The Relations between Byzantium and Russia (11th-15th Century)

Dimitri Obolensky, Oxford University The history of Russo-Byzantine relations, in the study of which Russian scholars, before and after ! ", have understandably #layed the leadin$ role, has in recent years attracted the attention of Byzantinists in many countries% &ts im#ortance was demonstrated a$ain in !'', when it formed one of the main to#ics on the a$enda of the (&&&th &nternational )on$ress of Byzantine *tudies, held in Oxford% & do not wish to re#eat the ar$uments and conclusions voiced by the authors of #a#ers on this sub+ect #resented at the )on$ress notably ,%,% -itavrin, .%/% 0azdan, 1%2% Udalcova, &% *evcenko, 3% von -ilienfeld, D% *% -ikhacev and 4% 5eyendorff - nor to summarise the earlier findin$s of *oviet authorities in this field, such as 5%2% -evcenko and 5%6% Tikhomirov% 6or could & attem#t in this brief #a#er, even if & wished, a com#rehensive survey of the relations - #olitical, reli$ious, economic, cultural and artistic-between the Byzantine 7m#ire and Russia durin$ four and a half centuries% &t seems #referable, in the circumstances, to set myself a 8more limited aim% & #ro#ose to consider three #roblems which, in my o#inion, deserve fuller investi$ation% They can be #ut in the form of 9uestions: ; <hat reasons im#elled the rulin$ classes of Byzantium and Russia to maintain and develo# relations between their res#ective countries= >; ?ow far was the Byzantine theory of the 7m#ire8s universal he$emony com#atible with the #olitical soverei$nty of the Russian rulers= @; ?ow did the different social $rou#s in medieval Russia res#ond to Byzantium8s cultural im#act= &n the brief remarks that follow & cannot, of course, claim to #rovide a com#lete answer to these 9uestions% Their aim can be no more than to stimulate further discussion% I. The Motivation o Russo-Byzantine Relations The motive forces behind these relations will be ri$htly understood only if it is reco$nised that those who #romoted them were often im#elled by $enuine and disinterested #ersonal beliefs% &t is inconceivable, for instance, that Russia8s conversion to )hristianity could ever have been achieved had not her rulin$ and educated classes included men and women whose minds and hearts were taken ca#tive by the s#iritual and 8moral doctrines #reached by the Byzantine missionaries, and had not many of the latter been fired by the exam#le of the early a#ostles of )hristianity who followed their 5aster8s command to $o and teach the ,os#el to all nations A5atthew ((2&&&, !;% .t the same time, however, there can be no doubt that the relations between Byzantium and Russia were determined by motives of self-interest% .t all times #owerful #olitical and economic reasons im#elled the statesmen of Byzantium to cultivate $ood relations with the Russians% The military threat which the latter had so often #resented to the 7m#ire

