traduits du grec en lan-
cieux que n*im astilzslav 1 un don Plus grand Gt P1113 PT‘-5'
gue slave 9. Le vif intérét que les autorités de Byzance
tés a et_ lquelptole
cieuses 6 que. . Or,
r sor. pourquel
queargent’
vous quelles Pier1'65
aussi soyez P1‘é'
comp- portaient a cette époque a la liturgie slavonne comme
P mm es grands Pellples qui glorifient Dieu dans leurs moyen d’évangéliser les Slaves apparait dans un autre é_pi-
(4) Vita Constantini ' XVIII - 3 (GRIvEc-Toivisifi
" p 140- D (7) Vita Constantine‘, XIV, 18, 16 (Gnivicc-Toivisie, p. 129; DVORNIK, p. 3'73).
(5) VVita Method",
11- xvn
_.. 7 (Gmvso-Toiueié, p. ' 165;
' DVORNIK
- ‘”°“1*"K» P- 379)-
p 392)
(8) Vita Methodiii XIII, 1 (GRIVEO-TOMSIC p 163; Dvnnmx, p. 390).
(6) ita Constantini 9 LIV0 10 (GRIVE -T , _ .
' ’ ' ' ' ’ ' '
O OHM P 129' D"°“‘"K' P- 372% > (9) Vita Methodii, XIII, 5 (Giuvnc-ToM§1(‘5, p. 163; Dvommi, p. 391).
 592 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET METHODE 593
sode qui ent lieu peu apres la mort de Méthode en 885. Pour- - ' é 'dent
suivis par le gouvernement morave, hostile maintenant a
la liturgie slave, un certain nombre de disciples de Méthode récent; at que Canstantln lmfineme craegdiherésie 11 Ce
barquant dans cette aifaire, d etre aecus ,-_l
furent vendus en esclavage. Rachetés a Venise par un assage de la. Vita Cons-tantini suggere nettement (111 1 Y
envoyé de l’empereur, ils furent envoyés a Constantino- gvait a Byzance a cette éP°‘3l11e (191111 Points de vue OPPO-
ple et la pourvus de bénéfices ecclésiastiques 1°. , , ' ' 'stre
sés: celui de 1 empereur, 80111391111 P31’ 3°“ Pltemler ue
Il est donc certain que, dans la deuxieme moitié du IX° Bardas par un groupe de conseillers impériaux, 11111-31 ((11
siecle, le gouvernement de Byzance donna le plus large ap- ’ . - - . ’ , 1; ,' es
par Constantin et ses C1SC1P1e3> 615 ;13g1trera1)'1i:e 261:1déH_
pui a l’oeuvre de Cyrille et Méthode; et il vaut la peine adversaires de la litiirgie slave, que 6 logmsis ui wai-
d’observer que cet appui faisait partie d’un intense effort catesse ou la prudence de ne pas nomniel‘, (1 _ le
missionnaire de l’Eglise byzantine qui, dans la seconde moi- semblablement appartenaient au clerge de Constaiitinop
tié du IX° siecle, réussit a convertir au Christianisme les _ ' . t ai
Bulgares, les Serbes et les Russes. Et dans ce sens nous une théorie assez en vogue 9-1éP°q“e=:‘1rA€’1P célébré qm;
pouvons aifirmer que Cyrille et Méthode, les plus grands apo-
891011 1a'que11e Poffice dwm ne Pouval et rle latin Cette
tres des Slaves, incarnent cet universalisme chrétien que, dans trois langues — lhébreu, le grec e . s - ,
a un moment d’essor culturel jamais surpassé, l’Eglise et doctrine, que Constantin et ses disciples qualifier;-int d];
l’Empire de Byzance porterent aux nouvelles nations de . rne
résie des trois langues », £1111 Soutenu‘? avec 121563336 auel Com
l’Europe. particulier par le clergé latin de Venise,lcon 12 q
Tachons cependant d’éviter le danger d’idéaliser cet stantin défendit plus tard la l11J111‘g16]S ave .de moitié du
universalisme byza-ntin et de trop simplifier les choses. Il Il y avait donc a Byzance, 1131113 -,3’ Sewn 1, _
n’est pas douteux que dans cet appui donné par le gouver- ix” siecle deux attitudes opp0SéB8, 111116 a'@°eP11“111t> 3'“
nement byzantin a la liturgie slave, il y avait une bomie , 2- ' '
tre contestant qu il est légitime de célébrer la urgip ui
. en

part d’intérét politique: la diplomatic byzantine connais- langue slave. Sur quoi se basaient ces deux opinionse q
sait de longue experience l’utilité d’assurer la loyauté en- en étaieni; les protagonistes ? Il n’est pas facile de répon-
vers l’Empire des peuples satellites de Byzance au moyen .
dre Q, ces questions. Tout d a abord, me semble
. - —.l,
t 1 1 faU.-r
de concessions accordées a leurs susceptibilités nationales. drait les considérer dans un contexte P1113 13189 at essaye
I1 semble d’autre part que, au moment meme de l’inven- de distinguer les différentes attitudes Prises 5’ diverges ‘SP0’
tion des lettres slaves par Constantin-Cyrille, il y avait un . ~ 1'1; 'es
groupe de persomies influentes a Byzance qui étaient ques Par les Byzantms emlers les p1:Oble§?Sb:::velr mdgalns
en langues nationales. Et il est curieux 0 ,
fermement opposées a cette experience linguistique et li-
turgique. La Vita Constantine? nous apprend que l’empe- _ . . .T éie, p. 129; Dvomrix, P- 372)-

reur considérait la traduction de la liturgie grecque dans E313 iii" 2m:":::::~ .1;
1 za -onsa ’ , _, - » _ » ’ . L DUJEEV’ H problema
131, 134. 141). P0121: aIhéijs1egvcflisgpgcgpalangpfeiEh;/glzzwlistiche, VIII, 1960, pp-
delle Z11-ngue naziona
' _ _ ii ne me to p. . » _ -ll Moravia, Byzantine-
(I0) Vita S. Naoum, ed. M. KUSSEFF, The Slavonic and East European Ra- 39-60; 11)., Lactwité de Constantin PhtZosoPh@ C?/1"‘ 6 m
view, XXIX, 1950-1, p. 142.
slavica, XXIV, 1963» PP- 221'3-

38
 594 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET iviiirrnoiiiiz 595
ces attitudes, le meme dualisme la meme ambi uité 1
sont completement ignorants de la langue grecque cele-
meme tension entre rigorisme et liberalisme que nois avb a breront dans leur propre langue, pourvu qu’ils aient des
cons tr a es dans 1 ’ attitude
' byzantine
' envers l 2 usage de la lan-
ns
exemplaires exacts des prieres habituelles, copies sur les rou-
gue slave dans la liturgie. En principe les Byzantins ci- leaux bien ecrits en lettres grecques »1“. A peu pres a la
toy911$ (P1111 empire supra-national, recomiaissaient géiiérg, meme époque, Eustathe, metropolite de Thessalonique,
1 emen1) 1 e ~ ' de ehaque peuple de prier
dioit - et de glonfier. ' declarait que la parole du Seigneur peut etre prechée dans
iioileéggeur (318118 Ba propre langue. Ainsi St. Jean OhI‘yg().. n’importe quelle langue 11. En fait, les Byzantins cultivés
du fail alilis pn sermon prononce a_Constantinople, se réjouit savaient tres bien que dans la chretiente orientale le princi-
pe des langues liturgiques non-grecques était reconnu de-
la méme 0 llrgie Tns salangue nationale, et proclama par puis longtemps; et Constantin n’avait pas tort, dans ses
ccasioii e droit des peuples barbares de devenjr discussions a Venise, de citer l’exemple d’un certain nom-
membres de la grande famille chrétienne 111 - Ce sermon d u
bre dc peuples qui (nous dit sa Vita) << connaissent les let-
grand doctein' de l’Eglise Orientale ne fut pas oublie a B _ tres et glorifient Dieu, chacun dans sa propre langue »:
zance: il semble bien, comme l’a suggéré M Seveenko y
dans cette liste nous trouvons, entre autres, les Armeniens,
son texte ait ete utilise par Constantin au eours de saeelrlie les Perses, les Georgiens, les Goths, les Khazares, les Ara-
troverse avec les partisans du << trilinguisme » a Venise 14
bes et les Egyptiens 1°.
Le << trilinguisme » figure en outre dans une liste d’<< er. Ses temoignages nous autorisent-ils a parler, comme le
2311153ti’ ::°i1‘1I18-lee imputees a l’Eglise latine dans un opus- fait M. Dujeev dans un recent article, << d’une conception
I L n in qui seinble dater du xi“ on du xII° siecle; fondamentale des Byzantins en faveur des langues natio-
e_S _ a't1ns> Prétend lauteur, << font une loi de louer la di- nales »1°? Cette formule me parait appeler quelques reser-
vinite seulement en trois langues, en latin, en grec gt en
ves. N’oublions pas tout d’abord a quel point le Byzantin
11é111'e11,
-\ 1
5» l’exception
,
d’auc1me autre ' » 15 '. De ce mg-me X1111
. cultivé etait convaincu de la superiorite du grec sur toutes
Zzicfzvgglusd V18l1.1€’18I1l? deux autres l36II101g11a,ge3 byzantlns les autres langues: celles-ci, les langues barbares, restaient
bre can _ :3 T1h111'g1es en langues non grecques. Le cele- a ses yeux impenetrables a la veritable civilisation: et les
onis e ‘ eodore Balsamon, Patriarche d’Antioche, grands snobs byzantins, tels qu’Anne Comnene on Theo-
auquel son eollegue d’Alexandrie avait demandé s’il fal- phylacte d’Ochride, se croyaient obliges de s’excuser au-
cf-211ébigligerllps
I ‘t '
pretres
A
syriens
-
et arméniens
_
en Egypte de pres de leur lecteurs de devoir employer de temps en temps
3“ 1 111819 611 18»ngue grecque, repondit: << ceux qui tel nom propre d’origine barbare 1°.
(13) MIGNE, P.G., LXIII, cols. 500 -1, 506 509 (16) Tniiiononic BALSAMON, Responsa ad Interrogationes Marci, Patriarchae
(14) I. Snveismxo, Three Paradoxes of the Cyirillo-Jlllcth d’ M' ' '
Review, XXIII, 1964, P. 230’ n. 37. 0 zan zssion, Slamc Alesvandriae, MJGNE, P.G., CXXXVIII, col. 957 B.
(17) Eustathii metropolit-aeiThessalonicensis Opuscula, XV, 34, ed. T.L.F.
(15) J. Hnnenimernnn, Monumenta graeca ad Photiam ejmque M8, . TAFEL, Frankfurt 1e32, p. 133, 91-4; cite par Snveiimxo, op. cit., p. 227,11. 25.
- ' onam
p6"7'n6mia' Ratisbonae
édq, - 1869». P- 68 ’ no ' 19 '_ Ce texte i attribue a to r 1; par son (18) Vita Constantine, XVI, 7-8 (Gniviszo-Tomeie, p. 134; DVORNIK, p .375).
i eur au patriarche Photius, est en realite d’une 6 0 ue
J_ DAVREUX, B . P q posterieure: voir (19) I. Dmenv, It problema delle lingue nazionali, ibid., p. 59.
b yM nines,
t. 3’“‘”‘1°”- X» 1935 P- 105; J- DAR-Rovziés, Revue des élttd68
XXI, 1963, p. 63; Snveniwxo, op. cit p 293 n 39
(20) Voir K. LEOHNER, H ellenen and Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner
(dissertation: Munich 1954), p. 89.
 596 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET Mnriionii 597
Memele latin evoquait le mepris de certains: ainsi l’em il en fit des Grecs (-ypouxofieocg) 25. Il n’a jamais été ques-
pereur Michel III, celui-la meme qui envoya Constantin en tion, semble-t-il, de leur accorder le droit de célébrer la
Moravie, declara dans une lettre au pape que le latin était liturgie en langue slave; et la recente tentative de M. Duj-
une langue barbare et scythique 21; et an debut du XIII’ eev de demontrer que le temoignage de la Vita Constantine?
siecle, Michel Choniates, le savant metropolite d’Athenes, concernant les efforts des deux predecesseurs de l’empereur
proclama que les enes pereevraient plutet le son melo- Michel III pour chercher les lettres slaves s’applique aux
dieux de la lyre, et les bousiers le parfum, que les Latins Slaves de l’empire ne me semble guere probante 2°.
l’harmonie et l’elegance de la langue grecque 22. Ce snobis- Le passage de la Vita Constantini que j’ai deja cite
me linguistique pouvait tres bien coexister avec la con- montre qu’a la veille de la mission morave il y avait des
viction, au moins theorique, que le barbare etait capable gens a Byzance, appartenant probablement au clerge, qui
de perdre sa barbaric en devenant chrétien et partant mem- etaient opposes en principe a la liturgie slave. Trente ans
bre de la communaute des Rhomatoi 23; cependant meme plus tard cette meme opposition se laisse voir dans une
sur ce plan religieux il restait une ambiguite et une tension terre de mission etrangere, en Bulgarie. Apres la mort de
entre le complexe de superiorite des lettres byzantins et Méthode en 885 un groupe important de ses disciples, exi-
leur conviction que dans le Christ il ne peut y avoir ni grec les par le gouvernement morave, se refugia en Bulgarie.
ni gentil: et cette double maniere de voir, ce double-think, Ce pays, recemment converti au Christianisme par les mis-
reflete sans doute une tension spirituelle et culturelle en- sionnaires grecs, avait eté fermement rattache a l’Eglise
tre les traditions hellenique et chrétienne qui ne fut jg- byzantine en 870. I1 semble cependant que son souverain
mais resolue e. Byzance. Boris et une partie de l’aristocratie bulgare, bien que desi-
0 L’enthousiasme de certains historiens modernes qui pro- reux d’absorber la civilisation byzantine, craignaient de
diguent des louanges aux Byzantins pour avoir favorise voir le clerge grec qui dirigeait leur eglise devenir l’instr11-
la liturgie slave ne laisse pas de provoquer de discretes in- ment de la domination politique de l’Empire sur leur pays.
qiuetudes 24. N’oublions pas tout d’abord que dans les pro- L’expérience de la Moravie voisine devait leur suggerer
vinces de l’empire occupees par les Slaves et recolonisees que le meilleur moyen de permettre a la Bulgarie de jouir
par les Byzantins aux IX” et x° siecles — en premier lieu des fruits du Christianisme et de la culture byzantine, sans
la Grece et le Peloponnese — les Slaves furent non seule- risque de perdre son independence, était d’obtcnir un cler-
ment christianises mais hellenisés. L’empereur Leon VI gé slave et une liturgie dans la langue de leur pays. I1 est
nous dit expressément que son pere, Basile I2’, parvint done comprehensible que les disciples de Méthode aient
a assimiler les Slaves a l’intereu.r de l’empire par trois ete accueillis cordialement par le souverain bulgare. De
moyens: il leur imposa des chefs byzantins, il les baptisa et cette maniere l’oeuvre de Cyrille et Méthode fut, selon l’ex-

(21) Nicolas 121', Pape, Ep1.'stola- VI, M.G.H., p. 459. (25) Leonie imperato-rte Tactica, XVIII, 101, MIOi~iE, P.G., CVII, col. 968.
(22) Voir LEOHNER, op. cit., p. 85. (26) I. Duaeinv, 1'i‘iproe1.‘€t za vizantitslco-slanyanskite otnoéeniya i vizanttisktte
(23) Ibid., Pp. 100-4. opiti za stizdavane na slavyanska azbuka prez ptirvata polmrina na IX velc, Izucc-
(24) Voir a ce propos Petude perspicace de I. Snveiimxo, Three Paradoxes. tiya na Institute za Btilgarska Istoriya, VII (1957), pp. 241-67.
 598 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET METHODE 599
pression de l’abbe Dvornik, << sauvee par les Bu1gares»2".Ce sonnelles avec eux sans doute en Bulgarie. I1 est tres
sauvetage fut opere par une remarquable floraison de litte- probable que le traite de Khrabr est une tentative de jus-
rature en vieux slave, surtout en Macédoine et a Preslav tifier et d’exalter l’oeuvre de Cyrille 81> (16 1111511119119 aux
(la capitale bulgare), inspiree par Clement et Naum, deux yeux du clerge missionnaire g1‘@@ 211 13111811119» dont une
disciples de Méthode, et encouragee par le Tsar Symeon, partie au moiiis était hostile a la liturgie slave 22.
fils de Boris. Cette litterature, en grande partie de traduc- Le slave n’etait pas du reste la seule langue liturgique
tion, mais comprenant aussi des oeuvres originales, marque non grecque a provoquer l’hostilite des trilinguistes byzan-
- apres les traductions de Cyrille et de Méthode — le pre- tins dans la seconde moitié du IX° siecle. Un episode de la
mier chapitre dans l’histoire de la transmission de la cul- vie dc St. Hilarion d’Iberie, ecrite en georgien pas plllfl
ture byzantine aux Slaves; grace a cette litterature, basee tard que la fin du X” siecle, montre que meme la langue
maintenant sur l’alphabet cyrillique, le vieux slave géorgienne une des plus anciennes langues liturgiques de
Porient, était meprisee par ces philhellenes 011131811011-;:?..IiS. Iln
devint, apres le grec et le latin, la troisieme langue inter-
nationale de l’Eu.rope, et resta pendant tout le Moyen groupe de moines georgiens sons la conduite de St. 1 arion
Age l’idiome sacre de tous les Slaves qui recurent leur fut traite brutalement par lhigoumene un coi1V6111i 812°
religion ct les fondements de leur civilisation do Byzance: au Mont Olympe en Bithynie. Ils n’obtinrent JIISIJICB que
les Bulgares, les Russes et les Serbes 22. grace a l’intervention de la Vierge Marie qul appflg-11> 2'
l’higoumene et lui tint ces propos: <<Malheiu'eux. ‘our-
Une des oeuvres les plus originales de cette litterature
quoi as-tu agi si durement envers ces etrangers ? Crois-tu
est un traite sur les lettres slaves, ecrit en Bulgarie a la fin
que seule la langue grecque soit agreable a Bieu? Ne .sais-
du Ix° ou au debut du x° siecle par le moine Khrabr. C’est
tu pas que tous ceux qui l’aiment ct le glorifient plaisent
une emouvante apologie des lettres slaves que l’auteur
au Seigneur ? >>. L’histoire a un dénouement remarquablez
tient pour superieures a l’alphabet grec, et cela pour une
apres la mort de St. Hilarion en 875,‘ses reliques furent
raison bien medievale: les lettres slaves, dit-il, furent in-
déposees dans un convent de Constantuiople, oil, par per-
ventees d’un seul coup par un saint, Cyrille; l’alphabet mission de l’empereur Basile I", des moines georgiens s eta-
grec, par contraste, fut cree en plusieurs etapes, et par des blirent a leur tour. Non content de leur accorder sa pro-
Hellenes paiens. Le traite de Khrabr est une oeuvre nette- tection personnelle, l’empereur leur amena ses deux fils
ment polemique, dirigee contre ceux que son maitre Con- Leon et Alexandre (tous les deux futurs emPere111‘S) 211 P112’
stantin-Cyrille appelait les (<13I‘1I1I'1gl.11SlJ6S »; et il en ressort
clairement que ce moine slave avait eu des disputes per-
(29) Pour le texte du traite de Khrabr O pwmetwfll. V911‘ P- A- L_'1¥1‘°1_7n :1
terialy po istorii voznilcnoveniya drevnetehey slavyanalcoy pi-smcnn08h.é(;9;11 grfi
v ' ' ' ‘ ' I ,, 0 8

