The President and Fellows of Harvard College

How the Conversion of Rus' Was Understood in the Eleventh Century

Author(s): ANDRZEJ POPPE
Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3/4 (December 1987), pp. 287-302
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036276
Accessed: 07-05-2015 07:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

How theConversionofRus' Was Understood

intheEleventhCentury
ANDRZEJPOPPE

accountsof thebaptismof Rus' for

Scholarshave long studiedparticular
therelevantevidence.1A pecutheirveracity,
and I too have investigated
is
not
one
is
withtheeventit
of
all
the
sources
that
liarity
contemporaneous
were
all
recorded
a
dozen
several
to
scores
of yearslater,
describes;they
of,
althoughin some cases one can detectpassages from,or fragments
recordswritten
closerto thecrucialyearof 988. Here I am notconcerned
withtheserecordsas a sourceto thebaptismofRus' perse, butas a reposiwritersof the eleventhcenturyknew about the
toryof what different
conversionof Rus' and its ruler,PrinceVolodimerof Kiev and how they
perceivedthatevent.
Decided ignoranceis shownby theByzantinewriters.It was nota real
ignorance,but one dictatedby the internalsituationof the Byzantine
Empire,above all by the deep divisionsevidentduringthe civil war of
986-989, whichdid not disappearafterBasil's victory.One can easily
understand
theefforts
at concealment
of Leo theDeacon, whowas opposed
to thepolicyof Basil II.2 Leo portrayed
the Rus' as a dangerousenemy
the
existence
of
the
ofthebaptismof
threatening very
empire.His ignoring
Rus' was at leastjustifiedin his own mind,because he believedit was
announcedforthe sake of appearancesand had no lastingsignificance.
Moresurprising
was theattitude
ofMichaelPsellos,whowrotehisChronoafter
that
over
was
1059,
is,
graphia
seventyyears afterChristianity
in
of Kiev,
promulgated Rus' underthe supervisionof the metropolitan
Psellos does notmentionthebaptism,butin
appointedin Constantinople.
his accountof the participation
of the Tauroscythians
in the battleof
'
1 A.
to theBaptismofRus'. Byzantino-Russian
Relations
Poppe, 'The PoliticalBackground
Between986-989," DumbartonOaks Papers 30 (1976): 197-244; reprinted
in idem,The
RiseofChristian
Russia(London,1982).
1 LeonisDiaconi CaloensisHistoriaelibri
decent,ed. C. Hase (Bonn,1828),pp. 149f.,175f.;
and G. Weiss,Quellenkunde
zur Geschichtevon
especiallybook 10. Cf. J. Karayannopulos
Byzanz (Wiesbaden,1982), pp. 368f.; Poppe, "Background,"pp. 212f.; S. A. Ivanov,
"Polemiceskaja napravlennost''Istorii' L'va Diakona," Vizantijskij Vremennik43
(1982): 74-80; M. Ja.Sjuzjumov,"Lev Diakon i jego vremja,"inLev Diakon,ed. S. Ivanov
andG. Litavrin(Moscow,1988),pp. 143-46, 149-56.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

ANDRZEJPOPPE

in his descriptionof the Rus'Abydos (April 989), and particularly

' 'barbarians."3
war
of
he
calls
the
Rus'
1043,
Thus,indirectly
Byzantine
but pointedly,
he contestedtheirmembership
in the familyof Christian
nations.Highlyeducatedand well-read,Psellosconsciouslymade fulluse
of thesemanticpossibilities
of theGreekwordbarbaros. He delightedin
to Rus'. Because he knewthe
usingthiswordagainand againin reference
ancienttraditionso well, by barbaroi Psellos could simplyhave meant
foreigners:it was in thissense thatthe Greekwritersof Constantinople
of Rome.4Psellos,reasoningin
usedthetermin referring
to theinhabitants
imperialcategoriesof old and new Rome, includedthe Rus' amongthe
tonrhmain.As a courtier
and a monk,an
exteraegentesfromoikumeri
an adviserand a friendof emperorsand of
intellectual
and an intriguer,
of Kiev and the
Psellos musthave metwiththemetropolitans
patriarchs,
He contrasted
theorbis
Greekbishopsof Rus' whovisitedConstantinople.
withthe
civilizationand humanity,
romanus,as an expressionof Christian
and
rude
land.
him
to
an
barbarousRus',
unorthodox,
brutal,
uncultured,
inherited
fromLeo theDeacon,
resultedfromhis conviction,
This attitude
thattheRus' werean age-oldenemy,withperpetualhatredfortheempire.
werea
To Psellos,theEast Slavs of thesecondhalfof theeleventhcentury
community.
paganethnosbeyondthelimitsoftheChristian
WhatforcedPsellos to go so far in ignoringthe Rus' as a Christian
he receivedfromvisitingRus' and returning
nation?Weretheimpressions
so
Greekclergy negative?True,fromConstantinople's
vantagepointRus'
was Christianizing
veryslowly. Yet thereal obstacleto his understanding
withthe languageof Rus' and, above all, the extreme
was unfamiliarity
ofpaganpracaboutthenotedpersistence
inculture,
to saynothing
contrast
3 M. Psellos,Chronographie
ou Histoired'un sicle de Byzance(976-1077), ed. and trans.
E. Renauld(Paris,1926-28), vol. 1, p. 9, and vol. 2, p. 8f. (bk. 1, 13-15; bk. 6, 90-96);
andWeiss,Quellenkunde,
pp.
Eng.trans.E. R. A. Sewter,1953and 1966. Cf.Karayannopulos
407f.
4 Cf. F.
from
(Darmstadt,1976; reprinted
Dlger,Byzanzunddie europischeStaatenwelt
the 1953 edition),pp. 285, 292, 340; K. Lechner,Hellenenund Barbarenim Weltbildder
(Munich,1954); idem,"Byzanz unddie Barbaren,"Saeculum6 (1955):299ff.;D.
Byzantiner
Obolensky,"The Principlesand Methodsof ByzantineDiplomacy,"inActesdu XIf Congrs
in idem,
vol. 1 (Beograd, 1964), pp. 54-56 (reprinted
d'tudes byzantines,
International
and theSlavs: CollectedStudies[London,1971]); H. Ahrweiler,
L'idologiepoliByzantium
(Paris, 1975),pp. 29ff.,46ff. Cf. also G. Vismara,"Barbaren,"
tiquede l'Empirebyzantin
vol. 1 (1980), pp. 1434f. On thequestionof whytheSlavs did not
Lexikondes Mittelalters,
call theByzantines
Romans,butsimplyGreeks,cf.an attempt
"Predstavlenija
by G. Litavrin,
46 (1986): 100-108,
vremennik
'varvarov'o Vizantiii vizantijcaxv VI-X vv.," Vizantijskij
of Byzantinerightsto theRomanlegacy. The actual
who likesto see heretherenunciation
theSlavs dealtwiththeGreeksandwiththeGreek
case seemsto be muchsimpler:in practice,
language.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS '

289

ticesamongtheRus'. Also, thehumanand spiritual

qualitiesof theGreek
how
of
many themwererealmisclergysentto Rus' mustbe considered:
at theturnof the
sionaries?One remarkof a Kievanmonkand chronicler
of
to mostof themetropolitans
eleventhcenturyis hardlycomplimentary
in
about
the
that
assumed
Kiev.5It can be
newly
opinions Constantinople
fromthere.
convertedland were shaped in partby Byzantinesreturning
and
was a Byzantineimperialhistorian,
andforemost
However,Psellosfirst
He
knew
how
to
select
and
one, moreover,
cunning.
uncommonly
pliable
to connect
hismaterials.He musthaveconsideredittactlessand indiscrete
Volodimer'shelpforBasil duringthecivilwarwiththegivingof a porphyrogeniteprincessin marriageto a barbarianprince,especiallysince he
and insincere.He preprobablyconsideredtheconversionas unauthentic
tokeepsilenton thetopic.
ferred
to insinuateand to pass overin silencewas
In anycase, theinclination
notedthe
John
of
Psellos.
not
Skylitzes,his contemporary,
only
typical
assistanceand themarriageof Volodimerto theemperor's
Rus' military
of his
of theprince'sbaptismor theconversion
sister,butmadeno mention
the
of
Theoin
the
860s
Yet
Skylitzesrepeated testimony
treating
country.
on the conversionof Rus' and forthe 950s he did
phanesContinuatus
of the archontissaof Rus', Ol'ga.6
recordthebaptismin Constantinople
Mentionof theseeventsmighthave suggestedto his readersthatwhenthe
emperorBasil lateraskedforVolodimer'shelp and gave himthehandof
ruler.
hissisterAnna,he was dealingwitha Christian
5 See Polnoe sobranierusskix
PSRL), 1 (Leningrad,1926),p. 208; Eng.
letopisej(hereafter
TheRussianPrimaryChronicle(Cambridge,
trans.S. H. Crossand O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor,
Mass., 1953),pp. 169f.: "In thisyear,JohntheMetropolitan
passed away. Johnwas a man
versedin books and study,generousto thepoorand to thewidows,affableto bothrichand
with
and mild,reticent
yeteloquent,and able to console thesorrowful
poor,calm-tempered
wordsofHolyScripture.Thereneverwas his likeinRus' beforehim,norwilltherebe in later
weremuchdifferent.
Cf. L. Mller,"Russenin Byzanzund
days." Usuallythemetropolitans
et de coordination,
no. 5 (Athensand Paris,
Griechenim Rus'-Reich,"Bulletind'information
1971), pp. 96-118; G. Podskalsky,"Der Beitragder griechischstmmigen
Metropoliten
(Kiev), Bischfeund Mnche zur altrussischen
Originalliteratur
(Theologie),988-1281,"
of Kiev
Cahiersdu monderusseet sovitique24 (1983): 498-515. For separatebiographies
see G. Podskalsky,
Christentum
undtheologische
Literaturin der KieverRus'
metropolitans,
(988-1237) (Munich,1982),pp. 282-301. Fora morerecentviewon JohnII, see G. PodskalOstkirchliche
Studien
sky,"MetropolitIoannII von Kiev (1076/77-1089) als kumeniker,"
2(1988).
6 Ioannis
ed. J. Thurn(Berlinand New York, 1973): 165,
Scylitzaesynopsishistoriarum,
240. See Karayannopulos
andWeiss,Quellenkunde,
pp. 407f.;Poppe,"Background,"p. 201.
On the "firstconversion"of Rus', see Podskalsky,
Christentum,
pp. 14-17; L. Mller,Die
TaufeRusslands(Munich,1987), pp. 57-66; and A. P. Vlasto,The Entryof theSlavs into
Christendom
(Cambridge,
Eng.,1970),pp. 244f.,391f.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

ANDRZEJPOPPE

In anycase, in Byzantiumduringthe
Such was courtlyhistoriography.
church
when
the
Rus'
provincewas foundedwiththe
years 987-988,
a manloyalto Basil II, at
of Sebaste,Theophylaktos,
former
metropolitan
as a dynasticallianceand a
its head, theeventwas thoughtof primarily
continued
to some
missionto theKievancourt.Thatperception
diplomatic
degreein theeleventhcentury.7
andto thetransformacontribution
to theChristianization
The Byzantine
tionof cultureand publiclifein Rus' is indisputable.But thisByzantine
a large
impactwas oftenpassivein nature.ThroughByzantineinfluences,
Christian
religiousand culturallegacywas at thedisposalof theRus'. The
needs,conditions,and possibilitiesof the Rus' limitedthe benefitsthey
could derive. Receptionwas facilitated
by the existenceof the CyrilloMethodianand Bulgarianinheritance.Its adaptationcreatedsome probThereis somedoubt
lems,butin themainwas conduciveto acculturation.8
to ByzantineChristianity
about consideringearlyEast-Slavicreceptivity
The activepartyin theprocesswas the
and civilizationas acculturation.
unhampered
recipient.The Byzantinemeritcould have lain in facilitating
toward
attitude
too
a
civilization's
Yet
here
this
from
repository.
borrowing
its lowly followercould have been in evidence. Acrimoniousremarks
withexpressionsof deep
made in Kiev abouttheGreekssimultaneously
thisduality.The baptismand
seemto reflect
respectto GreekChristianity
intoByzantine
of the East Slavs and theiracculturation
Christianization
the
initiative
of
to
the
be
attributed
must
civilization
leadingstrataof Rus'
is especially
theclergy).In thiscase Spinoza's statement
society(including
who
receives
but
the
one
who
influences
one
not
the
one
is
active
"the
apt:
. . . Receiving,in the languageof scholastics,is always
the influence.
modorecipientis."9
accomplished
7 See
thecreationin the1060softwo
Poppe,"Background,"pp. 224-32; note,forinstance,
in Cernihivand Perejaslav. Cf. A. Poppe, "Uwagi o najstarszych
titularmetropolitanates
55 (1964): 557-72 and 56
dziejachKosciotana Rusi," pts.2 and 3, in Przeglqdhistoryczny
Christentum,
pp. 32f.
(1965): 557-69; Podskalsky,
8 Cf. D. Obolensky,"The ByzantineImpacton EasternEurope, PraktikatesAkademias
Inheritance
in idem,The Byzantine
55 (1980): 148-68, reprinted
Athnn
of EasternEurope
see
at
For
an
there.
author
this
other
also
see
recapitulation,
attempt
1982);
by
papers
(London,
S. Franklin,"The Receptionof ByzantineCultureby theSlavs," in The 17thInternational
Oaks, 1986),pp. 383-98, whichomittedF. J.
Congress.Major Papers (Dumbarton
Byzantine
ByzantineCulturein Russiain theTenth
Thomson,"The NatureoftheReceptionof Christian
Centuriesand its Implicationsfor Russian Culture,"Slavica Gandensia 5
to Thirteenth
conclusions).
(1978): 107-39 (withvaluabledataandcontroversial
9 See L. Kotakowski,
wolnosciwplozopi
i nieskonczonosc
Jednostka
, Wolnosci antynomia
i polscy,"in
"Kasztelanowieflandryjscy
Spinozy(Warsaw,1958),p. 612. Cf. A. Gieysztor,
S. Arnold)(Warsaw, 1965), p. 107; cf. also I. Sevcenko,
Studia Historyczne(Festschrift
Literature
andPseudo-Scientific
of ByzantineScientific
"Remarkson theDiffusion
amongthe