between B'C and !B! was not removed by their conversion to Byzantine )hristianity: the Russian naval attack in CD@ #roved 9uite as #erilous to the security of )onstantino#le as the earlier raids on im#erial territory launched by the #rinces of 0iev>% Only by reachin$ a #ermanent #olitical a$reement with the Russians could the dan$er of its re#etition be removed% This was lar$ely achieved by the treaty of CD', cemented by a marria$e alliance between the rulin$ houses of Byzantium and 0iev@: never a$ain did the Russians wa$e a ma+or war a$ainst the 7m#ire% Their ability to do so, it is true, was im#aired by the attacks of the )umans Aor /olovtsy; on their southern borders, which be$an in C' , and by the fissi#arous tendencies which a##eared in the Russian realm soon after CED and which, in the followin$ century, caused it to break u# into several virtually autonomous #rinci#alities% This new situation was ably ex#loited by the Byzantine $overnment which, in the rei$n of 5anuel )omnenus A D@- BC; used with some success the #rinci#alities of 0iev, *uzdal and ,alicia as #awns on the chessboard of its 7uro#ean di#lomacyD% Then as in the eleventh century Awhen the 2aran$ian ,uard, #artly recruited from Russia, #layed an im#ortant #art in the 7m#ire8s armies E; mercenary troo#s as well as military hel# from Russia were hi$hly valued in )onstantino#le% .bout >CC, for instance, an attack of the )umans a$ainst )onstantino#le was #revented by the military action of the #rince of ,aliciaF and a contem#orary Byzantine writer acknowled$ed the 7m#ire8s debt to Gthe most )hristian nation of the RussiansH, whose G,od-mustered #halanxH relieved the #ressure on the im#erial ca#ital'% The im#ortance which the Byzantines attached to their #olitical relations with Russia was demonstrated a$ain in the late 5iddle .$es when, after a #eriod of ecli#se which followed the sack of )onstantino#le by the armies of the 3ourth )rusade and the 5on$ol con9uest of Russia, these relations revived once more% &n the second half of the fourteenth century Byzantium, faced with an acute #olitical crisis, economic ruin and the Turkish advance, was fi$htin$ for its life% &t was clear that only forei$n aid on a massive scale could save the dyin$ 7m#ire% 6aturally enou$h, the eyes of its statesmen turned once a$ain to the north, where 5uscovy, whose economic and military #ower were on the increase, had embarked on the task of G$atherin$H eastern Russia under its sway% &n DCC the #atriarch of )onstantino#le wrote to the #rimate of the Russian )hurch, ur$in$ him to raise funds for the defence of )onstantino#leF he was to assure his flock that it was more meritorious to contribute money for this #ur#ose than to build churches, to $ive alms to the #oor, or to redeem #risoners"% There is no evidence that the rulers of 5oscow ever accorded military assistance to the 7m#ire at this time of des#erate need% But on several occasions in the fourteenth century, they sent $ifts of money to )onstantino#leB% The value of this financial aid may be $au$ed by the fact that the Byzantine authorities were reduced to #awnin$ the crown +ewels and to usin$ leaden and earthenware $oblets for the feast of the em#eror8s coronation in @D"!, and by the com#laint of a contem#orary that the im#erial treasury contained nothin$ but Gair, dust, and 7#icurean atomsH C% Russia8s economic value to the 7m#ire was enhanced by trade% )ommercial relations between the two countries are first clearly attested in the tenth century, and the sta#le articles of Russian ex#ort-slaves, furs, wax and honey- continued to be shi##ed to )onstantino#le in later times% &n exchan$e, articles of luxury intended for the rulin$ classes-silken fabrics, +ewellery, fruit and wine-