(27) F. Dvonmx, Lea Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX8 siecle, Paris 1926, pp. 1931, pp. 442-6. Voir aussi I. NEGAROV, ernorz _ . ._ ' d S fi
282 et seq. godim-_. davyanska pismeno-st, 863-1963. Sborrnlc v chest na Iitrzl t Meto yéh gba
(28) Voir G. C. SOULIs, The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern 1963 pp 305-l9- A. Dos'rA1;., Les 0?"tg'tTt88 de l 1179010922 21'1"“ par O}: 5;
, 0 I I . 0 a
Slavs, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIX (1965), pp. 19-43:1). OBOLENSKY, The
Byzantinoslavica, XXIV (1963), pp. 236-116, ;.X'£xA1q)iéqIK. Le 7rg.o$;e 1'
Heritage of Cyril and Metltodiua in Russia, ibid., pp. 45-65. gt P01-{gins de l’em-itnre slave, Byzantznoslainca, ( ). PP- -
 600 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET Mnrnonn 301
les moines de leur enseigner << les lettres saintes » et la lan-
epoques dans l’histoire de l’Eglise byzantine 31. C’est <13-11$
gue georgienne 2°. un tel contexte, peut-etre, qu’on arriverait acomprendre
L’appui donne publiquement par Basile I°" a la litur- pO111‘q1101, au Ix° siecle du moins, le pouvoir imperial pre-
gie en langue georgienne rappelle celui que son predeces- conisaitenvers les Slaves a l’exterieur de l’empire une po-
seur, Michel III, donna a la liturgie slave; et ce liberalis- litique d’opportuiiite, basee sur le principe de l’0tlc0'n0mw-
me linguistique du pouvoir imperial fait contraste avec tandis qu’une section conservatrice du clerge,.hostile a.t01.1te
la conviction d’une partie du clerge byzantin de la seconde concession an rigorisme traditionnel, tenait au principe
moitié du Ix° siecle,-a Constantinople, en Bulgarie et en Asie oppose de l’akribeia. _
Mineure, selon laquelle le grec était la seule langue liturgi- Certes, il ne faudrait pas tomber dans un schématis-
que acceptable dans l’Eglise d’Orient. Le point de vue gou- me simpliste. Il n’est pas douteux que les partisans de 13»
vernemental se basait sans doute en partie sur des argu- liturgie slave trouverent appui aupres d’une partie du elep-
ments de caractere diplomatique: le meilleur moyen d’as- gé byzantin; et il est tres probable, en particulier, que‘ 6
surer la loyaute des voisine chretiens de l’Empire envers Patriarche Photius soutint et encouragea leurs efforts mis-
l’Eglise et l’Etat de Byzance etait de faire des concessions sionnaires. D’autre part, certains ecclesiastiques byzan-
a leurs aspirations vers une autonomie culturelle. Quant tins semblent avoir occnpe dans cette question une P081-
au parti de l’opposition, il devait sans doute invoquer des tion equivoque: tel le celebre Archeveque d Ochride Theo-
considerations d’ordre pratique et professionnel. Pour phylacte a la fin du XI” siecle qui, tout en professi-H11? 19 P 113
les cercles conservateurs du clerge byzantin la liturgie slave profond mepris pour ses ouailles bulgares, ecrivit une Vita
representait une rupture avec la tradition, portait atteinte de St. Clement d’Ochride (basee en partie sur une Vita
a leur monopole de science et d’expertise liturgique, of- slave anterieure) dans laquelle il prodigue les eloges 188
fensait peut-etre leur sens esthetique et promettait un plus enthousiastes a Cyrille et Méthode 22.
supplement de travail dans leur oeuvre missionnaire. Ici I1 est probable aussi que 1’attitude de Byzance enverq
les traditions indigenes slaves variait avec la distance do to
encore nous manquons de domiees precises; mais je ne
ou tel pays slave par rapport a Constantinople; 611 B11331?»
puis m’empecher de me demander si les groupes << liberal »
par exemple, dont l’eloignement gépgI‘8»P111q11e rendmt
et arigoriste » qui a Byzance se disputaient sur la legiti-
impossible toute tentative d’hellenisation, le clerge byzan-
mite de la liturgie slave n’avaient pas de rapports respec-
tin semble avoir encourage l’usage du slavon comme ‘langue
tivement avec les partis des << moderes » et des << extremis-
d’église et de littérature. Envers les Slaves a l’1nté1‘16111‘ 11°
tes » - autrement dit les <<politiques » et les << zelotes » - l’Empire nous avons vu, P21‘ °°11°1'°= 1111,11 n étalt Pas quasi-
dont les querelles et les debats se manifestent a diiferentes tion d’un tel liberalisme linguistique.
9 ' _
En resumant les resultats de cette enquete B111‘ 18111
(30) Voir P. PEETERS, Saint H1Ilariond’IbériIe, Analecta Bollanrliana, XXXII
(1913), pp. 236-69; I. DUJCEV, Note sulla Vita Corwtantini-Cyrille, Cyrillo-Me- _ . . ~ _
(31) Sur les partis des 1 politiques a et des I zelotes » voir A VABIIIIEV
, H‘so-
thndiana, ed. M. Hellmann, R. Olesch, B. Stasiewski et F. Zagiba, Keln-Graz
1964. PP. '16-so. tory of the Byzantine Empire, Madison 1952, pp. 659-71-
(32) Ed. A. Mmnv, Sofia 1955.
 602 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET METHODE 603
tude de Byzance envers1’oeuvre de Cyrille et Méthode nous gue; l'acces s. la tradition patristique grecque et aux oeu-
devons conclure, a mon avis, que cette attitude était,com- vres laiques de la littérature byzantine; et une langue -
plexe et parfois ambigué. Pour ma part, dans cette ques- le vieux slave - a la fois modelée sur le grec et proche de
t1on encore biendes égards obscure, je suis enclin a occu- l’idiome parlé autochtone, qui devint au Moyen Age la la11-
per une position mtermédiaire entre 1’opinion de l’abbé gue littéraire des Bulgares, des Russes et des Serbes: c’est
Dvormk et de M. Du]éev, qui insistent sur la générogibé assuré-ment tout un monde nouveau qui s’ouvrit aux Sla-
dont Bvzance fit preuve envers la tradition nationale slave, ves grace a l’oeuvre de Cyrille et Méthode. La tache que je
et le point de vue opposé, soutenu recemment par M. An- me propose d’aborder dans les minutes qui me restent est
gelov 33 et M. Sevéenko, qui soulignent avant tout 1’im- plus modeste. Je voudrais montrer, au moyen de trois
périahsme culturel des Byzantins. J’estime que ces deux exemples, comment les Slaves orthodoxes, qui entoure-
attitudes contradictoires coexistaient et se heuytaient rent l’oeuvre de Cyrille et Méthode d’un veritable culte,
parfois dans la politique religieuse de Byzance; et en der- firent preuve dans leur appreciation de l’héritage Cyrillo-
nier ressort cette ambiguite a sa racine dans la tension ja- Méthodien d’une. certaine originalité créatrice.
mais resolue a Byzance, entre Phéritage classique et l’idéal Le premier exemple concerne ce que nous pouvons ap-
chrétien. peler le concept d’autodétermination nationale. A sa base
2- a: =0: nous trouvons l’idée qu’une langue employee liturgique-
ment devient une langue sacrée, et que le peuple qui la
parle devient lui-méme un peuple consacré. Il en résulte
Si maintenant nous passons du donneur an rgggvgur
que chaque nation chrétienne ayant sa propre culture a
de Byzance aux Slaves, quelles attitudes envers l’oeuvre
une place spéciale et une mission particuliere dans la fa-
de Cyrille et Méthode trouve-t-on parmi ceux qui en fu-
mille universelle des peuples chrétiens 34. Oertes cette con-
rent les bénéficiaires immédiats ‘.3 Pour répondre d’une fa-
ception ne fut jamais formulée, du moins au Moyen Age,
con satisfaisante a cette question, il faudrait d’abord me-
d’une faqon aussi abstraite et générale. Mais, appliquée
Bltrer 1 étendue de Ia. dette que les Slaves doivent a ces deux
aux Slaves, elle transparait dans plusieurs oeuvres littérai-
ID.ISSl0ILl1€LlI‘GS byzantins: tache qui dépagge évidemment
res qui appartiennent s. cette tradition, notamment dans
de beaucoup les cadres de la présente conférence. Pour
la Vita Constantini, dans la préface (le Proglas) en vers a
laborder 11 faudrait montrer comment une mission dgnt
l’Evangéliaire slave que certains attribuent a Constantin
la but étgit simplement de précher le christianisme aux
lui-meme *5, et dans l’ancienne chronique russe (dite de Ne-
Sloravels ins leur propre langue, finit par donner aux
stor). Elle apparait dans l’idée que les Slaves, convertis
_ aves es ondements de leur civilisation médiévalez une
liturgieslave, dans une langue riche, souple et intelligible; (34) Voir R. Jexosson, The Beginnings of National Sel/-Determination in
les Ecrltures chrétiemles, traduites dans cette meme lan- Europe, The Review of Politics, VII, 1 (1946), pp. 29-42.
(36) Voir A. VAILLANT, Une poésie vieux-slave : La Preface do l’Evangile, Re-
vue des Etudes Slaves, XXXIII(1956), pp. 10-13;R.JAKOBSON, St. Constantine's
33D.A .. .. ... Prologue to the Gospel, St. Vladimir’.s~ Seminary Quarterly, VII, 1 (1963), pp.
¢ Ml? Uirdini, 11:g.EI§?»fés{{ml i Metody i mammkam '°“”“"“ ‘ "°l“"°“' K'“"”“““ 14-19.
 604 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET Mfiirnoniii 605
au Christianisme et munis de l tt '
de Perm par Epiphane le Sage, qui compare son heros a
sont devenus un << peuple nouviaL11‘@iS_q:;Ileur sont propres,
St. Constantin-Cyrille 42.
trouve dans l" ' - i resslon (in on re-
Cette conception d’autodetermination, dans laquelle
rillo-Meth0diIenLi:eeu;f)t:.Eli11VreSlifldsslques de la tmdltion Cy-
deux fréres at écrit en Moravie peuapsrggislgléosge adresse aux
: men
le sentiment national des Slaves orthodoxes était sublime
par la notion d’une communaute des peuples chretiens,
ére .Alphabétique >> de Constantin lepPretre, e dans la (‘Pn-_ marque donc une tentative des Slaves de definir, au moyen
garie a la fin du Ix“ ou au debut du x° siecle alcxdaiisell ISM
de la tradition Cyrillo-Methodienne, la place qu’ils occu-
monsulL' »~ du. metropohte
6 N r ea; oi et la Grace . . russe’ Hilarign
e er‘
du
pent desormais dans cette communaute. Mon second
XI siecle , et dans la Chromque russe P
» . our dé
exemple illustrera une tentative des memes Slaves de se
que les << peuples nouveaux » ont dans la com montrer
determiner dans un cadre plus large et au moyen d’argu-
nations cliretiennes une place nullement 'n_fé inunauté de-is
ments encore plus ambitieux. L’epitre du Pape Adrien II
de leur entree tardive dans cette’ c0m1:1 riepge du iiait
aux princes Rastislav, Svatopluk et Kocel, dans laquelle
ecrivains, u‘ - 1; , . una’u_ ’ Oertams
l’eveque de Rome autorisait l’emploi de la liturgie slave
dienne, se geliefcfntl Z iiaifelent 3 Id G hgne.» Cyr1HO_Méth°'
St. Mathieu, qui raconteiasg ole du Christ transmise Par en Moravie et en Pannonie, et dont le texte est donne en
_ i ment un pere de famille re- traduction slavonne dans la Vita Methodii, cite un pas-
::T1(‘)1l11ta des ouvriers pour travailler sa vigne: 00mme vous
sage du chapitre 2 des Actes des Apetres, oil il est question
_ s en sou venez , 1 es ouvriers
- .
venus travailler vers la on- de la descente du Saint Esprit sous la forme de langues de
zlémil heme requrent 19 méme salaire - un denier - ue les feu sur les apetres a la Pentecete 43. Ceci implique claire-
premiers venus. Cette parabole est appli uee a S1 q
ment que pour le Pape et pour l’auteur de la vie de St.
l’auteur snonyme d@1’El<>ge de Cyrille it Mel; sales Par Méthode Pavenemont de la liturgie et des lettres slaves equi-
Bulgares par TheoPhylacte d , Ochride
. 4° 1 0 9' ’ aux
vaut a une seconde Pentecete. La meme idee se retrouve,
par la, Source slave aux Rfssss PI'éC1SéII1(-31115
quoique moins clairement, dans ce vers de la preface a
dans B8» Vita de B01-is et @165 41 B1; aux Z . es Par Nestor l’Evangeliaire slave: << Le Christ vient pour rassembler les
sie du Nord convertis aux XIV; ‘siecle et 0 Glide la Rus-
_ 2 . _ nations et les langues » 4‘. Mais l’apologetique Cyrillo-Metho-
gie en langue nationale dans une biogmphie dse Sglngtlétur
. 1 nne dienne est allee plus loin encore, et dans une de ses oeuvres
ce theme de la Pentecete, applique aux lettres slaves, ac-
(35) V0irA
, '
Tmononov ' BALAN 0 K‘ 'Z ' '
quiert une dimension plus universelle. Dans un passage
(37) V°" R- NAHTIQAL. Rekomtrillletciiafllretifdh
pemitev, Razprave Akadenviie Znanoeti
I’ S°fi°‘ 192°~ PP- 126,121.
J8 8mm.c"k”?”°"_l°”“"'k'7‘ "'”5"'"7¥ de l’ancienne Chroniqiie russe un contraste est suggéré en-
“J3. 0 metnom v Lgubljani, I (1943), pp,
tre l’unite presente des langues slaves et l’ancienne mul-
(33) Voir L. Munmn, Dee Met 1- . tiplicite des langues humaines qui naquit de la Tour de
li9en und Glaubenabekennmia. Wizsybzdtez Illgllgm Lab’-eds cm, Vladimir dm H“-
(39) Voir TEODOROV-BALAN, OP. cit. P 12'4PP- 86-7.
(40) Sofia
Mm“, Voir THEOPHYLAOTE n‘Ognmnm, Vie
1956’ P. 42, 1.15-1 ' cle St.0 lement wgchride, ed. A.
(42) Voir Zhitie av. Stefano, epiakopa Permekogo, ed. V. Druzhinin, La I-Iaye
(41) im,
VoirPetrogmgnfsiqivlgg.
D. I. A - . evyatykh muchenikou Boriaa i Gleba 0' 1959, pp. 12-13.
aluzhby Zahltiya (43) Vita Mechodii, VIII, 13 (Gmviiio-Tomeie, p. 158; Dvoamx, pp. 387-8).
(44) Liwnov, Materialy, p. 196; NAHTIGAL, Rekonetrulccija, pp. 76-122.
 606 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY CYRILLE ET Mfiiri-ionii 607
Babel. Ce contraste apparait, a mon avis, dans le fait que _ , - ' d 1 urce dont
invention soit du chroniqueur russe, soit e a so rt
le chroniqueur dans son introduction nous parle de la cons-
'l se servait et on peut la considerer comme un 8-PP0 _
truction de la Tour de Babel: son recit, base indirectement
sur les chroniques byzantines de Jean Malalas et de George lr'ginal
0 1 _ a la tradition
9-
Cyrillo-Methodienne:
, , d O
aPP°1't
. qul
Mé'

Hamartolos, nous dit que lorsque le Seigneur dispersa Permit aux Slaves d 1nte1P1‘eter l(3HV11‘:H;l8ZZgcZichte du
les hommes dans les diverses parties de la terre, l’unite thode dans le contexte 'lJI11V'61‘S6 e
linguistique de l’humanite fut remplacee par une multi- genre humain. _ _ d, H uer
plicite de langues et de nations. Le chroniqueur fait suivre
cette introduction biblique par le recit des origines et de dans l’inteI‘PI‘etation de ces Passages '
la dispersion du peuple slave: et ce recit est manifeste- e1; qui consiste a reconstituer la pensee latente de l’a111'»e111‘
. - e ses references bibli-
ment lie a l’introduction par le fait que le chroniqueur in-
clut les Slaves parmi les 72 nations qui furent dispersees
de la Tour de Babel. Ce lien entre Babel et les Slaves est
prolonge par le chroniqueur jusqu’a inclure le theme de la
ie
saisir dans sa pensee le triple 1‘aPP°1't entre if’ 1;: S résuli
Pentecete, au moyen de deux citations tirees du chapitre la Pentecete et Babel, elle mene, a mon avis, e
2 des Actes des Apetres et se referant a la descente des lan- tats valables. A
gues de feu sur les apetres. La conclusion s’impose, a mon Je me propose d’appliquer la meme‘ méizhodle it Egg;
avis, que pour le chroniqueur russe l’invention des lettres troisieme exemple, qui servira de conclusion 1136011 defslal
slaves sont un prolongement du miracle de la Pentecete, I1 y sera question, non plus del autodetermina l0ni du file
par lequel le Saint Esprit abolit la confusion des langues ves e l’interieur de la communaute Oh-:‘él"1en'_ne’ .VerSeue
qui naquit de la Tour de Babel 45. L’idee que la Pentecete de l’heritage Cyrillo-Methodien dans lhistpire 1111; immé_
abolit Babel n’etait pas neuve dans la lit-terature chre-
dll Salut humain’ mais d’une exégéée A la 0181;-P des au_
tienne: on la trouve dans le lcondakion de l’oifice de la Pen- diate et plus spontanee: il s’e»g1l5 d une tenta Wgit. C _
tecote dans l’Eglise d’Orient; et, comme l’a montre M. teurs slaves medievaux qui se rattachent a la tra 1OI1t uyn
Borst dans son livre Der Turmbau -von Babel, on la rencon- rillo-Methodienne d’exalter cet heritage 611 Y Zozan at
tre chez un certain nombre de peres grecs, y compris St. element dans la transfiguration de toute la cr a ion fpm_
Gregoire de Nazianze et St. Jean Chrysostome 4°. Touts- l’avenement du royaume de ‘Dieu. Leur legségelsiif Q En
fois la notion que les peuples slaves ont leur part dans dait S1411‘ deux Passages du hwe du prop 1 6 (1? livre »
l’abrogation de Babel par la Pentecete semble etre une
ce temps-la, les sourds entendront les parodziié “nag 35.
(1S_ 29; 18); << et la langue des muets sera e »Se HE-‘ent:
(45) Voir Povest’ vremennylch let, ed. V. P. Adi-ianova-Peretts et D.S. Likha.-
eev, Moscou-Leningrad 1950, I, pp. 10-11; cf. D. OBOLENSKY, The Heritage of 6). Dans ' la version des
... Septante
. les deux passages
5 »- Moo '
Cyril and Methodius in Russia, pp. 54-5.
(46) A. Bonsr, Der Turmbau van Babel. Geechichte der Meimmgen fiber Ur- Kocl dL)(.OUO'OV"L'OtL év T7] "IF-éP°‘ éxel-"Tl 1“-‘°‘P°l'7‘ You” pig
’ ,_, . I ' de C68
eprung und Viel/alt der Sprachen und Volker, I, Stuttgart 1957, pp. 236-9, 246, M11 1-pawl] 2:0"-coca 'f)\(|JO'O'@ ()..0YL)\O(.Z\(:JV. Le p1'6II116I('16 G me
249-50, 252, 262-3, 302; OBOLENSKY, op. cit., pp. 55-6.
passages est paraphrase dans lEloge anonyme Y1’
 608 DIMITRI OBOLENSKY , 609
CYRILLE E1‘ METHODE
et Méthode 4’, et se trouve cite dans la Preface 9. ’ - ’1 " ouvait s’apP1iqU-91'
l’Evangeliaire slave 48; et dans les deux cas l’intention (le St. Methode. Et ce chapitre d saie p
- . .
ation o eree ' Pair Cette oeuvre dans ,
apologetiqiie est evidente: la gueriscn miraculeuse des on eI1l'»1@1' 5'13’ tmnsform, . P . 3,062 << Le de-
. en citerai que 09 Pas s 0
sourds et des muets a ete operee par les lettres slaves. M we \ des ' Slaves.
5 J6 n t'er
1 se rejeuira , la solitude sera
Le second passage est applique par le metropolite Hilarion sert 011 11 11 Y 3' ‘me . 1 lis Alors
, ira comme e -~-
de Kiev a la conversion des Russes 4°. Mais 1’ampleur de dans 1’3»11eg1'eSSe’ et elle flew '
195 yeux des aveugles lrerronti 6 ' t les oreilles sour ds
des cerf et
cette exegese ne se manifeste pleinemeiit que dans trois
autres oeuvres de la tradition Cyrillo-Met-hodienne, dont seront ouvertes. Le boiteux bo ndira comme 1111 >
, - . e des sources jail-
les auteurs combinent ces deux citations d’Isai'e: la Vita la langue des muets sera deliee, parce ‘lu d la soli-
limnt dans le desert . et des torrent s couleront ens
Constantini du Ix° siecle, la Chronique russe de la fin
du xI° ou du debut du xII° siecle, et la Vita de St. tude. .. Ils verront 1 B» g1oir
'6 du Seigneur, st 13» m“e“ifi'
Etienne de Perm par Epiphane, ecrite a la fin du xIv° sie- cence de notre Dieu»-
cle 5°. Les deux premiers auteurs prirent les paroles d’Isaie,
qui dans leur contexte primitif s’appliquent au change-
ment dans les rapports entre Israel et Jahweh, et les adap-
terent au nouveau rapport établi par les Slaves (dans
le premier cas) et par le peuple russe (dans le second) avec
Dieu apres leur conversion au Christianisme et l’acquisi-
tion par eux des lettres slaves. L’expressioi1 << les paroles
d’un livre » (keyoi. BI.B)»l0U), qui chez Isaie se referaient
aux commandements du Seigneur, fut dans les deux cas
traduite en slavon par -slovese knizhnaya, expression qui
signifie a la fois les ecritures cliretiennes et les ecritures et
la litiugie traduites en slave.
C’est dans le contexte du 35°“ chapitre du Livre d’Isai'e,
dont eHes sont en partie tirees, que ces citations bibliques
acquierent toute l’importance que leur attribuaient sans
aucun doute leurs exegetes slaves. Car, en dernier lieu,
c’est dans une joie et mi triomphe cosmique que s’ache.ve
et se couronne l’apologie slave de l’oeuvre do St. Cyrille et
(47) Tmononov-Buss, op, cit., p. 127.
(48) VAILLANT, op. cit., p. 10. _ . . - i dell’alt0
(49) 1\I0:.i.ii:n, op, cit., p. 92. La conversione al Cristiaiiesimo nell Eul't°pa.taliano
(50) Vita Conetanlini, XV, 1-3 (Gnivmo-Tomeie, p. 131; Dvonmx, p. 373); ' Settimane di studio del Cen to 1
Poveet vremennykh let, I, p. 81; Zhitie av. Ste/ana, p. 66.
n:l‘?dli)ecl'osull’alto
lsu 1 medioevo ’ XIV. Sp0let° 1967

39
The Dualist Movement
in Eastern Europe
 X11
THE BOGOMILS
HE history of the Bogomil sect in the Balkans is
a subject whose importance greatly transcends
its historical and geographical setting. The student
whose preliminary investigations have convinced
him that Bogomilism was not simply an obscure heresy which
flourished in a distant corner of the Balkan peninsula some time
in the Middle A es may be justly astonished at the number
and versatility 0% its implications. To scholars and experts
in widely different subjects Bogomilism still offers many an
unexplored, or half-explored, gold-mine. Thus, for
example, the theologian and the philosopher can find in the
Bogomil sect one of the most interesting examples of the
growth on European soil in the early Middle Ages of a system
of thought and a way of life which may be termed “ dual-
istic.” The specialist in the history of Eastern Europe-—
Byzantinist and Slavist alike-—will grant to Bogomilism an
important place in the ecclesiastical, political, social and literary
heritage, and even in the contemporary folklore, of the
Balkan peoples. A detailed study of Bogomilism should
help a Western medievalist to shed new light on the still
obscure problem of the historical connections between
Asiatic Manichaeism and the medieval dualistic movements
of Western Europe, particularly of the Italian Patareni and
of the Cathari or Albigenses of Southern France. This
connection, if successfully established, would in its turn enable
Church historians to regard the Bogomil sect as the first
European link in the thousand year-long chain leading from
Mani’s teaching in Mesopotamia in the third century to the
Albi ensian Crusade in Southern France in the thirteenth.
\X/hile, more generally, the study of the Bogomil movement
has its own, and by no means negligible, part to play in the
investigation of the relations, cultural and religious, between
Eastern and Western Europe, the urgency of which is increas-
ingly perceived at the present time, not only from the stand-
point of European history, but also with the practical view to
rapprochement or reunion between Western and Eastern
Christianity.
It is hoped that this survey of a very wide problem might
serve as a contribution to the knowledge of a subject Wl'1.1Cl‘1
so far has been almost entirely neglected in this country and
thus improve on the conclusions of Gibbon who, in his
Decline and Fall, dismisses the Bogomils in a single footnote
 2 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 3
with the remark : “ a sect of Gnostics, who soon vanished.” In com lete contradiction to the Christian view of evil,
Among the ever-recurring problems which have confronted which folllbws from the belief in the Hypostatic Union and
human reason throughout the ages one of the most complex the consequent value attributed to this life and to the body,
1S that of the nature and origin of evil. Whenever man s¢¢kS we find another conception which, in some respects, is older
to support his religious faith by rational thinking, $001151» or than Christianity. This conception is based on a funda-
later he 1S led to the problem of reconcilin the absol t mental opposition between good and evil and on the denial
qualities he attributes to God with the obviougly limited aliid that God, who is essentially good, can be the author or the
contingent character of the world he lives in. The meta- cause of evil. The origin of evil is outside God, and must
physician and the theologian must explain the possibility of be sought in the visible, material world, where disorder and
any relation between the Infinite and the finite, between the suffering are dominant. The origin of evil lies in matter
perfection of the Creator and the imperfection of the creature itself, whose opaqueness and multiplicity are radically opposed
between God and the world; and those men who without to the spirituality and unity of God. This view, which
being pliilosqphers, believe that God is the sour,ce of all attributes to evil the same positive and ultimate quality as
perfection an _ that He has created the world, cannot but possessed by good, thus leads to an inevitable dua/irm between
recognize that in this world moral and physical evil—sui-fering, God and the opposite principle of matter. Man himself
crue ty, deca , d th— b d 1 in a microcosmic form mirrors this cosmological dualism:
can God,
. the ifiu P rifine Gldod
_ , bl? tfiidtcii.use
Present.‘
of evil .>HOw than his soul is of divine origin, his body ineradicably evil. The
b Behind the many solutionsto the problem of evil attempted body is “ the tomb of the soul,” the instrument whereby the
y human_ reason we may distinguish two main attitudes of powers of evil seek to imprison light in the darkness of matter
mind, radically opposed to each other. The first is based and to prevent the soul from ascending back to the heavenly
on the belief in a fundamental relation between God and the spheres. Every consistent dualist must see the origin of all
world created by Him. It was above all the faith of the misfortune in life in this world : for the birth of man is the
imprisonment of a divine or angelic soul in an unredeemable
tllirfiizslile
. . Iwcd)rI:l)di’cfe)ati:1d2lilYG1i)]ilrri(;rc<(ioii1
_r Y , g - thcudiqok
_] ism, of Genesis’
throu hout body. The only final redemption is in death—in the escape
E2t_£(1_3Sct03’l> %fI1fipl'_1flS1Z€d the profound nature of the relation of the soul from its prison and the return of a particle of
mason gt re n_ nite and the finite, which, though to the human light to the One Uncreated Light. This redemption does
willed b C(I§12lé1‘l.S a Ipiystery, has yet all the reality of a_ fact not lie inrepentance for the moral evil committed by man :
man cannot be really responsible for the guilt of sin if evil
Provideniee
of human hit: i Oth’e_wor
t uld lb y recogrilzed
stressing thethe wank lmportance
positive "Of Divine is not due to the abuse of his free will but is rooted in his
and _ S 0ry_1n preparing the Kingdom of God on earth material body and is thus the inevitable concomitant of Life
proclaimed its chef in the ultimate value of this life itself. But though he is not responsible for the existence
ghe _]_udaic view received _a supreme and all-embracing ($011.: of evil and has thus ultimately no free will, man can and must
rmation by the Incarnation of the Word, whereby God collaborate in the work of God in striving by his knowledge
peeaccaglnlp flash andi entqreg human history. Christianity, by and his actions to purify his soul from the contagion of its
betw 8 6 fee _ty o od-man, recognized that the gulf material envelope. Purification as understood and practised
een the Infinite and the finite had been finally brid ed by the consistent dualist implies forbearance from all actions
and that the created world into which the Creator Himgelf which further the soul’s imprisonment in the body--especially
ad entered was not only of positive value but even capable from marriage and the procreation of children which streng-
the sanctification
of in Henceforth to those who_ on account of
- b_]i then the power of matter in the world—-and a rigid asceticism,
the Cpgiilpnfiqnsufra 1 ty of God and the material world denied based not on the desire to discipline the flesh, but on a radical
p 1 y o contact between them Christianity was able hatred of the body.
figislfpg; ttlliit figs. created the world, became man and will In the history of Europe and of the Christian Church dualism
has played an important part. It was largely the necessity
 4 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 5
gfelslfgltgilgsthfi dfoctrinles of the dualists that led the Christian years after their first appearance, spread over large parts of
manmgg their Owfmu altle, in a lprecise and comprehensive Europe and Asia, from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans,
Over dilalism a eac ing on t e problem of evil. More- have in recent years been the subject of renewed interest and
the zvhola of (ghlygtirise to_a number of sects which during study owing to two important discoveries of original Mani-
the Middla A es W an gntiquityi acpd until the very end of chaean sources : the first-—between 1899 and 1907 in the oasis
Church and % ain irfi herge gm h angerous enemies of the of Turfan, in Chinese Turkestan,1-the second in 1930 in
Eur ach hg s w ic ot in Eastern and Western
ope urc and State were compelled to wage an almost Egypt-2
Manichaean dualism penetrated into Europe in two waves,
cease ess war.
It has hitherto been customary among most historians
separated by an interval of some three centuries. The first
and theologians to trace systematic dualism back to the wave, that of primitive Manichaeism, spread between the
third and seventh centuries over the whole of the Mediterra-
ggfzfigilgg t1Fl1;1(i1t1OI1 (Ef hPersia. Although this problem nean world, from Syria, Armenia and Asia Minor to Egypt,
that our North Africa, Spain, Southern Gaul, Italy, and penetrated
from thePresent lgildfivlo
results OfecItge eo i3r£S€nt Suidy’ doctrines
proastrian It mill’ bederived
Stilted
into the two centres of Roman Christian civilization—Rome
Such a historical fifiatio recent ranian scholarship makes and Byzantium. The second wave was that of a revived and
Saem that Z _ _n appear very doubtful, since it would in many respects modified Manichaeism, often known as
_ _ oroastrianism, in some important respects, was “ Neo-Manichaeism.” It appeared in South Eastern Europe
incompatible with true dualism.‘ There seems to be little
with the dawn of the Mliddle Ages and, between the ninth
ggsgfittfigiil ti'i7i1lIiIEh€}O1‘1g_1I‘l of systematic du_alism_must be and fourteenth centuries, swept over all Southern and part of
in the first Centu of nosticism,dwhic_h arose in Asia Minor Central Europe, from the Black Sea to the Atlantic and the
classical form inryMan(i?ul"l ela, an‘ , In its most develqpqd and Rhine.
middle It is not surprising that, whereas the first spread of Mani-
celebrat of
d tthe h_third2cen_ury
C iwsmfi_ ymisemid Iii Babylqnla
t e Persian In tl-“=6s
Mani. Mani chaeism in Europe has already been studied in some detail?’
e eac ings which, in the course of the thousand
1 Although the res , ' Z ' 1See F. W. K. Mfiller, Handschriflen-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus,
dualistic elements ils? uifdtiliiatilla, tii?iggeliliiiggojiniliiggéiriinizgipZliniiii Turfan. . . I: Sitzungsber. der K. pr. Akad. der Wissensch., 1904, pp.
naturedoi man and .1125 moral and social consequences are manifestly 348-352; II: Abhandl. der K. pr. Akad. der Wissensch., 1904; C. Salemann,
opgose tt o any consistently dualistic view: The dualism between spirit Ein Bruchstilck manichdischen Schriftturns im asiatischen Museum, Z apiski
ggugfiathgé gaghfivzglll 12111611 thfi body, was alien to Zoroastrianism, which imperatorskoy Akadernii nauk (ist.-fil. otd.), Vol. CI, 1904; W. Radloflf,
Chuastuanit, das Bussgebet der Manichder, St. Petersburg, 1909; A. von
of the
on man,S Kinfiedom willofis Liwht) ht e product
mg . koiod of O“““d'
and Truth. the 5‘¥P1'em°
The Zoroastrian Ruler
emphasis
Le Coq, A Short Account of the Origin, journey and Results of the First
_ . mar_ e contrast with the determinism underlying Royal Prussian Expedition to Turfan in Chinese Turkestan, journal of
2-E §1l;3.};:)%(;e:gIS(l;?1'fi?. Inj it; re]ection of asceticism and its emphasis the Ro'yal Asiatic Society, 1909, pp. 299-322 ; E. Chavannes and P. Pelliot,
also in Oppositiontoeeall ‘fife Importance of the body Zoroastrianism is
Un Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine, traduit et annoté, journal Asiatique,
1911, pp. 499-617; 1913, pp. 99-199, 261-394.
Zoroastrian “ dualism ’Yerl,i' lirm'0f tn]? duahsm'- -For the.pr°b1em °f 2 See Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten. Originalschriften des Mani und
lowing works ma be l W dS't1H awalts a defimtwe Solutlom the fall seiner Schiller, von Prof. Dr. Carl Schmidt und Dr. H. ]. Polotsky, mit
New York I928 _yA C6595? e - A; V- W- 131115011. Zoroastrian Studies, einem Beitrag von Dr. H. Ibscher, Sitzungsber. der pr. Akad. der Wissensch.,
6 . H - , . _r1s ensen, L Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen,
193 , . S. Nyberg, Die Religzonen des alten Iran Lei zi I 8 - M N 1933, pp. 4-90 ; Manichdische Homilien (Manichtiische Handschriften
Dhalla, History of Zoroastrianism New York 19' 8 P gi 93 ' ' ' der Sammlung A. Chester Beatty, Bd. I), herausgegeben von H. ]. Polotsky,
2 The best accounts of the Maiiichaean doctrirliesl are to be found in Stuttgart, 1934 ; Manichaische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen
the following works : P. Alf ' L’E 1 ' ' - - Berlin, herausgegeben in Auftrttge der pr. Akad. der Wissensch. unter
Paris. I913; Les Ecrituresafianichggnlntgnli’Z.i'liZeciz<;tilie'dl3-Isalllm Sqctligaliellflml Leitung von Prof. Carl Schmidt, Bd. I : Kephalaia, Stuttgart, 1935-37 ;
l:'}1;f2rnIiVund Fortbildungen des manichtiischen Systems, l/ort-rage der Bibli: A Manichaean Psalm-Book, edited by C. R. C. Allberry, Stuttgart, 1938.