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS '

29 1

itself,bothin theimperialcourtand among

Althoughin Constantinople
Rus'
as an apocalypticforcethreatening
the view of
the
the inhabitants,
persistedand thebaptismof Rus' was largely
empirewithextermination
opinionprevailedin Byzantium'seastern
ignored,a somewhatdifferent
in
for
instance, Antioch,whichsided withtheusurperBardas
provinces
Phokas duringthe civil war. The more informative
view of Rus' was
historianYahy of Antioch,who settled
recordedby the Arab-Christian
his history
a dozenor so yearslater,he madeuse of
therein 1015. Writing
of the civil war of 986-989 sets out to
local sources. His description
cameto Basil.10
explainhowvictory
Accordingto Yahy,itwas EmperorBasil whosentenvoysseekingmilitaryassistanceto Kiev. Volodimer'swillingnessto provideit led to a
treatyand relationship
by marriage.Volodimer"marriedthesisterof the
after
the
latter
haddemandedhisbaptismalongwithall ofthepeoemperor
of
his
land."11
The
emperorfirstsentclergyto baptizeVolodimerand
ple
his subjectsand thensenthis sister.A simpledeal is struck:theemperor,
in needof military
The
aid, getsitat thepriceof kinsmanship.
desperately
will
be
in
after
the
princess
porphyrogenite
given marriage
baptismof
Volodimerand his people. Volodimer'swillingnessto convertis what
makestherealizationof bothmen's intentions
possible. The marriageof
AnnaPorphyrogenita
to a barbarianand paganwouldonlyhave confirmed
Basil's loss of thecrown,whereasthebaptismof Volodimerand theintroductionof his country
intothefamilyof Christian
nationshelpedtojustify
notonlythedynasticallianceitself,butalso theuse of Rus' troopsagainst
theByzantineruler'skinsmen.This help was offeredby a newlybaptized
Christian
rulerwho was,moreover,
now also theemperor'sbrother-in-law.
of theconversionof Rus' is preeminent
in
Thus,thepoliticalsignificance
historical
record.
Yahya's
The viewoftheArmenian
historian
StephenofTaron(Asoghik)is based
on thesamefacts,butdiffers
fromtheone-sidedByzantineviewof Yahy.
beforetheyear1005 in connection
withtheparticiAsoghikwroteshortly
of
Rus'
in
forces
the
eastern,
of
pation
emperor's
campaign theyear1000.
Orthodox
Slavs," Slavonicand East EuropeanReview59, no. 3 (1981): 322-25.
10 Histoirede
d'Anoche,ed. and trans.I. Kratchkovsky
and A. Vasiliev,
Yahya-ibn-Sa'd
fase.2 (=PatrologiaOrientalis
23) (Paris,1932),pp. 417-31; cf.also a verygood literaltranslationand important
commentary
by V. R. Rozen,ImperatorVasilijBolgarobojca:Izvlecenija
iz letopisiJax i antiohijskogo
1883; rpt.London,1972),pp. 23-41, 194-216;
(St. Petersburg,
Poppe,"Background,"pp. 205f. For theGreeksourcesof Yahyand therebellionof Bardas
"The ByzantineArabChronicle(938- 1034) of Yahy b.
Phokas,987-89, see J.H. Forsyth,
Sa'd Al-Antak,"vol. 1 (Ph.D. diss.,University
ofMichigan,1977),pp. 186-92, 423-62.
1* Histoirede
Yahya,pp.422- 24; Rozen,Imperator,
pp. 23 - 24.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

292

ANDRZEJPOPPE

fromthekingof
Asoghiknotesthat"Basil got six thousandfoot-soldiers
sister
in
to
the
latter
and
when
he
his
at thetimethat
Rus',
gave
marriage
thisnationcame to believe in Christ."12The timingand causalityof the
linked.The politicalactionis prominent,
butthemilieventsare skillfully
alliance
are
set
a
"Christian
matrimonial
aid
and
against
background."
tary
as a primary
Here theconversionof Rus' is depictedmoreautonomously
ofAntioch'sversionofevents.
without
thebaldfrankness
occurrence,
behindtheconversion
of Rus' was
An Arabicviewof thecircumstances
at thecourtof Baghdad. Abu Shuj', vizierof the Abbasid
also written
caliphs,whowroteafter1072,usedthenowlostBaghdadchronicleofHill
as Sb (for970-1056) to describetheyears979-999. Byzantineaffairs
are relatedcarefully,because regularmilitaryand diplomaticcontacts
requiredthat attentionbe paid to Byzantium'sinternalsituation.The
of Rus' was seenfromthatperspective.In thisaccountByzanconversion
tiumis said to have beguntheactionby askingtheRus' rulerformilitary
help. ThentheRus' princedemandedfromtheemperorhis sister'shandin
is the
Significant
marriage,but she refusedto marrya non-Christian.13
of
she
because
the
condition
Anna's
role
on
marriage
imposed
emphasis
won VolodimerforChristianity.
Here,too,thebaptismprecedesthemarriage. This orderof eventsis unclearin therecordof Yahy. But also in
was crucial
strength
BaghdadtherearosetheconvictionthatRus' military
inthedefeatofBardasPhokas.
abouttheWestEuropeanresponseto thebapWe knownextto nothing
in his letterto theGermankingHenryII
tismof Rus'. Brunoof Querfurt,
consideredRus' to be a fully
in 1008 aftera visitto Kiev,evidently
written
Bruno'smisRus'
ruler
of
the
Christian
The
Christian
supported
country.
zealous
to spread
sion to convertthePecenegs.14The missionary
bishop,
12
par
Asoghik,bk. 3, 43, Frenchtrans,byE. Dulaurierand F. Macler,Histoireuniverselle
de l'Ecole des LanguesOrientalesVivantes,ser. 1,
EtienneAsotikde Tarn,pt.2, Publications
vol. 18 (Paris 1917-), pp. 161-65. An Armeniantextwas publishedtwice(Paris, 1859,St.
1885); Russiantrans.N. min(Moscow, 1864),pp. 198-201; Germantrans,byH.
Petersburg,
GelzerandA. Burckhardt
(Leipzig,1907),pp. 209-212. See Poppe,"Background,"pp. 202f.
13 The Eclipse of the 'AbassidCaliphate,vol. 6: Continuation
of the Experiencesof the
. ., trans.D. S. Margoliouth
NationsbyAbu Shuja' Rudhrawari.
(Oxford,1921), pp. 118f.;
Arabictext,The Eclipse,vol. 3, pp. 116f. Russiantrans,by T. Kezma withUkrainianintroduction by A. Kryms'kyj,"Opovidannja arabs'koho istoryka XI viku Abu-Sodzi
na posanu D. I. Bahalija
Rudravers'koho
zbirnyk
pro te jak oxrestilasjaRus'," in Jubilejnyj
(Kiev, 1927),pp. 383-87, trans,pp. 388-95. Cf.Poppe,"Background,"pp. 206f.
14 ForBruno'sletter,
PoloniaeHistrica,n.s.,vol. 4, no.
see J.Karwasiska,
ed.,Monumenta
3 (Warsaw,1973),pp. 97-106, especially98-100; on Bruno'sstayin Rus', see M. Hellmann,
Jahrbcher
abendlandischen
"Vladimirder Heilige in der zeitgenssischen
berlieferung,"
frGeschichteOsteuropas1 (1959): 397-412 (also on Thietmar);A. Poppe, "Vladimiras a
see D. H. Kahl,
theact of conversion,
For how Brunounderstood
Christian,"forthcoming.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS'