as well as icons and other ob+ects for the use of the )hurch, were ex#orted from Byzantium to Russia% The same basically GcolonialistH commercial #olicy was #ursued by the 7m#ire towards Russia in the late 5iddle .$es, with the Russians su##lyin$ Byzantium with raw materials in exchan$e for manufactured $oods% .lthou$h the benefit which this trade brou$ht to the 7m#ire was reduced by the fact that much of it was then controlled by the ,enoese and the 2enetians, food su##lies from the northern hinterland of the Black *ea remained of vital im#ortance to )onstantino#le % Trade was an im#ortant factor, too, in the Russians8 determination to maintain their relations with Byzantium% The #rivile$es accorded to the Russian merchants in )onstantino#le had, it seems, been si$nificantly curtailed since the early tenth centuryF but they were still welcome there and, thanks to the $oods which they brou$ht back to 0iev and other Russian cities, the rulin$ classes of their native land were able to a##reciate the sartorial and culinary deli$hts of Byzantine civilisation and to indul$e their taste for luxurious livin$% The #resti$e which came from #olitical association with Byzantium, $reatly valued by Russian #rinces of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, does not seem to have been any less a##reciated by them in the late 5iddle .$es, when the 7m#ire was but a shadow of its former self% 3inally, the desire to #ossess the fruits of Byzantium8s civilisation, and es#ecially to be $uided by the doctrinal authority and s#iritual ex#erience of its )hurch, must be reckoned amon$ the essential reasons which im#elled the Russians to kee# o#en the channels of communication with the cities and monasteries of the 7m#ire% II. Russia!s "osition in the Byzantine Commonwealth o #ations &n the Byzantine view, the relations between the 7m#ire and other countries, #articularly those whose rulers had acce#ted the 7astern Orthodox form of )hristianity, were not, and could not be, relations between e9uals% &t was axiomatic to the #olitical thinkin$ of the Byzantines that their em#eror was the kosmokrator, whose authority, ideally coextensive with the Oikoumene, the civilised world, extended in #ractice over those lands of 7astern 7uro#e which from the reli$ious and cultural stand#oint lay within the 7m#ire8s orbit% By the tenth century, as we see from the Book of )eremonies, they had evolved the conce#t of a hierarchy of subordinate states, revolvin$ in obedient harmony round the throne of the universal autocrat in )onstantino#le% This international society of nations, conceived of by their #olitical #hiloso#hy, may, & believe, le$itimately be termed the Byzantine )ommonwealth% 7ntry into this )ommonwealth was secured for a $iven country by its ruler8s acce#tance of Byzantine )hristianity, and im#licitly thereby of the em#eror8s soverei$nty% 5edieval Russia was, in the eyes of the Byzantines, no exce#tion to this rule% Byzantine claims to #olitical he$emony over the country are attested in a number of documents% &n B'" the /atriarch /hotius asserted that the Russians, by acce#tin$ Byzantine )hristianity, had become Gsub+ectsH (hypekooi; and GfriendsH Aproxenoi; of the 7m#ire >% The same ty#e of relationshi#, in which the conce#ts of sub+ection and alliance were combined, is, in my o#inion, im#lied in the term hypospondos used by )innamus to define the status occu#ied in the mid-twelfth century by the #rince of ,alicia vis-I-vis the 7m#eror

5anuel )omnenus @, and in the symmachia offered in 'E by the same em#eror to the #rince of 0iev D% & have ar$ued elsewhere that all these technical terms can best be understood in the li$ht of the Roman conce#tion of GfoederatioH which defined the status of the Gsocii #o#uli RomaniH, autonomous sub+ects of the em#ire who, by virtue of a treaty Afoedus; concluded with Rome, $uarded her frontiers in exchan$e for a re$ular subsidy, im#erial #rotection and the ri$ht of self$overnment E% The most elo9uent and ex#licit assertion of the Byzantine claims to soverei$nty over Russia was made between @!D and @!" by the #atriarch of )onstantino#le, .nthony &2% &n a letter to Basil & of 5oscow, in which he rebuked him for removin$ the em#eror8s name from the commemorative di#tychs of the Russian )hurch and for declarin$ Gwe have the )hurch, but not the em#erorH, the #atriarch stated: G&t is not #ossible for )hristians to have the )hurch and not to have the em#erorH% GThe holy em#erorH, he $oes on to say, Gis not as other rulers and $overnors of other re$ions are%%% he is consecrated basileus and autokrator of the Romans - that is, of all )hristiansH '% <hat was the attitude of the Russians to these $randilo9uent claims= &t seems to me that to answer this 9uestion correctly we must distin$uish not merely between #olitics and ideolo$y, but also between different conce#tions of soverei$nty held, at least in 7astern 7uro#e, by the men of the 5iddle .$es% &n terms of #olitical #ower there is no evidence that the Russian #rinces in this #eriod ever behaved as sub+ects of the em#eror of ByzantiumF nor is it likely that they would ever have tolerated, exce#t in ecclesiastical matters, his direct intervention in the internal affairs of their #rinci#alities% &t is e9ually obvious that the em#erors lacked the military and #olitical means to im#ose their dominion over the Russian #rinces, as the khans of the ,olden ?orde were able to do between >DC and DBC by im#osin$ tribute and conferrin$ investiture u#on them% 6or could the metro#olitans of 0iev and 5oscow, even when they were Byzantine citizens and thus to some de$ree the em#eror8s #olitical a$ents, ever ho#e to enforce his direct soverei$nty over their Russian flock% ,eo$ra#hical distance, the #ower wielded by the Russian #rinces in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the 5on$ol domination, and the $rowin$ weakness of the 7m#ire in the late 5iddle .$es-these facts #revented Russia from ever becomin$ in any meanin$ful sense a #olitical de#endency of Byzantium% .nd yet there is evidence to show that at different times between the conversion of Russia to )hristianity in the late tenth century and the fall of the 7m#ire in DE@ the belief that the basileus was the su#reme head of the )hristian )ommonwealth, and that as such he #ossessed a measure of +urisdiction over Russia, was acce#ted by the rulers of that country% The em#eror8s su#reme #osition in )hristendom was em#hasised in the Nomocanones, the manuals of Byzantine canon law, which formed the constitution of the Russian )hurch ", and also in the G?ortatory )ha#tersH of the six-thcentury Byzantine writer .$a#etus which, in a *lavonic translation, en+oyed some #o#ularity in medieval Russia B% The authors of the Russian /rimary )hronicle, in accordance with this outlook, ascribed to the em#eror the hi$hest rank in )hristendom, su#erior to that of local #rinces !% 2ladimir & assumed at his ba#tism the name of the rei$nin$ em#eror of Byzantium, Basil &&, thereby acknowled$in$ that within the family of )hristian rulers the latter was his s#iritual GfatherH% &n the frescoes which /rince Jaroslav caused to be #ainted about CDE, in his cathedral of *t% *o#hia in 0iev, and which re#resented him and