;;.:M...‘::2:.';g' 6§.i.t;§3’5'
Supplementband VI,
1 I935.
‘
R <>-
in Pauly_WiSs;)wa Reali‘%if*1;c;gf0;);idzl:.d]. fblotsicy, article Manichdismus
e 1’ c assisc en Altertumswissenschaft.
'
of 3 See, in particular, E. de Stoop, Essai sur la diffusion du Manichéisme
dans l’Empire Romain, Recueil de travaux publiés par la faculti de philosophic
et lettres de l’ Universite de Gand, 38¢ fasc., Gand, I909; F. Cumont,
La Propagation du Manichéisme dans l’Empire Romain, Revue d’histoire
et de littérature religieuses, 1910.
 6 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 7

a comprehensive history of the Neo-Manichaean movement forms of Christian monasticism) and, on the other hand, to
as a whole has yet to be written: for before this can be the increasing practice among the followers of Mani of
attempted, it will be_ necessary to study in greater detail than borrowing Christian concepts and terms in their attempt to
has yet been done its origin, character and development in adapt their dualistic teaching to the dogmas of the Church.
each of the European countries where it found a home, par- It seems, moreover, significant that these sectarian movements
ticularly in Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Bosnia, Northern Italy within Christianity were particularly widespread in those very
and Southern France. A study of Bogomilism in Bulgaria regions which in the fourth century had witnessed a powerful
and in the Byzantine Empire forms an indispensable first extension of Manichaeism, and which, between the seventh
chapter in such an investigation. and the ninth centuries, became the stron holds of Neo-Mani-
A complete study of the origins of the Bogomil movement chaeism,—particularly in Armenia and Esia Minor. It was
must presuppose an attempt to establish the exact connections those two countries that nurtured the two most powerful
—historical and doctrinal—between primitive Manichaeism Neo-Manichaean sects which in the course of the ninth and
and the different dualistic sects which may be termed Neo- tenth centuries were to spread into Europe from their Asiatic
Manichaean. _Such an attempt, however, would far ¢X¢¢¢d homes and directly influence the growth of Balkan Bogomilism :
the scope of this study. But a few indicationsseem necessary. these were the sects of the Paulicians and of the Massalians.
There can be no doubt to-day that the scepticism shown by The Paulician sect arose in Armenia and Asia Minor in
some scholars regarding the existence of any historical con- the second half of the seventh century. In the seventh and
nection between Manichaeism an_d_Neo-Manichaeism 1S not especially in the ninth centuries the Paulicians suffered violent
]ustified. It 1S true that the religious history of the Near persecution from the Byzantine authorities, due not so much
East in the first nine centuries of our era offers, to the despair to the fact that from the standpoint of the Byzantine Church
of the historian, a bewildering picture of numerous move- they were heretics, as to the military and political menace
ments and sects, some features_of which frequently suggest which they were to the Empire : forming turbulent military
points of contact with the teaching of Mani, but whose exact colonies on the Eastern borders of the Asiatic themes and
relation to Manichaeism and to each other can seldom be frequently allied with the Arabs, the Paulicians were a source
proved directly. _It is also true that, in default of a proven of constant irritation to the authorities in Constantinople.
historical connection between these movements and primitive Matters came to a crisis in 867 when, after a series of spec-
Manichaeism, it_ is sometimes more ‘satisfactory to regard tacular raids on Byzantine fortresses which carried them to
them as successive and more or less independent manifesta- the shores of the Aegean Sea, the Paulicians proudly demanded
tions of the same spiritual tendency—t_owards either cosmo- the Imperial provinces East of the Bosporus. Five years
logical dualism or extreme moral asceticism. Nevertheless, later, however, the Byzantine armies succeeded in sacking
a careful study of the development of dualism in the Near the Paulician strongholds in Western Armenia and thus
East in the first I11I‘1€.,C€I1tl.11‘l'€S of our era reveals a thread destroyed for ever the military power of the Paulicians in
which leads from Mani s teaching in_ Mesopotamia in the third Asia. But not their doctrines. Notorious heretics, they
century to the rise of Bogomilism in Bulgaria in the middle enerally passed in Constantinople for “ Manichaeans.”
of the tenth. The thread may best be followed by a study Some modern scholars, including Harnack,‘ have denied such
of those factors which enabled Manichaeism to survive and a filiation and have tried, without great success, to absolve
spread in the Near East for several centuries after the death the Paulicians of any Manichaean antecedents. We must
of its founder. The most important of these factors seems certainly concede to them that Paulicianism differed in some
to have been the partial—though essentially artificial- respects from primitive Manichaeism and that the origin of
contact between Manichaeism and Christianity, due on the
one hand to the appeal of Manichaeism to various heretical
movements within the Christian Church (for example, to 1Marcion : Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott, 2nd edition, Leipzig,
Encratism, Montanism, Novatianism and to certain distorted I924, p. 383*.
 8 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 9

.h..1:;i.§::.d@z‘:s<S -is
the P
. H
li '
PP
' '
Comps re
6 - It 1_S, or example, difficult to deny the
In uence exerted by Marcionism on the development of the
. other ancestor of Balkan Bogomilism. The Massalians,
widespread in Syria and Asia Minor from the fourth century,
are attested in Armenia and Asia Minor as late as the ninth.
Pauhcian teachings. But, when these facts are taken into Many of their doctrines were identical with those of the
acco
M P11t , _th6 d0Ctr1nal_
' ' '
and historical -
connection between Paulicians; an original and interesting feature of Massalian-
anichaeism and Paulicianism can no longer be dgubtgd ism was its moral teaching: while its ordinary adepts were
£0-day. The principal source _of our knowledge of the pledged to a life of rigid continence and poverty, those who
aulician doctrines, Peter of Sicily who was sent in 869 to were considered to have attained to perfection were bound by

.h."r::;::.£Y::s*:r“1§“"i‘~“=“°‘°’to
Ar ' ‘

the dualistic h charadi §1' au0 fclalilsg

Writmn it elr leaves
’ -

"us In no
teachings. In doubt
hm
as to
a treatise,
no moral restrictions : this led the Massalians to be accused at
once of perverted asceticism and of extreme sexual immorality.‘
There can be no doubt that the rise of the Bogomil sect
t H tgn the occasion of his visit to the Paulicians,‘ he in Bulgaria was directly due to the penetration of Paulician
e s us _ at t ey believed in ' two principles,
1 - .- the one good, the and Massalian heretics into the Balkans : this penetration is
other evil : the evil one is the creator and ruler of the present attested by historical evidence: not only does the allusion
w ld t h:h§<:1<1>;1t€<.;1;1t:l__theléord of the world that 1S
Hgidiil - to_ come. of Peter of Sicily to Paulician proselytism in Bulgaria suggest
Ci 1 1% P 1_ _ a wor to be a creation of the evil prin- that at least as early as the middle of the ninth century the
p e, t e au icians were naturally led to reject the Christian Paulicians regarded the Balkans as a profitable sphere of
dogrna of the Incarnation and to substitute their own “ dQ¢¢- interest. We also know that on several occasions, in the
tic Chnstologlfi flC<I0rding to which the Body of Christ was course of the eighth and ninth centuries, Byzantine Emperors
log heavenly origin and His Incarnation only “ seeming ” transported large colonies of Syrians and Armenians to Thrace,
O

mannser a 5
- - n

le ew estament in a highly allegorical

_ _ n strong _y attacked the whole organization of the
of Old '
in order to garrison their Northern frontier for their constant
wars against Bulgaria. Among these colonists were certainly
Paulicians and very probably some Massalians. The Byzan-
g::‘fi1Srtéagf%hufi¢1_1> {11<31L1d1ng_ the priestly order. A notable tine chronicler Theophanes expressly tells us that these
b bl hau cianism was its extreme veneration for St. Paul displaced Asiatics were responsible for spreading the Paulician
](JPI:fl; y 5 e effect of Marciomc influence), but it cannot yet heresy in Thrace.‘ The penetration of these Paulician and
{rim tliilp O certainlthaig the Paulicians derived their name Massalian colonists into Bulgaria was doubtless greatly
facilitated by the frequent invasions of Thrace by the Bu garian
of th the H_ Balkans
_ t€l1<-?I:ii=:)l_ S<=ivance
6 O thf
o _ tliientlleszz ForPeter
1S treatise of the of
hlstcm-‘an
Sicily, armies in the eighth and ninth centuries and especially by the
._ e zrtorza Marzze/aaearum-—is greatly enhanced by Peteps annexation of the great Thracian cities of Sardica and Philip-
observation that, while in Armenia he learnt from the Pauli popolis and of Macedonia by the Bulgar Khan towards the
i
2301111138 tlhemselves that ~ they were planning ’ - to send missionaries
- . . ' middle of the ninth century.
Aufgsria todspread their teaching in t at country. During the ninth and first half of the tenth century the
wor s must be said about the Massalian sect, the notable success of Paulician and Massalian proselytism in
1For an account of the Massalian doctrines see the article Euchites
CI;/_lf:gi>.¢‘t;l23f;}l<£g1;:)c‘{taeorum qui et Paulrczam dzcimtur, Patr. Graeca, in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. The so-called “ Spiritual
Homilies of Macarius ” have in recent years been ascribed not to the
The most reliable modern studies on the Paulician th rt‘ great Egyptian ascetic of the fourth century but to a contemporary
by Gregoire (Bulletins de la classe des lettres et des siijiifies nioiialigllii Massalian who, it is thought, disguised the doctrines of his sect under an
polztiques de lAcadémze royale do Belgique, V01. XXII, I936 ; and Byzan- orthodox name and terminology. See Fifty Spiritual Homilies of St.
‘°”' ,V91- XI; 1936l- '_n}° 6311161‘ _W01‘k§ by Ter-Mkrttschian (Die Macaritts the Egyptian, edited by A. ]. Mason, London, 1921 ; Dom L.
Paultkumer zm Byzcmtmzschen Kaiserreiche Leipzig 139 ) and F C Villecourt, La date et l’origi'ne des “Homélies Spirituelles“ attribuées it
Conybeare (The Key of Truth, Oxford, 18o8) contain a gumber of in: Macaire .' Comptes vendus des seances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
‘a;:$c1i1;)aip.1es and historical misinterpretations and must be treated with Belles Lettres, Paris, 1920, pp. 250-2 58.
2 Theoph.. C.S.H.B., I, 662.
 IO THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS II
llgilillgaria is attested by scattered, though reliable evidence h ll se of the First Bulgerlflfl
the while a gradual process was effecting a fusion on liEIifliiiirrel)irii)ii§>}111g abI(i1u1l:Zl'iZSE C€if)Cl.?I‘IP1St2lf1C€S it is not
Bulgarian soil between Asiatic dualism and a powerful, and . . ' - - ' surprising
cess-
s p ecifically S1 avonic,' movement directed
' ' that the Paulicians, l1er<-:_di(:1;afYl‘{¢I1t,<(i::1g1li<;:1s oit'nBy];1:11nl;:Fi1;1,f:1¢thcir
against the new
Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The outcome of this fusion fully gxploltli fclaistp-ec'f€if1eir sociiigl and political role was
was the rise of Bogomilism in the middle of the tenth century. own aims. _ . - _ F- 11 , the
The reasons for the successful spread of dualism in Bul aria
before the middle of the tenth cen tury are to be found ing the gr<>Wt° er .., 1,131 in
contemporary religious, social, olitical and economic con- century \7V3.Sfi1lS0t.1f1(i11'é3C()3:I1l1§Z1(l1;1;3 l£((;Ifé1é3rf?:(gl;IEIl;19i3nl£1cun£11u%ili§i:d
ditions of the country. Some otPthe more im ortant of these Chum at t at lme db b zantinized
factors
Ch . may . . be briefly enumerated : before the introduction °b§d*°n§f anfirieiiiciet
0
.
ristiamty into Bulgaria, which began on a large scale an ,in em , _~ ilfafirfiiiitgitg2<l:ont(i1i::(t)I\1x1ri:thihe
th of men pe0p1¢>
ike
after the baptism of the Khan Boris in 864, the teachings of which fifty Wars gamer had bfim thgkstmng arish Priests
St. Clement. The minor clergy, H101} 5 an P1 d mi
the Paulicians who, for all their dualism, had borrowed
many elements from Christianity, must have enjoyed a cultural
and moral superiority over Slavonic paganism which, in
we ’“°fiP§ ‘hinifiifii iffi?atéiiitififii..i::,..::i..,
decadence: CW € aga '
Bulgarian Churchmen of the time, St_. OSIII ,
C as whose Sermon
t f O1d
Bulgaria at least, was never, it seems, a very vital force. We
can even suppose that in some cases the Paulicians were the againrt. the _/Jeretzcr (one _of thie garrluigsctmgigngtnggci Zgainst
first to bring the knowledge of the Gospels to the pa an Bulgafian htcraturfi) is dlrecte ’ S gasticism hnd against the
Bulgarians, in their own interpretation, of course. After the abuses of contemporary H1011
Bogomil hgreilhl * * >|< *
the official introduction of Christianity from Byzantium, the
violent struggle between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople ~ d in
for the spiritual allegiance of the newly-baptized Bulgarians, A studyhof ltahese (l§I\17'§gO1€1ISI1€tI}11l£t 1i1h:l‘1:iSl;l€:lI_ %il)$g1Oi111i1iSm
which lasted from 866 to 870 and ended in the victory of the Bulgaria S Ou Conv s due to the com-
Eastern Church, and the embittered polemics between the towards th€ middla of the tenth cfintury lia d a background
Latin and Greek clergies in Bulgaria produced a state of biflfid effect of twg factors-: on th? hmfi afirafed to Bulgaria
religious confusion which, we can safely assume, was exploited of Eastern dualistic doctrines, _w_hic pent? f h B zantim
by the dualists to discredit the Church in the eyes of the still partly as a result 0 f the colonizing
h h d P0l1¢Y C? t and
rc_exiStmg 6 YcOntem_
semi-Christianized Bul arians. The violently anti-Byzantine EmP@r°1'$> and» on fhe Qt Cr - an ’ P ' ll f urable to
' '
porary conditions in Bulgaria
Th . Hexceptiona y W0
cncfi of thgsa two faetors
policy pursued at the Beginning of the tenth century by the
Bulgarian tsar Symeon, despite the outward glory of its
military achievements which still dazzles the ima ination of tkeiii
c Blgrgfecirlirfdkgfggfgd
_ . in Bgglclilmillism,
- ' whose tC]jCl1l51g
C1 Massa repre-
'an octrines,
sented essentially a fusion of_Paulic1an an , 1 d . Bul aria
historians, plunged his country at the end into socialinstability
and economic ruin. The internal weakness of Bulgaria on
Symeon’s death in 927 largely explains the inability of his
and who“ C C213 16$
rd first ”€i’§‘.i. §‘."‘,ZFnZ¥.i. 1“ g
th€EI'tl-€,:atur€l'O£i:aSSlFi§rCtififdl gourfzgoreferring
_ -to Bogomilism
' C is
mas
successor Peter to resist the overwhelming stream of Byzantine - - the /Jeretzer of the Bul arian priest 0S_ ,
influence which seriously cripgled the social and economic the Sermon agamit _ k Wntmn
development of the country. he widespread dissatisfaction Probably composed soon afteii 2;gt_2 angigfievgfgioxygg words
caused by the rapid growth of/atgfimdia on the Byzantine model primarily against the Bogoml >
and the ruinous taxation provoked during Peter’s reign . - ' ' d b M. G. PopruzheI1k0.
several revolutionary movements which weakened the country 1 50' Kozmy 1¥;smfg6i513.:0r:ger€c’l€fflbzeehd?g-edized by Popruzhenko :
and laid it open, after his death in 969, to inner anarchy and Odes“ 19°71 e X ' tl' X vJ’ eka ' sofia.
Kozma presvzter, bolgarskjv Pisa 5 .1 d
1936-an Cosmas, Revue
to the invasion of the Russian and Byzantine armies, which
des Etudes Slaves, t. XX . I944» - '
 I2 THE BOGOMILS
THE BOGOMILS 13
of Cosmas may be regarded as its birth-certificate : “And it - ' d d at some length
came to pass that in the land of Bulgaria, in the days of the
orthodox tsar Peter, there appeared a priest by the name of The doctr-lnt(elie(i)iftc1e(i:1ii’:;1)lgi)ensi1ell"liifii1,i;'e, elfzieszdnofi a dualistic cos-
goiggrmiiis that the . visible, - material world was fcgrflgid21171bg
Bogomil. . . He was the first who began to preach in Bulgaria
a heresy, of which we shall speak below.” Apart from the
fact that Bogomil was a contemporary of tsar Peter, who
devil»
>
In WW» ‘tr zizsfinz ......
.