293

amongthe pagans and travelingacross the East Slavic land

Christianity
twentyyearsafterthebaptismof Rus', seemedunawarethatChristianity
was actuallyjust beginningto take hold there. ApparentlyBruno did
believeitessentialto wintherulingclass overfullyto theChristian
faith.
Thatthebaptismof Rus' was notedin OttonianEuropewe knowfrom
and bishopof Merseburg,
thechronicler
Thietmar(975-1018), a relative
and schoolmatein Magdeburgof Brunoof Querfurt.Thietmar
a
presented
of
Volodimer's
Thietmar's
text
was
written
verynegativeopinion
morality.
between1015and 1017;he corrected
and supplemented
thattextin thefall
of 1018. Accordingto him,onlyafterVolodimermarriedtheByzantine
faith
princessdid he yieldto his wife'spersuasionand adopttheChristian
sanctae
eius
ortatu
iustis
(christianitatis
fidem
suscepit,quam
operibusnon
thatthePolishprince
ornavit,bk. 7, chap. 72). Thietmaralso maintained
Mieszko was won over to Christianity
his
the Czech princess
wife,
by
Dobrava(bk. 4, chaps. 55-56). Did Thietmarstereotype
theserulers?In
the
stemsfromThietmar's
anycase,
passageaboutVolodimer'sconversion
wish "to touchuponthewrongful
deeds of thekingof Rus' Volodimer"
accionem
(AmpliusprogrediardisputandoregisqueRuscorumWlodemiri
bk.
These
deeds
were
mariniquamperstringendo, 7, chap. 72).
wrongful
riagewitha Greekprincesswho was promisedto theGermanking{Hic a
GreciaducensuxoremHelenamnomine,tercioOttonidesponsatam,
sed ei
calliditate
bk.
and
the
seizure
of
subtractam,
7, chap. 72),
fraudulenta
who
died
in
The
BishopReinborn,
prison.
bishophad come to Rus' witha
Polishprincesswho had marriedVolodimer'sson Svjatopolk;about 1013
Volodimercame to suspectall threeof conspiring
againsthimand so had
themimprisoned.15
Thietmar'sindignation
at Volodimer'smarriagewithfiliasancii imperii
is comprehensible
in view of the writer'sdescentfromthefamilyof the
Grafen(Earls) von Walbeck,whichwas closelyrelatedto otherpowerful
Saxon families.His fatherSiegfried(d. 991) was a trustedpersonin the
courtof OttoII and Theophano.AlreadyThietmar'smaternal
grandfather,
in
the
court
of
OttoI and
Henry,Grafvon Stade,was an important
person
was indeedrelatedto him. OttoF s three-year
effort
to procurea porphyroPartialsuccesscame
geniteprincessforhis son OttoII was notforgotten.
JohnTzimisces,decidedto givein marriage
his
onlyafterthenewemperor,
niece,Theophano,to OttoII, althoughthebridewas nota porphyrogenite.
Brunsvon Querfurt
im Lichtehochmittelalterlichen
"Compelieraintrare.Die Wendenpolitik
Missions-undVlkerrechts,"
4 (1955): 161-93.
Zeitschrift
frOstforschung
15 Thietmari
Merseburgensis
episcopi Chronicon,ed. R. Holtzmann,trans.W. Trillmich
(Berlin,1957;rpt.1962)pp. 170-75, 432-37.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

ANDRZEJPOPPE

Thus, when in 988 news came of Anna's marriageto a barbarianruler

theOttoniancourtnobility
musthave been cutto
(hardlya trueChristian),
revivedand deepenedduringnegotiations
fora porthequick. Bitterness
III
That
lasted
seven
for
Otto
(995-1001).
yearsand
princess
phyrogenite
aftera porphyrogenite
bridefinally
hada sad epilogue: OttoIII diedshortly
arrived.
The GreekarrogancetowardtheOttoniandynasty
lingeredin Thietmar's
about
Volodimer's
When
marriagenearlythirty
years
memory.
writing
mistookHelenaforAnnaand OttoIII forOttoII. But
later,thechronicler
Helena seems not to have been his invention:it is likelythatthe elder
the
daughterof Romanos II was named for her paternalgrandmother,
Helena
could
So
this
Helena
princess
porphyrogenite
Lecapena.
empress
have been "the desiredgirl" requestedin about968 by Ottoforhis son
OttoII (notAnna,whowas bornin 963).16
connectedVolodimer'sbaptismwiththeRus' ruler'smarriage
Thietmar
to hisowncountry.No
a marriage
to a porphyrogenite,
recallingan affront
wonderthatThietmar
spokeaboutVolodimeras a "greatandcruelfornicaat
was notadornedwithactsofjustice." Writing
tor" whose"Christianity
Kiev
throne
Volodimer's
for
the
the timeof fratricidal
following
rivalry
deathin 1015,Thietmar
pointedoutthatthesinfullifeand injusticeof the
his kingdom.
late rulerwere the source of the quarrelsdisintegrating
is so intensethathisaccountshouldbe readalongside
Thietmar'sanimosity
the dispassionateone of Bruno of Querfurt.Yet Thietmarmust have
theviewsprevailing
reflected
amongthesecularand clericalGerman,parin
The
conversionof Rus' was seen primarily
Saxon,
nobility.
ticularly
to therenovatioimperii,despitea divertermsof itspoliticalimplications
of thisrenovatioduringthereignof
gencefromtheOttonianmanifestation
HenryII (1002-1024). The defeatof Bardas Phokas (a relativeof the
could nothave
consolidation
empressTheophano)and Byzantinemilitary
matters.
It
was
knownthat
Italian
if
even
onlyregarding
pleasedGermany,
milin
reversal
of
Basil's
factor
the
hadbeena major
Rus' military
strength
of Rus' with
of theconversion
The estimation
itaryandpoliticalfortunes.17
16 See
Poppe,"Background,"pp. 202, 219, 230-34. Formoredetail,see A. and D. Poppe,
A. Gieysztor)
(Warsaw,
Anne,"Cultuset Cognitio(Festschrift
"Dziewosiebyo porri
rogenetke
1976),pp. 451-68; Hellmann,"VladimirderHeilige"; and A. Poppe,"Vladimiras a Christian."
17
By sayingthatVolodimer"crudelismagnamquevimDanais mollibusingessit"(Chroniof the Ottoniancourtin
con, VII, 72, p. 434), Thietmarshows the politicalorientation
987-989. The "unmanlyGreeks" vanquishedby Volodimer,Thietmarimplies,are Bardas
Phokasandhispartisans.Theophanowas probablyalso relatedto BardasSkleros.UnsuccessofOttoIII intoa porphyroto makethewifeof OttoII andmother
fulhistoriographie
attempts
geniteceased in the 1960s. See W. Ohnsorge,"Die HeiratKaisersOttosII mitder Byzan-