his family, the #rince8s head is unnimbed and his clothes, while de#icted with some s#lendour, lacked some of the attributes of the Byzantine em#eror>CF by contrast, in another cycle of frescoes #ainted in the same church durin$ the first 9uarter of the twelfth century, the em#eror is shown #residin$ over the $ames in the ?i##odrome in )onstantino#le, and his head is surrounded by a nimbus, a characteristic feature of im#erial icono$ra#hy> % &n the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century a Russian ruler is said to have borne the Byzantine court title of ' !"# Aof which the Russian e9uivalent was #ossibly stolnik;, and his envoy to )onstantino#le, a Byzantine writer asserts, conveyed his master8s Greverent homa$eH to the 7m#eror .ndronicus &&>>% &n a letter written in @D" to *ymeon, the $rand #rince of 5oscow, the 7m#eror 4ohn 2& )antacuzenus wrote: GJes, the em#ire of the Romans, as well as the most holy ,reat )hurch of ,od Ki%e% the /atriarchate of )onstantino#leL is-as you yourself have writtenthe source of all #iety and the teacher of law and sanctificationH>@% This clearly im#lies the existence of an earlier-not extant-letter written by the Russian soverei$n, in which he ex#licitly acknowled$ed the em#eror8s le$islative authority over Russia% .nd in DE>, the year before the fall of )onstantino#le, the $rand #rince of 5oscow, Basil &&, wrote to the 7m#eror )onstantine (& in these terms: GJou have received your $reat im#erial sce#tre, your #atrimony, in order to confirm all the Orthodox )hristians of your realm and to render $reat assistance to our Russian dominion and to all our reli$ionH>D% The idea that the em#eror en+oys certain #rero$atives in Russia% thou$h veiled in di#lomatic lan$ua$e, is clearly a##arent in these two late medieval texts% The a##arent conflict between G#olitical realityH, a #lane on which medieval Russia was wholly Ginde#endentH of Byzantium, and the Gs#here of ideolo$yH in which the 7m#ire8s universalist claims were in some measure acce#ted by the Russians, has often been #ointed out by historians% *ometimes, it seems to me, this contradiction has been made to a##ear more intractable than it need be by a tendency - whether conscious or not - to view Russo-Byzantine relations from the stand#oint of modern interstate relations or else in terms of a stru$$le between Russian GnationalismH and Byzantine Gim#erialismH% &t may be doubted whether these are very hel#ful criteria with which to a##roach this #roblem% On both sides of the Black *ea medieval statesmen were actuated by a mixture of $ealpolitik and more abstract conce#tions rooted in the #olitical thou$ht of the time% . basic axiom of this thou$ht was the existence of a sin$le )hristian community, whose centre was in Byzantium, destined to foreshadow on earth the heavenly kin$dom% &t did not follow that every nation within this )ommonwealth owed direct #olitical alle$iance to the em#eror% The Byzantines were not such #edantic doctrinaires as to claim that the Russian #rinces were in fact their em#eror8s servants% 7ven the title of %"&'() *+ ',-&*+ assumed in the middle of the fourteenth century by the 7m#eror 4ohn )antacuzenus>E, %must have been little more than a #sycholo$ical com#ensation for Byzantium8s #resent im#otence and #erha#s a #ious ho#e for the future% .s for the Russians, they too were #erfectly ca#able of thinkin$ of their country8s relations with the 7m#ire on two #lanes% To conceive of different ty#es of soverei$nty was %not so very difficult for men of the 5iddle .$es% &n his own lands the Russian #rince was a fully soverei$n ruler, a true samoder.hets Aat least before the 5on$ol invasion;F in relation to Byzantium, as "!/-+ ',*&0" , he occu#ied a subordinate #osition in the hierarchal structure of the )ommonwealth% &n the last resort, althou$h it would be vain to attem#t to