the brother (if Christ He appeafild in articular under

-

reigned from 927 to 969, and that he was the author of here- several times in the_G0Sp<"11$, gone? tehe rogigal SOIL The
tical books, we know next to nothing about this greatest the traitls of the ufllusié sieawéigvilflfl and hgnce that COSmO1O_
heresiarch in the history of the Southern Slavs.‘ It would Bogomi conception o — t th
seem from circumstantial evidence that he taught in the late
thirties or the early forties of the tenth century. His name,
gi°a1d‘““Sm'T“’“S* at least °““"'idl§2i‘l“§S°§iu‘Z§a§§Zi§m O?
Christie‘? ieachmg than theplcar-Cu alt must be emPhasiz¢d
Bogomil, is generally regarded as the Slavonic translation of the Paulicians and the Manicliaeans. th€ BO Omfls did not
the Greek name Theophilos, “ beloved of God.” The more that’ in contrast-to the Pau1CmnS’llel rin%iPles or Gods,
famous term “ Bogomils,” a generic name for his followers, believe in the exlstence of two tllmm theprecognition of the
seems to have become current in Bulgaria either at the end end that their dualism washis
bagel ' Otieth€deClllevil
endence on God.
of the tenth century or at the beginning of the eleventh. inferiority of the devil and u tlm? the Bogomils
Cosmas, who seems to have known them only too well, shows, Holding mafiterltg be the crilaliéitfiélrnation an>d to postulam
in a few vivid traits, how to recognize a Bogomil: “ the were natura y e to @1137 . h tut Bulgarian
heretics,” he writes, “in appearance are lamb-like, gentle, a docctic (Ihristology. In a thirteent_ cen_ Y t t d that
modest and silent, and pale from hypocritical fasting. They Source (the 5J’””d””” Of ‘bf. TM Bm1lidid1xiara::::le§ming1Y
do not talk idly, nor laugh loudly, nor show any curiosity. Bogomil himself taught the? lslhnst Du: seeminglY crucified
They keep away from the sight of men, and outwardly they b01'1"1 Of th@ - - - ever .V1rgm aiy’ Wal f ' the air ” On
do everything so as not to be distinguished from righteous
Christians, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. . . The
people, on seein their great humility, think that they are
of °-°Sm‘?°il;.§h;
and . . . ascended in l'1_1$ _b0dY whleh he 6 t in -1 ' denied

the Whole Christian eonccptlon O1 niews of the Paulicians and

am.
orthodox and abee to show them the path of salvation ; they and adoptird the flfétl-SflC1:11:éT1I;t2;SVthat thtzy raiecmd baptism
approach and ask them how to save their souls. Like a wolf the Massaians. 081113 -fades temples,
that wants to seize a lamb, they first cast their eyes downwards, and the eucharist and spurned the cross, ml . .’ f th
sigh and answer with humility. Wherever they meet any -
the order of Pr1¢Sth°°d and the V181 ble~ organization o _€
£ the Bogomils
simple or uneducated man, they sow the tares of their Christian Church‘ The‘ moral teachlflgho rimitive Mani-
teaching, blaspheming the traditions and rules of Holy was as consistently dualistic as_that o t "1’ P d lm of
Church.” Thus humble bearing and ascetic appearance chaeans : if the visible world isdtl;ieOcgt(2:g>:h?;1dO1;$‘nad0n
of the Bogomils was a source of constant irritation to their
Orthodox opponents : a century and a half later, Anna Com- thi1EVi1bOne,'i;t
an to e unie f1Oll(iilr1Sg1c2ii:lnalll)1co€i1tact
w _, . with mattfilf
ts for and the
gaining
nena described the Byzantine Bogomils in strikingly similar flesh which are the devil s best instrumfifl - d H nce
’ f , hould be avoide ._ ¢_
terms : “ the sect of the Bogomils,” she writes in the Alexz'aa',
“is very clever in apin virtue. And you will not find any ilieslgdgoeiiielg <ii)1ieidi(ii“i1i1Sed)th1iI)1see1fiiSnctions
. of' man which e,
bflllllg
t 6
lon -haired worldlin gelonging to the Bogomils, for their him into close conéacfi wi1tgni"iia1:11:tei;;fesXpi<’g3g-U3&t1T:r%:%btfu1’
wiciedness was hidceen under the cloak and the cowl. A
Bogomil looks gloomy and is covered up to the nose and hatiirieereef
0 9 virrllieeeilit-ernthd s:.me degrege of continence
h wfliecluauy
C I10
walks with a stoop and mutters, but within he is an uncon-
trollable wolf.”2
enforced 0.11 an m°m'°"“FS °f ‘ha i§c§émi;hie>§1§b.§i§ til the
Precise _evidence on this point,l i of the: Manichawns, were
2 Alex., lib. XV, cap. 8. Bogomils, following the e1\fl1'I111P e dinar .< beligvgrsf who
divided into two groups: ‘E 6 or Y
I4 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 15
were not bound to rigorous asceticism, and the “ perfect,” features of early Bogomilism—-in particular its refusal to
who were expected to live in complete continence. In any accept any distinction between the priesthood and the laity
cagse the moral austerity of the Bogomils_was, until the decline and the view of Holy Scripture as the unique source of re-
o the_sect in the fourteenth century, invariably recognized vealed faith, are analogous to traits which we find in later
by their fiercest opponents : and it is with some justification movements of the Reformation.
£133dfihell haze been called “ the tgreatest puritans of the One last aspect of tenth century Bogomilism must be
to has .filgeCS. I But theuclafnfifput orward y the Bogomils mentioned. It is not surprising that at a time when the
Orthodox nel
evange ca i was always rejected y the interests of Church and State were very closely linked, the
thi , 1 b y on account o thedualistic origin of their wholesale rejection of Orthodoxy was tantamount to a
e cs, dpart y ecause of their pharisaic assertion that they rebellion against the secular laws and a challenge to the
alone eserved the name of Christians and of their angry whole contemfiorary society. Moreover, a teaching which
attacks on the shortcomings of the clergy. so unequivoca y condemned married life as sinful threatened
We do not, unfortunately, know very much about the to undermine the fofindations of the family, the community
customs and organization of the Bogomil sect in this early and the State, which were already sufficiently shaken in Bul-
period of its history. _We_ should beware of the uncritical garia by the middle of the tenth century. The Bogomils
assumptions of past _his_torians of Bogomilism, who ascribe are painted by Cosmas as idlers with no fixed abode, as social
to this sect at its beginnings in Bulgaria many features which parasites, reminiscent, save their heresy, of the gyromgi of
are attested for the first time by the sources among the Byzan- Western Europe, “ wandering from house to house, devouring
Enc Bogomils in the_late eleventh century. It can scarcely the property of the people they deceive ” and even “ holding
e denied that the ritual and organization of the Bogomil that it is unbecoming for a man to labour and to do earthly
:f:ct1fFfi1d€I\VC1'it considlerable evolution in the, eleventh and work.” Cosmas puts forward an even graver accusation
Ch _ _ centuries, main y, it seems, by contact with Byzantine against the Bogomils,—that of preaching civil disobedience.
ristianity. .But in the tenth century both the ritual and He writes : “ they teach their own people not to obey their
the organization of the sect remained very rudimentary. masters, they revile the wealthy, hate the elders, ridicule those
We know from the evidence of Cosmas that the Bogomils, in authority, reproach the boyars, regard as vile in the sight
wlfiile reflecting most of the lprayers of the Orthodox Church, of God those who serve the tsar and forbid every serf to work
W 1Cl},t ey regarded, toget er with the. Liturgy, as “ babb- for his lord.” Unfortunately, this much-discussed statement of
llflgs, made wide andoapparently exclusive use of the Lord’s Cosmas is confirmed by no other contemporary or later source
Prayer, which they recited four times a day and four times a explicitly referring to the Bogomils. It must hence be treated
night, with_ appointed prostrations. Cosmas also accuses with caution. There seems to be no reason to doubt that
them of fasting on Sundays (a_ practice which existed among the Bogomils, at least on certain occasions, preached a revo-
the Manichaeans), of confessing their sins to one another lutionary doctrine of social equality in opposition to the power-
and of g-ranting each other 9.l)SOi"L1t101'i; these rites of con- ful of this world, which they may have regarded as a reflection
fession were also performed by women. on the social plane of the cosmic strug le between good and
‘The Sermon against the bereticr iv es us a clear and cogent evil. The fact that the religious ant? social views of the
p1Ct111_'S3 of the essential features 0?tenth century Bogomilism : Bogomils inclined them to espouse the cause of the oppressed
d0¢t1'1_flfl11V—fa mixture of Paulician and Massalian dualism, against the oppressors, of the serfs against their masters,
§OI‘I1l)111€Cl with many Christian elements borrowed particularly undoubtedly explains much of the success enjoyed by the
rom the New Testament and interpreted in a definitely rationa- sect at certain periods of Bulgarian history, particularly
listic_ and individualistic manner; ethically—a cult of during the Byzantine domination in the eleventh and twelfth
asceticism _(th_ough for basically non-Christian motives), centuries. But we must nevertheless beware of attaching too
with the re]ection of the “ externals ” of religion and a strong much importance to the social anarchism of the Bogomils,
emphasis on contemplation and the inner life. Some of the or of seeing in them, as some not always disinterested writers
 I6 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 17
have done Slavonic communists of the Middle A es We spread from Macedonia over the entire South Eastern part
mhtst not ’forget that the Bogomils . were always 8primarily
-
ofthe Balkan peninsula and even penetrated into Constantinople.
re gious preachers, and that their concern with social problems Towards the middle of the eleventh century evidence of
was of a contingent character.
Bogomilism in Thrace can be found in the Dia/ogu: de opera-
t The gneasures taken by the Bulgarian Church and State iione daemonum by Michael Psellus,1 and a letter of the Byzantine
o com at the Bogomil heresy are known to us only from
monk Euthymius of Acmonia,2 dated about the same time,
later_ documents. Cosmas contents himself with a dark
shows that the activities of the sect extended over the entire
aguslon to chains and imprisonment ” which, on his own Western part of Asia Minor.
a mission, only enhanced the prestige of the Bogomils by
To understand correctly the history of Bogomilism in this
tslurfounding t(l11em with a halo of martyrdom. Moreover, period it is essential to realize that, while the Paulician and
fir emaciate _ appearance and ascetic behaviour, in an age the Massalian sects directly and permanently influenced
wf eifi mona_sti_c1sm_ commonly ranked as the highest expression the development of Bogomilism, they were not completely
oh t e Christian life, combined with the essentially popular merged into the latter sect and for long retained-a separate
c aracter of the Bogomil movement, go far to explain the
existence alongside the Bogomil movement. It must be
continued success of the sect throughout the four centuries
admitted that the failure of most scholars to distinguish
of its history in Bulgaria and in the Byzantine Empire. It sufficiently clearly between the different dualistic sects which
clan truly be said that after the final defeat of Iconoclasm in flourished in the Balkans during the Middle Ages has led some
t e ninth century Bogomilism _was the most dangerous of them to unjustifiable conclusions regarding the character of
fi'1g€;1;Y of the Orthodox Church in the whole of the Middle Bogomilism? It is probable that the Bogomil and the Massa-
lian sects remained largely distinct from each other at least until
Of the history of the Bogomil sect in the First Bulgarian the twelfth century. This should explain the fact that
Empire we know very little. A variety of reasons—historical whereas the Massalians, both in the Near East and in the
anal geographical-—point to the fact that the original home Balkans, were commonly accused of sexual immorality, the
in subsequent stronghold of Bogomilism was Macedonia. Bogomils, on the contrary, were until the fourteenth century
fwas, 1’I101'€OV€1‘,‘111 Macedonia that arose a notable proportion noted for their extreme moral austerity: it was only in the
o the s_o-called Bogomil books,” popular literary produc- fourteenth century, on the eve of its disappearance, that
tions, either adapted from Christian apocryphal writings or
Bogomilism developed some immoral features, largely, it
Specially composed for the propagation of the Bogomil seems, under the influence of Massalianism.
OCt1‘1I1€S,_ and whose study forms one of the most interesting It is equally essential, though unfortunately all too un-
chapters in the medieval literary history of the Balkans.‘
common, to distinguish the Bogomils from the Paulicians.
Finally, certain place names in Macedonia, derived from roots Yet the differences between the two sects are clearly apparent
connected with the difierent epithets by which the Bogomils and were never obliterated. It can be said that the Bogomil
Were known, testify to the prevalence of the sect in that ideal was primarily contemplative, while the life of the Pauli-
region in the Middle Ages : such are, for example, the topo- cians was largely directed towards action. That is why the
graphical names bogomi/rko pofie, babumz, kutugertsi. Paulicians generally appear in history as restless and trouble-
In the eleventh andtwelfth centuries most of our infor- some, born soldiers with a marked propensity for fighting,
?£§10_n on the Bogomils 1S derived from Byzantine sources.
B is isprimarily due to the fact that after the fall of the First 1P.G. CXXII, 820 seq.
bu garia? Empire in 1018, as the result of which Bulgaria 2 Edited by G. Ficker : Die Phundagiagiten : Ein Beitrag zur Kemer-
ecame_ _or 168 years a province of the Byzantine Empire, geschichte des byzcmtilmschen Mittelalters, Leipzig, 1908.
3 This applies even to the work of F. Racki (Bogomili i Patareni, Rad
Bogomihsm, unrestricted by national frontiers, could freely jugosl. Akad. Zmmosti 1' Umjemosti, VII, VIII, X, Zagreb, 1869-1870)
1 The “ Bogomil_ books
which, though a number of its conclusions now stand in need of revision,
_ _” _ are
_ the subject
_ of a scholarl y study b Prof.
remains the most detailed study of the Bogomil sect yet to have been
I. Ivanov (Bogomzlskz kmgz z legendz, Sofia, 192 5). Y
published.
 I8 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS I9
the Bogomils, on the contrary, as meek, humble and ascetic. ism from Paulicianism and Massalianism, expounds in some
Moreover, the Balkan Paulicians throughout the Middle detail the Bogomil teaching on the devil, which affords an
Ages remained in self-contained communities, often of foreign interesting example of this “doctrinal development among
origin, living apart from the Orthodox and attempting to the Byzantine Bogomils. According to them, the devil qr
convert them from without. The Bogomils, on the contrary, Satan, who appears in the Gospel as the unlust steward,
grew from within the Bulgarian peo le and remained in was the first-born son of God the Father and the elder brother
close contact with them ; it is this popular character of Bogo- of Christ, “ the Son and Logos.” His original name was
milism that largely explains its appeal and success in the Satanael. One day, stricken with pride, ‘he rebelled against
Balkans. his Father, and together with those “ rmnistering powers
A recognition of these differences should prevent us from whom he had persuaded to follow him, was cast out of heaven.
confusing, as so many historians have done, the Bogomils However, he retained his creative power, represented by the
with those Balkan Paulicians who, in their traditional hostility last syllable (cl) of his name, t-he _ attribute of _ his
to Byzantium, concluded from the eleventh century a series divine origin, and with the assistance of his fallen companions
of military and political alliances with the enemies of the created the visible world, with the firmament, the earth and
Empire,—with the Pechenegs and the Normans in the eleventh its products. This, according to the Bogomils, was the
century and with the French Crusaders in the thirteenth. creation of the world, described in the Book of Genesis and
There is certainly every reason to suppose that the Bogomils falsely attributed by the Christians to God Himself._ Satanael
were in contact with the Paulicians, particularly in Thrace, next created the body of Adam, the first man, but in spite of
round Philippopolis, where, towards the close of the eleventh repeated efforts was unable to animate it. So he begged his
century, in the words of Anna Comnena, “ all the inhabitants Father to send down His Spirit on Adam and promised that
were Manichaeans except a few,” before the large-scale and man, a mixture of good and evil, would belong to both of
celebrated conversion of the Thracian Paulicians by the them. To this God agreed, and Adam came to life, a com-
Emperor Alexius Comnenus about the year 1 1 14. But, again, pound of a divine soul and a body created by Satanael. The
what we know of the mode of life of the Bogomils precludes future history of imankind is deduced from this curious
the possibility that they ever formed an organized anti- mixture of a dualistic cosmology with the Christian teaching
Byzantine party in Bulgaria or that they indulged in warfare. on the fall of Satan. The greater part_of the Old Testament
The growth of Bogomilism in Byzantium in the late was the revelation of Satanael and his servant Moses. At
eleventh and early twelfth centuries can be studied in some last the Father took pity on the human s_oul_ imprisoned in
detail in two twelfth century sources, the Alexiadl of Anna the body, and send His second son_Christ into the world.
Comnena and the Parzop/ia Dogmatzkaz of the Byzantine theo- Christ assumed a non-material,“ seeming ” body (the familiar
logian Euthymius Zigabenus, the latter composed at the Bogomil docetism), clothed in which He performed His
time of the great Bogomil trial in Constantinople around mission on earth, was crucified, died and rose from the dead.
111o. An interesting—and apparently novel—feature of During His descent into hell He defeated and imprisoned
Bogomilism at that time was the success it gained, on Anna’s His enemy Satanael, who was deprived of his divine attributes
own admission, among the aristocratic families of Byzantium. together with the last syllable of his name, and thus became
We may suppose that it was there, by contact with the theo- Satan. Having accomplished His mission, Christ returned to
logical and philosophical speculations characteristic of the heaven to sit on the throne formerly occupied by Satanael and
Comnenian Renaissance, that the doctrines of the Bogomils was resolved into the‘Father from whom He had(proceeded.
acquired that elaborate and systematic form which they are The Parzoplia Dogmatzka, apart from 1tS.ClCt9.1l€ account of
given in the Panoplia Dogmarzka. Zi abenus, who agrees other Bogomil doctrines (many of which show a similar
with Anna Comnena as to the double tferivation of Bogomil- development from those attributed to the tenth century
1L'ib. XV, cap. 8-10. Bogomils by Cosmas) throws some light on the ritual of the
2 Tit. 27, P.G. CXXX, cols. 1289-1332. Byzantine Bogomils: from this it would appear that there
 20 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 21

existed two distinct ceremonies of initiation into the sect,— modified and known as the Patarene or Bosnian faith, de-
the first for the catechumens, the second for the “ perfect ” veloped into a large-scale national movement.‘
(the 6eo"rcSi<o1, as they were called)—similar to the abrtinentia In Bulgaria itself Bogomihsm reached its heyday at the
and the eomolamentum practised by the French and Italian beginning of the thirteenth century. In 1211 the Bulgarian
Cathari. tsar Boril convened a council at Trnovo, the capital of the
The alarming growth of Bogomilism in Byzantium at the Second Bulgarian Empire, to deal with the Bogomil menace.
beginning of the twelfth century led to a vigorous reaction The extant records and acts of this council, nown as the
of the Byzantine ecclesiastical and secular authorities, which S)/nodieon cg’ the Tsar Boril, are extremely important in that they
culminated about 1 1 1o in the trial and imprisonment of the contain the only known formal legislation promulgated by
prominent Bogomils in the capital and the public burning of the Bulgarian Church against the Bogomil sect.“ The Council
their chief leader Basil. Anna Comnena has given us a‘ vivid of Trnovo is contemporaneous with_ the measures taken by
description of this trial, which must have been something Pope Innocent III to suppress the Albigensian heresy in South-
of aeaure ee'/ebre, and in which the Emperor Alexius himself ern France. The pro able connection between these two
played a prominent role. His drastic measures were at least events may become almost certain if we remember_that the
partly successful : for after 1110 we hear of no widespread Bulgarian Church at the time was in temporary union With
outbreak of Bogomilism in Constantinople, though it was Rome, and note that in 1zo_6 a Roman cardinal was sent to
still rampant in the provinces, particularly in Asia Minor. Bulgaria on an unknown missio_n.3 The whole problem Of
But in the course of the twelfth century the stronghold of the relations between the Bogomil and the Albigensian move-
the sect moved back to its original home in Bulgaria, where in ments still awaits a full investigation. Generally speaking,
the following century, strengthened by its previous growth in Western medievalists have not studied the Slavonic Bogomil
Byzantium, Bogomilism reached the summit of its development. sources in any great detail, while Slavonic h_ist0r1a1'1$ 1'19-V6
In the middle of the twelfth century, a new outbreak of too often taken the filiation of the Albigensian movement
Bogomilism in Macedonia—the cradle of the sect—is attested from Bo omilism for granted, without studying profoundly
in the Slavonic biography of Saint Hilarion, bishop of enough t%e dualistic movements of medieval Western Europe.
Moglena,‘ who at the instigation of the Emperor Manuel Although their conception of the spread of Bogomilism from
Comnenus took vigorous and, it seems, momentarily success- the Balkans to Southern France via Northern Italy_ is often
ful action against the heretics. But ecclesiastical penalties over-simplified, it cannot be doubted that Bogomilisrn did
proved incapable of stemming the rising flood of Bogomilism. exert a direct influence on the movement of the ‘Cathari 111 the
In the second half of the twelfth century, its influence spread twelfth and thirteenth centuries. _The name Bulgarorum
from Macedonia to the West, to the neighbouring Serbian haeresis,” given to Catharism by its Catholic opponents H}
principality of Rashka. The Serbian Grand Zhupan, Stephan France, the proven influence of the Bogomil ritual on that o
Nemanja, was obliged to summon a general assembly of the the Cathari, the Bogomil origin of the Lzber Sanetz ]oban_m.r,
land to check this peril. The repressive measures promulgated one of the principal doctrinal books of the Cathari, the vifiw
against the Bogomils by this council and the enlightened ffgqugntly gxpfcsscd by the dualists _of Western Europe t at
ecclesiastical policy carried out at the beginning of the thir- their doctrines originated in_Bulgaria, are amongi the maigy
teenth cenfury by St. Sava, the first Archbishop of the Serbian signs pointing in this d.l1'€C1I10n. There can be ttle dpiu_t
Church, prevented the sect from growing any deep roots that by the beginning of the thirteenth century the dua stic
in Serbia, at least until the fourteenth century, when, in the i ' what m sterious roblem of the Patarene " Bosnian
reign of the Emperor Stephan Dushan, it raised its head ChuI:d11I”SI:12li11fgfnhe treateh simply gs part of the Bogomll ¢l“e5t1°n and
for the last time. Not so, however, in Bosnia, where between hence lies outside the scope of this article. Cf. the recent work of J.
the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, Bogomilism, considerably Sidak: Problem “bostmske erkve " u nasoj historilografiji - - - , Rad j"8°5l-
Akad., Kn. 259, Zagreb, 1937.
1 The Life of Saint Hilarion by the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius 2 Sinodik tsarya Borila, edited by Popruzhenlw. 5°_fi9-» 1928iH 886
was edited by E. Kaluzniacki (Vienna, 1901). 3 Chronica Albrici monachi, Mon. Germ. Hist. 5°1'1Pt-» XX - P' '
 22 THE BOGOMILS THE BOGOMILS 23
communities of Southern Euro e formed a sin le international absorbed from other sects and movements severalhfeature:
network, stretching from the BI:1Cl{ Sea to the gtlantic, though which could not fail to have .a detrimental effectuon t leir ptyrs
the belief, ex ressed in some Western medieval sources, that sect. This applies particularly to some Massa fltfl r6 figudoi
they all owedpallegiance to one supreme leader resident in the especially to the practice of sexual promisctttty ($661; after
Balkans—-a kind of “Bogomil Pope ”—-is no doubt fictitious.‘ religious motives. The Massalian §eCt>_W¢ We h > tu
Against the background of the spread of dualism over a contributing to the rise of Bogomilism in the tenth cerlt) tly:
large part of Europe at the beginning of the thirteenth century continued to exist alongside the latter in the eletveitti fugpon
the anti-Bogomil council of Trnovo acquires particular ably in the course of the twelfth century, al_ uf C which
significance. Many of the tenets of the sect mentioned in occurred between -Bogomilism and Massa ialiliism, lete
the S)/nadieon are familiar from earlier sources. They are continued throughout the thirteenth and led to t eir conctp bt
particularly interesting in that they display a marked influence identification in the_ fourteenth. By that timtt; rip (mils
of Byzantine Bogomilism. This applies especially to the under the increased influence of Massal1a_n1$1T1, t 61 Ogt i
organization of the sect. From the evidence of the SJ/n0a'z'e0n had entirely lost their rgputation for high mora aus efi ti’
and for general reasons, it would seem that the Bulgarian and had become associate with extreme forms of 1mr1np1Ifll_l5Y-
Bogomils in the course of the twelfth century borrowed This was probably due in part to the general rfiora _e1c in;
from their Byzantine co-religionists, and ultimately from the in fourteenth century Bulgaria, accentuated by t edsocia Bainh
Orthodox Church, a more rigid organization oftheir communi- economic instability of the reign of I011“ Alexan flr’ tw tie
ties and a regular hierarchy, in the‘ same manner as the Cathari must have \Vf(i_‘.9,l(€I'lCCl fthhel 1I€S1filZ2tt1(;?.ra(Z€i(1g1S€ Bogomi s 0
and Patarenes borrowed many features of their own organiza- ' ' ' ence o assa a - .
tion from the Roman Church. The Bogomil sect survived dlS'I‘lfidt1fir;hinag1ainst Bogomilism in the fourteenth ¢¢I1tu1'Y 15
the anathemas of the Council of Trnovo. In 12 58 Pope associated with the name of St. Tl1€O(lOS_11lS. of Trgovogopiiie
Gregory IX in a letter to the Latin Emperor Baldwin of of the leading Bulgarian Churchmen of his timez aflf Q P _ i
Constantinople bitterly complained that Bulgaria was “ full nent champion of hesychasm. His biogfaPhY Fe @135 $1811’;
of heretics ” who were apparently enjoying the protection ficantly to “ the Bogomil, that is the Mas_salian_ herefsygt
of the Bulgarian tsar John Asen II.2 A council, convened soon after t350 on the 11'11tiat1VC q thé
The fourteenth century, which witnessed the fall of the Theodosius, reiterated the previous ccgndelglnaxfilfls $30 the
Second Bulgarian Empire under the yoke of the Ottoman
Turks, also saw the decline and disappearance of the Bogomil Bogomils» who were now accused O Sill ml gture is a
“ natural passions ” 01} the grounds that our Ha
sect in Bulgaria. The increasing decadence of Bogomilism,
slave to the demons.’ ..
which forestalled the Turkish invasion, was due to several
features inherent in the sect as well as to the general charac- The fact that by the fourteenth century1;3p1goién1é1€:p1 1;-Sfil
acquired a number of features which woit _ aplgat aft“ the
teristics of the time. In spite of its inner coherence and of
owned by its founder no doubt partly exp ains tl
the external organization which it had borrowed from Byzan-
fall of the Second Bulgarian Emplre 111 1393 the 56“ appcfgloni;
tium, Bogomilism always remained a somewhat diffuse heresy,
disintegrated of itself _and the B0g0m1lSl d1$aPiP§1aEge beha_
eminently changeable and adaptable to circumstances. This
Bulgarian history. It 1S probable!» bl’ am 081$’ W h t man
peculiarity, which rendered the task of fighting it very difficult
for the Church, later became a source of weakness to the sect. viour of the Bosnian Patarenes a century dater, tt 9:1 Islam)’
Bogomils were symplathetic to the Turlftsian kgcttepogninatioé
Unlike the Paulicians, the Bogomils proved in the end incap-
In any case, with t e establishment 0 ur th nd fifteenth
able of retaining the purity of their teaching and gradually
over South Eastern Europe tn the fourteep a the Balkan
1 See C. Schmidt, Histoire et doctrine de la seete des Cathares ou Albigeois, centuries, the Bogomils vanish for ever rom
Vol. II, Paris, 1849, pp. 146-147 ; ]. Guiraud, Histoire de l'Inqm'sition
au Moyen Age, I, Paris, 1935, pp. 232-234. countries.
2 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historian Hungariam sacram illustrantia, . - '1 " °
1]-zdited by O. Bodyanskyz (Chtemya v zmper. obshchestva is om 1
Rome, 1859-60, I, pp. 160-161. drezmosley rosiiskikh. V01- I. M05¢0W- 135°-l