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS '

295

did notresultfromconfessionalmotives,but was

Byzantineparticipation
in Easternand Southeast
rise
of
a newpoliticalsituation
connectedwiththe
Europe.
OutsideKievan Rus' itself,the Rus' conversionto Christianity
was
as
a
trivial
recordedby nearand distantneighbors,
event,
mostlyChristian,
of a politicaldeal and thevehiclefora betterpositionin the
a component
and ChristianphilosopherPsellos
familyof rulers.Even the intellectual
to
see
the
future
was notimaginative
oftheevent.
enough
significance
*
* *
How was "the grace and truthbroughtto earthby JesusChrist"understood,realized,andfeltbytheRus' nationwhenitwas baptized?The earliin Kiev in
estnativerecordofthebaptismof Rus' knownto us was written
theyear1049or 1050. This "Sermonon Law andGraceandtheEulogyof
ourprinceVolodimerwhobaptizedus" is morethana homiletic
work: itis
and
treatise
a philosophical religious
composedby Ilarion,a nativepriestmonkwhohad a Byzantineculturalbackground.18
Shortlyafteritsdeliversee of Kiev. His
ance, in 1051, Ilarionwas elevatedto themetropolitan
workis widelyknown,so herewe will deal onlywithitsrelevanceto the
Ilarion's sermonwas neverconsidereda primary
sourceon
topicat hand.19
tinerinTheophano,"Braunschweigisches
Jahrbuch54 (1973): 24-60. For earlierliterature,
see J. Strzelczyk,"Teofano," Slownik StarozytnosciStowianskich(hereafterSSS) 6
(1977): 57f.
18
Recentlyeditedanew by A. M. Moldovanis Slovo o zakonei blagodatiHariona (Kiev,
as an excellentcommentary
is theeditionof L. Mller,Des Metro1984); stillindispensable
nachderErstauspolitenIlarionLobredeauf VladimirdenHeiligenundGlaugensbekenntnis,
und erlutert
(Wiesbaden,1962). Moldovan's
eingeleitet
gabe von 1844 neu herausgegeben,
datingoftheSlovobetween1037-1050 (afterA. Gorski,1844) does nottakeintoaccountthe
antequernis thementionofJaroslav'swife
arguments
brought
up in the 1960s. The terminus
whodiedon 10 February1051. The terminus
postquernis thementionof the
Irene-Ingigerd,
ChurchesofSophiaandoftheAnnunciation
anda "wreath"offortifications
aroundKiev built
by Jaroslav;all of thesewerebegunafter1036 and werecompletednear 1046. Presentin
churchduringIlarion's speechwerethegrandchildren
of Jaroslav(theeldestsons marriedin
- in front
1043/44).The sermonwas probablyrecitedin capella palatina- theTithesChurch
s tombon theSundayanniversary
of Volodimer'
of his death,15 July1050. Cf. A. Soloviev,
"Zur Lobrededes Metropoliten
Slaventum.
ActaII
Hilarin,"Das heidnischeundchristliche
1967 (Wiesbaden,
congressusinternational historiaeSlavicae Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis
in idem,Byzanceet la formation
de l'Etat russe(London,1979);
1970),pp. 58-63; reprinted
A. Poppe,Panstwoi Koscil na Rusi w XI w. (Warsaw,1968),pp. 56-58; idem,"The Building of the Churchof St. Sophia in Kiev," Journalof MedievalHistory1 (1981): 15-66
in idem,TheRiseofChristian
Russia [London,1982]).
(reprinted
19 For theliterature,
see Podskalsky,
Christentum,
pp. 84-86; N. Rozov, "Ilarion," in Slovak kniznikov
i kniznosti
DrevnejRusi,XI-pervaja polovinaXIV v. (Leningrad,1987), pp.
in Englishis J.Fennelland A. Stokes,EarlyRussianLiterature
198-204. A cleartreatment
(London,1974),pp. 40-60, withmanyquotationsfromthesermon.As faras I know,onlya
shortpartof the sermonhas been translatedinto English,in S. A. Zenkovsky,Medieval