define the #olitical relations between Byzantium and medieval Russia in #recise le$al or constitutional terms, it is not, & believe, misleadin$ to su$$est that from the country8s conversion to )hristianity to the fall of Byzantium in DE@ the Russian rulers-with the sole recorded exce#tion of Basil & of 5uscovy - acknowled$ed, at least tacitly, that the em#eror was the head of the )hristian )ommonwealth% III. The Cultural Im"a$t o Byzantium u"on Russia 5y aim in this concludin$ section is not to attem#t a $eneral assessment of medieval Russia8s debt to Byzantine civilisation, but to raise a few 9uestions, some of them methodolo$ical, which deserve to be more fully considered by students of RussoByzantine relations% &n recent years historians have shown a $rowin$ interest in the #roblems of cultural diffusion and GacculturationH>'% These forms of culture-contact are usually hi$hly com#lex #henomena, and the historian, who still lacks the ob+ective criteria for the com#arative study of cultures which are today bein$ evolved by anthro#olo$ists and sociolo$ists, can rarely ho#e to $ras# them in their entirety% One thin$ is certain, however: the #rocess of cultural borrowin$ is seldom if ever a #urely #assive one% The diffusion of Byzantine civilisation to Russia, for instance, was made #ossible by the Russians8 willin$ness to Greach outH for its fruits% 5oreover, in its new Russian environment this civilisation was ada#ted to local needs and conditions, throu$h a #rocess of selection whereby its various elements were acce#ted, re+ected, or transformed% *everal factors #layed their #art in this double #rocess of cultural transmission and creative borrowin$: amon$ them were the trade routes, alon$ which Byzantine missionaries, #ainters, architects, di#lomats and material $oods travelled northward from )onstantino#le: intermediaries such as the 2aran$ians who, in their constant travels between )onstantino#le and the Russian cities, became carriers of Byzantine ideas and customsF and communities whose $eo$ra#hical location or cosmo#olitan nature brou$ht citizens of both countries into #rolon$ed #ersonal contact: such were the Russian colony in )onstantino#le and the leadin$ monasteries of the Byzantine world, es#ecially 5ount .thos% .nother im#ortant factor were the social, #olitical and economic conditions which #revailed in Russia at the time of the Grece#tionH of Byzantine civilisation% &t is an observable fact that this civilisation was assimilated most ra#idly and effectively in those 7ast 7uro#ean countries which had evolved or were evolvin$ a centralised form of $overnment% Thus 2ladimir & ruled over a realm with relatively well develo#ed monarchical traditions, and was therefore able to im#ose new cultural and reli$ious #atterns u#on his sub+ects by #ersonal exam#le and the use of force% The relationshi# between the $rowth of monarchical institutions and the acce#tance of Byzantine culture was often a reci#rocal oneF not only did #olitical centralisation #ave the way for ByzantinizationF the reverse was e9ually true% )hristianity, to$ether with the social ideolo$y and material tra##in$s that came with it, enabled the Russian monarchs of the early 5iddle .$es to claim divine sanction for their soverei$nty, to unite their sub+ects by the common #rofession of an exclusive faith, and to exalt their own status by royal dress and state ceremonial #artly modelled on the ritual of the im#erial court% The res#onse of the aristocracy to the social chan$es that came with Byzantine influence seems to have been ambivalent% On the one hand, the im#ort of $oods from the 7m#ire satisfied their $rowin$ consumer needs and enabled them to share