Eastern Churches Quarterly. October-December 1945

 XIII

LE CHRISTIANISME ORIENTAL
ET LES DOCTRINES DUALISTES

Le role joué par ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler les doctrines dualistes
dans l’histoire du christianisme, et en premier lieu dans l’histoire de l’Eglise
d'Orient, a été de la plus grande importance. D’une part la nécessité de com-
battre ces doctrines a mené les théologiens orthodoxes 21 formuler d’une maniere
précise Penseignement de l’Eglise sur l’origine et la nature du Mal. D’autre
part, le dualisme a provoqué la naissance d’un certain nombre de mouvements
hérétiques ou sectaires qui, pendant toute l’antiquité chrétienne et jusqu’a
la fin du Moyen Age, furent des ennemis dangereux et acharnés de l’Eglise
d’Orient. Gnostiques, Manichéens, Pauliciens, Bogomiles — pour ne citer
que les plus importants mouvements dualistes du Proche Orient et de l’Eu-
rope Orientale — contre eux l’Eglise dut soutenir, pendant 14 siecles, une
lutte presque ininterrompue.
L’intensité de cette lutte peut se comprendre si l’on tient compte d’une
part de l’opposition radicale qui existe entre les doctrines dualistes et ortho-
doxes, et d’autre part, du proselytisme constant des partisans du dualisme
at l’interieur de l’Eglise. L’opposition doctrinale se manifeste surtout dans les
solutions proposées par le chrétien et le dualiste au probléme perpétuel et
angoissant de l’origine et de la nature du mal. Pour la tradition judéo-
chrétienne le ma] apparait comme le résultat d’une désobéissance de la créa-
ture A la volonté de son Créateur. Le contact direct entre l’Infini et le fini,
entre l’Absolu et le contingent, est une réalité voulue par Dieu. Ainsi le
judaisme a toujours afiirmé Pexistence d’une relation intime entre Dieu et
sa création, et l’importance et la valeur de la vie terrestre. Le christianisme
a apporté a cette doctrine un nouvel appui et une nouvelle dimension par
le dogme de l'Incarnation: Dieu, qui a créé le monde, est devenu homme et
rendra possible la resurrection de la chair.
En contradiction absolue avec cette doctrine, le dualisme présuppose
une opposition fondamentale entre Dieu et la matiére. Dieu, source de toute
perfection, ne peut pas étre l’auteur du Mal. L’origine du Mal est en dehors
de Dieu, dans la Matiere, oil regnent la multiplicité, le désordre et la souf-
france. Cette conception, qui attribue au Mal les mémes qualités positives
et essentielles que possede le Bien, méne inévitablement a un dualisme entre
Dieu et le principe opposé de la Matiere. Ce dualisme cosmologique se reflete
dans la nature de 1’homrne: son ame est d’origine divine, son corps le domaine

Quaderno N° 62 42
XI
...... ......

du Mal. Le corps est << le tombeau de l’ame », l’instru1'nent au moyen duquel également, et exerca a partir du XII° siecle, une influence certaine sur l’histoire
lauteur du mal — Démiurge ou Diable — s’efi'orce d’emprisonner la lum“ ier du catharisme en Occident. De tous les mouvements neo-—manichéens sur
dans l’obscurité de la Matiére et d’empécher l’ame de remonter aux s he e le territoire de l’Eglise d’Orient, le bogomilisme fut le plus puissant. I1 ne
, , res
celestes. Tout vrai dualiste est forcé de reconnaitre que l'origine des souffiia semble pas exagéré de dire qu’apres la défaite de l’iconoc1asme en 843, le
, _ nce
humaines réside dans la vie meme: car la naissance de l’homme est un emp ri- '5 Bogomilisme fut, pendant tout le Moyen Age, le plus dangereux ennemi de
sonneme
A n t 'd’ une ame
‘ ' '
divine ' '
ou angelique dans un corps qui- ne peut pas l’Eglise Orthodoxe.
etre rachete. La seule rédemption possible est la mort, qui permet a l’ame Au début de ce rapport, j'ai taché d’indiquer, en termes généraux, les
ilufglillflpppr die, sacprison, et aux particules de lumiére de revenir a l’unique principales differences entre les concéptions du monde chrétienne et dualiste.
’ iere 1 ncreee . ette rédemption, ' cet acte de sauvetage, pour ainsi . . dire,
. _Ie voudrais a présent passer dans le domaine concret et examiner les points
n est pas le repentir de l’homme pour le mal qu‘i1 a Commis Uhomme ne essentiels ou se heurterent, au cours du Moyen Age, les doctrines orthodoxes
peut pas étre vraiment responsable du péché si le Mal n’est pas dfi a l’abus et néo—manichéennes. Tout d’abord, la doctrine de la création du monde:
de son libre arbitre, mais trouve sa racine dans son corps materiel et dan les écrivains orthodoxes reprochent en premier lieu aux dualistes leur ensei-
la vie
d M m‘eme . ’(?epe,ndant, bien ' qu "il ne soit - pas responsable pour l’existen¢¢
. S gnement que le monde visible est la création, non pas de Dieu, mais d’un prin-
u al et qu il n ait pas, au fond, de libre arbitre, l’homme peut et doit cipe, ou d’un étre, hostile a Lui. Parfois ce créateur du monde apparait comme
collaborer a l’oeuvre de Dieu en s’eiforcant de purifier son ame de la contagi un Principe (ipxfi) co-éternel a Dieu, parfois comme le Diable de la tradition
de
Celason ve entV§.0pp,e
l ' '
ipaterielle. '
La purification, ' . on
comme la comprend le dualiste, judéo—chrétienne, inférieur a et en fin de compte dépendant de Dieu. Cette
d I u -re
1 evi er toute action. qui. perpetue
' lemprisonnement
’ ' de l’ame
A derniére doctrine est attribuée par le prétre bulgare Cosmas aux Bogomiles:
ans a rnatiere, tout particulierement le mariage et la procreation des enfants, <<C’est par la volonté du diable que tout existe: le ciel, le soleil, les étoiles,
qui accroissent le pouvoir de la Matiere dans notre monde; cela veut dire aussi l'air, l’homme, les églises, les croix, tout ce qui appartient a Dieu, ils le livrent
vivre selon un code ascétique rigide, code basé non pas sur la Vglgnté de disd- au diable » "K Cette forme du dualisme, oii le créateur du monde est inférieur
pliner la chair, mais sur une haine radicale du corps humain, a Dieu, est généralement appelée << dualisme mitigé >>, pour la distinguer du
Historiquement parlant, l’Eglise d’Orient a connu et combattu le dualisme << dualisme absolu >>, selon lequel l’adversaire de Dieu est un principe équi-
sous
I" l '
SHplUS161:.1I‘S formes.- le gnosticisme
' ' fut un grand danger pour elle des . 1e valent et co-éternel a Lui. On a beaucoup discuté sur la question de savoir
iec e , e continua a letre ’“ -~
au cours des siecles -
suivants; . ,.
le manicheisme, si le bogomilisme s'est divisé en deux courants, l’un professant le dualisme
entre Ie III° et le VII° siecles, étendit son influence tout autour de la Médite << absolu », l’autre le dualisme << mitigé ». N’ayant pas la possibilité de revenir
. ,
rane 6 e t penetra dans Byzance meme, ~ . une forme renouvelee . de ce dernier.
r-
ici sur les arguments présentés de part et d’autre dans cette controverse, je
125512/6I}:l€1€t,.qu on appelle généralement le né0—manichéisme, et dont la filia- tiens a dire que j'adhére toujours a l’0pinion que j’ai exprimé dans mon livre
' IS °1'1q‘~"_5 ZWBC 16 manicheisme
. '.
me semble avoir ‘
ete
I r
defimtivement
; - - sur les Bogomiles, selon laquelle les Bogomiles professaient le dualisme mitigé,
prouvee, naquit au VII° siecle et entreprit une lutte contrel’Eg1ise d'Orient et que les néo—manichéens qui au Moyen Age et en Europe Orientale ensei-
qui dura huit siecles. gnaient le dualisme <c absolu » étaient des Pauliciens "l.
t I1 ?sEt rnanifestement
' ' -
ll'1'lp0SS1l)l8 '
d’evoquer, dans un bref rapport, la lut- La cosmogonie dualiste des Pauliciens et des Bogomiles fut généralement
8 que glise dOrient dut mener contre les diiférentes manifestations du considérée par leurs adversaires orthodoxes comme une doctrine absurde.
dualisme. ]e'me.‘bornerai a parler de ses rapports avec le néo—manichéisme, I1 n’y a, si je ne me trompe, qu’un seul example d’un écrivain orthodoxe
et plus particulierement d’un aspect de ces rapports. L’histoire du néo— parmi leurs adversaires qui semble conscient du fait que, derriere la méta-
manichéisme n’entre pas dans les cadres d’une communication dont le theme physique outranciere des dualistes il y avait un probleme humain singulié-
est le christianisme oriental et les doctrines dualistes ]e me permettrai rement angoissant. L’Eglise enseigne que Dieu est source de toute perfection
cependant, de rappeler en quelques mots le développement des deux principales et que le monde entier, visible et invisible, fut créé par Lui. Cependant on
sectes n‘o
dens é — manichénnes.
' - celles des Pauliciens- - -
et des Bogomiles. .
Les Pauli- n’a pas besoin d’étre philosophe pour reconnaitre que dans ce monde oti
d M3 ui.apparurent en Arménie ' et en Asie - Mineure
- . .
dans la seconde moitié nous vivons le mal moral et physique — la souffrance, la cruauté, le déclin,
u VII siecle, furent violernment persécutés par les autorités byzantines au la mort — n’est que trop en évidence. Alors comment se peut—il que Dieu -
Surilet au cours de ce siecle
IX° ' '
et _du siecle -
précédent, étendirent .
leur influence
infius pzrtie O;‘1€1'1lDt8.lC.d.8 la péninsule des Balkans. Le Bogomilisme, fortement (I) Le Traité contre les Bogomils: dz Cosmas le Prétre, traduction et étude par H.-C. PUECH
co ndc piar e .é3.;.lllC18.I'11SI'I‘1C,
.
naquit. _
en Bulgarie _
au X" siecle, _
s’étendit au et A. VAILLANT (Paris, 1945), p. 77; D. OBOLENSKY, The .Bogam:'1s:A Study in Balkan Neo-
es eux si c es suivants sur une grande partie de l’Empire Byzantine,
. ' ' 0
Manic/:aez'sm (Cambridge 1948), p. 122.
(2) OBOLENSKY, op. cit., pp. 122-5.
pénétra en Serbie, en Bosnie et en Herzégovine, probablement en Russie
XHI XI

la Bonte su Premfi
“ — soit ' la cause de la soufi
de source certaine que ce problema Se posait 61;agce elt du pial? Nous savons sance du Christ n’a eu lieu qu’<< en apparence » (av Soxfioei, xovrcic cpocvroicloav)?
dans la Bulgarie dc la deuxié . _ ans es mi ieux orthodoxes - Quoi de plus logique que de nier catégoriquement la notion chrétienne de la
A me moitié du X= siecle e poque ' d ' une grande mise
-
Grace operant sur la matiere, et par consequent de rejeter en bloc tous les
paysanne. Le pretre Cosmas ecrivant en B lgarie ,' a cett e re
'
dans son Traite contre les B,0 omil' u e poque’ nous . dlt sacrements de l’Eglise, et en premier lieu le bapteme et l’eucharistieP Les
=
la question suivante- écrivains orthodoxes semblaient tres bien comprendre que le postulat dua-
‘Question nous di; <4(pourquoi Diiu
- esll31SSC-11-ll
(flue beéucoup d orthodoxes
le Diable Se P05‘-‘lent
attaquerl’hommeP»<ai liste est egalement incompatible avec la veneration de la croix comme sym-
- osmas — pu rie et d’un es rit ml ' M ' -
a laquelle, a en Jugef
' P a Sam’ als question bole materiel, des icanes et des reliques des saints, avec la construction des
Par les aroles d C »~
eglises, oeuvres materielles de l’homme, et donc habitations du demon. Sur
de son temps et de son pays ‘etaient c:. acb?(:_,a.:i, Pgu dc Pretres Orthodoxes
faisante. Poser cette question sous cette pforme ¢,ét0I.m:élln§ léponse SatiS' tous ces points, il n’y avait aucun rapport entre les doctrines dualistes et la
direction de rhérésie. Car le _ I C ait ja aire un pas en theologie orthodoxe; et le dualisme, considere a ce point de vue, se presente
, s heretiques dualistes avaient ' -
avait au moins le mérite d’étre lo ' " une reponse qui moins comme une heresie chrétienne que comme un ensemble de doctrines
_ , , giquez la souifrance et le 1 totalement distinct de, et oppose a, la tradition chrétienne.
inherents a ce monde a . ma .s°m
L _ ' me que C6 monde est la creation du Diable. L Il existait cependant des plans oii l’orthodoxie et le dualisme pouvaient
_ _a °°5m°g°m¢ dualiste — que ce soit sous sa forme absolue c’est—a—di avoir des points de contact; et, pour les esprits peu clairvoyants, ces points
paulicienne, ou sous sa forme mitigee, bogomile est pour les e '. . hfe
d oitps 1 e dogme central, le veritable_ _
point »
de depart crivains
des diiferents ort 0-
systémes de contact pretaient a confusion. C’est ici que residait le plus grand danger,
le danger de contamination plus ou moins inconsciente de l’orthodoxie par
qu 1 s qualifient de l’appellation generale de manicheism L M '
l’heresie. Ces points ont attire 1’attention toute particuliere des écrivains
avant tout et surtout celui qui enseigne que 1e m d I-_bl¢ anicheen est
d,un principe Ou d’un etre m _ on e visi e est la creation orthodoxes; et il est frappant de voir leur refutation des erreurs dualistes,
_ auvais. Toutes les sources s 1; d’ qui demeure generalement assez calme et détachee tant qu’ils se limitent
point: Pierre de Sicile “l, le Patriarche Theoph lacte *5’ OE accord sur Ce
au domaine cosmogonique et théologique, devenir, une fois qu’ils entrent
du monastére 1-‘F7; I_Igp|,(3)\é-;;1-cum » Psenosm Euthym Z_ ibéosigas, 1 Euthyme
- -
du tsar Boril <9; _ 1, accord entre eux Sur c,e poiny et iga lne E, le Sinodik dans ce qu’on peut appeler le domaine mixte —- orthodoxe—héretique - plus
, es com t. '_ urgente et plus passionnee.
gnages des adversaires chretiens des dualistes se trouve tp 6 fi t Ces témol
Ce domaine mixte se laisse surtout entrevoir chez les Bogomiles qui,
des rares sources authentiquement bo om'l n con Fmés Pas Une
Sam”. /0/mums’ qui enseigne que le meg-ldeivggbque ‘nous; possedions: le L;-ber de toutes les sectes dualistes, etaient sans doute les plus semblables d’appa-
e— I -
la terre avec ses animaux et ses plantes ct 1 e so ell, la lune, les etoiles, rence aux orthodoxes. Prenons tout d’abord leur comportement moral. On
sait que les Bogomiles, partant de l’idee que le monde materiel est la crea-
Par Satan "°’. , e corps dc lhomme _ fut Créé
tion de l’etre mauvais, enseignaient que l’homme doit éviter autant que pos-
Comparees a ce do me ce t 1 ' - .
bl g n Ta » Certaines autres doctrines dualistes sem- sible tout contact avec la matiere, notamment l'activite sexuelle et l’usage
ent, sous la plume de leurs adversaires, avoir une importance a "
de la viande et du vin ‘“'. Certes, la continence absolue n’a pas pu etre imposee
vue secondaire. Ceci me semble—t—il est dfi au f '1: d premiere
- . ’ » 81 que ces octrines a 3- a tous les membres de la secte, et les Bogomiles, comme l'a tres bien montre
raissaient aux yeux des orthodoxes comme ' pp
. , _ une conse uen le Professeur D. Angelov dans la nouvelle edition de son livre sur le bogo-
logique d une cosmologie dualiste. C’est le cas par exerii I Gil natur'el'le ct
milisme ("L se divisaient en plusieurs categories: les élus seulement, qui cor-
une fois admis le principe que la chair est une, C1-é t. d Phil’ I u docensmei
. 3l0I11l a uoidel respondaient aux <<parfaits» cathares, etaient astreints a une vie d’ascetisme
naturel que de nier la realite d e 1’ Incarnation
' et de pretendre' qque la nais-
P us
complet. Cependant, l’austerité morale des Bogomiles fut toujours reconnue
par leurs adversaires orthodoxes, au moins jusqu’a l’epoque de la decadence
(3) PUECH et VAILLANT, p, 75, de la secte bogomile au XIV° siecle; c’est avec raison qu’on a appele les Bogo-
(4) Historia Manic/zaearum, P.G., vol. CIV col 1253
miles <1 les plus grands puritains du Moyen Age». Et c’est ici qu’on trouve
(5) Izvestzja Otdelenzja Russkoga jag ka - 57 . _
(St. Petersbourg I913)» vol. XVIII, t0m.y3 pl 36Tem0stz lmperatankoj Akademii Nauk la source de la plus grande inquietude de leurs adversaires chretiens; car
(6) G. FICKER, Die Plmnd ' ‘t - E" - . d’une part le succes du proselytisme bogomile s’est surtout manifeste dans
Mittelalters (Lfilpzig I 908), pp. en. m Beztrag zur Ketzergesc/zzclzte des byzantz'm'sc}zm le domaine de l'ethique; et d’autre part, l’idéal ascetique et le comportement
(7) Dialagus
(8) Panaplia de daemonumPlgfervgilcvnéx)-Oi
Dagmafim’ 0 at‘ Pg CZXII, cols. B24-5. moral des heretiques rendaient particulierement difficile la tache de les dis-
tinguer des orthodoxes pieux, ct par consequent de les identifier. Deja au
(9) Ed- M-_G. POPRUZHENKO (Sofia 1923), 44: OB(g_E7b',SKY 2 8
(IO) R. REITZENSTEIN, Die Vorgescliiclzte der clzrl.»-ti‘ 1 _7~ ' pp‘ -3 ._q' .
PP- 197-311. “"’” "“f"’ (Le‘PZ‘g» Bsrlm I929). (ii) Pusan et VAILLANT, pp. 77-81.
(12) Bagomilstvoto v Bfilgarzja (2° edit., Sofia 1961), pp. 183-94.
XIII
X
-649-—
X‘ siecle le pretre Cosmas s’est plaint amerement du fait que dans les milieux . - - ' ' un ensei nement secret,
orthodoxes en Bulgarie, et surtout parmi les moines, l’idee se repandait qu’elles designent » ‘*8’. Les Pauliciens avaient aussi _ 8 _
_ - - i ' ' nt l’elite de leur secte. Pierre
que le mariage etait incompatible avec le salut — idee que Cosmas denonce qu’ils ne communiqualfiflt qu 5*’ ceux qui formale
comme aentierement heretique» ‘*3’. Example frappant, me semble-t-il, de de Sicile, ecrivant au IX° siecle,_ nous dit que C¢u_X_C1’ tollt er} aficgplgltz
la difficulte que l’Eglise a souvent eue, au cours de son histoire, a distinguer balement 1’eucharistie et la veneration dp lCI'O1X;r<:1!;Z€i1g"Jn:;fi:iSt’ ct que la
entre ce qu’elle considere comme le vrai et le faux ascetisme, entre le désir
de discipliner le corps et la haine ontologique de la matiere; ainsi le 51° croix re r sen e e
exégaiqlle -Xisiait Che les B@g°mi’@S=
- = _ ... . .
E““?>’“‘@ Z.IgTibe§§'1vi§T.l§§§
' -
Canon Apostolique condamne ceux qui rejettent le mariage, la viande et
le vin << non pas par ascese, mais par degout >> (013 3n'6'50'M*qcH-v rx?0\ol Sui: (38e)\u- au Xne Siécle’ cite un Certain mlmbre d-e passages dc l1‘I§I:C£l;lgl.l1géI'lel0SllIé d'i1'11i@1'"
plow) “". Et Cosmas, en attaquant les Bogomiles bulgares, repete cette
que lessym
preter Bofiollimesnfeziztagfil:22fiifitiqlitlzeuarirtegIsiirtncergyances
0 lql-16 dualistes "°’- Aiflsi
formule ‘*5’. La difficulte d'identifier les Bogomiles et de les distinguer des , . ... - t une nose dont les mystéres
chretiens orthodoxes n’a pas cesse, pendant tout le Moyen Age, d’inquieter le Neo—Man1cheisme devenait en fin de comP 6 g '
, _ , . . I , élus. gt autant que la purete’ mora le des
l’Eglise. On peut se rendre compte a quel point elle se sentait menacee en esoteriques n'etaient reveles qu aux ’
. - ' ent resentait le plus grand
lisant la description si vivante des Bogomiles que nous a laisse e Cosmas et Bogomiles, cet aspect gnostique de leur enseigncm P _ ,
- _ - - -_ -'1 ‘elle se sentait le plus m€11a¢¢@-
ou l’irritation se méle visiblement a l’ironie: danger Pour l’Eg11S@, C’est 1°’: me semble t I ’ qu , I

Avant de conclure cet eXp0S¢,' Je ' voudrais ' tres brievement evoquer un
<<A l’exterieur les heretiques semblent des moutons, ils sont doux - - ' 'dieval. Ce
autre aspect du conflit ' entre l’Eglise d’Orient et le dualisme , me
_
et humbles, silencieux, on les voit blemis par leurs jeiines hypocrites, ils ne . i ’ it une etude
prononcent pas de parole vaine, ils ne rient pas aux eclats, ils ne plaisantent probleme est epineux, a fait couler beaucoup d encre, Ct mentara
- - ts il nous fait sortir du domaine
pas grossierement; ils evitent de se faire remarquer, et ils font tout exterieure- P1‘-15 aPP1"<>f0nd1@- Par °@1"a"’S de ses asp“ -1 b 1 es du x= siecle
'
strictement re ligieux - Cosmas, Parlant des Bogoml _es “gar , - A’
ment pour qu’on ne les distingue pas des vrais chretiens . . .Les hommes
' ' cpggte Pt; h ras e B sur
écrivit pas laS: uelle on a S1
Soumettre ' souvent
aux autorites,discute:
il outragent<<I1s enseignent
_
les riches,
qui leur voient cette si grande humilite, et qui les pensent bons chretiens
et capables de les diriger vers le salut, s’approchent d’eux et les consultent leurs a ren s a n , . . 1 i_
. .. ' t des su érieurs ils insultent es se
sur le salut de leur ame; et eux, semblables au loup qui veut enlever un agneau, ils haissent les emperel-11'5, 11$ 5e moquen P ’
- estiment
- . ' 'llent P our l’empe-
gneurs, ils que Dieu a en 1'10 rreur ceux q ui travai _
d’abord se courbent en soupirant et repondent avec humilite » ‘*6’. . ' de ne as travailler pour $011
reur et ils’ recommandent a tout serviteur P
Cette methode de simulation pratiquee par les Bogomiles a toujours
effrayé leurs adversaires orthodoxes; et cette nervosite se transformait faci- maitre » l"". 1
. ' P Peut—on en cone ure
Que faut-—il penser de ce témoignass de Cosmas
lement en irritation devant la pretention des heretiques d’avoir le droit . - ' ' d s le sens social et poli-
que les Bogomiles etaient des revolutionnaires an . __
exclusif de s’appeler chretiens: droit revendique tant par les Pauliciens que -
tique du mot? Et, si' nous donnons une reponse affirma-UVB a cette derniere
par les Bogomiles: ces derniers, nous dit Cosmas, pretendaient etre les seuls _ - _ t b. a ce ro ramme r€V0 lu- '
a vivre << selon l’esprit », et s’appelaient eux—mémes << habitants des cieux » ‘*7’. questlon, quelle Importance devons noul at rleifent le nle {iiis qu’esquisser
. . ' e
La difiiculte de combattre les dualistes augmentait encore du fait que ceux—ci tlonnalre? Dans les quelques minutes qui lmffl rer ces questions imP0rtantes
I ‘ ' . u
des reponses tres rapides, qui ne feront qu e e
acceptaient souvent ouvertement les dogmes orthodoxes, mais leur donnaient
secretement une interpretation toute diiferente, esoterique, conforme a leurs
Ct diffic1lesd'
Tout a b or d '11 convien
' t de souligner
- qu’i1 ll "'3' 3 _ aucune raison dlétre
.1
propres doctrines. Cet esoterisme fut pratique par toutes les sectes dualistes: . . ,. ~ - n traite sur les B0g0m1@$
ainsi le Manichéen Agapius, qui vécut au IV= ou au V5 siecle, fut accuse plus sceptlque 3‘ I egard de Ce térrllngnage dc? cosngislfdio Malheureusement il me
tard par le Patriarche Photius d’enseigner <¢d'une facon perverse derriere est Précisi concret et entlerement dlgml: sources une confirmation de
semble tres difiicile de trouver dans. au res ' les cités
le nom de nos dogmes des choses tout-a—fait difierentes », et << de se declarer témoignage sur Panarchisme social des Bogomiles. Les examP
en accord avec les paroles des gens pieux tout en aboyant contre les choses
Son
_ l C_ P roe
f sseur
_ ,Angelov
. et tires de la <<Panoplie Dogmatique» d’E11thYme
par ' 1 > emblent pas concu1 ants-
Zigabene et du Sinodik du Tsar Boril " ne me s
(13) PUECH et VAILLANT, p. io6.
( I4) THEODORE BALSAMON,1n Cananem 5 I Sanctorum Apostolorum, P.G., vol. CXX XVI I,
col. I41. (is) Pi~10"r1us Bibliotfzeca, 00¢ I79. P- G-I v°’- Cm °°’- 524'
(:5) Puscu et VAILLANT, p. 77. (I ) Hz'storz'a,Manickaeorum, P-G» V°’- CIV’ C015‘ I256’ I284‘
(16) PUECH ct VAILLANT, pp. 55-6. <22) Prm0}9lz'a D@§'"a¢'im. P-G-. v<>1- CXXX» <=°’S- ‘$214’
(17) Puzcn et VAILLANT, pp. 66, 77. (21) Puscn et VAILLANT, p. 86.
(22) Bogvmifstvoto 22 Bz‘i/£477.74» PP- ’55"6' 164-5‘
XIII XIII
1650i
-—651—
Neanmoins, en se basant sur Cosmas, nous pouvons, je crois, affirmer que les
Bogomiles, a certaines periodes de leur histoire, ont effectivement préche une remarques sur les causes generales de ce conflit sont, Je crois, applictablcpgni
doctrine revolutionnaire d’egalite sociale contre les puissants de ce monde, toutes les manifestations successives du dual1$ff1¢- En Passam erfsu; e
ont soutenu les interets des paysans opprimes contre leur seigneurs feodaux, le domaine concret et historique, je me suis limite en grande partie l¢¢_ que
bulgares et byzantins. ]e croirais volontiers qu’a leurs yeux cette doctrine les historiens modernes appellent le << neo—manicheisme». A cela Ill y ril P :::?:i‘:
sociale se presentait comme le reflet sur le plan de la societe humaine de la raisons: le neo—manicheisme est la forme du dualisme que J 31 cl P L: mam:
lutte cosmique entre le Bien et le Mal. Ce programme revolutionnaire des et, en second lieu, l’abondance relative des sources concernaigt 6 n F216- Son
cheisme et les modalites si variées de son expansion géogrizg 1¢\111;‘1 ‘lfois lus

‘G Fr .;iZ.‘I.‘l.‘1';,‘;’.l“’;.ff.Z.3..
Bogomiles etait—-il primordial et essentiel, ou secondaire et contingent? Dans
un sens, cette question est peut-etre quelque peu irreelle. Car tout mouve-
ment religieux qui ne se bornait pas a nier les dogmes fondamentaux de riche et plus precise de a utte, S1 ongue >
l’Eglise, mais s’insurgeait contre toute hierarchie ecclesiastique et, en con- tions du monde radicalemen_t opp0Sé6S-
damnant le mariage, sapait les fondements meme de la vie sociale, était
forcement, dans les conditions de la vie medievale, une revolte contre les
lois civiles. Quant a l’anarchisme social des Bogomiles, Cosmas a bien
senti toute sa portée: sa reponse aux heretiques est une defense de l’ordre
stable, traditionnel: les tsars et les boyars, dit—il, <4 sont institués par Dieu » ‘=3’.
Certains historiens ont voulu demontrer que les Bogomiles sont alles plus loin
sur le chemin revolutionnaire, et ont lutte contre les puissants de ce monde
les armes a la main "“’. ]e dois franchement avouer que je ne trouve dans les
sources aucun temoignage clair et concluant qui permette d’accepter cette
theorie. Et, a defaut d’un tel temoignage, je puis avouer ma convinction qu’il
est extrémement improbable que des sectaires bogomiles — que ce soit des
parfaits ou des simples croyants — aient jamais pris part a une lutte organisee
et violente pour la defence de leurs ideaux. Une telle action, me semble-t-il,
aurait ete une trahison de leurs croyances les plus fondamentales. Car n’ou-
blions surtout pas que pour les Bogomiles ce monde on nous vivons est la
création et le regne du Satan. Or comment Satan pourrait—-il etre vaincu
par les instruments materiels qu’il a lui—meme forges pour emprisonner l’ame
dans la matierei‘ Ce n’est qu’on evitant tout contact avec Satan et ses oeuvres
que les Bogomiles esperaient trouver le salut. D’apres eux, il n’y avait pas
de redemption possible pour le monde materiel. Ce monde, i1 fallait autant
que possible le fuir; il n’etait pas question de le transformer. C’est pourquoi
je reste toujours convaincu que le bogomilisme était avant tout un mouvement
religieux, oii le dualisme se melait d’eléments chretiens, interprétes d’une
maniere tres particuliere; et que son caractere social et, si l’on veut, politique,
qui prenait la forme d’une resistance passive aux autorites terrestres, servi-
teurs de Satan, était d’une importance secondaire et contingente ‘*5’.
]’ai taché, dans ce bref apercu, d'evoquer la lutte plus que millenaire
entre l’Eglise d’Orient et ce que ses theologiens appelaient du nom general
de <<Manicheisme », sous les aspects du << pourquoi» et du << comment». Mes

(23) Puscn et VAILLANT, p. 86.

(24) Par exemple, I. KLINCHAROV, Pop Bogomil 2' nqgovolo vreme (Sofia 1927): cf. OBO-
LENSKY, pp. 137-8.
Atti del convegno l11lI0l'!lIlZl0l18.lB. su,l'tema “L’0riente
(25) Osouznsx Y, ibid.
cristiano nella storia della civiltii . Rflme 1964-
Accadeinia Nazionale dei Liiicei 1964
 0 10 20 30 I
40 50 60
‘ L

j' ‘T , i-4 .¢ 1 _<%2==-.522 .=:-1:zi2=== . -.. 7. : 5 l l l .

E-lib.:§;I-‘Q1:-5:-:-;-:-:~:-:-:-:~: I-IE2-PPIP2-K,-€3:I:1j5:31-)i-I-I-5;<I&3C-II-"E§1'$5:I;3:5:3§:::'I$I \ I i:-:;-.-.. "">:-:;:;'E7;:;$;§-5211i? W W M11“
-1-‘-‘-1*-I-i:I:1:1;i:i:3 -:1:1.1;‘-;3.Y:3:?:'I.1:?: 21:1:-t;I:I-’:I'IS:1:i":1-I' :3:32?.?:l:L'.:Tt-I-J .111? :I'1"'=I ’ ' 15:21" --i:>‘_-.-
-.
:. _:§§E§;1;;§§:§E:§:;:;:;:-1;:.;:;:;:;1;:;r;};§;§;‘ -3.1;}.1:§.;.;$3:E;:;;;§;r$121}1;;3113::3.5:-:§:§;:;;§:;:E~i1:- , :-:-:-. i /_;-» J .’ ‘
1-§ " .’.;-_<._._._._._.-_
5=?;>I;;;:;3;:£5-_am;1:21;I1I:21.1:=§==:5;:E:3:;:5:='52:53;:;:=r-:;::I;1.1::;=:=:;;;.=;;;;;;,:5:= ' 1' 1 1 -e-1’ |-§
§l
5
»" .;.;._4.§:§:/-:;k1;I:1;?:>f'-1‘ -5:1:1:1:1:I:IF11:11-21:1:-:51’;-:=:=:-iiI-:I:1§:1:I;';Y:I;-:1 :=:I:>. 4' " l:':<:‘-:=:1’-"'
\
i j. <,
5 §-i §-i §'L§
as t‘ “ * 1‘. 0
'-; -: :-:-'i:I;1r=:1:1:i:irI.41:1:1:»-1;~:;:-:;:;:;;;:;I;1:-,-;=:=:-:!$:1:!‘;=:-:=_:f:~:_.-:;>:;:;:-:;:;' 5:!-I:I:=; 1:?".-:1:‘:?:-:—:;:;.;:;.;*;:;:;'
i ‘? ‘c=.‘5'.‘:¢:= $5.‘-1: 1 I"'-1-1:‘-;1:!:1’??:":¢1‘-1:311:-r':’ ?‘.'$§:I;F-:1:=;1:I:?:';':?:‘>5:=:1- 5-::~:';'51-'-:;1;'a1;r¢';=E:¢é!;"' ‘ '
As located in about the seventh century - - - _ - _ K HAZA R5
"§1fi§i§5:§i?l4§¢§IE¢21;i;~:?:‘.;.f ]‘7Yf1§f§i,’5Ifiiiliiililiffiii 'I'€1:~¥:1:$f5I§I§!§=§1ZF=§1l $§' -§':7;'§1:3:=%1:i:!t1'1t"' '
'zii ‘-i léli l: ~‘-cx-$\,
»<22- -;&:=-.2=2:i==i=z=aa;=a==a=2==:.=r=: i .-»=-==1<z=zz=;:z:2=z=a:;z=2;=s=ri.===.=; %- .%z:s>?2:=;i=a=a=z=z====:
'- -. -- ---'- -.-.-.u'.
w . A

_> \z<2-.§
.I2i===*-=2*i=;=a:1-:a‘*2$i;:a525$55==-5;£zE;i:iz:e=;:;=l-=-.-'F-"e:2:22-=z£;=;Es%§-i§:E*s==:z*=:=t=z:zfi.E=5EzE'=f"“
.--I._"
. 1)_ AS IOQIGI ID IIIC (filth century
' - - - - - - - - - - c U MA N S
:_ ,,
'-:;:;:;:;.;:;.‘;'-;=:T:-:?:’71:1:1:%i.?'3-:§:l:§:;:;;I;.;i",I:1t=:-":-:i:F:l-'
':"'- -21:1 _:;:- _:;.- :l:=.-"
§*i:‘§§iE=:1-is;:=;;E§Q-3:51;$:;;;3:§;3:§:j:5%¥I:=;.=;=;=:&f:=_§§:5:§E§:;:gi:§i§E1¥;:=:
it-92:1;I:;1:§:$:5
‘ :-:-:- ;7¥‘1E1§l=§I‘§1:¥i::5f5.-:=:?:5:1 -5I.'1_;&!:i'-=‘§i;(i:=:-‘til?
'-:::_-5;--;.;.-:-:-.-:;:-';:;.'-;:;:-_"';._;1;"':- -:"~:-';:-'.=" d f S ' ° t B U‘
- Tm ¢ mute mm madman‘ ° l’un um —11
- . -===£=Eiéfi1~'Ei==£=:=¢=i;$§ii¢§:i:5-kE=ii:E=£=£i£=:<=:IE>.<-$33114. .-=i=5=1¢E>3;<i=E=--=-
"i;-0-,,_
‘.§'\*~-"<i
A‘w=. :~>=§:==z:i
_._;;I..‘ ===sas=s@==**r~i
.~1.:_§f---'
-:;:;.-:_~.;._ 3-,\,_-;
;i s§'
" -'
-.=e:z=:<;-a===..<i==-=-.===.
':::;':'.:'iI_
-.1-;-:.:r;:-:r':; r~:;: .

in the second half of the ninth century

'1'?“ ;'.‘?"1:-- . ii_.;:I-ri: E!E.=E=;'_*E=Er=-I"V
. ,3"$1-.
.§:!.
,. -. :5=z' iiii
.-;=:=:={¢§i'§:1:-:§:§:$ '
. -=2‘ »=2¥.=i=E-‘==i==1:=zii;=s::a. -
QQ -;2§>::=::<' - , -1 l
'\| ‘I-., .= .aEzE_,, »5§2i'.; E;§=,,.-53§.;i
I-I: at |§:'~'.;:;:;;-_:;:§?:!:9 .-: :1-'-11:55-:1 '
- '
__~; 5 =: 5 E! : t E =E=E=i =E=E=E§* ;
: .~:i“'=:=:-:;:5;:;:;:-.;r:;11=:!1'=:I:I
5 §E1Ei =E€§t
'-£§5E;E?§5E==1=;E;*?;Eg=1E;iaF5E5;'§:5s-5:? :=‘-¢,1;-' ,1
;:-:-' ‘I J;:;2;1-_E;Z§;|§:'E;1;§1-‘$1(.1152;-I;I;$ ';c;;,€'
-77 <.'.-.~.-;-:-:-:.-'-:3E~:- :<-:-'<5:-:-..-
> '<1:I<1:-:5:-:-:;:§:;;-:5 ;,:;:;:2:;:;:;:g' ~_.~
§ ':3?’5=5‘5=5?;E=E'Z5E' =E1Ei§1".!E=E$_éE
1. "==I='==‘<'=~§’ :';:§:§:§:=:§:’ _1_ ' -:,EI7‘?"'~'5'$:§§'.=:_ :.
7:-2'1;
_.
_ _._.;;;.' .-:;:;;;:;:3.<:= V
" =:§:z?==s%2i==_.
;;}"F_:§r§§’;IE=£=EI§IE1:i;-r- -_ ?-§=:3.?:y"§§:§:-2%"
"*
"
_.___.;4-‘:-;-. -' :»:-:-- .:<:--,:-:/.-1»:
-1-;-:-:-:-95' ,9.- ' --:--1-.~:-:-:-:-1%,!"
'----:-:-.-. -: ..-.-.. - 1-: _:;\5_.;.~'.-3"o -
c;-3:-:;:;:;:;'.;;;;-.<_ r 5 ;:;:~:;:-:-1;.-1;: i-$:<:-:- ‘- \‘ .;.;._-;:$;I$§:Z~VI:!i‘§:i!$:-., if‘ -
1:z~‘.Ai>:-:-r--.-' .1 :k-:55:-:1: ,¢:;:;;-gig! ,'“1'15:-I:-1-:<:-:-:-.-. ‘-: 5; ' ,
:-:-:-':.;1;=:4_‘. " :=:l:I:I*-;';I;--:-:-:- .;1,f;¢;I: ’ ‘ ;<"' ' 7 " ’* i
,_, -.-.-:1:1:1.1:':1:3:T:l:1.-:'
I ~.’;i:3I?.1'_.-I -:3-1-'4»,. --:-J .i "-<-;.-.»I5IE. V. ¢.-.="- -.-.<.-.-'-‘>iI5I:I554-!§§1§i:':5§$§=§=§-5?:‘7' ' r“ I
§§ai:1z?2¥&iz§2§2§zit£%E2i:%z¥5_;=* ' 'I'<5,Ei€iE-55' -' ~.
, ' .i-:=2:Esi§zf&?5:2§z§&%§z;€===‘§ “1’%;az?=;3 R 5
=‘ he-=.:=e::-:-:-:
=s=s:.- 1" _ 4 .-‘-:-:-:-'
.:s:1.~-.1?.‘>.-i . .=-e===s=z:=s===2=:=====
:~.F*-.-*1--1-:-:-:-.-:-<’.-.-.-.- -2* =..=:4’-c-:
=~§:=z==;:-:==~=' ii‘), - NW
.
.'I-1-R-I-I-5'»
;5.€E=?I
-:;:’-_*.’§1-1233:;
?1I'$E1i=;
-=’.I:IET.E"_E3EEif‘»EE5E="<
>: .-:-it-:-:11-11l;!;I:i'3:1:i;5:=:
=:==1==--.-%:-:;;-:-:->t;:;!:-
i-€5E1§E5E;E1I5I:E5EI" "“'5551552?1..'.“"'?%IEiE5§EIE;Z'I', C
E==zi;izi‘" - '-=+.==. ‘ .
/

, ;:l;i:>§:§15*7§§
, N°V8°"°‘-'1 '
5;». <_.-.-:-:-:'.-:-:-1~.-.€:-< .4'5" .'-;-:-§-
-:-:""7'“ fififiiiifii -;-;-1-:-1'-;;:
.,n 1EIE5Ii1?-:151:9‘5I15‘i"""""""§*i§':':"3':$'t1?'
;.-7.-.1--1-7 x as K;-E?‘ "1fig' l -Fl
'*Fk1<
55 .32,‘
' :-:§:§:§r-' 7.
,
_.-.-;1~I:I‘._.. __
._ ».-<2, }
;:;:;i~,I;C 11:?1'.-:'.§:5:1:Ic=:i._-f:§:;:§:§:3"§!§..‘iifii,-":lI;l:I:E':'
¢ ' I F M’
-
~
si1==E~. -r ' . .';’:=2’=‘>i:i ?:=Eri=9=.-. .-;=5<5~'=si;5.i2¥=i;===2=s=aE:E§?=Iir"%“*z=2-:- =:'.$:<==.=Ez=#==zE%EzEz=' §z‘i5I‘<:= -
‘iii-l:-.i \ ' .;:5-;;:;:;>,;-_-.'.‘:"'-3:1:' "~!;!:I:!E'I.i~I*i:I$:1:$' §\1:¥€:3;-:-1:1-5!E!:§§::n;:;:;I;:
1: ,,.i> R. V °
4». R. N4 ”’*<>.r Bul“ U t G 1* “ '5
/s . vb s---».»»~ 4:.
'.
ii . ~ Q G A

'6*$0 1}“; 8 Oka /

| 'O ‘.1: 0 L E S
1?. 04%
EC‘-15 '00.. A \

' $ ... '. /

E, MOR v1.P~“‘ , ///.~/
7.°‘o000o00.: _-A ‘ ‘ 4‘. .1 Kiev _, L

Pan‘ '4»6: ' SLO 7 -_c,§_ 4? 4>- Don ‘* zi

U kculv ANS)
11 O
1:-° 9. 0 A050 _.
"- ‘"5
*.. Rapid: """ ii °" “"‘ ' R8°
-LU1
. -- -. ='r%=>‘"-<~..?; -1 ‘S-Q
‘I ,4 i ‘$3 S 1"’
'7 ‘Sir -- ium T<~.>'=."'~*=" '1Icf
.;£Jj_I,a3 1'“ . .fig
6 c, \’ ‘vi s
*=-M‘-"=-=~='1.11*
0* - '5 _7'_~ 1" "s '
29".-.‘ ’1?-'*~'-"I""\"'i-ac-‘L'-'‘;-171 1: -=-";='»*='":'-.=z2s*" . '- ==§t='.‘-='=i'-""=i=.~...
==':=*'wei._._.-Y , g, o vy .- e:e;a@e=:=?-’1E2?:1==:;:-&i===;; 2§s;‘er ' .
.;.;.;.;.;.;.;-;-:-:-..-_;:k _ ~ m ¢._.§%\.. .5
Iii.‘ . .4’ _ . - .'-‘Q; cf:-.-.-.;». '-t*.;-§I:'?€¢-;-.1->:-\-. ;.-
$110118 C Q 1' P4“ " ‘ h8l1il301'l3_---"'A"[;Y'A ’ '
. -A =\;‘
5ER ' 5 IE Dqmibl Z!-S He?’-ii-'"?‘-.§ 4r N
s ' ‘=1 " .9 it
’ ‘.,
\ I59 1 I ~ _- ,1; V “
7‘ fa 1 ~.-i‘-3‘-,_<\.1"?‘ .

‘*:==::=i5:;:;=;=: $z=:s-&:z:a,.-=; a» G A i‘ =1 .:' V '- -'I-'_'.;._'§1.=E*53i‘ ~ . ' - -' -as ‘_ =1*=I.*r,'>'3--

"UL %Q
g *',» 1“ '* .~ ~;‘ =
"''%e*»= _,
. 6'. .1 s /
'=‘A~ - »~»:.-».
:1“.[_IEI1.:1
W5 :-
7 .-‘6 -_ * " “ta;-:-'.-'- ~
3 gt gar‘ , 4,:
> 4> v _ ( =‘-?:'e-:;:;-1;: ‘

asa-"~>'_6*2"->'*f='- - ..-"'- -.--»::sa'@-:-1’==‘<'.=i=»>=;"'.-:-.

.;-
6.0’ 8%
'-:-:4-. “' .
.
i 9'Ir, >1-.-.;$.3I-2‘
;-.-:-';2-!-;¢-:-

.-' ,,
M,-, N» - ' -i-'
... Q t ' M
-a1' '=-
:-'- ‘
oracles
II.‘

"
-'
/z -
. =.=_-==@=¢.===1'='1~:-.:.
2-:-:- _-1-1-‘-I-2-' - _ If " , , . .
’. ’ ._;i '1I;:::‘.:;:I:}_C;}_‘!€;I"11$, - :-:-:-:-
Nicomedia '9' ‘:-:-‘.-.-:-<-.
' .,
= ’ "'="’€¢.;.;.;.-_.;.;.q;;.
z€;=:%=F;1ei¢:;.i.;.;.;
a':.=z:% - _ ;. #
E=?2i
4
15E5.;..
3:-,‘-_i:;:;.;:;-; ‘
..

>
1-
'
’ "'=1§f'~;-E!" "'.€¢:1:" t
‘ .,f.-:-:-:-:.-.1--
52:52:: . =.=E1='.“ '-7:-:-tl.
321:-i
--e-:;L;I; .;-.:;:;*q§.;. _
.F:1i§:'5!-l5E?l:l=5:?:-:i‘.=f
" "iii?
‘"'=i:=:=§a¥EE=:"'1E==‘;1i:'<:§-:-i-.->.-.-.§-.-
iI3IEE§;5=E=E=E¥E' '1 '
l
I 75 z :- 71-4105
5-!
-,~ -:->.¢.-.->.
_. .»
-.

2-.§:§:§:§§:§:3,'-1.--.--. 1 ,.;.-;-;»§§§§§E§;-EE§:::3i:§:>_ -' ..