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

296

ANDRZEJPOPPE

theRus' baptism,
eventhoughtheconversion
is itsmainsubject.The theoin
treatise
a
a
discussionon theintrooffers, sense, historiosophical
logical
ductionof theRus' intotheuniversalChristian
of,salvation.It also
history
constitutes
a praiseof Volodimer,
as a rulerwhoconverted
hisnationto the
itintothefamilyof Christian
truefaithand brought
nations.The discourse
is a proclamation
of victoriousChristianity
and of the originator
of the
conversionwho ''raised us [the Rus'], prostrated
by idolatry,fromthe
In hishistoriosophical
deathbed."20
andtheosophical
visionofthesalvation
of mankind,
Ilarionexpressedthesignificance
of theturnfrompaganismto
inthehistory
ofKievanRus'.
Christianity
Ilarion's sermonis a raretestimony
writings
AmongmedievalChristian
of a newlyconverted
nation.Severaldozenyears
to theself-consciousness
in
a
where
afteritsbaptism, country
largeregionsdidnotyetknowaboutor
a recordwas producedreflecting
Chrisrecognizeitsown Christianization,
and a sovereignkindof thinking.It presentedthebaptianhistoriosophy
tismof Rus' as an eventglowinghighabove commonterrestrial
history.
in Rus', came through
This view,as formulated
Byzantinemediation,
givtradition.
ingIlarionaccess to thewiderangeofChristian
For Ilarion,Rus' history
beginswithitsbaptism.Volodimeris notonly
he
is
its apostle. Ilariondoes notdramatically
Rus'
conthebaptizerof
trastpagan Rus' and ChristianRus', or pagan Volodimerand Christian
Volodimer,as thehagiographical
writings
commonlydo (a good example
in
the
While
Ilarionqualifiestheperiod
the
text
Chronicle).
Primary
being
he praisesVolodimer
as thetimewhendarknesswas dominant,
of idolatry
as theson of gloriousSvjatoslavand grandsonof old Igor'. Volodimeris
also praisedforhavingruledhis land "justly,boldly,and wisely" even
he "did notrulein a meagerand unknownland,but
beforetheconversion;
in the land of Rus', knownwell and heardabout to all cornersof the
earth."21So, accordingto Ilarion,Volodimerevenas a paganrulershowed
to hisrolebyDivineProvidence.Andat thattime"the
he was predestined
the
came
upon him.. . [to show him] how to understand
SupremeBeing
delusivenessof idolatryand to discovertheone trueGod." And Volodiin
aside a panoplyof falsebeliefs"... was christened
mer,havingthrown
Christ.. . and announcedto his wholelandthatit was to be baptized.. . and
everyonewas to be a Christian."Ilarionexpressedpublicfeelingin those
days: "And no one daredto opposehis [Volodimer's]piousorder.Evenif
someonewas baptizednotforlove, he was baptizedforfearof himwho
and Tales (New York,1974),pp. 85-90.
Russia's Epics,Chronicles,
20 Mller,IlarionLobrede,p. 126; Moldovan,Slovo,p. 98.
21 Mller,IlarionLobrede, 100,101; Moldovan,Slovo, 91-92.
pp.
pp.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS'

297

Over thirty
gave theorder,becausehis pietywas linkedwithauthority."22
in
yearslaterNestorthehagiographer, his Vitaof Borisand Glb,sketched
a moreidyllicpicture: "and all hastenedto be baptized,and therewas
nobodyopposed,butas ifalreadyeducateda longtime,theycamejoyfully
forbaptism/'23
Ilariondoes notreducetheconversionto a singleact. Notingthat"at
thesametimeourlandstarted
to glorify
Christ,"he also pointsoutthatthis
was onlythebeginning:"Then theobscurity
ofpaganismstarted
to recede
fromus, and thedaybreakof thetruefaithdawned."24By theend of the
eleventhcentury,
a chroniclerpraisingJaroslavwould expressthe same
more
thought
allegorically:"His fatherVolodimerplowedand harrowed
the soil, when he enlightenedRus' throughbaptism,while this prince
sowedtheheartsof thefaithful
withthewritten
[Jaroslav]
word;we in turn
reaptheharvestby receivingtheteachingof the[sacred]books" (thePrimaryChronicle'sentryundertheyear1037).25
Ilarionattributes
theconversion
ofRus' exclusivelyto Volodimer'
s meritsas a teacherof thetruefaith:"Throughyouwe came to knowtheLord
and got rid of pagan delusions.. . . The Savior himselfassignedyou."
Unlikemanyotherrulerswho witnessedthe powerof Christand of the
saintsbutrejectedthefaith,Volodimer"came to the truefaith,came to
thosewitnesses.. . owingto an upright
attitude
of mindand
Christ,without
in
that
there
is
one
God, only
Creator,"who "sent
sagacity understanding
to earthhis one and onlyson forthesalvationof theworld." Volodimer'
s
virtuesaremanifold
because"he converted
notone person,nottenofthem,
nota city,butthewholeof his land."26Those virtuesallowed Ilarionto
- the firstChristian
equate the Rus' princewith Constantinethe Great
Romanemperor.Accordingto Ilarion,thebaptismof Rus' was a repetition
of a previoushistoricalsituation,
and Volodimerwas a new Constantine.
His interpretation
the
in
event
Rus' an autonomous
characterwithout
gave
directreference
to the"terrestrial"
Byzantineconnection.ButforIlarionit
was inconceivableto equate Rus' witha Byzantiumperceivedas orbis
romanus.He madeparallelsonlybetweenVolodimerandRus' andthefirst
Christian
Romanemperorand firstChristian
empire.In anycase, Ilarion's
22 Mller,IlarionLobrede, 102,103-104, 105;
Moldovan,Slovo,pp. 92-93.
pp.
ZJ Die altrussischen
hagiographischenErzhlungenund liturgische
Dichtungenber die
heiligenBorisundGleb.NachderAusgabevonD. Abramovicin Auswahlneuherausgegeben
undeingeleitet
vonL. Mller(Munich,1967),4.
24 Mller,IlarionLobrede, 105; Moldovan,Slovo, 93.
p.
p.
25 PSRL, 1: 152;Cross,
PrimaryChronicle,p. 137.
26 Mller,IlarionLobrede, 107,108,110, 116;
Moldovan,Slovo,pp. 94, 95, 96.
pp.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