with their soverei$n in the social #resti$e attendant on $reater wealth and education% On the other hand, the new reli$ion threatened to undermine their ancient #rivile$es whose ori$in and +ustification lay in the #a$an way of life% .n instance of social #ressure exerted by the #rivile$ed classes in order to kee# their #rince in the strai$ht #ath of #a$anism is #rovided by the story of *vyatoslav of 0iev, who is said to have declared that he could not become a )hristian because he feared that his retainers Adru.hina; would lau$h at him>"% .nother exam#le of a resistance-#assive and ineffectual this time-offered to the invasion of the traditional culture by Byzantine civilisation was the des#air felt by women of the leadin$ families of Russia, whose children were forcibly conscri#ted by 2ladimir & for #ur#oses of )hristian education>B% . more #owerful resistance to the new reli$ious and social order, this time ori$inatin$ in the #easant classes, was recorded in the eleventh century in different #arts of Russia, #articularly in outlyin$ famine-stricken districts of the northeast% . series of militantly anti-)hristian, GrevivalistH, movements were led by Gma$iciansH A1olkh1y; claimin$ to #ossess su#ernatural #owers and the $ift of #ro#hecy, who #ersuaded their followers to massacre local landowners, on the $rounds that they were hoardin$ food>!, These #a$an revolts, which s#read to 0iev and 6ov$orod and were violently su##ressed by the state authorities, show that nearly a hundred years after Russia8s official conversion the new #atterns of faith and behaviour brou$ht from Byzantium could still #rovoke aversion and fear in #easant communities whose traditional ways of life were threatened with extinction% These outbursts of hostility seem to have been s#oradic and im#ermanent% The new Byzantine culture, for reasons already ex#lained, held a stron$ a##eal for many Russians% &n all classes of the #o#ulation there were those on whom the ,os#el teachin$, with its messa$e of s#iritual re$eneration, had a $enuine im#act and whose hearts were softened and held ca#tive by the beauty of litur$ical worshi# #erceived throu$h eye and ear% .nd amon$ the more educated, whose reli$ious and social #reoccu#ations had centered hitherto on family, clan, tribe or kin$dom, there must have been not a few to whom the universal #ers#ectives of the )hristian reli$ion offered a new and excitin$ ex#erience% 6ext to what mi$ht be termed the Gsociolo$icalH as#ect of Byzantium8s im#act u#on medieval Russia, a #roblem which re9uires further study is the de$ree to which Byzantine civilisation was ada#ted or transformed on Russian soil% The #roblem is too vast to be discussed even in a summary manner here% & must be content to identify its nature and to describe some of its difficulties% The Russians of the 5iddle .$es borrowed from the 7m#ire, directly or indirectly, its reli$ion, its law, its literature and its art% <ithin each of these fields Byzantine civilisation $ave rise to local #eculiarities and variations% These #erha#s can be most easily identified in the realm of literature, where the relative abundance of the sources allows fairly #recise conclusions to be drawn both about the ty#es of writin$ selected for translation from ,reek into *lavonic and about the views by Russian authors on their country8s relationshi# with Byzantium% &n the field of art, where #rincely, ecclesiastical, and merchant #atrona$e, and the tastes of local worksho#s tended in some de$ree to offset the cosmo#olitanism of art forms im#orted from Byzantium, the #roblem is more difficultF and the student of 7ast 7uro#ean medieval art has to tread warily between the conflictin$ views of native scholars who have sometimes tended to overem#hasise the ori$inality of their countries8 #roducts and of some Byzantinists who