-:-:-1-:-;-:;:; <2-:-'.;".;:;;-._:;=: .1;-:. :-:-:-:;;;._-,._:_
" 2;:-.».;:;:.:.;..:.;
I 7
- . .w
i§:§=2: v EIiI:=E‘i111iI§E§EE:¥1E!EE ~z:z:i:ai:¢=£;:z:1=it=: :2=a=z:z=z=2=e=ia=e=
T‘i,'=.‘-:>.i:'
i‘-?=E=;~:?'-;-:I-:§:?:i:i-‘i:123:i:;:¢:i:ic1:i:1:1;-:5
;'ZI=5=E€PE$E=E=E=;1E=¥%E=:-;».-."*" i-:?:5:1:1:Y
-E=E=;i=Y;5-:~_(_?<‘
1E=E1Ei=f:§;iE=EE=£i " "'1=:=Z1?
:>.5 i:1:»:§
¢:;=_¢;._ i:z==:e: :="-=-si==.==;=ae=2=si-pa..5’
'-<=§==-. .-i=*>¥ai=i$.==sf2=s:i:§2é:=£=€=e=i=='i¥'i.
_:'e'-:i:1:i.i:-;-:--i,:;:;?*=-:1 ":i:t-::f.§:-13.; ""5-2-:' _=
L 3-
w; a
Qtn 'i"'
lfiz
.;:;:-:;:;:;:;.;i;1.-:{t;:;:;;i1;;:;:;:;:;:;-;f:I:;: :;:i_-13:5 ;-_f--.;:"'- ;r~:»,-,;2;:;;;:;i-1:; ';_ _.;:;:g'.¢:;:;I;!:1_:';:§._.;:;'c_ ¢;.;;;:-;=:i-:;:§:;:;:;'-:.;;_ ;-_l;.;.:-' A R
($11:=:=:1.I:1:=:=1»:-<;€=:=:=s;=;;<:§1:¢:-:
.-:-:-:-:i:-:-:-:-I-I:r; ;-:---:-;-t-.-:i
'»=:=;=:' -.-:-;-:-:_.;:;...;.;.-
;1i¥:'§=’g==:=:=s;=:¢é1:-: .
:-:-' ;.'.-'.
"i--:-:-':-:-:-‘-:-:-:-:-
§:§2=‘?:i;l‘.'-:II'IiZ5:5:$:i'l::-' I:I:21I=I’§I‘T~t5:§i :Ii¢1:?L=FI§
:-:-'-:-:-: -:-'-:-:-: -7
I A M I
5:->:-:':---'-1-I-1:21:-:-1':'-:-:-:-:-3.), A ». -:-:~!:1:1:-:~:-L-:-:65-:-Z5-I-1:1;-;-:-:»c >v>:-:-F.-i-1-I'!§:i:..-:55;-I-.4‘ .-:1'???-:-F:-:':?&'»!'I:1i$"-
‘-:»:-1-:~;-1-t-P‘----‘-:\:-'4':-:';‘<'
g._. I» A i-1+-~-2-:-:+1-I-I-I41-'-'-:-:~:< ,.;. -t~'1-:-':-:-:-:-:-'.-.-.-1;-1-:1:-all-1-"
;.-_-L-.-.-2. ..;t_. I-if-:1:-'-:-:-:-1-:-:-=¢-5 -.-. _
-_.;.g._..,..-3-.,_?.,.§e;.-.
,~-.-.-.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.--;:;:,:_;,--_ -.;.;.~.;.;>; - ‘,3; ;._;v_-_-1;.;. , :;.;'.;,;.1.’_-1 - _.-,q.;.;.;;*.; ;.;- ;.;.;: ;.,,._.;.- - _,5;.;.,
€£:;r:'~.-:-.-:-:-'1,:;:'
.\.’ "_,. j - r .-. .-:-:-4:-:5-1;:;._.;.;»¢?i-:-:-.;:;fi.;.:._.;.,._.:.,.>».-._.;.;.-_;.;-;r.1-:
.;;.;.¥:-;-:¢-5;!I;¢.1.;.;;.;.;_:£1-:»:1:-5;.;i$?.’§.;;3.;-:-q_
.;.;.- _<':-.-:- '<-1; __ --.
;.;.¢-;-.-'.-. I’ -. ;.;.- .. ,t-.-.<...<. _..-I .. 5-1-:.i-. . -:-.7,
:~=I-.»-....‘ I -. -i-1+:-I-I:1z=:I;E=:;-5:-:-Z-31:15:I:=:I':-:-I-5:-2;:-1-II4=:--=:1:-;-:-:-f-:-:55:14;-:1-»:-:-:-r-:-:ir:;:§‘31£-:-2'~:-:-I-3:!izl-3:13.-'-“ii!-" .=5E-r-- -:
-";I;-;-:-:-:<._.., __"_’ ;l;i;¢;I :11-:4-*-:-:‘<1;I;I;I;I:i,-:1:.-:-:-'r1‘?:i:I:i:3:-!='f:-:-if‘-2 -21- ;I;1:-.-:-:-:-:‘Z'I;"~I;¢5-.<'5:'
14. F? :-I 3:}:-:;L;I: .-:5‘ -2-1;:-:;:-55'’ :<v‘;:-:; :_‘; . - if
:1.&==.=E=i=,:=_2;=:i:z:2. _._:z%:2; ,a,;=; I;I;I.i-:j_=-- »2it=E;1;.‘2E1-:3-5:?;%;E:I;E;2z?2E§;===Iz;&;£§3Ez€§=:§?="' “"'*:;E;é:t: z"_=.i====;s;5§;:=Ei:i E£;=;=E=?';5;._._.;ia=;,. :1 =:i='='_I==".2=:5,=,a§;._ ._
55155ii?5:533§555$355Yi=5E5E5ElE?55E553§5§3355":5i5E5E5553=i=i¢:=15:§’l‘Il§li‘1:3:*5‘?-:*5§5?55‘:‘i5E5E3E5E5°§E?‘:E55§_ ‘\ -=="
M =~n».."‘'=5='-=?‘a,.;=:§;=" j3E=tE=E“;’3%a}£;'->"<(‘:-
=5‘:= ===iH‘..=;:».,?=»;.==;2';.;ia=;,-1* <»~>
:. ;':.%ei: -41. /'
§:>3e;15=;:;—,<.::===¢;;;§i§¢3$,i£;£;¢i;-rie.-a=:s¢:=i-=-.....".:;.
I F:-.¥i-i-tfi-3%'iEi:i:i:7Si:fl5!-:5..(-=:eI:!£<:Z:l' -.~:-1-seiw ;-=-. ,:i\'I!-n’a:-‘:1:-61:-".~'¢i'I§lv-K-I31: i in-—

Map 8. The northern neighbours of the Byzantine Empire.

 Q
Av
._<______n__am
n _ _< m u_
*\
I QNL
gag
(MJl ,

\
IM
mQ
/V 0
.
__Rby__J
as AggaI___M_ V E:
_I
nae
Q._
0
sagas5%?
L7
‘WMrM40 R “Av
NZDm‘W EE-
_
E_
v
“0__Av
Q00
I_
'“flawQ7
I
J
0*7
‘A 9
My__§>A _N v
iNAN‘
xWop Z
m
v
m

w
_i

Saafi
%
<
0l

_ _¥
V
p
ww
g §§_Z_M2Hg
.5“/I
Wm‘ xv
_ 5Q__
___§_
2v
ta ‘I
2
M‘d
_
&
Q5Q_n‘
ggfi I‘O
LE9
I gfi
38%
\ __gi5_5%mg gag

_ _‘n_ 3_ ‘_
Q¢
Q%
Q
M
_
M
_W*
xmg‘V
M
.
v
_‘Hmg
_v 8_3
EEg_
8ESEm_ _u>1 Z.DA2
.h§V
Q.
O‘:I83¢H
H
uU<Nfl__' i \3_§‘_

_“gs;
O_ E3
.8‘ fivIH&
K
w
Or\_\
I LVO‘
9
W.7.
O‘“.
1‘I-I

03

‘.
mw
_2&5‘
{M
I_:_w

Ag
Q
__M__ figSEcggmEgg”
EH6Qmg m5
Z_
VH

VT_ ‘
OQ

Mw88>
40¢ Eufi .
_\
$0
I’

%
Q‘
W
£CaSN2we
NW
__~ ‘my
by M
___
|_
__
_
.___Eg___
‘
\‘Q
i‘
“aha
_\_
Q
kM 4
EQQ31
Q
/5:“ Q

J}\“I‘:,1_“.‘l1‘_.n l‘_n‘

Re Q
Q
Q
1O
or Q ' ‘O8
HIII
“d£550%
O550$
Jm
OB
Q2¢__5_

gwgm
“OEUHUGZOQ
m€OHQQ<

C2
Q2
8
O

0
M?
l
H082;"
_
_

__
 INDEX

Abasgia, Abasgi: I 47, II 474, 512

Adrianople (Edirne): II 490, 491
Agapius, the Manichaean: XIII 648
Agathias: I53
Akkerman; V 27
Alania, Alans: I 47, 48, II 474, 477, 507, 512, VI 52
Albigenses: >< 21
Aldegjuborg: <2.‘ t~.)r—~ __].
Aleksandrovsk: V 38
Alexander, Emperor: II 505
Alexander II, Emperor of Russia: III 92
Alexander the Great: II 502
Alexander Nevsky, Prince of Novgorod: III 111
Alexius I, Emperor: III 107, VI 53, VII 253 n. 1, VIII 61, XII 18, 20
Alexius III, Emperor: I 57
Alexius, Metro olitan of Kiev: VI 28-29, 32-33, 35, 37-44, VII 255-7
Alfred, King oi? England: IX 9
Anchialus, battle of: II 490, 507, V 58; clergy of, VI 41, 77
Andrew Bogolyubsky, Prince of Vladimir: IV 47
Andrew Salos, St., LIFE OF: X 60
Andronicus II, Emperor: V] 25 n. 9, VII 260
Andronicus, St: X 53, 54
Angelov, D: XI 602
Anna, daughter of Romanus II, wife of Vladimir of Kiev: II 516, IV 31, VI 24
Anna Comnema: XI 595; ALEXIAD: XII 12, 18, 20, III 107
Antes (Antae): II 476, 477
Anthony IV, Patriarch of Constantinople: VI 25 n. 9, 41, VII 258-9, 262
Antioch, Synod of (341): VI 48
Arabs (Saracens): I 46, 47, 48, 57, II 474
Arcadiopolis, (Liileburgaz), battle of: II 514
Aristenes: VI 50, 51
Armenia, Armenians: I 48, II 474, 511; Manichaeism in, XII 5, 7, 8, 9; and
liturgy, IX 4; forms of foreign names, II 484 n. 2
Asia: diocese of, VI 51-2, 53
Askold and Dir: II 495, 496, 504, V 32
Asparuch (Isperich), Bulgarian Khan: II 484-5
Aspros, river: V S7
Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople: VI 35
Athos, Mount: III 97, VII 264, 271 n. 3
Avars: origins, ll 476, 477; attacks on Byzantine Empire I 46, II 480-3 passim;
relations with Byzantium, I 51, 61, II 476-9 passim; in central Europe,
II 477-8, 482; and Onogurs, II 483; destruction by Charlemagne, ll 490
Avdusin, D.A: X 49
Avraamy (Abraham), Bishop of Suzdal': VII 266
Avvakum: III 98, VIII 62
Azov, 8/ea of, (the Maeotis) and region: I 47, 48, 49, II 474-5, 495 n. 1, 503, V 38
38

Baldwin, Latin Emperor of Constantinople: XII 22

 2 3

Balkans: Byzantine diplomacy in, I 49, II 485-6, 488-91, 498-504, 505-9' Cetatea Alba: V 57
Byzantine civilization in, III 102-104; Manichean heretics in, XII 1,,7 9 Chaadaev, P: VIII 63, 66
16, 17-18, 21, 22 ’ ’ Chalcedon, Council of: III 106, VI 51, 53, 57, 65, 75
Balsamon, Theodore, Patriarch of Antioch: VI 48, 50 51, 52 53 XI 594-5 Charlemagne: I 58, II 490, III 106
Baltic — Black Sea waterway: importance as trade route, II 478 ,494-5 V 18 Chernigov: V 22, 25, 30, 31, 35, 38
22, 23, 27, 37, 57-8. See also Dnieper , ’ ’ Cherson, city in the Crimea: missionary work in, II 487, 492; importance in
BANDURI LEGEND: X 62 Byzantine diplomacy, I 49, 50, II 475, 491-2, 510; trade, V 52-3; and
Bari: III109-110 conversion of Russia, II 516, IV 24, 26, 27; theme of, II 492, 510
Barouphoros, Dnieper rapid: V 48 China: II 477 n. 1,478,487
Choerosphactes, Leo: II 503
Basil I, EmP¢T0fI his cultural liberalism, I 61; missionary zeal II 500-1' and Christopher Lecapenus, co-Emperor: IV 31
Balkan Slavs, II 501; and Methodius, IX 8, XI 591; and’Georgian’letters
XI 599-600; and THE BANDURI LEGEND, x 62; and EPANAGOGE ' CHRONICLE OF JOACHIM: X 56, 57
_ III 115-16; and polo playing, V 43 ’ CHRONOGRAPH OF 1512: VII 275
Basil II, Emperor: diplomacy of, I 48, 56, 57, 61, II 515-18 passim; and Cinnamus, John: VI 47, 69
Vladimir of Kiev, II 515-17, IV 27, 28, 31, VI 24, 26; and Bulgaria, Clement of Ohrid, St: II 501-2, IX 6, 7, XI 598, 601, XII 11
II 473, 517-18 Clement of Smolensk, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 45 n. 86, 46, 58, 60, 63-72, 75
Basil I, Grand Prince of Moscow: 4, VII 249, 258, 260, 262-3 Constans II, Emperor: II 489
Basil II,267_70,
Grand 271_2
Prince of Moscow: "-'i— Vim -I8 IV 29, VI 55, 57 , 74, VII 261, 226 n .3, Constantine (Cyril) of Thessalon apostle of the Slavs: mission to the Slavs,
I 56, 59, II 497-500, IX - 8, 51, 52, 53, XI 587-609; and Slavonic
Basil III, Grand Prince of Moscow: III 99-100 letters, II 497, 499, IX 2- _.~'5' -t>-47,
:.“ 54-65, XI 590-599, 602-609; voyage to
Basil, leader of Bogomils: XII 20 Rome and death II 499 X 5 P°@P Exxi 591 ; relations with Rome and
BASILICA: VI 50, 52, 77 Constantinople, II 497-9, IX 4-8; attitude of Constantinople to the work of,
Bayan, Avar Khan: I 60, II 478, 480-2 XI 588-602; as missionary and diplomat, XI 588-589; and Frankish clergy,
Baynes, N.H: III 102 XI 59l;and RUSSIAN PRIMARY CHRONICLE, X 52-9, 65; EULOGY OF,
Belgorod: V 57 XI 604, 607-8; background XI 589; disciples of, II 501-2, IV 26, IX 6, 7, 8,
Beloozero: V 26 Xl 598; influence, achievment and heritage, II 500-2, 515, IX 1-11, X 46-65;
Berezan': V 56 LIFE OF, see VITA CONSTANTINI. See also Methodius, St
Beroutzi, Dnieper rapid: V 50 Constantine IV, Emperor: II 484
Bessarabia: II 476 n. 2, 477, 484 Constantine V, Emperor: II 487, 490
Bithynia: II 510 Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus, Emperor: childhood, II 505; diplomacy I 45, 46,
Black Sea (Euxine): see Baltic — Black Sea waterway 48, 50, 59, II 509-12; historian I 52, 53, II 482, 488 n. 4, 510; DE
Blastares, Matthew: VI 53 ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO I 46, 50, ll 510, 513, IV 25, 30, Va 56-63,
Bohemia: II 477, 482, 496, 500-1, 515, III 109, iv 26, ix 6, x 59, 61 - Vb 16-61; DE CEREMONIIS, I 49, 53, IV 27, 30,31
Constantine IX, Emperor: VI 62
Bolshevik Revolution: Ill 92
Boril, Tsar of Bulgaria, SYNODICON OF: XII 13, 21, 22, XIII 646, 649 Constantine XI, Emperor: I 54, VI 55, 57, VII 261
Boris I (Michael) Bulgarian Khan: and Christianity, II 497-501; relations with Constantine I, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 67-8, 72
Byzantium, II 498, XI 597; relations with the West, II 497-500; baptism Constantine II, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 70, 72
II 498, ix 6, XII 10; 6661661166, II 502 ’ Constantine Manasses, VIII 61; quoted, V 23
Boris II, Tsar of Bulgaria: II 515 Constantine, ‘priest and bishop: ALPHABETICAL PRAYER, XI 604
Boris and Gleb, Sts: V1 59, X 61 Corinth: II 80 n. 6, 483 n. 5, 517
Bosnian Church: Bogomilism, XII 20-21, 23 Cosmas, priest: SERMON AGAINST THE HERETICS, XII 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19,
Boulniprach, Dnieper rapid: V 48-9 XIII 645-46, 648, 649-50
Budilovsky, Dnieper rapid: V 50, 52, 56 Cossacks: V 25, 36, 40, 44, 52
Bug, river: V 22, 35, 56 Crete: II 482
Bulan, Khazar Khan: II 488 Crimea: and Khazars, I 48, 49, II 486-7, 492, 512; Byzantine diplomacy in, I 46,
Bulcsu, Magyar chieftain: II 509 49-50, 52, II 473-4, 475, 479, 483, 485-8, 491-4, 510-11, 515-17;
Bulgarophygon, battle of: II 503 Christianity in, II 487, 492, 516, IV 26, VI 24; and Pechenegs, I 49, II
492 n. 2, 510, V 52-53; Genoese colony of Kaffa in, VII 249
“Caesaro-papism”: III 113, I15, 116 Croatia, Croats: settled in Balkans by Heraclius, II 482, 483; missionary work
Callistus, Patriarch of Constantinople: VI 40, 42 among, II 482; and Slavonic liturgY, IX 6; attacked by Symeon of Bulgaria,
Calocyras, Patricius: ll 513, 514 II 508; Byzantine political authority in, II 509; under See of Rome, II 501
Carpathians: II 476, 490, 496, 503, 515, V 22, 35 Cumans (Polovtsy): I 51, III 93
Cathari, XII 1, 20, 21, 22 Cyprian, Metropolitan of Russia: VI 35-36, VII 249, 256-8
Catherine II, Empress of Russia, Greek Project, VIII 65 Cyril, St., apostle of the Slavs: see Constantine (Cyril)
Catasyrtae, battle of: II 507 Cyril, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 33, 35
Caucasus: Byzantine diplomacy in, I 46-9, 52, II 473-5, 478-9, 483, 486-8, Cyrillic alphabet: II 502 n. 1, IX 2, 7, X 49, XI 598
511-12, 518
Cecaumenus: II 518 n. 1 Dacia: ll 477
Cedrenus: X 57 Dalmatia: Slav invasions in seventh century, II 481; under rulers of Croatia, II
Cerularius, Michael, Patriarch of Constantipple: VIII 66 501; Slav liturgy in, IX 6; theme of, II 509
 4 S
Daniel, Prince of Galicia: VI 35 George, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 59
Danilevsky, N: VIII 65 Georgia, Georgians: I 47, II 474, XI 599-600
Danube region: invaded by Slavs, II 480; importance in Byzantine diplomacy, I 46, Gepids: 11477
50-1, II 473-4, 475-8, 480-3, 490; Slav settlements in, V 35 Germany, Germans: II 497, 511, 515, III 109, 111
Danube, river: frontier of Byzantine Empire, I 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, II 475-7, Gerontius, abbot: VI 35, 36
480-1, 515, IV 32; crossed by Bulgars in seventh century, II 484; and Gibbon, E: III 111, XII 1
Magyars, II 503; and Russians, II 513, V 56-7 Glagolitic alphabet: II 497, 502 n. 1, IX 2, 4, 6, 7, X 49, XI 590
Daria], pass in Caucasus: II 474 Gnezdovo: V 30
Derevlyaniansz V 35, 59-60 Gog and Magog: V 21
Desna, river: V 31, 61 Golden Horde: I 49, III 90, 93, VII 250, 251, 262
Develtus: II 490-1 Golubinsky, E: VI 73
Dimitri, Grand Prince of Moscow: VII 251, 258 Gorazd, successor to St. Methodius: II 500
Ditzina, river: V 58 Goths: Crimean Goths, I 49, II 475, 487; Thracian Goths, I 57
Dnepropetrovsk: V 38, 40, 43 Granovsky, T: VII 64, 66
Dnieper, river: II 503, as principal artery on the Baltic - Black Sea waterway Gregoras, Nicephorus: IV 28, VI 24-34, 37, 43-6, 74-5, 77-8, VII 248
(q.v.) 1 50, II 504, V passim, esp. V 31-2, 38-56 for the rapids, their Gregory IX, Pope: XII 22
Scandinavian and Slav names Gregory Tsamblak: VI 55, 65
Dniester, river: II 490, 495, V 16, 22, 29, 57 Gyula, Hungarian chieftain: II 509
Dobrudja: under Justinian, II 477; settled by Bulgarians, II 484; invaded by J
U Russians under Svyatoslav, II 513 Hadrian II, Pope: II 498-500, IX 4, 5, 6, X 54, XI 591, 605
Dolger, F: I 53, IV 22 Harold Hardrada, King of Norway: V 60
Don, river: II 492, 495, 503, VII 249-51 Helena Lecapena, wife of Constantine VII: I1 511
Donets, river: II 476 Heraclea Pontica: II S10
Doros, city in the Crimea: II 487 Heraclius, Emperor: I 56; Slav and Avar invasions, I 51, II 481-3; Persian
Dorostolon: see Silistria campaigns, II 486; policy in the Caucasus, II 483; military agreement with
Dregovichians: V 60 Khazars, I1 486; defence of Constantinople, II 482; missionary work among
Dujcev, I: XI 595, 597, 602 Serbs and Croats, I1 482
Dvina, river: II 495, V 22, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34 Heruli: I57
Dvornik, F: XI 602 Hierotheus, Bishop of Hungary: II 509
Dyrrachium (Durazzo): II 503, 518, VI 52 Hilarion of Iberia, St: XI 599
Hilarion, Bishop of Moglena, St: XII 20
Ekaterinoslav: V 38 Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 45 n. 86, 46, 58, 60-4, 70-l, 75, XI 604,
Ektag, mountain in Tien Shan: II 479 608
EI'sha, river: V 32 Hungary, Hungarians: foundation of Hungarian Kingdom by Magyars (q.v.),
EPANAGOGE: III 115-16, VI 50 II 503; German influence, II 515; allies of Byzantium, I 57
Epiphanius the Wise: X 63-4, XI 604-5, 608 Huns: I 46, 49, 51
Epirus: 11517 HYPATIAN CHRONICLE: VI 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
Essoupi, Dnieper rapid: V 42-3
“Eurasian” school of Russian historians: III 93 Iconoclasm, iconoclasts: I 55, II 487, III 106, 115, XII 16
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea: III 114 Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople: policy regarding Bulgaria, II 500; and
Eustathius, Metropolitan of Thessalonica: XI 595 Russian Church, II 496, IV 25-6, X 48
Euthymius of Acmonia, monk: XII 17, XIII 646 Igor, Prince of Kiev: II 504 n. 1, 510-11, IV 24, 25, 26, V 18-19, 44, 59
Euthymius Zigabenus: XII 18-20, XIII 646, 649 Illyricum: disputes between Rome and Constantinople, II 499; invasions by
Avars and Slavs, II 478, 480; Slav settlements, ll 481; St. Paul and, X 54
Fatimid Caliphate in North Africa and Egypt: II 507, 517 Il'men, lake: V 27, 31
Fedotov, G: X 62 Innocent III, Pope: XII 21
Ferrara: VII 266 n. 3, 267. See also Florence Iona (Jonas) Bishop of Ryazan', later Metropolitan of Moscow: VI 55, 56, 57,
Finland, Gulf of: II 504, 515, V 27 VII 270, 271, 272-3
Finno-Ugrians: 11503 Iorga, N: III 103
Finns: II 495 Irene, Khazar princess, wife of Constantine V: II 487
Florence, Council of: III 91, VII 266, 267, 269-70, IQ DJ VIII 61 Isaiah, Prophet: X 58, 65, XI 607-9
Frankish Church: II 497, 500; and the Slavs, IX 4, uno "'-1 my 9°.__, I 591
X1 Isidore, Metropolitan of Russia: VI 55, VII 266, 267, 269-70
Franks: II 496-7 Isidore of Seville: II 482
Istrin, V.M-: X 51, 52, 60
Galicia: VI 25 n. 9 Iti1': I 49, II 487, 496
Gelandri, Dnieper rapid: V 46 Ivan I, Grand Prince of Moscow: VI 36, 37
Genoese: VII 249, 255 Ivan II, Grand Prince of Moscow: VI 38
George, Prince of Galicia: VI 35 Ivan III, Grand Prince of Moscow: Ill 99-100
George, Prince of Moscow: VI 36 Ivan IV, Tsar of Russia: coronation and title of tsar, III 91, IV 28, 29; defeat of
George Hamartolos: VIII 61, X 54, 55, 60, XI 606 Tartars, III 93; his nationalistic policy, III 99-100
 6 7
Izborsk: V 26 K0,/rat, rule; of the Onogurs: I 48, 55; and Heraclius, I1 483; and Magyars, II 503
Izyaslav II, Prince of Kiev: VI 64, 66-7, 68, 70, 74 Kozlov, Dnieper rapid: V 48
Krarios (-on) ford of: V 19, 52-4, 56
Jakobson, RI X 52, 55, 61 Ki-ivichians: V 18, I9, 34, 61
Jerusalem: VI 265-6 Krum, Bulgarian Khan: I1 490-1
Joasaph II, Patriarch of Constantinople: IV 28 Kulikovo, battle of: VII 251
101111 1, TZimi5C¢$, Emperor: I 52, II 514, 515, 517 Kunik, A.A: VIII 67
John II, Comnenus, Emperor: V] 72 Kmfya river; V 32
John V, Palaeologus, Emperor: VI 39, VII 250 Kuprino, lake: V 32
John V16, Cantacuzenus, Emperor: VI 25 n. 9, 28, 31, 38, 39, 41, 42, VII Kutrigurs: II 475,476, 477
2 0, 261 n. 2
John VIII, Palaeologus, Emperor: VII 267-8, 270 n. 1 Ladoga, lake: V 22, 26, 27
John VIII, Pope: and Bulgarian Church, II 501; and Slavonic liturgy II 500, Lamansky, V.1: IV 22, VIII 69
IX 5, 6 Laodicea, Synod of: VI 48
John II, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 59 Lavrov, P: X 52
John III, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 73 Lazi: I 47, 58, II 474
John IV, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 60, 68-70 Leanti, Dnieper rapid: V 49
John, Bishop of Nikiu: I 55, II 483 Lelekva, river: V 32
John Alexander, Tsar of Bulgaria: XII 23 Leningrad: VIII 70. See also St. Petersburg
John Asen II, Tsar of Bulgaria: XII 22 Lenzaneni: V 34-5
John Vladislav, Tsar of Bulgaria: II 518 Leo III, the Isaurian, Emperor: II 437
John Chrysostom, St: XI 594, 606 Leo V, the Armenian, Emperor: II 490-1 _
John Eugenicus: VII 274 Leo VI, Emperor: and Russians, II 505 n. 1, IV 26; and Magyars, II 503, and24
John Malalas: VIII 61, X 55, XI 606 Bulgaria, II 502-3, 505; novels of, VI 50; TAKTIKA on the Russians, V
Joseph» Metropolitan of Kiev? VI 33, 35 Leo Choerosphactes: see Choerosphactes
Josephus Flavius: X 60 Leontiev, K: VIII 65
Justin I, Emperor: I 59, II 476 Leunclavius, J: VIII 62
Justin ll, Emperor: I 51, 60, 61, II 477-8, 479 Levchenko, M.V: VIII 70
Justinian I, Emperor: diplomacy, I 45, 47, 51, 52, 56, 61, II 474-7; LIBER SANCTI JOHANNISI X" 21, XIII 646
_ _N0\/B18, VI 49, 52, 65 Likhachev, D.S: IV 21
Justinian II, Emperor: II 485-6, 489 Lim, river; I1 501 V 50 51
Lishn , Dnie er ra id: ,
Kaffa: VII 249 LIIIILIZIIIIHZ 61 28,p30, 55, VII 250, 253, 257. See also Poland
Kaidatsky, Dnieper rapid: V 43 Liturgy; Slavonic, I 56, 59, II 497, 499-5_01, III 101, IX _3-10, X 49, 54, X1
Kaloyan, Tsar of Bulgaria: I 57 591-609 passim; Roman and Byzantine, IX 4; Georgian XI 599-600,
Kama, river: II 484 attitude of Bogomils to XII 14
Kerch, Straits of: II 486 Luitprand, Bishop of Cremona: I 60, II 502, IX 31, V 21
Khazars, Khazaria: II 486-8; origin, II 484 n. 1; trade, II 487, 495, V 53; Lokhansky, Dnieper rapid: V 45, 46
pressure on Onogur Bulgars in South Russia, II 484; and Justinian II, II Lombards: I 57, II 477-8 _
485-6, and Eastern Slavs, II 513, 515, III 93, IV 23, 35, V 22, 3'3, 53; Louis II, the German, King of Bavaria: II 496-7, IX 1, 4, 5
61116, 61 Byzantium, 1 48, 49, II 486-1, 4914, 496, 510, 511-12; Lovat', river: v 22, 27, 31, 32
missionary work among, II 492-4, IX 2, 8; Christianity in, II 487, 488, Ludmila, St. LIFE OF: X 61 _
IV 26; and Judaism, II 491, 493, 511; and Islam, II 488; and Magyars, Lukas Chrysoberges, Patriarch of Constantinople: VI 46-7
II 503; and Pechenegs, I 49, II 492 n. 2 Lutsk: V 34
Khoriv: V 32 Lyubart, Prince of Volynia: VI 25 n. 9
Khomyakov, A: VIII 64 Lyubech: V 30
Khortitsa, island on the Dnieper: V 54-5 1 f M Iv 29
Khrabr, Bulgarian monk: X 55, 64, XI 598-9 Macarius, Metropo itan o oscow:_ . .
Kiev: city and principality: III 94-5, IV passim, V passim, esp. V 32, VII 250; Macedonia: centre of Slavo-Byzantine Culture, ll 502, X1 59_3, 51{=lIV4P9o§1°t5I8I11o1;~07
metropolitanate 61", iv 26, VI passim, VII 252, 254, 256; Christianity in 11 480-1, 489, V 35; Avar aflflqks, I1 43°; and B“1.8a".*““iI 5121’, XI’, 16.’
VI passim, X 48-S0, 52, 56, 57, 60,61 XII 9; and revolt of_Comitopu1i, II 517-18; Bogomils lI1,_ ‘ 4-9 =
KIEV LEAFLETS: IX 4 Clementnar‘iglNaum in, IX 7, XI 598; and Glagolitic tradition,
Kii, Slav ruler: V 32 Macrolivada: _ _ . .
Kireevsky, I: VIII 64 Magyars: early history, II 503; and Byzantium, I 50, II S03, 507, 11‘1lfil'3.;l905l t02
Kleidion (Kljuo, Cimbalon us), pass, battle of: II 518 Hungary, II 503, 504; attacks °" Thftlcfi, I1 509; and I_<h3Z3I8_, 11- -
Klyuchcvsky, V.0: IV 21g 503; and Pechenegs, II 510; and Russians, II 514; relations with Germany,
Kocel, Slav prince of Pannonia, and Methodius: II 499, IX 4, X 52; and letter II 515; and Greek Church in Hungary II 587 _ _ _
from Hfldfiflfl I1, X 54, XI 605 Manicheans, Manichaeism: and Paulicians, XI_I 8-13; Neo-Manichaeism, XII 5, 6,17‘,
Kodak (Kadak) Dnieper rapid: V 43 sources XII 5, in Babylonia, XII 4; Asiatic, XII 1; and asceticism, XII 3,
Kopystensky, Zacharias: VI 63 in the Balkans, XII 1, 7, 9, 11
 8 9
Mantzikert, battle of: I 48
Manuel I, Emperor: I 57, III 1 Nicephorus II Phocas, Emperor: II 512-13
Manuel H’ Emperor: V" 250 ggi IX 33, VI 6?, 68-70, X11 20 Nicephorus I, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 59
Manuel, Bishop of Smolensk: ’VI 64 Nicetas, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 72
Maria Lecapena, ‘f f P t f B ' - - Nicholas of Myra, St: III 109-10
Mark Eugenicus, vitileirgpoiiiair gr E;il%:3:-' \‘,‘i,52§.,9* “Q 31 Nicholas I, Pope: relations with Bulgaria, II 499; and Constantine and Methodius,
II 497, IX 4, 6
Mm, M4rXism= H1 92, 94, 95 117 118 VIII 11 “'
Massalians: XII 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 17:19 Q3 Nicholas I Mysticus, Patriarch of Constantinople: I 53-4, II 505-8, 512
IIN/Iatthew, Patr1arch_of Constantinople: VI 41-2 Nicomedia: II 510
atthew, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 72 Nicopolis, town on the Danube: V11 250
Niemen, river: II 495, V 22
Maurice, EmPeror: I 51, 11 480 481
Maximus, Metropolitan of Kiev: ’V1 35 Nifont, Bishop of Novgorod: VI 64, 65
Mehmet II, Ottoman Sultan: VII 272 Nikol'sky, N.K: X 50-1
Menander Protector: II 477, 478, 479 Nikon, Patriarch of Russia: III 91-2, 98, VIII 62
Mesopotamia: XII 1, 6 Nikon, CHRONICLE OF: VI 61-2, VII 258
Mesembria: II 490, 491, V 53 Nilus, Patriarch of Constantinople: VII 258
Methodius, St., apostle f 111 $1 ; _ - . - - Niphon I, Patriarch of Constantinople: V1 37
492, IX 2; 1111881021 to etheaSIavsDI 5161 15o)asISIm4’9'l7n5S0I)0nI)t(o2t-168 §((h£§ar§’1H NOMOCANON: VI 49, 51, 56, 65, 70, 77
53-6'
2-1 5 passim, XI_ 587 - 609 passim,
-’.”-"r-»
and Slavonic language, II 497, 499, IX Normanist (and anti Normanist) schools: II 504, V 22-3
_ Q, X 47, relations with Rome and Constantinople II 497-500 IX 4-8- Norsemen, Northmen: see Varangians, Vikings
disciples of, IV 26, XI 592 Novgorod: II 495, 504, III 97, 100, V 18-19, 25-7, 28, 29, VII 264, X 63
also Constantine (Cyril) St., 59 7 - 8,- LIFE OF, S66 VITA METHODII. See
1R;[1$}$glIliI1i1,e%,IYI’Séri;i;ch iii‘ g;)61SI3I'1I1I10pIBI IV 29, VII 269 Ochrida: see Ohrid
Ohrid: capital of Samuel of Bulgaria’s Empire, Il 517; submission to Basil II,
M'‘C h 3° l III, E_mPol'ol'-- II 518; centre of culture, II 502, IX 7; archbishopric of, II 502, VI 76;
I 56, VIII 61, XI 596,_ and Bulgaria,
. II 498; relations
_ with
Kh , 11 - - seat of Bulgarian Patriarchate, II 517, VI 23
Michael \?iIifl%mpeIg3;4’i 251:1 4SsiavomC Churches’ H 497's’ IX 1’ 9’ XI 59°’ 60° Oka, river: I1 492, 515, V 35
Michael, Prince of Tver': VI 35, 37 Oleg, Prince of Kiev: capture of Kiev, II 504, IV 24, V 32; attack on
Mlohflel, Metropolitan of Kiev, 101}, century; X 57 Constantinople, II 505, V 24; his paganism, IV 26
Michael, Metropolitan of Kiev 12th century‘ VI 64 Olga, Princess of Kiev: II 511, 515, IV 26, V 27, 28, X 48, 49; financial and
Miohael, administrative reforms, V 59-60
M 1: (Mityai),
ongos I 4 9, II Metropolitan of Kiev 14th century.- V1 55, V11 257
476, II 90, 93 _4, 96,, 97, 110, IV 20, 35, V1 30, 33, VII 249, Olgerd, Grand Duke of Lithuania: VI 29, 30, 40, VII 256
Omortag, Bulgarian Khan: II 491, 498
Mologa’251, 252,V260,
river: 27 268, 2 70, 271. See also Golden Horde Onogurs: II 483-5, 503
“monoxyla”: V 18, 23-5 35-8 Ostrogorsky, G: I 53, 58, IV 22, 31, VII 260
Moravia, Moravians: liberated from the Avars II 482' Ch ' ' ‘ ‘ Ostrovouniprach, Dnieper rapid: V 45-6
496_ . , , ristianity in, I 56, II Otto I the Great, Western Emporer: II 511, IV 31
501 Passlm, IV 25, X 53, 58, XI 591, 602; Slavonic liturgy in, I 59, Ottoman Turks: see Turks
II 497, 4 99’ IX 3» 4- 5»X 59, 60, XI 592, 597 _ invasion
. . by Magyars, II 503,
X 52 ’ Oulvorsi, Dnieper rapid: V 45, 50
Moscow, city and i ' l't :

VIII 61, 62; 111 I

'~%'h, ,‘“,i‘5?,‘i,‘?“ii 83:, ”;,2%~,¥“.,?5§63W548" °‘
'
'

I
.

westerners in, \‘;?"°g61ga academy, VIII 69, debate between Slavophilg and
.
Paganism: in Russia, II 496, 505, 511, X 48, V 55; in Bulgaria, II 501, 502,
XII 10; among Alans, II 512
Palamas, Gregory, St, Archbishop of Thessalonica: VI 28, 29, 31, 41, 44, VII 265,
Msta river: V 27 XII 23
Mstislav II, Prince of Kiev: V 29 V1 6 Pannonia, Roman province: and work of St. Methodius, 11 499-501, X 53, 54;
M)/I3, City of Lycia: III 109-10 ’ 8 later missionary work, II 509, IX 5; and Avars, II 477, 482; annexed by
Bulgaria, I1 490; occupied by Magyars, II 503, 504
Napfeli, Dnieper rapid: V 551-2 Patarenes: XII 1, 21, 22, 23
Narentani: 11501 Patras: 11489
Naum St., disciple of St. Methodius: II 501-2 IX 7 I Paul, St: VI 59, VII 274; and Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, X 53, 54, XII 8
zggsgt, D}Il‘lI6p('3l'l1'apid\;lTv 47_9 , , X 598 Paulicians: XII 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22
Pechenegs (Patzinaks): and Byzantium, I 46, 49, S0, II 507, 510, 511-12, 515,
I’ C Tomo of: A (CHTENIE) OF BORIS AND GLEB X 61 XI 604- IV 31-2; and Khazars, I 49, 492 n. 2; and Magyars, I 50, II 510; and
£111,854S€ail35l%>'i%S‘P§6°I, ‘§l,“§"’,i‘, “§1é“,$°%; "‘%sS5”""
23, 59’ 60, 692, 7 9 1| 9 0 3 9 7! V
’ Russians, I 50, II 510, 514, 515, V 35, 42, 52-4, 56, 57; and Symeon of
Bulgaria, II 503-4; and alliance with Paulicians, XII 18; and the Uz, V 61
62, XI 603, 605-6, 608 3’ V“ 265’ VI" 61’ Ix 10' X 47’ 48* 50'9- Peloponnese: II 480, 481-2, 488, 489
Nestor-Iskander: VII 275 Pereyaslavets (Little Preslav) on the Danube: occupied by Svyatoslav, II 513, 514;
Neva, river: II 495, V 27 31 captured by Basil I1, I1 517
Nicaea: V178 ’ Pereyaslavl', city in Russia: V 22, 25, 38
Nicephorus I, Emperor: II 489, 490 Persia, Persians: and Zoroastrian tradition in, XII 4; and silk route from China,
I 47, II 478; wars with Byzantine Empire, I 46, 47, 61, II 476, 480-1; and
 10
11
Avar attack on Constantinople (626), II 482
Pete I th
V?"G E838’ t,E -. III 92, 94, 95, 100, 101, 104, 110, 112, 116,
65mperor of Russia. St. Petersburg: VIII 69. See also Leningrad
Salona: sack of (c. 614) II 481
PPete,T fBllgsfliiz
I Xszgfixllu '; I 53, II 508 _ 9, 51213, title of .
Basileus, IV 30-1, 32, Samander (Semender): II 492-3
Sambatas (Kiev): V 32-3
eter, Metro olit f K‘ ; Samo: 11482
Peter 61 Sicily: 5211108, 9?vxiii”(,26' 36’ 37’ 39’ 77 Samuel Comitopulus, Tsar of Bulgaria: I 57, II 517-18
Phasis: I47 Sardica (Serdica, Sofia): council of, VI 51, 65; taken by Bulgarians, II 490, 491,
gll:ޣ)IEf;P01if)I t II 4l98,f5(i4, XII 9, 18 498, XII 9; and Basil II (campaigns), II 517
Phocas, us, anarc “04810nSl3l'i1lI1OpI6.
Emperor: ' - VI 28 _ 9, 31, 40-4, 47 Sarkel: II 492
Sassanid Empire. See Persia
Phocas, Bardas: IV 27, 31 Sava, St., Archbishop of Serbia, XII 20
Photius,
>4II 494, 496,
V 20
Patriarch of Constantinopl :
IX
- .
VIII 66'
. . XIII 648; HOMILIES OF,
“I 98» W 25 5, 33, and Manichaeism,
' ' Sava, river: I1 478, 481, 490
Sazava, abbey of: X 61
Scandinavians: see Vikings, Varangians
Sclaveni: 11476
58$?’ i'il§’,"2’,E"’,'
Pola, 9fiver: V1932,“i‘" ,"i,'ii°"5
8 O ugaria V“
II 258
484 5, 517
I -
Sclavinia, Sclaviniae: II 482, V 35
Sclerus, Bardas: II 514
Serbia, Serbs: and the Byzantine Empire, I 53, 54, 59, II 482, 501, 509, IV 22;
Poland, the Poles: III 104 V 34- - ‘ - . and Christianity, II 482-3, Vl 34-40; debt to Bulgarian literature, I1 502; and
H 5004; influence o=n Russig, fillfliiigicelgg Constantine and Methodius,
Symeon of Bulgaria; II 507-8; and the Turks, VII 250; and Bogomilism,
Polish-Lithuanian State: III 90 91 ’ ’ XII 6, 20
Polotsk: V 26 ’ Serezha, river: V 32
Polyanians: V 32, 36, 61 Sergius of Radonezh, St: VII 264, 265 n. 1
Polybiusz I 51, I1 4"/6 er ius I, Patriarch of Constantinople: II 482
genius, diocese of: VI 51-2, 53 2ev%enko, I: XI 594, 602
I98 (G t P 1 - - . _ . Severians: V 61
Shakhmatov, A: X 51; TALE ABOUT THE TRANSLATION OF BOOKS, X 52,
Svyat 1 ,I1 514- ’ - ’ ? P “re Y 53, 56, 59
Pr?SPa, 1?i<6=OS 517 ’ captured by Bag“ H’ H 517 Silistria: II 514, V 23, 55
Pripet, river: V 25, 60 Silzibul, Turkish Khan: 11 478, 479
Priselkov, M.D: IV 21, X 51 Singidunum (Belgrade): II 481
Priscus: II 481, V 23 Sirmium: I 60, II 478, 480, 507
PROCHEIRON: VI 50 Slovene: V 27
Procopius of Caesarea: I 47 52 [V 34 Smolensk: V 26, 30, 31, 61
Prodromus, Theodore: V159 ’ Sogdians: II 478
PROLOGUE TO THE HOLY - Soloviev, A: IV 29, 30
Prut, river: V 22 GOSPELS X 55 Soloviev, V: VIII 66 _ _ _
Psellus, Michael: XII 17, X11] 545 St. Sophia, Church in Constantinople: Papal bull of excommunication in, III 106;
splendour and prestige of, 1 60, IV 26, 27, VII 265, VII 271-2 n. 2, 274;
Rastislav, Princ
X] 590,666); ' -
the Moravia. 11 496 _ 7, 499, IX 1, 3, 4, 9, X 52, 54, 58, 59, Russian help to reconstruct, IV 28, VII 249
St. Sophia, Cathedral of Kiev: VI 60-1, X 59
Radimichians: V 35 Soviet Union: attitude towards the West; III 118; anti-Normanist historians in,
Regel, W: IV 28 V 23; Byzantine studies in, VIII 69-72
Rhine, river: XII 5 Sozh, river: V 35
Roman, Metropolitan of Lithuania: VI 29 30 VII 256 Sozopolisz V 58
Romanus
Romanus H’I LElfiggilgfiz, EIriiigcirgr.- I 45, II 507-12, IV 31, V 19, V 23 Stauracius: 11489
Stephen, Bighop of Perm’, St: X 63-4, X 64-5, XI 604-5
Romanus, s $11 2%f B u 1garian
Roslagenz ' Tsar Peter.. X 57 Stephan Dusan, Tsar of S%rbia: I 52, 54, VI 40, XII 20
Stephan Nemanja, Grand upan of Serbia, XII 20
Rostislav, P ' f K‘ ; - Stritter, l.G: VIII 67
Rostov: Vn2n6ce 0 iev VI 68 70’ 72’ 74 Sula, river: V 61
Rumeli Hisar, fortress: V11 272 n 2 Sursky, Dnieper rapid: V 45
Rvniania, Rumanians: ll 502, 111-102, 103 Svatopluk, Moravian ruler: ll 500, X 53, 54, XI 605
fills E H _4?4 11- 3, V_ 20-3. See also Varangians Svyatoslav, Prince of Kiev: invasion of Bulgaria, II 513, 514; and Byzantium,
yurik, Viking leader in Novgorod: 11 495 II 514-15; V 18-19, 27-9, 44, 54; and paganism, IV 26
Swedes: see Varangians
Sabiri: II 475, 477 Symeon, Tsar of Bulgaria: and Byzantium. I 52, 53, V 58, XII 10; claim to
St. Aitherios, Island of: V 25 37 55 imperial title, I 53, 54, 58, II 505-8, IV 31; encouragement of Slavonic
St. Gregory, Island of: V 37,’54-5, 56 letters and Byzantine culture, II 502, XI 7, X 56, 57, XI 598
Symeon, Grand Prince of Moscow: VI 37, VII 260
 12
I3
Symeon, Russian monk: VII 267
Syria: II 487, XII 5, 9 Valens, Emperor: II 490
Valentinus, Byfigntlipefiagvoy to the Turks: I 61, II 479
Tamatarcha (Tmutorokan'): V 53 Van, lake: , _ _
Tarsus: 11513 Varangians: I 50, II 494-6, 505, 510, 516, IV 24, V 18-60 passim. See also
Tatars: see Mongols Vikings
Tatishchev, V.N: VI 65-70, 72-3, X 56 Varna: V 57 vm 68
Tavolzhansky, Dnieper rapid: V 50 Vasilievsky, V: _ _ _
Telets, Bulgarian Khan: II 490 Venice, Venetians: I 6_1, III 106; Constantine and Methodius in, IX 4, 8, XI 592,
Terek, river: II 493 593, 594; expulsion from Tana by the Tatars, VII 249 _ _
Tervel, Bulgarian Khan: II 485, 486, 489, 491 Vikings: account of migrations from the north, II 494-6; and creation of Russian
Teterev, river: V 60 state, II 504-5, IV 23, 24, 34; and Khazars, II 492 n. 2; attack on
Theodora, Khazar Princess, wife of Justinian I1: II 485 . Constantinople (8$0%2I 50, II 494, 496
Theodore, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 68, 72
Theodoretus, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 40 ¥ili~ri1y’cl6Ii~i8‘i9,I§i3:'i'i3i= IX 3. x 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 68, 64, 65, XI 589, 590-3,
Theodosius II, Emperor: V 43 595, 597, 603, 608
Theodosius III, Emperor: II 491 VITA METHODII: X S2, 53, 54, 64, XI 605
Theodosius of Trnovo, St: XII 23 Vitichev: V 26, 37-8 _ _
Theognostus, Metropolitan of Kiev: VI 29 n. 28, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38 Vladimir, St, Prince of Kiev: and conversion of Russia, I 50, 60, II 516, lII_93,
Theophanes, chronicler: XII 9 IV 23, 26, 27, VI 34-5, x 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, _59, 62; relations with
Theophanes, protovestiarius: II 510 Byzantium, I 58, II 516, IV 24, 26, 27, 29-34 passim, VI 59, 74, 78
Theophanes the Greek, painter: VII 264 Vladimir, Bulgarian rt_iler_: ll 502
Theophilus, Emperor: II 492, XI 590 Vladimir, city and principality: VI 30, 36-7, VII 252
Thwphylflcl, Archbishop of Ohrid: III 106, XI 595, 601, 604 Vladimir Monomakh: IV 32, VI 62, 72
Theophylact, Patriarch of Constantinople: XIII 646 Volga, river: I 47, 48, 49, II 474-5, 492, 495, 503, V 26, 27, 30, 35, 36; trade
Theophylact, Metropolitan of Sebasteia: VI 60 of Volga Bulgars, II 484, 495
Thessalonica: IX 2; Slav attacks, II 481, V 23; and trade with Bulgaria, II 503; Volkhov, river: V 22, 27, 31
threatened by Samuel of Bulgaria, II 517 Volnigsky, Dnieper rapid: V 49, 50
Thessaly: II 517 Vop’, river: V 32
Thrace: I 5l_; Slavs in, II 480-1; Bulgarians in, II 490-1, 503, 505, 507; Russian Votrya, river: V 32 '
troops in, II 514; Manichean sects in XII 9, 17, 18; theme of, II 489; Vsevolod, Prince of Kiev: VI 62, 73
diocese of VI 51, 52, 53 Vsevolod III, Prince of Vladimir: VI 72
Tiberius II, Emperor: II 480 Vyatichians: V 35
Tiberius Ill, Emperor: II 485 Vyshgorod: V 25, 26, 31, 33
Tien Shan: II 479
Tisza (Theiss), river: I1 478, 481, 490, 496 Wenceslas, Prince of Bohemia, St: LIFE OF, X 61
Tkachev, Dnieper rapid: V 48
TOLKOVAYA PALEYA: V 62 Yahya of Antioch: II 515-7, VI 24
Toropa, river: V 32 Yanka, daughter of Vsevolod of Kiev: VI 73 _
Toropets: V 32 Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev: apfointment of Metropolitan, VI 60, 61, 62; and
T’ou Kiue, Chinese name of Central Asian Turks: see Turks Slavonic literature, X 7, 50-1, 59, 60, 63
Tourxath, Turkish Khan: II 479 Yuri Dolgoruky, Prince of Suzdal : VI 67-8, 72
Toynbee, A: III 89, 92, 112-15, IV 22
Transcaucasia: I48 Zadar (Zara): II 509
Trebizond: I 47;See of VI 41-2, 77 Zaporozh'e: V 38, 40, 54
Trnovo: XII 21,22 Zemarchus, Byzantine envoy to the Turks: II 479
Trubezh, river: V 38 Zikhi (Zichians): I 47, II 474
Turkestan: II 478 Zoe Carbonopsina, Empress: II 507
Turks: Central Asian, I 46, 47, II 477, 478-9, 483, 484 n. 1, 486; Ottoman Zoe Palaeologina: III 99
Turks, III 103, VII 249-50, 255, 260, XII 22 Zonaras, John: VI 48, 51, 52, 53, VIII 61
Tzani: I 47, 57, II 474 Zoroastrianism: XII 4
Tzimisces, John: see John I, Tzimisces Zvonets (Zvonetsky), Dnieper rapid: V 46
Zyrians: X 63-4, XI 604
Ukraine: III 101, 105,111
Ural mountains: II 487
Uspensky, 1*‘: VIII 68-9, 70
Utigurs: II 475, 477
Uz (Uzes): II 503, V 18, 61
Valdai Hills: V 27, 35
This volume contains a total of 408 pages