298

ANDRZEJPOPPE

treatiseis by no meansanti-Byzantine
(todayfew authorsmaintainso).27
ofthe
a
not
he
did
True,
giveByzantium majorrolein theRus' recognition
one trueGod,buthe didconveyessentialelementsthatmadetheByzantine
impactclearlyevident.
and deeds of Volodimer.When
The Pantocrator
guidedtheintentions
the
one
true
theprincedecided"to find
God," he,stillpagan,showedvery
good acumen: "Then he heardof theOrthodoxlandof Greece,so ChristofByzantineChristianity
and,
lovingand strongin faith." Thisrecognition
results
inheritance
the
of
the
sources
of
directly
religious
simultaneously,
of theactsand rolesof Volodimerand ConstanfromIlarion'scomparison
withhis motherHelen broughtthe Cross from
tine: "He [Constantine]
the
Jerusalem
and,affirming faith,spreaditoverall theirland;so youwith
fromthe
Ol'ga carriedtheCross fromNew Jerusalem,
yourgrandmother
thefaith."28
andhavingplaceditin yourland,affirmed
cityofConstantine,
in Rus', butalso
of Christianity
The crosssymbolizesnotonlythetriumph
is an expression
ties. The composition
showsitsgenealogyandinstitutional
andat thesametimea declaraofutmost
regardforByzantineChristendom
sinceforKiev thecity
tionof loyaltyto one's own confessional
affiliation,
icon of God's City.
a new terrestrial
is theNew Jerusalem,
of Constantine
Volodimer'
s
while
as
to theByzantinecapital such,
emphasizing
Referring
as an expressionof reliby God, can onlybe interpreted
guidancedirectly
as a
true
icon
of Constantinople
to
be
a
desire
Kiev's
and
of
gioushomage
weremadeto resembleConstantinoThatin Kiev efforts
New Jerusalem.29
in
influence
by theConstantinopolitan
ple even in appearanceis illustrated
fromabout1070
and by travelers'impressions
earlyKievanarchitecture,30
of
ornament
"the brightest
thatthecapitalof Rus' imitatesConstantinople,
Greece."31
27 ButM. Priselkov'sthesisis stillalive. See, forinstance,
M. Ju. Brajcevs'kyj,Utverdzenie
na Rusi(Moscow, 1987),
na Rusi(Kiev, 1988),pp. 171-73; Vvedeniexristianstva
xristjanstva
pp. 149-208; Kak byla krescenaRus (Moscow,1988),pp. 237f.
28 Mller,llarionLobrede,pp. 102,118- 19; Moldovan,Slovo,pp. 92, 97.
29 Cf. N. Schneider,
CivitasCelestis:StudienzumJerusalemSymbolismus
(Mnster,1969);
Christentum,
pp. 119f.
Podskalsky,
30 See C. Mango,Byzantine
Architecture
(New York,1976),Reg.; Poppe, "Buildingof St.
zodcestvokoncaX-nacala XII v. (Moscow,
Sophia," pp. 30-56; A. I. Komec,Drevnerusskoe
"O rolivizantijskogo
vlijanijav raz1987),pp. 133-232, 316-18. Cf.also P. A. Rappoport,
45 (1984): 185-91.
vremennik
vitiidrevnerusskoj
Vizantijskij
arxitektury,"
31
in Quellen
ecclesiae Pontificum,"
"MagistriAdam Bremensis,Gesta Hammaburgensis
Kircheunddes Reiches(Berlin,
derHamburgischen
zurGeschichte
des 9 undII Jahrhunderts
of the chroniclerrecordedbetween 1072-76 that
1961), p. 254. The information
clarissimum
"Ruzziae. . .metropoliscivitasest Chive, aemula scerptriConstantinopolitani,
decusGreciae" (lib. II, 22) has been misinterpreted
(also in Englishtranslation,
by Tschan,
Butthereareno groundsforsuch
1959,p. 67) tomeanthatKiev was a rivalofConstantinople.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS'

299

theapostolicmissionof Volodimer,Ilarionreached
Without
diminishing
in Rus' whenhe called 01' ga the
back to the prehistory
of Christianity
of theApostle-like
ruler.Thushe showedthatrecognition
of
grandmother
thetruefaithhad begunin Rus' decadesbeforethebaptism,also withthe
of Constantinople.For Ol'ga, too, Constantinople
was the
participation
New Jerusalem.In his homageto bothheavenlyand terrestrial
powers,
Ilarionknewhowto striketherightchordsandtherightbalance.
Althoughthe visionof the Rus' conversionpresentedby Ilarionhad
above all a religiousand theologicalshape,it also conveyedone political
benefitforthenewlyconvertedcountry:ChristianRus' had become the
nations.
equal associateofotherChristian
authors
did
not
add
muchto thisconceptionof theconverSubsequent
sion of Rus', butdid borrowa good deal fromit. The adoptedideas are
readilyfoundin Nestor's Life of Boris and Glb, in the anonymous
"Memoryand Eulogyof Volodimer,"and finallyin thePrimaryChronicle.32
The Primary
Chronicle'saccountdid notstopwithIlarion's vision,formulatedhalf a centuryearlier. That vision was stronglyspiritual,but
skippedover many historicalrealitiesand details associated with the
conversion.Withthepassage of time,questionsarose,manythingswere
or remembered
and legendsbeganto proliferate.The
forgotten
inexactly,
chronicle'sentryfor the year 988 cannotbe considered"the principal
sourceof ourknowledgeof theevent" of theRus' conversion.33
Research
showsthatthechronicle'saccountof theconversionof Rus' was a legend
"vestedin historical
written
over
garments,"and thatit was a compilation
one hundred
after
the
conversion
took
Its
core
is
the
years
place.
legendof
Volodimer'sconversion
at Kherson.The compilation
is comprisedof "The
speech of philosopher"and "The confessionof faith." The Kherson
an interpretation.
Aemulaalso means"imitation,"and thissenseno doubtcorresponds
to the
whenKiev endeavored
to resembletheByzantine
realityintheeleventh
century,
capital.
32 As it is, the
knownas the"Memoryand Eulogyof Volodimer"belongsto
compilation
thethirteenth
eventhoughsomecomponents
can be datedto theeleventhcentury.See
century,
Christentum,
Podskalsky,
pp. 116ff.;A. Poppe,inSSS 4 (1970): 16-18. Cf.also E. Fet,inSlovaf kniznikov,
thesisthatthePatriarchate
ofConstanpp. 280-90, whorepeatstheimprobable
of Volodimer.The questionsof theborrowings
in "Memory
tinopleopposedthecanonization
andEulogy" fromIlarion's sermonhaveyetto be investigated.
On thePrimary
see
Chronicle,
L. Mller,"Ilarionunddie Nestorchronik,"
HarvardUkrainianStudies12 (1988) (forthcoming).
33 Such treatment
of theChronicle,if withsome limitations,
prevails;it is clearlyexpressed
EasternEurope 500-1453 (London,
by D. Obolenskyin The ByzantineCommonwealth:
1971),p. 193. Cf. also idem,Byzantine
revisionsof this
Inheritance,2: 132. For remarkable
traditional
opinion,see L. Mller,Die TaufeRusslands(Munich,1987), pp. 107-116, and
Naisancede la chrtient
russe(Paris,1988),pp. 63-81.
especiallyV. Wodoff,