re$ard them as #rovincial forms, not to say servile imitations, of )onstantino#olitan art% .lthou$h Russian secular law shows little si$n of direct Byzantine influence, any attem#t to distin$uish it from the #re-existin$ le$al traditions is bound to be tentative so lon$ as our knowled$e of *lav customary law remains rudimentary% The difficulties which face the student of Russian reli$ion are #ossibly $reater still, for the very nature of the reli$ious #atterns inherited from Byzantium #ermitted of no essential variations: Orthodox )hristianity was conceived of as a sacred and indivisible unity, no #art of which mi$ht be abstracted without dama$e to the whole% The history of medieval Russian monasticism, to take one exam#le, reveals an unswervin$ fidelity to Byzantine models% Jet it can scarcely be denied that Byzantine )hristianity did, in the course of time, ac9uire in Russia a distinctive local flavour, not indeed as the result of any arbitrary selection, but mainly because the Russians were inclined to em#hasise some features of this tradition, sin$lin$ out some s#ecial virtue or ty#e of behaviour as worthy of s#ecial admiration% The wides#read and #o#ular cult of the saintly #rinces Boris and ,leb, which rested on the belief that the innocent victim of assassination may be re$arded as a martyr - a cult which finds no analo$y in Byzantium - may #erha#s be taken as an instance of that #ity for human sufferin$ which was not the least of the 9ualities valued by the Russian #eo#le throu$hout their history% & would su$$est in conclusion that the attem#t to identify and describe the local GrecensionsH which Byzantine civilisation underwent in medieval Russia is, like the reco$nition of distinctive styles in art, a worthwhile undertakin$, however tentative its outcome may be% &n the last resort, however, these local variations may well #rove, from the historian8s view#oint, to be less si$nificant than the #attern of values, beliefs, and intellectual and aesthetic ex#erience which, in common with other #eo#les of 7astern 7uro#e, the Russians of the 5iddle .$es ac9uired from Byzantium%

References: *ee the 2roceedin3s of the 4555th 5nternational 6on3ress of 7y.antine 8tudies, ed% 4%5% ?ussey, D% Obolenskv, *% Runciman A-ondon, !'";% > *ee 9: ;ernadsky% The Byzantine-Russian <ar of CD@, G*Mdost-3orschun$enH, (&& A !E@;, D"-'"F 9:9: <ita1rin, /sell o #richinakh #osledne$o #okhoda russkikh na 0onstantino#ol v CD@, G2izantiisky 2reniennikH, ((2&& A !'";, " -B'%
@

*ee ;:<: =anin and 9:9: <ita1rin, 6oviye materialy o #roiskhozhdenii 2&adimira 5onomakha, G&storiko-arkheolo$ichesky sbornikH A5oscow, !'>;F >:;: 8olo1ie1, 5arie, fille de )onstantin &( 5onoma9ue, GByzantionH, (((&&& A !'@;, >D -BF ;:9: 7ryuso1a% 0 vo#rosu o #roiskhozhcienii 2&adirnira 5onomakha, G2izantiisky 2remennikH ((2&&& A !'B;, >"-@EF >: 2oppe, /anstwo i 0osciol na Rusi w (& wieku A<arsaw, !'B;, '!- @C% D *ee 9: ;ernadsky% Relations Byzantine-russes au (&le siNcle, GByzantionH, &2 A !>"-B;, >'!-"'F ?:;: <e1chenko, Ocherki #o istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnosheny A5oscow, !E';, D">-!"%

*ee ;:9: ;asile1sky, 2arya$o-russkaya i varya$o-an$liiskaya druzhina v 0onstantino#ole (& i (&& vv%, GTrudyH, & A*t% /etersbur$, !CB;F 7:8: 7enedik., The 7volution of the 2aran$ian Re$iment in the Byzantine .rmy, GByzantinische 1eitschriftH, -(&& A !'!;, >C-D%
' "

Nicetas 6honiates, ?istoria, ed% &% Bekker ABonn, B@E;, '! ->, >cta 2atriarchatus 6onstantinopolitani, ed% 3% 5iklosich and &% 5Mller, && A2ienna, B'>;, @' % B Nicephorus 9re3oras, ?istoriae Byzantinae, ed% &% Bekker% &&& ABonn, BEE;, !B->CCF /olnoe *obranie Russkikh -eto#isei, (& A*t% /etersbur$, B!";, 'BF cf% D% Obolensky, Byzantium and Russia in the -ate 5iddle .$es, G7uro#e in the -ate 5iddle .$esH, ed% 4% ?ale, R% ?i$hfield and B% *malley A-ondon, !'E;, >D!% ! *ee 9: Ostro3orsky, ?istory of the Byzantine *tate AOxford, !'B;, E>-'"% C Nicephorus 9re3oras, ?ist% Byz%, &&, "!C% *ee Obolensky, o#% cit%, >D!% > 2hotius, 7#istolae, 5/), )&&, "@'-"% @ 6innamus, ?istoria, ed% .% 5eineke ABonn, B@';, E% D 5bid%, >@E% E @: Obolensky, The /rinci#les and 5ethods of Byzantine Di#lomacy, G.ctes du (&le )on$rNs &nternational d87tudes ByzantinesH, & ABel$rade, !'@;, E"B% ' >cta 2atriarchatus 6onstantinopolitani, &&, BB-!>F cf% $usskaya 5storicheskaya 7iblioteka, 2&, .##endix DC, cols% >'E-"'% " *ee A: @1ornik, Byzantine /olitical &deas in 0ievan Russia, GDumbarton Oaks /a#ersH, &(( A !E';, "B-BE% B 5: 8e1Benko, . 6e$lected Byzantine *ource of 5uscovite /olitical &deolo$y, G?arvard *lavic *tudiesH, && A !ED;, D -"!F 5d%, On *ome *ources of /rince *vyaloslav8s &zbornik of the Jear C"', GOrbis *cri#tus, 3estschrift fur Dmitri+ Tschizewski+ zum "C% ,ebursta$H A5unich, !'';, ">@-@B% 2o1est ;remennykh <et, ed% 2%/% .drianova-/eretts and D%*% -ikhachev, A5oscow-enin$rad, !EC;, !E% >C *ee ;:N: <a.are1, 6oviye danniye o mozaikakh i freskakh *ofii 0ievskoy: $ru##ovoy #ortret semeistva Jaroslava, G2izantiisky 2remennikH, (2 A !E!;, DB-'!% > *ee >: 9rabar, -87m#ereur dans l8.rt Byzantin A/aris, !@';, '>-"D% >> C: Caupt, 6eue BeitrO$e zu den 3ra$menten des Dio )assius, G?ermesH, (&2 A B"!;, DDEF Nicephorus 9re3oras, ?ist% Byz%, &, >@!F cf% >: ;asilie1% <as Old Russia a 2assal *tate of Byzantium=, G*#eculumH, 2? A !@>;, @E@-D% >@ >cta 2atriarchatus 6onstantinopolitani, &, >'@% >D $usskaya 5storicheskaya 7iblioleka, 2&, E""% >E 6antacu.enus, ?istoriae, ed% -% *cho#en, &&& ABonn, B@>;, !D% >' *ee -8.cculturation, D45le 6on3rEs 5nternational des 8ciences CistoriFuesG $apports 5G 9rands HhemesI A2ienna, !'E;, "- C>%
>" >B !

2o1est ;remennykh <et, &, D'% 5bid%, B %

>!

5bid%, !!- CC,

'-> %