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

300

ANDRZEJPOPPE

have been Greekin languagebutsurelywas Kherlegendmayoriginally

sonianin spirit;it was formedin thesecondhalfof theeleventhcentury,
of stilllivelycontactswiththeCrimea,promoted
undertheinfluence
bythe
of theCaves.34These contactsoriginated
Kiev Monastery
the
during time
of theconversion,
whensomemembersof theKhersonclergywereforced
to go northand take partin the conversionof Rus'. Also the spoils of
war- holyrelics,churchitems,and icons- weresentnorth,because they
wereurgently
neededfornewchurchesin Kiev andinotherRus' cities.35
The chronicler,
to presenttheconversion
as
followingIlarion,attempted
a significant
was composedwithout
a
religiousoccurrence.So hisnarration
of
but
as
an
of
the
decrees
of
Provievents,
logicalsequence
interpretation
dence. Althoughthechroniclecannotbe read as a reliablesourceforthe
eventsof 986-989, it is remarkable
evidenceof theknowledgeof
primary
Christianwritings
and of religiousand historicalconsciousnessin Rus' at
the turnof the eleventhand the beginningof the twelfthcentury.The
chronicle'sprovidential
accountof theconversionprovidessufficient
terrestrialdata whileclearlyfocusingattention
on and amplifying
theGreek
role. Now it is notthePantocrator
who visitsand elucidatesthefaithto
but
a
Greek
who in a long speechpersuadesthe
Volodimer,
philosopher
Rus' rulerof thesuperiority
of "the Greekfaith." The choice of faithis
leftto Volodimer,butwiththeparticipation
of theRus' nobilityand with
on
the
of
the
riteas a substanByzantineliturgical
emphasis
magnificence
tial argument.The noblesalso influenceVolodimerto adoptthe "Greek
to thegood exampleofhisgrandmother
religion"bypointing
Ol'ga, "who
was wiserthanall othermen." It seemsthatVolodimeris convinced,but
he decides"to waita bit."36
Now Providencebeginsto work: without
reasonVolodianyparticular
a campaignagainstKherson,capturesthecity,and claims
merundertakes
theirsisterAnnain marriage.The
fromtheemperors
Basil andConstantine
34 For the
Englishtextof the philosopher'sspeech,see Cross, PrimaryChronicle,pp.
97-116; "Cherson Legende,"ibidem,pp. 111-13, 116; "Credo," ibidem,pp. 113-15. On
see Podskalsky,
205ff.;A. Poppe,"LegendeKorsurska,"
theliterature,
Christentum,
pp. 18ff.,
muchearlier,in Bulgaria,butitsadapSSS 3 (1967): 34f. The speechmayhavebeentranslated
tationaddressedto Volodimercould have appearedonlysometimeafter1054,becauseof its
anti-Latin
tendencies.
35 The
Chroniclein statingthattherelicsof St. Clementand St.
of thePrimary
reliability
to Kiev (PSRL, 1:116; Cross,PrimaryChronicle,p. 116) and werethere
Phebuswerebrought
is confirmed
at themiddleoftheeleventh
century
bya noticein thepsalter"Odalricipraepositi
"Odalricde Reims,ses manuscrits
et les reliquesde
Remensisecclesiae." See B. de Gaiffier,
saintClment Cherson,"in tudesde CivilisationMdivale(X-XIIe sicles). Mlanges
E.-R.Labande(Poitiers,1974),pp. 315-20, esp. p. 318.
offerts
36 PSRL, 1: 108, 106; Cross,PrimaryChronicle, 111, 110.
pp.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONVERSION OF RUS '

301

althoughequals to Volodimer,are reducedto actingas instruemperors,

ments of Providence,agreeingto the marriageon the conditionof
themthathe has alreadystudVolodimer'
s conversion.The princeinforms
ied theirreligionand is readyto be baptized.Annaobjects,butnonetheless
sendherto Kherson.
theemperors
loses his
AfterAnna's arrivalin Kherson,Volodimermysteriously
"I have
he
is
cured
and
his
miraculously
says,
baptism,
eyesight.Upon
now perceivedthe one trueGod."37 VolodimerreturnsKhersonto the
withhis newbrideand clergyas a dowryforAnna,and together
emperors
to Kiev, wherethe baptismof its inhabitants
men fromKhersonreturns
soontakesplace.
EasternOrthodoxtenetsand therole of Khersonin theconversionof
reasonsthatmadeBasil II ask
Rus' are visiblyaccentuated.The terrestrial
brother-in-law
to capturetherebelliouscitythatsupported
his prospective
Bardas Phokas are passed over in silence.38Insteadof a punishedcity,
Khersonis depictedas a fortunate
one,chosenby God to be thebaptismal
s intentto marrya porphyrogenite
site of the rulerof Rus'. Volodimer'
becomes evidentonly afterthe city is captured.Khersonbecomes the
sitefortheweddingof theRus' princewiththeByzantineprincess.
fitting
So, severalscoresof yearsafterKhersonwas leftdefeatedand humiliated,
intoa sitechosenbyProa pillagedandhalf-burned
city,itwas transfomed
videnceforglory.The Khersonlegendimpliesthatthecityrenderedgood
servicesbothtotheempireandto Rus'. Forthesmallbutinfluential
groups
(mostlyclergy)fromKhersonwho followedVolodimerand Anna northward,Rus' becamea newhomeland.The legend,embellished
bydetailsof
in
has
held
a
durable
the
varyingcredibility,
place
pragmatic
expositionof
ofRus' fornearlythelastninehundred
thehistory
years.
The chronicle'sversionof theconversion,
whencomparedto Ilarion's,
notonlydiminishes
Volodimer'
s role,butalso indirectly
putsintoquestion
his apostolicmission. An insertionintothe chronicleat the turnof the
eleventhcenturyrelates the legend of the apostle Andrewwandering
Rus'.39The apostle'selevationof a cross on thehillsthatwould
through
becomethesiteof Kiev has evidentecclesiasticaland politicalovertones,
because Andrew,accordingto tradition
goingback to thefourthcentury,
was thefirst
thecityof Constantine.The crossraised
bishopof Byzantion,
37 PSRL, 1: 111; Cross,
PrimaryChronicle,
p. 113.
38 Formoredetail,see
Poppe,"Background,"pp. 221-24, 238-40, 242; and idem,"ChersonandtheBaptismofRus'," Zapysky
Naukovohotovarystva
im. Sevcenka(forthcoming).
39 PSRL, 1:7-9; Cross,
PrimaryChronicle,pp. 53-54. Cf. Podskalsky,Christentum,
pp.
1Iff.;Mller,Die TaufeRusslands,pp. 9-16.

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

302

ANDRZEJPOPPE

at Kiev as an apostolicact reducedVolodimerto therole of executorof

divineand apostolicpredestination.Some Kievan writings
contradict
the
legend:forinstance,St. Paul is said to have been the firstteacherof the
fromIlarion'sviewpointmustnotbe seen as a
Slavs.40Yet thedeparture
to discreditit. Rather,otheraccountsshouldbe viewed
consciousattempt
as variousanswersto questionsthatbeganto emergefirst
amongtheclergy,
especially in monasteriesand at court. The frame of the Primary
butat thesametimeitgave thereadera
Chronicle'saccountis providential,
well suitedtheperceptions
The
colorfulhistorical
of
portrayal. description
whosegrandfathers
and greatgrandfathers
had witnessedthe
a generation
triedtoreconstruct
andto understand
the
conversion.A younger
generation
conversionaccordingto theirown perceptions.In Kherson,tradition
animatedand shapedanewthisGreekcity'srolein theevent.The adoption
of theninthand tenthcenturies,
and themostly
in Rus' of Slavic writings
ecclesiasticalrelationswiththe countryof the "true faith,"added some
elementsto thepicture.Today,afterthelapse of a millencontradictory
nium,scholarskeeptoilingoveraccumulated
enigmas.
WarsawUniversity

40 See PSRL, 1:28; Cross,PrimaryChronicle, 63. On thewholeproblem,

see myarticle,
p.
"Two Conceptsof theConversionof Rus' in the Kievan Writings,"to appearin Harvard
Ukrainian
Studies12 (1988).

This content downloaded from 197.37.164.177 on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:14:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions