The Bulgarian Contribution To The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Rus

The President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Bulgarian Contribution to the Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Rus': The Myths
and the Enigma
Author(s): FRANCIS J. THOMSON
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 12/13, Proceedings of the International Congress
Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus'-Ukraine (1988/1989), pp. 214-261
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036314 .
Accessed: 28/05/2012 07:53
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
The BulgarianContributionto
theReceptionofByzantineCulturein KievanRus':
The MythsandtheEnigma
FRANCIS J.THOMSON
Dichtet,erfindet,träumet, Ha cBeTeHHor.uaflOBOJibHO,
hto6h kto
schreibtRomane; aber nennt miõyjxbcKa3anHeyjiuöancb Boiraromyio
es auch ROMANE: HecooöpasHOCTbh MHorne3ejioCMHimieHbie
der Name der GESCHICHTE ist ee
jnoflHcTaHyTnepecKa3WBaTi>
heilig, entweihetihn nicht. 3a HCTOpHiecxyio
HCTHHHy.
AugustL. vonSchlözer,1768,52. OcmiH. Cchkobckhö,
1834,59.
The conversion ofKievanRus' didnotlead to theintroductionofByzantine

Greekculture, butto thetransferen masseoftheresultsofovera century of
Bulgarian effortsto receiveand adaptthatcultureto Bulgaria'sown needs.
Despitetheconsiderablestudydevotedto Rus'-Bulgarianrelations,1 espe-
ciallyculturalones,2 some of themost basic questionsremainunanswered:
how was the transfer effected?Was the Bulgariancontribution to that
transferactive,a deliberatepolicy promotedby Bulgarianmissionaries,
scholarsand scribesin KievanRus', or was itpassive,a concomitantfactor
in a historicalprocesswhose motivating forceshouldbe soughtin Rus'-
Byzantinerelations?It is assertedboththatByzantineculturalinfluences
penetrated intotheUkrainianterritoriesoftendirectlyfromByzantium* and
thatdirectspiritualcontactwithByzantium and the Greek elementwas
secondarytothatfromBulgaria*
1 See Derzavin, Cbh3h; D.

Angelov, PycK, Tixomirov, Cbjkh; Cankova-Petkova, Bpt3KH; for
the earlierperiod see Mixajlov, PycH,and Pvchä.
2 See
Snegarov, Bpi>3Kn;Petkanova-Toteva, Bpi>3KH;B. Angelov, Bonpocy, HcTopHHTa and
IIpoHHKBaHe; Mosin, nepnoflroauHH; Dinekov, PacnpocTpaHeHHH,Mhchh and IlapajiejiH;
Pavlova, Bpi>3KH;Schmücker, Bemerkungen; Tot (=Tóth), npeanocujiKH; Birnbaum, "Com-
ponent," "Differences"; Kaliganov, CooöpaaceHHö; E. Georgiev, Hanajio; Litavrin,üepeBopor,
Rogov, Cbh3h (1978) and Cbjhh (1982). For earlier contributions see Mixajlov,
B3aHM00TH0IIieHHH.
3 Sevöenko,Roots,22.
4
Ways,vol. 1,5.
Florovsky,
THE BULGARIAN CONTRIBUTION 215
The reasonis notfarto seek: Thereis a strangediscrepancybetween

theenormousculturalinfluence whichBulgaria had on Rus' . . . and the
silence of the PrimaryChronicleabout Rus'-Bulgarianrelations.5This
silencehas led some historians to ignoreall Bulgarianinvolvement in the
and
transfer6 others, obliviousof theold dictum a posse ad esse non valet
consequentialto seek to explainit by hypotheses heapeduponspeculative
The
conjectures.7 very silence of the Primary Chronicle is itselftheobject
of speculationabouttheBulgarophobiaof its allegedlyGraecophilecom-
pilers,8to whichit could be repliednotonlythatby thetimeit was com-
piled Bulgariawas merelya provinceof theByzantineEmpire,9but also
thatdownto thelateeleventhcentury itshowslittleinterestin ecclesiastical
5 MoSin,IIepH0flH3auHH, 50. The lackof information aboutthespreadof Bulgarianlettersin

Kievan Rus' has oftenbeen commented upon,e.g. Sobolevskij,MaTepnajiM, 135; Snegarov,
Bpi>3KH, 50; Tóth,npeanocwjiKH, 50; Schmücker, Bemerkungen, 93.
6 E. Schick,Kirchengeschichte, vol. 4, 24-32; Zernov,Russians,7-12; cf.theremarkby
g.
Kawerau,Ostkirchengeschichte, 55: Bis zumJahre1000 A.D. etwawar auch die Christian-
isierungderrussischen StädtevonByzanzaus beendet.The sole history oftheRussianchurch
everpublishedin theSovietUnionnotmerelyfailsto mentionBulgariabutasserts:Not only
all thefirstbishops,butall thefirstpriestsand monksas wellin KievanRus' wereGreeks,N.
Nikol'skij,HcTopHH (1931), 43 (1983), 31; Lunt,"Interpreting," 259,thinkson thebasisofthe
absenceof evidencefortheuse of Slavonicthatat least untilVladimir'sdeathin 1015 the
clergywereGreekand Greekwas theliturgicallanguage. See also idem,"Language." His
view has recently been supported by Vodoff,"Questions." It is indeedtruethatjust as the
mannerof thetranslatiolitterarum slavicarumad Russosremainsan enigma,so too theexact
timeat whichitbeganis uncertain.It is possiblethatinitiallyGreekwas used in theliturgy -
therewereundoubtedly at leastsomeGreekclergyin Kiev,e.g. Anna'schaplains - butin view
of theabsenceof a knowledgeof GreekamongnativeEast Slavs (see note 172), thisGreek
periodcouldhardlyhave lastedverylongor putdownfirmroots. Withregardto theabsence
ofEast Slav codicesofthefirsthalfof the 1lthcentury, it mustbe bornein mindthatthefirst
Slavonicmanuscripts in Rus' wereof Bulgarianoriginand wouldonlygraduallyhave been
replacedas theneedarose. The training ofEast Slav scribeswillalso haverequiredsometime,
and thereis no reasonto doubtthatSouthSlav clergyrecruited forRus' copiedat leastsome
manuscripts there.
7 The kindest to theBulgarian
thingthatcouldbe said of thesole workdevotedspecifically
contribution to theconversionof KievanRus', viz. V. Nikolaev,QaKTop,is thatit belongsto
Schlözer'scategory ofRomane,see epigraph1. The recentattempt thisbookfrom
to resurrect
theoblivionto whichit has so justlybeenconsigned,see Hannick"Faktor,"345 and 355, is
all themoreincomprehensible in thatHannicklargelydeals withsome of Nikolaev's errors.
The idea thattheprincipalinfluence on theconversion of Kiev camefromMoravia,Bulgarian
influence beingonlysecondary, e.g. Popruzenko, E-bjrrapHA, 27, cannotbe examinedhere.
8
E.g. Priselkov,OnepKH,82-7; Nikol'skij,IIoBecTb,29; Koch, Byzanz,287; Pogorelov,
PycHTe,153; Nikolaev,4>aKTop, 29-48, 159. On thePrimaryChronicle'sinformation about
Bulgariasee Vaillant,"Bulgarie"; Zykov,H3Bccthh; Rajkov,EtJirapirre.
9 Mosin,IIepHOflH3aiîHH, 50; Schmücker, Bemerkungen, 93-4.
216 FRANCIS J.THOMSON
events10orrelationswithforeign countries.11
Withregardto theroleplayedin theconversion byBulgarianclergy,itis
usuallyassumedthatthefirstpriestsin Kievan Rus' musthave come from
Bulgaria,12and theirrole as teachers,translators,and scribes is often
stressed,13
althoughthere is no agreementas to whence theycame: were
theydespatchedfromMacedoniaby Tsar Samuel,14or fromEast Bulgaria,
since971 partoftheByzantineEmpire,byEmperorBasil II,15or werethey
refugeesfromthe Bulgaro-Byzantine conflict?16Or again, did theyonly
10 See Müller,Problem,53-5. It is ifthechronicleis reallyso Graecophile, thatit

strange,
does notsystematically mentiontheGreekmetropolitans.
11 See Zásterová,"Observations,"241.
Thus,forinstance,Olga's relationswiththeWest
areknownonlyfromWesternsources.
12 E. Saxmatov,3aMeTKH, 52; Istruì,Ovepx,1; Speranskij,
g. IlaMHTHHKH, 529; Luznyc'kyj,
IiepKBa,48; Tal'berg,Hctophh,52; Gudzij,JIirrepaTypa, 8; Vlasto,Entry,262-3; L. Müller,
Taufe,85; B. Angelov,HcTopHATa, vol. 1, 26; E. Georgiev,Haiajio, 20; Mixajlov,PycHM, 70;
Pogorelov,PycHTe,148, 153. Lixacev,Cbht,531, comparesthemto theIrishmonkson the
Europeancontinent.In actualfactthePrimary Chroniclesub 988 makesit quiteclearthatthe
firstprieststo go to Kiev afterVladimir'sbaptismwerefromCherson,notBulgaria,see PSRL
1, 1926,col. 116. ThattheywereGreekscan scarcelybe doubtedand occasionalclaimsthat
theywereSlavs,e.g. Koöev,"Anfange,"507, haveneverbeensubstantiated.
13
E.g. Makarij (Bulgakov), HcTopHX,vol. 1, 219-20; Golubinskij,O6pameHHe,190,
144-45, 191, 29-30, and idem,Hctopha,vol. 1, pt. 1, 191; Vlasovs'kyj,Hapncvol. 1, 68;
Selisõev,JbuK,vol. 1, 82; B. Angelov,Bonpocy,135; Pavlova,Bpi,3KH, 103; Tóth,Ilpea-
nocHJiKH, 172; Nikolaev,<I>aKTop, 143, 147; Schmücker, Bemerkungen, 91; Il'inskij,Btnpoca,
243, also stressestheiradministrative experience.Soxan', 0?epKH,26, specifically claimsthat
thosewhoat Vladimir'scommandin 988 gave instruction to thechildrenof leadingfamilies,
see PSRL 1,118-19, wereBulgarianmonks.
14 ThusMo§in, 55.
IlepHOflireanHH,
15 Thus
Sõepkina,Bonpocy,202; Poppe,KypHJioirfc, 334, n. 42, and idem,Christianisierung,
478, who considersthatmanyof thosesenthad been takenprisonerin Basil's campaigns
againstMacedonia;Schmücker, Bemerkungen, 92, thinksthattheyweresentby thePatriarch
ofConstantinople, as does BishopPartenijofLeucas,IlaTpHapcH, 71-2.
16 Thus Koch, "Ochrid," 143-49; Dvornik,
Making,173; Vodoff,Naissance,98; Mosin,
IIepHOflH3auHH, 61; Snegarov,Bpi>3KH, 41; Pavlova,BpT>3KH, 102; Mixajlov,PycH,132; Litav-
rin,riepeBopoT, 402. Schiwaroff, "Rolle," 147, is even moreprecise: he suggeststhatthe
clergywentto Kiev whenSvjatoslavreturned fromhis firstcampaign,viz. in 968. Nikolaev,
í>aKTop,143, claimsthattherewerebishopsamongthem.Poppe,Christianisierung, 478, n.
90, rightly questionstheidea of Kievan Rus' appearinga havento Bulgarianrefugeessince
approximately halfof theByzantinearmyin Bulgariaconsistedof Rus' mercenaries.Similar
claimsthatBulgarianChristians musthavefledto KievanRus' in 971 whenEast Bulgariawas
incorporated into the Byzantineempirehave been made, e.g. Mo§in, nepHoaroamiH, 52;
Vlasto,Entry,252; Tóth,npeanocHJiKH, 156-57, but again thereis no evidence,although
someclericsmayhave beensentthither as slaves,sinceJaropolk was married to a Greeknun,
whomSvjatoslavhad sentbackfromhis Bulgariancampaignsof967/8and969-71, see PSRL
1 (1926), col. 75. The idea thatSvjatoslav'scampaignsweremotivated bya desireto seize the
Bulgarianpatriarchate, thusPriselkov,OnepKH, 15-16, is ludicrous;he was interested in the
wealthof thecountry, as thechroniclemakesclear,see PSRL 1, 67. For theassumption that
theseBulgariancampaignsmustbe consideredas an important part of thebackground to the
officialconversion oftheRus' see also Fine,Balkans,187. Claimsthattheclergyservingthe
arriveen masse as displacedpersonsafter1037 whenthefirstGreek,Leo,

was appointedto thearchseeof Ochridand began- or so it is alleged- a
policyofreplacingeventhelowerBulgarianclergybyGreeks?17 In factthe
authentic
sole apparently case recordedin anysourceof a Bulgariancleric
activein KievanRus' is thatof GregorythePhilosopherwho arrivedwith
MetropolitanGeorgefromConstantinople in 1062.18The onlyothercase
churchoftheProphetElijahin Kiev,mentioned in thePrimary Chroniclesub 945, see PSRL 1,

54, were Bulgarian,thus,forexample,Vlasto,Entry,247-48; Bishop Nestorof Smoljan,
KpemeHHe, 6, andthatthechurchwas a centre(oHar)of Slavonicliturgical and literaryactivity,
thusRogov,Cbh3H1978, 43, cf. idem,Cbh3h1987, 35, are unsupported by any evidence.
Indeedthechurchprobablyneverexisted,see Priselkov, OnepKH, 8.
17 Thus 61. In his opinion,ibid.pp. 58-60, beforethenonlya few
Kaliganov,IIpoôneMU,
carefully screenedBulgarianclergyweredespatched fromconqueredEast Bulgaria,whileEast
Slav ordinandswere sent to Constantinople and Byzantinemonasteriesfor training.An
interesting hypothesis which - it is to be hoped- will notin futurebe quotedas a historical
fact.On Leo see belown. 104; on theallegedreplacement see belown. 162.
18 A
cycleof sevenhomiliesforthedaysoftheweekis in mostcodicesascribedto a certain
Gregory thePhilosopher, to whosenamein one fifteenth-century florilegium,viz. codex 14 in
theM. Cuvanovcollection,StateHistoryMuseum,Moscow, is addedthegloss: b jiíto s$o
TpHropna4>HJioco<|>a npHineamaro h3t>IJapArpaaaet mhtpoiiojihtom TeoprHeMinpHkh^h
IfoACJiaBi, cHa (sic) läpocjiaBJiA,CjioBectceflMb..., see Rykov,Snrooa, 171. Thisinformation,
whileapparently authentic, is onlycontainedin a codexofthethirdquarterofthefifteenth cen-
tury(on thewatermark of 1460 see ibid,171,n. 11), and it is exaggerated to claim,ibid.,171,
thattheauthenticity of theinformation in thetitlegivesno cause for doubt- it will onlybe
absolutely certain if further confirmation is forthcoming. Kaliganov,IIpo6jieMM, 57, still
assertsthatnota singlenameofa Bulgarianworking in KievanRus' is known,butthisis prob-
ably to be interpreted as his ignoranceof the tradition concerning Gregory,ratherthanhis
rejection ofit.
The year6570 coversa periodfrom1 March 1061 to 28 February1063,dependingupon
whether theultra-March, Marchor September yearwas used. Rykov,Snmofl,172,wouldnar-
rowthisdownsinceaccordingto thekalendarin the 11th- 12thcentury Mstislavevangeliary,
ed. Zukovskaja,Anpaicoc,31-290, cf. 234, George's predecessorEphraemconsecratedSt.
Sophia's cathedral on 4 November, whichtheyassumemusthavebeenon a Sunday,and thus
could onlyhave been in 1061,buttheassumption is uncertain.Theyalso, ibidem,thinkthat
thedatecouldreferto eitherthedateof arrivalor thedateof thecomposition of thehomilies,
althoughTurilov,TpHropHÖ,187, refersit solelyto Gregory'sarrival,whichin view of its
positionin thetitleis moreprobable.
The claim thatGregorycame fromWest Bulgaria,viz. the archseeof Ochrid,whose
ecclesiasticalautonomy guaranteed betterconditionsforthedevelopment of Slav culture,thus
Rykov,Enroofl,173,andTurilov,TpHropHÔ, 188,is, first,
factuallyinaccurate,as thejurisdic-
tionof Ochrid(see also n. 111 below)containedmuchof East Bulgaria,includingsees at Sar-
dica and Dorostolum,and, second,it ignoresthe factof Bulgarianculturalcontinuity, see
belownn. 165, 166, 168. Moreovertheirclaim,ibidem,thatthetitlePhilosopher meantthathe
had studiedat the school in theMagnauraPalace in Constantinople is speculativeas it was
appliedto peoplewhohad notstudiedthere,e.g. theArmenian Pantaleonin thetenthcentury,
see Fuchs,Schulen,22.
Six ofthesevenhomilieshavebeeneditedfroma codexin whichtheyareascribedto Cyril
thePhilosopher bySobolevskij,IIIecTOflHeB, 179-202.
2 18 FRANCIS J.THOMSON
thathas been quoted19is thatof themonkof St. Menas' Monastery20 who,

according to the Vita S. Theodosii abbatis Cryptensisby Nestor, went to
Constantinople, wherehe settledon an islandthatcameto be knownas Bul-
garian Island. Unfortunately theearliestcodex withthevitacalls himnota
Bulgarian but a boyar and the island Boyar Island?1 as does a late
thirteenth-centuryBulgarianabridgment of thevita.22In theearlyfifteenth
century Nestor'svitawas incorporated intothePatericonCryptense in the
redactionmade for Bishop Arseniusof Tver' and here too the monk
remainsa boyar;23onlyin the secondCassian redactionof 1462 does he
becomea BulgarianandhisislandBulgarianIsland.24
The historicity of theoriesconcerningBulgarianhierarchsallegedly
associatedwiththeconversionof Kievan Rus' is no betterthanthatcon-
cerningtheaforementioned monk.The sole sourcespecifically to linkBul-
gariawiththeconversion of Kiev is theJoachimChronicle,aboutwhichall
thatis knownis whatitsdiscoverer, V. Tatiscev,relates:on 20 May 1748
his relativeMelchizedekBorscov,thenarchimandrite of theMonasteryof
theExaltationof theHolyCrossat Bizjukovo,25 senthimthreequiresof an
eighteenth-century codex whichhe had allegedlyacquiredfroma certain
monk Benjamin, who had collected material on Russian history.26
19 187. The Nicon Chronicle,PSRL 9 (1862), 68, reportsthatin

By Tóth,npeanocwjiKH,
1004 Metropolitan Leontiusincarcerated themonkAdrianforheresy,see also theLibergra-
duum,PSRL, 21,1 (1908), 124. It has beenclaimedthathe musthavebeena Bulgarianmonk
as in 1004 therewereno Russianmonks,thusMosin,IIocjiaHHe,100. However,he is tradi-
tionallyassumedto have beena BulgarianBogomil,thusfirstRudnev,PaccyacaeHHe, 29-38,
and frequently repeatedsince,e.g. Obolensky,Bogomils,211' Bulgakov,Hctophh,vol. 1,
220-21; Golubinskij, Hctophã,vol.1,pt. 2, (= VOHAP,vols. 209-10, 1904),791-92. Both
claims are suppositionsand, besides,the information of such a late sourceis suspect. The
claimthattheinformation was takenfromthemetropolitan ecclesiasticalarchiveswhichhad
been transferred to Moscow, thusZenkovsky,Chronicle,XXXVI, is just one moreutterly
unsubstantiatedhypothesis.
20 Unknown
exceptin thiscontext.Suggestionsas to its locationincludein or nearKiev,
thusHrusevs'kyj, icTopixvol. 3, p. 420, n. 2; Golubinskij, HcropHJi,vol. 1, pt.2, 746; Athos,
thusAbramovic, IlaTepHK, 215,n. 48; Constantinople, thusFedotov,Treasury, 25, n. 11.
21 The 12th Dormition ed. Kotkov,CßopHHK, 71-135, cf.85-6.
century florilegium,
22 Ed. B. vol. 1, 204-212, cf. 209. Althoughtheonlytwo known
Angelov,JlHTeparypa,
codicesofthisvitaareSerbian,thelanguagehas Bulgarisms, see Speranskij,Hctophh,24-5.
23 See Abramovic, 35, n. 44, and 36, nn. 3 and 5. He also remainsso in thefirst
/Zarepjsnr,
Cassianredaction of 1460,see ibidem.
24 Ibid.,35 and 36.
Clearlyitis a case ofconfusionofEOJiiapHHT> withEOJirapmrt.
25 On his careersee (in thisorder)Stroev,Ciihckh,cols. 464, 461, 203, 183,572,
peripatetic
598. Eventhisis incomplete as at sometimehe was at theRetainer'sMonastery oftheDormi-
tionin Tver',see theexcerptfromhis letterof 20 May 1748,ed. TatiSõev,HcTopmi,vol. 1,
107.
26
Benjaminwas not a monkat Bizjukovo as he had sent Melchizedekthe quires,see
TatiSõev,ibidem.
Tatiscev'seffortsto obtainmoreof thecodex remainedfruitless as Mel-

chizedekdiedthatSeptember and itwas notamongsthiseffects, neitherdid
anyoneat BizjukovoknowBenjamin.IndeedMelchizedek'ssteward,also
called Benjamin,statedthatat timesMelchizedekhad claimedthathe had
himselfcopiedthecodex in Siberia,at othersthatit belongedto somebody
else,butin anyeventhe hadnevershownitto anyone.27
Tatiscevpublishedwithhis own commentary thosepassagescontaining
information notfoundin otherchronicles.28 The passages begin withthe
assertionthatNestorhad been ill-informed abouteventsat Novgorod,but
thatBishopJoachim,well-informed, had writtenaboutthem,29 a clearrefer-
ence toJoachimtheChersonian, thefirst of
bishop Novgorod(991-1030).30
Withregardto Bulgaro-EastSlav relationsthechronicler'sbasic thesisis
thatthereweretwoBulgarianhierarchs calledMichael,one oftheninthand
one of the tenthcentury,associated with the conversionof Kiev. In
describingAskold's expeditionagainst Constantinoplethe manuscript
27 Ibid. 113. The

quireshave disappearedwithouttrace. The fateof Tatiscev'slibraryis
unknownand thestory,firstreported by Greõin 1821,thatit had beenconsumedin a fire,is
apparently withoutfoundation, see Astraxanskij, Bonpocu,85-94. Neitherhas therestof the
codex been found. An inventory of Melchizedek'seffectswas drawnup by his successor,
Archimandrite AbrahamGalickij(1748-57) and forwarded to theSynod(flenoApxmaChho-
flaJibHoôKoHTopM 3a 1748r.,M»412), butitlistsno manuscript, see Stroganov,MoHacTHpb, 56,
n. 2. A special searchof themonastery's archiveswas undertaken by N. A. Popov (whose
master'sdissertation on TatiScevhadbeenpublishedin 1861) in an attempt to learnmoreabout
the manuscript,but it was fruitless,see Stroganov,MoHacTHpb,41, 53-4, and A.
Golombiovskij's prefaceto theposthumous editionofthematerialswhichPopov had collected
fromthe archives:Popov,MaTepHanu,prefacep. 4; the materialsed. ibid.,6-45; on the
monastery's libraryin 1764see ibid.,23-24.
28 As
chapter4 of vol.1, ibid., 107-19, the actual quotationsbeing on 108-13. The
manuscript traditionofTatiScev'shistory proves,however,thathe did nothesitateto alterand
expandtheactualtextofthechronicle, so thereis no certainty
as to whattheprecisetextin the
quiresoriginally was: chapter4 is foundin butfourofthemanuscripts ofthehistory,onlytwo
of whichare of importance, viz. Academyof Sciences 1.5.66; Voroncovop. 1, 646. (Uvarov
151 and SudienkoVIII 117/70arecopies of Academyand Voroncovrespectively.)Academy
has thetextofthechroniclein TatiSoev'sownhandas wellas alterations whichhe has madeto
it; Voroncovis basicallya copy of theemendedtextof Academybutincludesfurther addi-
tions,thisexpandedtexthavingagainbeenemendedby TatiScev'shand,i.e. thereare no less
thanfourversionsextantof the alleged chronicletext! On themsee V. Morgajlo,Pa6oTa,
260-64. The accountof theBulgarianconnectionis not,however,affected by thesesucces-
sivealterations to thetext.
29 TatiScev,Hctophh,vol. 1, 108.
30 Joachimis an
enigmatic personagewhoonlyappearsin latersourcesfromthe15thcentury
on. Theproblemofhishistoricity cannotbe examinedhere. Sabev, "Millénaire,"835,claims
thatthelanguageof thechronicleis Old Bulgarianand thatergoJoachimhimselfwas a Bul-
garian.It is a pitythatSabev does notgive a linguisticanalysisto provehis point! In fact,
Sabev's articleis basedon theuncritical acceptanceofunhistorical legends;foranother exam-
ple see belown. 119.
brokeoffafterthewords:Andreturning home,he sentto Constantinople to

theemperorbecausetwofoliaweremissing,to continue:butMichaelgave
thanksto God (and) wentto Bulgaria,on whichTatiscevcommentsthat
Michaelmusthavebeenthehierarch sentbyPhotiuswhoconverted Askold
by the miracle of an evangeliary thrown into a firewithoutbeing con-
sumed.31Then in dealingwithVladimir'sconversionit statesthatTsar
Symeonsenthim learnedpriestsand manybooks,afterwhichVladimir
turnsto Constantinople for a hierarchand is sent Michael, a man very
learnedand pious, a Bulgarian; withhimfourbishopsand manypriests,
deaconsand cantors,Slavs bybirth.32
Whereasthe earlierpartsof the chronicleare clearlybased on myths
recordedin late Czech and Polishsources,33 theeventsin Novgorodin the
late tenth-earlyeleventhcentury reportedin the firstperson,and the
are
questionis whetherthechronicleused a now lost earlysource,whichis
whatTatiscevbelievedsincehe madeuse of itsinformation elsewhere,34or
whether itis thechronicler's
ownimagination baseduponlogicaldeduction
fromwhathe knewaboutRussianhistory, incasu aboutMichael.
The traditionthatthehierarchdespatchedto Kiev on Vladimir'sconver-
sion was called Michael can be tracedback to thelate thirteenthcentury
when his name was added to the preambleto Vladimir'sConstitutio
ecclesiastica,35
althoughan earliertradition
calledthehierarchLeo(ntius).36
31 Ibid.,110. On thismiraclesee below.

32 Ibid.,112.
33 A factnoted TatiSõevhimself, - on theone hand
by althoughhis attitudewas ambivalent
he suggeststhatthechronicleused thelatersources,ibid. 108,on theotherthereverse,ibid.,
111, n. 34. Fortheinfluence ofHerodotussee Gorlin,"Joachim,"45. Fora recentdiscussion
ofTatiScev'suse oflatesourcessee G. BrogiBercoff,"Tatishchev"373-420.
J* Ibid.,vol. 2,
Leningrad,1963,62-5. Its authenticity has beenacceptedbymany,fromthe
firstscholarto studyit in detail,Lavrovskij,HccneflOBaHne, especiallyp. 83, down to the
present time,e.g. Paszkiewicz,Origin,367.
35 It was in thetextofa nomocanon
copiedin 1286,nowlostbutwhosecolophonis foundin
latercodices,fromwhereit has beenpublishedmanytimes,e.g. Smokina,<I>parMeHT, 68. On
thissee Pavlov,floraba, 25-6; Sõapov,YcTãBu,57, 74-5, 115-16. Poppe,"Micha!," 242,
wouldtracethetradition back to the mid-thirteenthcenturyas thepreamblewithMichael's
nameis in theChronicleofPerejaslavlin Suzdalia,butthatpartofthechroniclewas compiled
in Lithuaniaand the formof the Constitutio whichit containsdoes not antedatethe mid-
fourteenth century,see Sõapov, YcraBU,110-15. The datingof thetradition to thetwelfth
century by Vodoff,Naissance,83, is an unsubstantiated assertion, whilethedatingto thesix-
teenthcentury, thusLebedincev,IIpHMeHaHHH, 32, Malysevskij, MHTponojiHT, 133, is contra-
dictedbythearchaeographic evidence.
30 His nameis foundin thepreambleto thesameConstitutio in a manuscript traditiongoing
back to the archetype of the Synodal-Volhynianfamilyof the earlythirteenth or even late
twelfth century,see Söapov,BeKOB,15, 16, 19, 21, 37 n. 22, 42, 46, 69, 76; withthenameof
Leo(ntius)ibid.18,22, 30, 37, 72.
The reasonfortheinsertion of thenameof Leo(ntius)cannotbe examinedhere. The rea-
In eithercase hisdespatchis anachronistically

ascribedto PatriarchPhotius
(858-67, 877-86).37 In the fourteenth the
century Byzantinestoryof a
missionto theRhosaftertheirexpeditionagainstConstantinople in 860 and
theirsubsequentconversionafterthe miracleinvolvingthe evangeliary,
becameknownto theSlavs whenan abridgedtranslation was madein Bul-
garia of John Zonaras'sAnnales?% In 1408 Gregory,a monk of Hilandar,
made a revisedversionof the translation, knownas theParalipomenon,
son fortheinsertion of thenameMichael remainsuncertain, themostplausiblehypothesis,

advancedbyPavlov,ßoraaica,23-5, beingthattheinterpolator had realizedthattheconfessio
fideitaughtto Vladimirafterhis baptismin 988, PSRL 1, 112-14, was takenfromMichael
syncellusofJerusalem's Libellusde fideorthodoxa, of whichthereareno less thanthreeearly
includingone in the 1073 florilegium
translations, and one as thefifth appendixto theNomo-
canonXIV titulorum. The third,as taughtto Vladimir,is highlyheretical, on thissee Thom-
son,"Implications,"64. The interpolator therefore assumedMichaeltaughtVladimir,ergohe
was the firstmetropolitan. This explanationhas been acceptedby many,e.g. Lebedincev,
npHMenaHHH, 30; Poppe, "Michal," 243; Vlasto,Entry,270; Vodoff,Naissance, 83. The
hypothesis can be strengthened bya further consideration, namelythepreamblewithMichael's
namestressesthathe taughtVladimirthetenetsofthefaithandthehistory of theoecumenical
councils,viz. precisely thecontents oftheLibellus.
Vernadsky,"Status," 306, advanceda less plausibletheory:some codices only name
Patriarch Photius(see note37) and nottheemperor, e.g. ed. Scapov,BeKOB,20, 30, 36, and a
scribemade a marginalgloss withtheemperor'sname,viz. Michael (III, 842-867), which
was mistaken forthemetropolitan's name.
37 His nameis foundin the
preamblein all redactions exceptthosewhichdo notmentionthe
metropolitan, ed. ibid,62, 66, and thatgoingback to the 1286 nomocanon,ed. ibid.,69. No
satisfactoryexplanation of theascription to Photiushas been suggested.Hypothesesinclude:
a. PatriarchSergiusII (1001- 19) was relatedto Photius,see JohnZonaras,Annales,XVII,8,
ed. PG 139, 40-414; 135, 9-326, cf. 135, 161, and Photiusheremeanshis surname,thus
ZachariasKopystensky in 1621/2in his Palinodìa Hi, 2, I, ed. Pritsak,Lev, 498; so too
Tatiscev,Hctophh,vol. 2, 234-5; b. Photius'nameis a symbolforOrthodoxy, as opposedto
Catholicism, thusFilaret(Gumilevskij)HcTopmi,vol.1,50, n. 129; c. becauseof his associa-
tionwiththenomocanon,he was the patriarch par excellence,thusHonigmann,"Studies,"
90; d. thememory oftheeventsofthemid-ninth century werestillalive in thethirteenth,thus
A. Pavlov,in Goetz,Denkmäler,34; Tóth,IIpeanocbiJiKH, 153; e. theauthorof thetradition
was acquaintedwiththeSlavonictranslation of Photius'encyclicalof 867 withits accountof
theconversion oftheRhos,thusGolubinskij, Hctophhvol. 1,pt. 1,279; Vodoff, Naissance,83
(thisis incorrectas theencyclicalwas nottranslated untilthefifteenth-sixteenth century, see
belown. 44); f. Greekswishedto ascribethebeginnings oftheRus' churchto himto stressits
dependenceon the patriarchate of Constantinople, thusKartasev,OvepKH, vol. 1, 135; g. a
coconsecrator of the firstRus' bishopswas Photiusof Ephesus,who was confusedwiththe
patriarch,thusLaurent,"Origines,"286, n. 1; h. theConsumió was drawnup forAskoldat
thetimeofPhotiusand thetrueinterpolation is thenameofVladimirinsteadofAskold,which
was doneas partof a campaignbyJaroslav(1019-54) to obtainVladimir'scanonization, thus
Brajcevs'kyj,ühcbmo,34-5 (thisis historicalfictionat its worst,foranotherof his absurd
theoriessee belown. 89).
38 Uneditedin full;the final
part(324-1028) ed. Jacobs,ZQNAPAI, 106-272, cf. 211,
233-4. The old datingof thetranslation to 1170 proposedby Potapov,Cyab6a, 184-86, is
stillbeingrepeated, e.g. by Tvorogov,XpoHorpaQu, 181,althoughit has beenestablishedthat
itis ofeither1332or 1334,see Weingart, Kroniky, pt. 1, 117-20.
whichalso includesthe story,39 and by the sixteenthcenturythisversion

was availablein Russia.40In thesame centurythestorywas incorporated
intoRussianchronographs41 and chronicles42underthe reignof Basil I
(867-86), while at the same timethe tradition thatthe firstmetropolitan
despatchedby Photius was called Leo(ntius) was also incorporated into
variouschroniclessub 99 1.43In thelate fifteenth
or earlysixteenth century
Photius's Encyelica epistola ad archiepiscopale s thronosper Orientem
obtinentesof 867, in whichhe assertsthattheRhos have been converted
and have accepteda bishopand pastor,was translated into Slavonic in
"Russia."44
The compilersof theNicon Chroniclein thefirsthalfof the sixteenth
century knowing, on theone hand,thatRus' had beenconverted duringthe
reignofEmperorBasil and senta hierarch byPhotiusand,on theother,that
Vladimirhad been convertedin thereignof EmperorBasil and sentLeon-
tiusby Photiusin 991, as well as Michaelat someunspecified date,simply
combinedall theirdata by assertingthatPhotiussentMichael in 988 on
Vladimir'sconversionand Leontiuson Michael's deathin 99 1.45The com-
pilerof theLiber graduumin thesecondhalfof thecentury made a half-
heartedattemptto eliminatethe anachronismby having Photiussend
MichaelbutPatriarch NicholasII Chrysoberges (979-91) sendLeontius.46
39 Ed. 1-119, cf. 102-3.

Bodjanskij,uapajinnoMeH,
40 The Russian codex Volokolamsk230/566dates fromthe
earlysixteenthcentury,see
Tvorogov, XpoHorpaQhi, 182,n. 101.
41 PSRL 22, 1 (1911), 352-3; see also theWestRussianChro-
E.g. the 1512 Chronograph,
nograph, PSRL 22, 2 (1914), 153-4. The compilersofthelatterwerecarefulto alterthestory
bystating thatthemiracledidnotconverttheRus'.
42 E. theNiconChronicle, PSRL 9,13; theLibergraduum, PSRL 21,1,35-6.
g.
43
E.g. theFirstSophiaChronicle,PSRL 5 (1851) 121; theResurrection Chronicle,PSRL 7
(1856) 313; the1512Chronograph, PSRL 22, 1,367.
44 Cf. Bulanin,IIocjiaHHe, 51-2. This passagetoo enteredtheLibergraduum,PSRL 21,1,
62-3, althoughthecompilersalteredthebishopand pastorintobishopsand theirpastor,the
mostholymetropolitan.
45 PSRL 9, 57, 64.
They probablyconsideredBasil I to be the same personas Basil II
(976-1025), see Lebedincev,upHMenaHHA, 32. They also add thatMichael was a Syrian
(CHpHHt).This has variouslybeen explaineda. as a corruption of syncellus(cHHKejn»),thus
Lebedincev,ibid.,33; Poppe, "Michal," 243; Vlasto,Entry,270; b. as a corruption of Serb
(Cep6HHT>), thusGolubinskij, Hctophh,vol.1,pt. 1, 281 n. 1; c. becauseJerusalem, of which
cityhe was syncellus, is in theNearEast,thusPavlov,floraba, 24; d. as a deliberatealteration
fromBulgarian, thusNikolaev,<&aKTop, 117.
The NiconChroniclewas compiledduringtheincumbency of metropolitanDaniel of Mos-
cow (1522-39),mostprobablybetween1526 and 1530,see Kloss,Cbox,43-51.
46 PSRL 21, 1, 113. The Liberwas compiledin 1560-63 underthedirection of Metropoli-
tanMacariusof Moscow (1542-63), probablyby Andrewprotopresbyter of theCathedralof
theAnnunciation, Moscow,andconfessor to IvanIV. (He becamea monkat theMonastery of
theMiracleof ArchangelMichael,Moscow, in 1562, and fora briefperiod,1564-66, was
The anachronismwas onlyfullyeliminatedin the seventeenth

centuryin
in
theUkraine disputes betweenOrthodox and Uniates when Michael was
asserted to have been sent by either Nicholas II or Sergius II
(1001-1019).47
The accountgivenin theJoachimChronicleis simplya freshattempt to
reconciletheconflictinganachronistic databypositingtheexistenceof two
Michaels,bothof whomit linkswithBulgaria. This Bulgarianconnection
has been acceptedwithvaryingdegreesof convictionrangingfromnot
devoid of possibility^ via completelyin agreementwith the cir-
cumstances?9 to thehistoricalbasis of theinformation itselfis completely
obvious,50 buta closerexamination revealsthatit is bothanachronistic and
in contradictionto knownfacts. If thefirstof theMichaelsis thebishop
despatched byPhotius,51thenhe musthavebeenin KievanRus' whenPho-
tiuswrotehis encyclicalin 867 beforehis depositionin September, buthe
cannothave leftforBulgariaafterconverting theRhos sincefromlate 866
tillthespringof 870 Bulgariawas underRomanjurisdiction.52 The account
ofVladimir'sconversion containstheglaringanachronism thatittookplace
during Tsar Symeon's reign (893-927) and the attemptto resolve the
difficultyby arguingthat theSymeon question Romanus,Tsar Peter's
in is
metropolitan of Moscow, beforeretiring to the Miracle Monastery.)See Vasenko,KHHra,

168-212.
47 In 1617 Leo Kreuzain his defenceof theUnion,Obrona iednosci Hi,2, 1,
cerkiewney,
statedthathe was sentbyNicholasII butaddeda newanachronism bydatingthisto clOOO,ed.
Pritsak,Lev,3-67, cf. 32 (in theoriginalVilnius1617 editionp. 56); ZachariasKopystensky
in his refutation of Kreuza,his Palinodia of 1621/2,acceptsclOOOand therefore ascribesthe
despatchto Patriarch SergiusII, ed. ibid.,498. In his prefaceto thereaderofhis Polishtrans-
lationofthePatericonCryptense, Paterikonabo Zywoty SS. OycowPieczarskich, publishedin
1635, SylvesterKossow repeatsKopystensky 's information,cf. Lewin, Writings,13 (in the
originalKiev 1635 editionp. 9), althoughin thelistof Kievanmetropolitans appendedto the
translationit is cautiouslystatedthatMichaelwas sentbyeitherSergiusor Nicholas,ed. ibid.,
92-99, cf. 93 (p. 169 of the originaledition);on laterlists see Malysevskij,Mhtpoiiojiht,
140-6. I. Martinovin hiseditionofKulczynski'sSpecimenecclesiaeruthenicae, 310,rightly
comments on thevariations in dateswithregardto MichaelandLeontius:totcapita,totsensus.
48 HcTopHH, vol. 1, 130 (secondpagination).
Bestjuzev-Rjumin,
49 Solov'ev,HcTopHH, vol. 1, 187. A variantofthisis thatitaccordswellwiththehistorical
situation,thusMixajlov,Pycn,131.
50 Mo§in,uepHoaraamra, 55, see also idem,IIocjiaHHe,95. Recentscholarsto acceptthe
information includeLevöenko,IteaHMOOTHOiiieHHÄ, 195; Klimenko,Ausbreitung, 50; Partenij,
IlaTpHapcH, 71; Sabev, "Millénaire,"835; B. Angelov,Bonpocy,137. Idem,HcTopHHTa, vol.
1, 36, claimsthattheinformation maybe based on earliersources.Such claimsare obviously
meaningless.
51 de Taube,Rome,vol. 1, 45, even
speculatesthathe mayhavebeenbishopMichaelof Cor-
cyra,whoattended theEighthOecumenicalCouncilat Constantinople in 869-70.
52 The factsaretoo wellknownto here,fora briefaccountsee Sansterre,
requireexamination
"Missionaries."
(927-70) second son, of whomJohnScylitzesreportsthathe was also

called Symeonafterhis grandfather,53 unfortunately conflictswithbothof
thediffering accountsofRomanus's life.
Accordingto Scylitzes,upontheincorporation of East Bulgariaintothe
empire in 971, Romanus, together with his elder brotherBoris II
(969/70-71),was takento Constantinople, wherehe was castrated.54 At an
unspecified timeafterJohnI Tzimisces' deathin 976 thebrothers fledto
Bulgaria,Borisbeingaccidentally killedwhilecrossingtheborder.55 Noth-
ing furtheris reporteduntil as of
governor Skopje under Tsar Samuel,
Romanusin ca. 1003 surrenders thecityto Basil II and is rewardedwiththe
titlesof patriciusand praepositusand appointedstrategusof Abydos.56
Anotherversionis givenby Yahyã of Antioch,who recountsthatafterthe
deathof Boris,Romanuswas proclaimedtsar57but capturedin 991 and
died in Byzantinecaptivity in 997.58If Scylitzesis correct,Romanuswas
nevertsar;if Yahyã is, thenRomanuswas nevercalled Symeonand Scyl-
itzes has clearlymuddledthe governorof Skopje withsomebodyelse.59
Even if theimprobableattempt to reconcilethetwo accountsis accepted,
viz. thatPeterhad threesons, Tsar Boris,Tsar Romanus,and Governor
Romanus-Symeon,60 the difficulty remainsthat Romanus-Symeonwas
nevertsar.
To thecompilerof theJoachimChronicleit seemedbutlogicalto con-
necttheconversion of Kiev withthehomeof Slavonicletters, and themost
plausibleexplanationof the anachronism is simply that he placedtoo much
trustin his memoryand put Symeoninsteadof Samuel.61What seemed
53 ed. Thurn,Ioannis, 3-500, cf. 346. This attemptto resolvethe

Synopsishistoriarían,
anachronism was firstproposedby Lavrovskij,HccneflOBaHHe, 148; his argument has often
been accepted,e.g. Mo§in,IlepHOflinamiH, 54-55; idem,IIocjiaHHe,95; Angelov,Bonpocy,
137.
54 Ed. Thurn, Ioannis,328.
55 Ibid.,328-29.
50 Ibid.,455. He is nevermentioned
again.
57 Cf.Annales,ed. Histoire,18,705-833; 23, 345-520, cf.418.
Kratchkovsky,
38 Ibid.,431,446.
59 The mostrecentscholarto identify SymeonwithRomanussolvesall theproblemsby the
simpleexpedient ofrewritinghistory:on thedeathofBorisII Romanusfledto Constantinople,
wherehe changedhis nameto Symeonand begana campaignagainstSamuelof Macedonia,
thusKoöev,Anfänge,508. All good stirring even if it totallyignoresall thehistorical
stuff,
sources.
60
Antoljak,MaxeaoHHja,vol. 1, 407-13, in an effort
to reconcilethediscrepancies between
ScylitzesandYahyã.
01 This was 675, and has been acceptedby some,e.g.
suggestedby Zavitnevic,BnaflHMHp,
Vlasto,Entry,270 n. 117. Mixajlov,PycH,133,in a far-fetched attemptto explainaway the
error,suggeststhatfortheearlyEast Slavs SymeonsymbolizedBulgariaand thechronicler
usedhisnamein thatsense.
logical to him would scarcelyhave seemed logical to a tenth-century

Byzantineandtheidea thata Bulgarianwouldhavebeenplacedat thehead
of a newlyconstitutedchurchis highlyimprobable.62 The chronicle'sinfor-
mationon ecclesiasticalaffairsin generalis characterized by its logical
rationalism and emphasison learning.Michaeland theclergysentto Kiev
are learned;63Olga's baptismin Constantinople is recordedbut not the
legend of the emperor'smarriage and
proposal, she returns
to Kiev with
wisepriestswhoareassiduousin teaching;64 Vladimir'sbaptismis reported
butnotthelegendof theembassiesrepresenting variousfaiths;65theforced
conversionof theNovgorodiansis describedin a matter-of-fact way with
none of the legendaryand miraculousdetail which in otherchronicles
accompaniestheaccountof theconversionof theKievans.66The chronicle
is clearlyno medievalcompilation67buta typicalproductof thelate seven-
teenthor firsthalf of the eighteenthcentury,68probablythe 1740s.69It
matterslittlewhetherit was compiledat Bizjukovo,70possiblyby its
62 On theculturalroleof theGreek in KievanRus' see Tachiaos,"Metropoli-

metropolitans
tans." Fora briefsurveyoftheiractivities see Podskalsky,Christentum, 283- 301.
63 Tati§dev, Hctophh,vol. 1,112. On TatiScev'sconsistent withregardto infor-
exaggeration
mationaboutlearning andeducationsee Golubinskij, Hctophhvol. 1,pt.l, 871-80. Uncritical
acceptanceof Tatisdev'sinformation is typicalof theapproachto thehistoryof educationof
somerecentSovietscholars,e.g. Petröv, BocnHTaHHe, andBabism,TeHflemmH, (bothworksare
avtoreferaty).BrogiBercoff, "Reworking,"351, aptlycomments thatMetropolitan Michael's
effortson behalfof educationcan be linkedonlywiththeeighteenth centuryEnlightenment
viewsoftheRussianhistorian aboutthenecessity ofdisseminating cultureamongthepeople.
64 TatiSõev, Hctophjí,vol. 1,111.
65 Ibid.,U2.
66 Cf.ibid.,112- 13,andPSRL 1,116- 18.
67 of itsauthenticityhave goneto ludicrouslengthsto explainawaythemanifest
Supporters
difference betweenits styleand thatof mediaevalchronicles;thusRapov, IJepKOBb, 259,
inventsa new genre: thememoirs(MeMyapw) of a cleric,whileJanin,JXenb, 17, positsthe
existenceof a whole bodyof literaturewhichwas subjectto especial proscriptionby the
churchas it did notcorrespondto theofficial pointof view. Thus Joachim'saccountalone
escapedthedeadeninghandofecclesiasticalcensorship!
68 For similarlate tales see thoseeditedby Giljarov,IIpegaHiui,15-31. On such
mythical
fancifulchroniclessee Sambinago, JleTonacb, 259-62, andAzbelev,JleTorracb, 243.
69 Gorlin,
Chronique,46-7, pointsout the strangecoincidencethatits information about
Russianterritories in Kareliais in accordancewiththebordersbetweenSwedenand Russia
fixedby thetreatiesof Nystad(1721) and Âbo (1743). Those who woulddateit to theseven-
teenthcentury,e.g. Tixomirov, JleToimcaHHe, 81, ignoreGorlin'sarguments.
7U Gorlin,
Chronique,50-51, sees its compilationas partof the monastery'sstruggleto
maintain itsstauropegialindependence againsttheclaimsofthesee of Smolensk.On itsrela-
tionswiththesee,cf. Stroganov, MoHacTbipb.
archimandriteJoachim,71 by Benjaminwho owned the codex,72by an

unknownpersonat theinstigation of JoachimSavelov whenarchbishop of
Novgorod(22 Dec. 1672-26 July1674),73or evenby Tatisõevhimself;74it
source.Recentattempts
hasnovalueas a historical torehabilitate
itsauthenti-
city by appealing to archaeologicalevidence are totallymisguided,75
71 Thus lxiv-lxv.He saysJoachim

Grigoroviõ,IIpoTOKOJiu, floruit1730,butStroev,Ciihckh,
598,givesfloruitil Ì2/3.
72 Thus Russov,Carax, 100;
althoughalreadyTati§devhimself, HcTopHH, vol. 1, 107 n. 1,
consideredBenjamin to be a mythicalpersonageinventedby Melchizedek. This was
TatiSoev'ssecondopinion,sincein thefirstversionof thenotehe statedbaldlythatBenjamin
was thecompilerofthechronicle, see Morgajlo,Pa6oTa,265-66.
/J This was 267, althoughthe link withthe Third
suggestedby Sambinago,JleTonHCb,
NovgorodChroniclewhichhe posited,ibid.,263-66, cannotbe upheld,see Azbelev,JleTo-
nHCb, 243-48.
74 This was held Karamzin,Hctopha,vol. 1, xxvii,n. 3 (see also ed. 18425,xv,n. 3; it is
by
omittedin P. Polevoj's editionof 1892); so too Golubinskij, JleTonncH,632, althoughibid.,
633, he allowedthatTatiSòevmayonlyhaverevisedit. Nikolaevon one ofhis manyflights of
fancyclaims,OaKTop,86-8, thatoriginally thechronicleonlyknewone Michael,a discipleof
St. Clement,andthatTatiSõevdeliberately altereditsinformation.
In view of Tatigc'ev'streatment of sources (see PeStio,ßonojraeHHe,215-22) as
exemplified by his manyalterations to thetextof theJoachimChronicleitself,see above note
28, TatiSdevis themostlikelyauthor.Attempts to exoneratehim,e.g. Kuz'min,OcHOBe, are
unconvincing. For a briefaccountof his information aboutBulgariasee Rajkov,Bi>JirapHTe,
89-102.
75
Accordingto theJoachimChronicle,Vladimir'stroops,led by thecommanders Putjata
and Dobrynja,arrivedon theleftbankof theVolxov,wheretheyremainedfortwo days in a
fruitlesseffortto persuadethe Novgorodiansto be converted.Afterthe latterhad sacked
Dobrynja's houseand property on therightbank,Putjataat nightcrossedtheriverby boatto
thenorthof thetownwithfivehundredtroopsand enteredit unawares.A fight ensuedduring
whichsome citizenssacked (rpaÕJixxy) Christians'houses and destroyed(pa3MeTauia)the
churchoftheTransfiguration, whereupon DobrynjacrossedtheVolxovandorderedthehouses
on theriverbankto be fired.The citizens,alarmed,brokeoffthefightto quenchthefireand
thensued forpeace. The Chronicleendstheaccountwiththewords: For thisreasonpeople
mocktheNovgorodians:Putjata baptized(them)by the sword,and Dobrynjabyfire,see
Tati§õev,#cropiHr,vol. 1, 112-13.
Excavationshaveshownthatnewpavements andhouseswerebuiltin theareaofHigh,Serf,
andCosmasandDamiánStreetsin theNerevDistrictin 989-90 to replacethosedestroyed in a
fire,whileforthesamereasonsimilarrebuilding tookplace in 991 on thebankof theVolxov
in theLjudinDistrict.For a briefaccountofthedendrochronological evidencesee Thompson,
Novgorod,23-34 (the level concernedis 26, see ibid.,32). Janin,ßeHi>,17-8, and idem,
HoBropoflneB,31, consideredthatthefirein theNerevDistrictwas causedbythedestruction of
thechurchof theTransfiguration and theChristians'houses,whilethatin theLjudinDistrict
was theresultof Dobrynja's firingsome houses,and thustheconversiontookplace in 989.
See also idem,KpemeHHe, 62. On theotherhandRapov,IiepKOBb, 262-63, deniedthatthefire
in the NerevDistrictwas connectedwiththe conversionsince the Christians'houses were
sackedand thechurchdestroyed, notburneddown. Hence onlythefirein theLjudinDistrict
reflects
theconversion, whichconsequently tookplacenotin 989 butin 990.
This idea thatthisarcheologicalevidenceprovidesa completely factual(peajibHyio) basis,
thusJanin, HoBropoaneB, 31, cf. idem,KpemeHHe, 62, fortheaccountof theconversionin the
JoachimChronicleis alreadybeingrepeatedby some scholars,e.g. Litavrin, IIpHHHTHe, 66;
andhistorians whohaverecourseto itpainta falsepictureofevents.76

Recentlyanotherattempt has been made to linkMichael withBulgaria
by claimingthatwhenBasil II renegedon his promiseto giveVladimirhis
sisterAnnein marriage, Vladimir- whohad alreadyfulfilledtheprecondi-
tionof baptism - concludedan allianceagainstByzantiumwithSamuelof
Macedonia,who despatchedMichael,butthatwhenin 991 relationswith
Constantinople wererestoredand thefirstGreekmetropolitan Leo arrived
withAnne,Michaelresignedand livedon in Kiev in retirement.77It is true
thatBasil II was prevented
bytheoutbreakof BardasPhocas's revolton 15
August98778fromavengingthedefeatof his armyon 17 August986 while
retreatingfroman abortivesiege of Sardica,79and also thatSamuel took
Kuz'min,KpemeHHe, 321. Beforeitbecomesyetanotherunchallenged apodeicticaxiom,letit

be said thatthepassageand he (sc. Dobrynja)orderedsomehouseson thebankto befired,as
a resultofwhichthepeople,greatlyalarmed,ran todousethefireis a marginalglossaddedto
theoriginalAcademycodex of TatiSoev'shistory(see above,n. 28), see TatiSõev,HcTopHX,
vol. 1, 113,n. 17, and thereis no certainty thatit was in Benjamin'scodex (if thelatterever
existed).In thesecondplace,conquestbyfireand theswordis a toposfoundin bothSlavonic
translated e.g. Isaiahlxvi,16,cf.Judgesi, 8, andoriginalEast Slav literature,
literature, e.g. the
FirstNovgorodChroniclesub 1328,ed. Nasonov,JleTorracb, 287. Thirdly, theidentification
of thetracesof a particular fire(or particularfires)withtheallegedburningof some (HexHe)
housesis utterly arbitrary, and,finally,as alreadypointedout,thestyleof theaccountof the
conversionof Novgorodcontrasts starkly withthatof othermediaevalaccountsof conversion
in thatthereligiousaspectis completely overshadowed bythepolitical.
76 Pe§tiõ,HcTopHorpa<J)HH, 237, pointsout thathistorians onlyhave recourseto it whenit
suitstheirtheoriesand calls thosewho relyon it,ibid.,227, credulous.Perhapsa betterterm
would be Boltinian,cf. the statement by Boltin,Otbgt,14: Joachim'snarrative(noBecTBo-
BaHHe)is moreprobablethanNestor's. Scholarssuchas V. Petrovand Babism(see note63)
areBoltinians.
77 MoSin,IIocjiaHHe, 94-6. This last detailhe based on thefactthatMichael's relicswere
preservedin Kiev. It is truethatthe tabletbeside themclaimedthattheywere those of
Michael,who had died in 992, had been buriedin theTitheChurchof theDeiparaand then
translated to theAntonineCaves in theKievan Caves Laura in 1103, see Evgenij(Bolxovi-
tinov),JlaBpu,115, buteven uncriticalKartasev,OnepKH, vol. 1, 137, has to admitthatthe
claimis unhistorical. Even Michael'spanagia was supposedto have survived,see N. Petrov,
IlaHariio,114-16. The relics were more probablythose of Michael II (1131-45), thus
Lebedincev,Bonpocy,13-14. It is not necessaryhereto deal withlate legendsconcerning
Michael'sallegedactivitieswhilemetropolitan, one of themostpersistent of whichbeingthat
he foundedSt. Michael'smonastery withtheGoldenDome at Kiev,stilloccasionallyasserted
evenin the20thcentury, e.g. Pavlovskij,IlyTeBoaHTejib,280. The monastery was demolished
bymodernbarbarians in 1935.
/8
Scylitzes,ed. Thurn,Ioannis, 332. Yahyã dates it to 14 September987, ed. Kratch-
kovsky, Histoire,421.
Iy Leo diaconus,Historia,x, 8, ed. PG 117, 656-926, cf.901-05. For thedatesee
Yahyã,
ed. Kratchkovsky, Histoire,419.
advantage of the ensuing civil war to capture Berrhoia at the same time as
Vladimir took Cherson, viz. in 988 or 989,80but the sources know nothing
of any alliance between Samuel and Vladimir. Indeed it has been suggested
thatCherson was in rebel hands and thatVladimir's captureof Cherson was
part of his agreementwith Basil II.81 The suggestion that the embassy of
Moslem Bulgars to Kiev in 986 to persuade Vladimir to accept theirfaith
and his returnembassy in 987 to ascertain how they worship82in reality
reflect Kievan contacts with Macedonia about possible conversion83 is
unacceptable because, if thereis any historicaltruthbehind the storyof the
examination of the faiths,the Moslem Bulgars can only be those of the
Volga-Kama region, since the PrimaryChronicle has already reportedthe
baptism of the Danubian Bulgarians sub 869.84 The theorythat Michael
came fromSamuel's Macedonia thusbelongs to therealm of pure fancy.
The contradictorynatureof the data concerningMichael and Leo(ntius)
as the firsttwo metropolitansof Russia has long been the subject of com-
ment.85One attemptto reconcile the data has been to posit thatMichael was
the firsthierarchsent in 988, but thatLeontius was the firstmetropolitanas
80 Leo diaconus,Historia,x, 10, ed. PG 117,908-09, talksof fierycolumnsin thenorthern

skyindicating thefallofChersonand,ibid.,917-21, a cometforetelling theearthquake on the
eve of St. Demetrius,viz. October25, while Yahyã, ed. Kratchkovsky, Histoire,432-33,
reportsthatin 989 aftera stormon April7 theskywas darkandfullofdustanda fierycolumn
was seen,whileon July27 a cometappeared. Rozen (= W. von Rosen),HMnepaTop, 214,
Leo's columnswithYahyã's column,whichhas usuallybeenaccepted,withthecon-
identified
sequentialdeductionthat Chersonand Berrhoiafell betweenApril 7 and July27, 989.
RecentlyRapov,Jlart,37, has pointedout thatan auroraborealiscan onlybe seen in a clear
sky,whileYahyã's description fitsa volcaniceruption;Bogdanova,BpeMemi, 45-6, further
arguesthatthepassagein Leo does notmeanthatthephenomenaforetold subsequentevents,
but indicatedpriorevents. Indeed,theaoristparticiplecan meaneithercontemporaneous or
antecedentactiondepending is ambig-
on themeaningofthefiniteverband that,rcccpccÔTitaSco,
uous, cf. ovxoi XTÍVxe aDußötcav rcpòç xœv ToupoaicuGcòvxfjç Xepacovoç àtaoaiv
nap£Òr'Xox>v, translatedby Vasil'evskij, Otphbkh, 156: theyforetold the subsequent
(nocJieflOBaBinee)captureofChersonbytheTauroscythians, butby Bogdanova,BpeMeHH, 46:
theyindicatedtheprior(coBepniHBníHÔCH) seizureofChersonbytheTauroscythians.
81 Thus
Poppe, "Background,"211-24. This has been acceptedby some, e.g. Müller,
Taufe,109-113, and idem,"Chronik-Erzählung," 436 n. 17; Panöenko,AcneicTu,53, and
Stökl,"Christianisierung," 157.
82 PSRL 1,84-5, 107.
83 Thus,
e.g., Rozen, HMnepaTop,219, n. 1; Zavitneviö,BnaflHMHp, 429; Antoljak,
MaKeflOHHja, vol. 1, 398.
84 PSRL 1,22. IbnFadlan's ofhisjourneyto theVolga Bulgarsin 921-22 showsthat
report
Islamhad alreadybegunto spreadamongthemby then,ed. Togan,Reisebericht, app. 1-45,
cf.30 (Germantrans.1-104, cf.67-8).
OJ see Karamzin, ncTopHÄ, voi. i (ea. i»yz;, idi, n. 4/4.
only underhim were othersees established,86 althoughthe thesis that

Michael was the Photianhierarchhas foundgreaterfavour.87 In factthe
legendaboutMichael is theproductof some thirteenth centuryscholar**
anditis timeitwas laid torest.89
Another legendlinkingan earlyKievanhierarchwithBulgariais thatof
Alexius. In 1748 Karol Orlowski,archdeaconof the cathedralof the
RomanCatholicdiocese of Kiev at Zytomyr, publisheda defenceof the
claimsof thesee in whichhe assertedthattheRusianauthorNicanorwrit-
ingin 1240,as reported by anotherRusianauthorCassian,statedthatafter
defeating Jaroslav of Kiev (1019-54) in 1018, Boleslas I of Poland
(966/7-1025) had him erectthecathedralof St. Sophiaat Kiev and in 1021
Pope BenedictVIII (1012-24) fora bishop. A Bulgarian,Alexius,
petition
was sentbut he could not resistthe machinations of the Greek clergy,
adherents of Patriarch MichaelI Cerularius(1043-58), and leftthecoun-
Thisinformation
try.90 was repeatedin embellished formbytheevangelical
churchhistorian ChristianGottliebFriesein his history of thesee of Kiev
published in 1763.91
86
Suggestedby Platon(Levsin),Hctophe,vol. 1, 39; it has beenacceptedby some histori-
ans,e.g Evgenij,Coõopa,64; Lebedincev, üoBoay,351; Bulgakov,Hctophh,vol. 1,31.
87
E.g. Lebedincev,Hakane,269, 272; Saxmatov,JlereHfla, 1100; Stokes,"Status," 436;
Golubinskij, HcTopmi,vol. 1, pt. 1, 278-81; some of thosewho are notsurewhether he ever
existedthinkthatifhe did,he was thePhotianhierarch, e.g. Polon'ska-Vasylenko, IlijjBaJiHHH,
19; Priselkov,OêpKH,39-40; Vlasovs'kyj,Hapnc, vol. 1, 20; Vlasto,Entry, 270.
Sòepkina,IIpocBemeHHH, 200, advancesa variantofthistheory:Michaelwas indeedthePho-
tianhierarchbutwas a Greekconsecratedto filla see at Chersonnewlycreatedby Photius.
This ignoresthefactthata see had existedat Chersonsinceat leastthelatefourth century:its
bishop,Aetherius, signedtheacta of the Second OecumenicalCouncilat Constantinople in
381, see Mansi, Conciliorum, vol. 3, 572. (The presenceof a bishopof Cherson,Philipp,at
thefirstOecumenicalCouncilat Nicaea in 325 is uncertain sincehis nameis onlyfoundin a
lateArabiclist,ed. Gelzeret al, Nomina,144- 180,cf. 160,and in a lateGreeklistprobably
translated fromtheArabic,ed. Bene§eviõ,CnncoK, 285-306, cf.295.
88 See
Poppe,Michat,243.
89 Even now it is still
beingclaimedthathe was thefirstmetropolitan, see Kuev,CT>,a6aTa,
15; Mixajlov,Pvchh,70; BishopNestor,KpemeHHe, 5; D. Angelov,E-hJirapnji, 52; Schiwaroff,
"Rolle," 148,andBakalov,"Politique,"p. 399.
One last theoryrelatingto TatiSoev's information about Michael should be mentioned.
Accordingto a chroniclefromwhichA. XrusõovsuppliedexcerptsforTatiscev,Photiuswrote
to Vladimirand Michaelin 991 to warnthemagainstRomanerrors, recounting interalia the
storyofPope Joan,see Tatiscev,Hctophh,vol. 2, 64. Brajcevs'kyj, ÜHCbMO, 35-8, claimsthe
epistlewas writtenbyPhotiusto Askoldin 863 andprovesthatJoanwas pope (855-57). This
is somemoreofhishistorical fiction, see aboven. 37.
yu Orlowski,
Defensa,41-8.
91 Friese,
Episcopatu,6-7, 27-8. The bookreferred to in Friese'stitleis SzymonOkolski's
Chioviensium et Czernichoviensium episcoporumsanctae et catholicaeEcclesiae Romanae
Those historians who accepttheveracityof thisinformation interpretit

in varying ways: it was a papal initiativeto diminish Byzantineinfluence;92
it was Jaroslav's initiativeeitherfor the same reason,93or because the
Greekmetropolitan had compromised himselfby welcomingBoleslas to
Kiev in 1018;94it was Boleslas's initiativeto strengthen his positionin
Kiev;95Alexius was a papal legatedespatchedto the consecrationof St.
Sophia's builtin 1017.96However,theRusianauthorsNicanorand Cassian
are unknown and theinformation is anachronistic: MichaelCerulariusonly
becamepatriarch of Constantinople on 25 March1043,whereasalreadyin
1039 themetropolitan in Kiev was Theopemptus.97 The tendentiousnature
of theinformation to underpinRomanCatholicclaimsin Kiev is obvious,
whichis notto say thatthestoryis an entirefabrication by Orlowskisince
at leastone otherlegendlinkingtheoriginsofthesee ofKiev withan Alex-
ius was current in theseventeenth century.Patriarch Macariusof Antioch
(1647-72), who visited Russia and Ukraine in 1653-56 and again in
1666-67, compiledin Arabicnotso mucha churchhistoryas a collection
of accountsof variouseventsin ecclesiasticalhistory in fifty-four
chapters.
Chapter50, devoted to Emperors Michael III (842-67) and Basil I
(867-86), contains a garbled account of early Russian historyincludingthe
storyof the hierarchwho convertedthe Rhos by the miracle of the
evangeliary, exceptthathere he is called Alexius.98Macariustoo claims
thathe had foundhisinformation in thebooksoftheRãs," andtherecan be
no doubtthatOrlowski's account,in so far as it has a source,is but a
ordo et numerusdescriptus, Lviv, 1646. Okolski(1580-1653) was Dominicanprovincialin

Russia. Friese(1717-1795) is mostfamousforhis two-volume historyof thePolishChurch
publishedat Breslauin 1786.
92 ThusWinter, Russland,vol. 1, 29.
93 Verdière,"Origines,"222; Kumor,"Problem,"47. Koncevicms'statement, Attitude,
32,
thatJaroslavwas an orthodox Catholicis ambiguous,besidestherewas no schismin 1021.
94 ThusLaurent,Origines,292. Thisis basedon Thietmar ofMerseburg's thatin 1018
report
the archbishopof Kiev greetedBoleslas on his entryinto Kiev, Chronicon,viii, 32, ed.
Trillmich,Thietmar,2-476, cf.474.
95 Dobszewicz,Wiadomosc,108 - 11.
90 54. Some historians merelyreportthestorywithoutcomment, e.g.
Luznyc'kyj,IJepKBa,
Karamzin, HcTopHH, vol. 1,n. 162; Ramm,IlancTBo,50.
97 PSRL 1, 153.
98 His collection,whichhas no title,remainsunedited, butthissectionon earlyRussianhis-
toryin chapter50 has been editedby Rozen,HMnepaTop, 221-2; Russiantranslation,ibid.,
222-4, cf.224. This information, despitebeingcompletely has occasionallybeen
unhistorical,
69; E. Georgiev,
acceptedat facevalue,e.g. Ivanov,MaxejjoHHJi, Habano,18.
99 Rozen,HMnepaTop, 224.
of somelatelegendwithno historical
reflection foundation.100
The thirdandmostrecentattempt to linktheearlyKievanhierarchy with
Bulgariais M. Priselkov'stheorythatoriginallythesee of Kiev depended
upon thatof Ochrid. Afterthe incorporation of East Bulgaria into the
ByzantineEmpireand thedepositionof thepatriarch Damián in 971, the
see was movedseveraltimes,101
patriarchal untilunderPatriarchPhilip(ca.
1000-ca. 1015)102it was finallylocated at Ochrid.103
The last patriarch
negotiatedthe surrenderof Maria, widow of Tsar John- Vladislav
(1015-18) to Basil II nearStrumicain 1018.104Withtheincorporation of
100
Okolski, Ortow and Friese were all uncritical historians who tended to collate all the
material which they found without evaluating the sources and this informationhas been
correctlydismissed as unhistoricalby Pelesz, Geschichte, vol. 1, 145; Abraham, Powstanie, 15,
n. 1.
101 See
Vojnov, IIpecjiaB, passim. On the question of the organization of the church in the
eastern part of Bulgaria incorporatedinto the Empire see P. Georgiev, "Eglise," and "Organi-
sation."
102 On him see
Prokié, "Postanak," 225; Snegarov, HcropHM, vol. 1, 26; Antoljak,
MaxeflOHHja,vol. 1, 680, 683; Vojnov, IIpecjiaB, 75; Sâbev, LfrpKBa,262.
103 See theNotitia
archiepiscoporum Achridanorumdrawn up at the time of Archbishop John
ComnenusofOhrid(1142-cll57),ed.FHB 14(1968), 109-11, cf. 109.
104 There is some
controversyas to who he was. All codices, except one, of John Scylitzes'
Synopsis historiarumcall the hierarchDavid, ed. Thurn,Ioannis, 357, the exception being the
13th-14th centurycodex Vindobonensis hist, graec. LXXIV, copied froma manuscriptwritten
in 11 18 by bishop Michael of Deabolis, who was especially interestedin Bulgarian historyand
made many additions and alterations,see Prokié, Zusätze. This codex calls the hierarchJohn,
ed. Thurn,Ioannis, 357 , n. 77. Since in the Notitia there is no mention of any David, Philip
being followed immediatelyby John,ed. FHB 14, 109-110, and since in his firstcharterfor
the newly established autocephalous archsee of Ochrid of 1019 Basil II confirmsJohn as
archbishop, ed. FHB 11 (1965) 40-44, cf. 41, it has been concluded that the last patriarch,
John,was confirmedin officewith the reduced rank of archbishop,thus B. Prokic, Zusätze, 48,
and idem, "Arhiepiskop," 270-76, 279-85; Priselkov, OnepKH,43; Litavrin,IlepeBopoT, 396.
In this case David would either have been a suffraganof John's or else Scylitzes was ill-
informed. The idea that there had been two hierarchs,David in the part of Bulgaria already
conquered by Byzantium, perhaps at Dorostolum or Preslav, and John at Ochrid in hitherto
independent Macedonia, who was confirmed in office, thus Zachariae von Lingenthal,
"Beiträge," 10, 17, is contradictednot only by the fact thatit was David, not John,who was at
Ochrid before the surrender,but also by the fact that it was John,not David, who became the
firstoccupant of the new archsee.
The idea thatJohnwas confirmedin officeis, however, a misreadingof the charterof 1019,
which makes it quite clear thatJohn,a monk, was being confirmedto his office,viz. it bestows
imperial sanction upon his canonical election: xòv e-oX-aßeaxaTov uovaxòv ìcoocvvr|v
àpxiETuaKOTEovBo-uÀâpíaç eicupcoaap-Eveivai, ed. FHB 11,41. See Zlatarski,ApxHeiracKon,
464-72. That David was the last patriarch (cl015-18) and John the first archbishop
(1019- 1036/7) is furtherborne out both by the fact thatJohnZonaras, Annales, xvii, 9, ed. PG
135, 165, also calls the last occupant of the see before the conquest David, and by the fact that
the Vienna codex of Scylitzes' Synopsis states that among the captive Bulgarians paraded in
Basil II's triumphalentryinto Constantinople in 1019 was the hierarch of the Bulgarians, ed.
ThurnIoannis, 365. Zlatarski,ApxHenncKon,472, arbitrarilydismisses this latterfact as a later
addition by the copyist of the codex (and not by Michael of Deabolis) on the specious grounds
Macedoniaintotheempirethepatriarchal statusof thesee was reducedto

thatof an autocephalousarchbishopric, thelastpatriarch105
deposed,and a
newarchbishop appointed, John(1019-1036/7).
The evidenceconcerningthe hierarchsat the head of the churchin
KievanRus' priorto 1039 whenthePrimary Chroniclementions Metropoli-
tanTheopemptus106 is verysparse: Thietmarof Merseburgrecordsthatin
1018 an archbishop, whomhe does notname,greetedBoleslas in Kiev.107
Bothvitaeof Borisand Gleb mentiona hierarchJohn,who presidedat the
translationof theirrelicson 24 July,108 and accordingto theOchridtheory
he is to be identified as thehomonymous archbishopof Ochrid,to whom
Kiev remainedsubordinated untilhis deathin 1036-37, whena metropoli-
tansee was established andTheopemptus Notmerelydoes the
appointed.109
theory restsolelyuponthecoincidenceofnames,aboutwhichone reviewer
aptly remarked: It is curiousthatthesimplethought did notoccur to the
historianthatthe name Johnoccurs no less seldom in the lists of the
ecclesiasticalhierarchy thanthenameIvan Ivanovichin ordinary Russian
onomatology, and called thetheoryan edificeon sand,uoit also conflicts
thata hierarchcould not have been subjectedto such an humiliation - historyknowsmany

cases of thehumiliating treatmentof hierarchs,a classicalexamplebeingthatofJohnChryso-
stom,patriarch ofConstantinople,at Easterin 404.
The new archbishop, John,came fromDeura and had been abbotof themonastery of the
Deipara at Agnoandike,see theNotifia,FBH 14, 110. He was succeededin 1037 by Leo,
former chartophylax ofSt. Sophia,thefirst ofmanyGreekstooccupythesee,Notitia,ibidem.
105 See previousnote.
106 PSRL 1, 153.
107 See above,n. 94.
108 The Borisi et Glebi, ed.
anonymousNarrano de passione et laudano SS. martyrum
Abramovic, IlaMHTHHKH, 27-66, cf. 53, 54, and Nestor'sLectio de vitaet interimSS. mar-
tyrum Borisiet Glebi,ed. ibid.,1-26, cf. 18-19. Theybothreferto himas metropolitan and
as archbishop.Saxmatov,Pa3bic Raima,58, n. 1, consideredthatsincetwosubsequent transla-
tionstookplace on a Sunday,viz. 20 May 1072 and 2 May 1115,thisone also did and was
thusin either1020 or 1026; Priselkov, OnepKH, 71-2, favored1026,as Gleb's bodywas only
founda yearafterSvjatopolk'sdeathin 1019. However,as Müller,Problem,12, n. 2, has
pointedout,24 Julyis theirfeastand thusthereis no compulsionto considerthatit was also a
Sunday.
109 Advanced Priselkov,OnepKH,38-46, the theoryhas been acceptedby many,e.g.
by
Tschizewskij,Geschichte,99; Nazarko, BojioflHMnp, 111-114; Kovalevsky, "Eglise,"
478-79; Hoffman,"Poczatki", 72-5; Koch, "Byzanz," passim; idem,"Ochrid,"passim;
Kartasev,OnepKH, vol. 1, 160-65; Luznyc'kyj,IJepKBa, 54; Sòepkina,IIpocBemeHHH, 202;
Tóth,npeflnocujiKH, 161; andmostrecently DespodovaandSlaveva,PaKoiracH, 16.
110 Zavitneviö, ReviewofPriselkov, OnepKH, 646, 650. Thatthetheory is basedsolelyon the
onomasticcoincidencehas oftenbeen pointedout, e.g. Levöenko,OiepKH,22, 373-74;
Saxmatov,3aMeTKH, 56. Otherevidenceadducedin its favouris merespecialpleading,e.g.
Priselkov,OnepKH, 37-8, considerstheChristian namesof Borisand Gleb,viz. Romanusand
David,weregivenin honourofTsarPeter'ssecondson andTsarSamuel'selderbrother.Even
iftrue,itis irrelevantto questionsof ecclesiasticaljurisdiction.The Primary Chronicle,PSRL
withknownhistoricalfacts: Basil IPs threechartersforthe archseeof

Ochridof 1019, 1020 and ca. 1025 specifythejurisdictionof the see in
greatdetailbut make no mentionof Kiev;111moreover,Johnof Kiev's
Greekseal has beendiscoveredand itgiveshistitleas Metropolitan
ofRus-
sia.m Had Kiev been subordinatedto thearchseeof Ochrid,it wouldcer-
tainlyhave had a diocesanbishopand notbeendependent uponvisitsfrom
distantOchrid;113 moreover,for Vladimirto subordinatehis churchto
Macedonia,thenin conflict withByzantium,wouldimplythathe had quar-
relledwithBasil II, forwhichthereis no evidenceafterhis marriageto
Basil's sisterAnne.
1, 80, reportsthattheirmotherwas Bulgarian; assumingthatthismeansDanubianand not

Volgan(whichis by no meanscertain),whatwouldbe morenaturalthanforherto give her
sonsChristian namesassociatedwithBulgarianrulers?
She too has beentheobjectof fanciful theory:Pogorelov,PycHTe,151-53, claimsthatshe
persuadedVladimirto be baptized,whichceremony was carriedoutbyherchaplain,one ofthe
Bulgarianclergymen in Kiev, a theoryfoundby Nikolaev,$aKTop,12, convincing.Partenij,
IlaTpHapcH, 7 1, suggeststhatMetropolitan Michaelof Kiev was noneotherthanthischaplain,
whowas despatched to Constantinople forconsecration.A strangeexampleof historiographie
monoprosopomania involvingtwo fictionalcharacters!The Primary Chronicle,PSRL 1, 80,
also reportsthathe had two Czech wives,butas Ammann,"Wladimir,"194-95, remarked,
nobodyclaimsthattheyconverted himto LatinChristianity. It is truethathistory knowscases
of mothers, sistersand wives,mulieressuadentes,whohaveplayeda rolein theconversion of
princes,but since nothingis knownabouttheinfluence of Vladimir'swives theremarksby
Dvornik,Making,93; Cubatyj,icTopix,215; Mo§in,nepHOflinauHH, 43, remainidle specula-
tion,as does Pogorelov's theory, PycHTe,151,thatBorisandGleb owed theirexceptionalpiety
to theirBulgarianmother'sinfluence.On mulieressuadentessee Labunka, "Centers,"
189-93.
111 Ed. FHB 11,40-44, 44-47, 47. In all
theylist31 sees subordinated to it and it clearly
had a jurisdiction at leastas largeas theformer Bulgarianempire.The metropolitan sees of
Naupactus,Dyrrachium, Larissaand Thessalonicaall had to cede partof theirjurisdiction, see
Granic,"Glossen," 399-400; Konidares,"Entstehung,"7-10. The threecharters arefound
in a chrysobull of 1272 of EmperorMichaelVIII (1259-1282) and Priselkov, OêpKH,75-6,
explainstheabsenceof Kiev in themas due to thefactthatby 1272 Kiev was no longerunder
Ochrid,butthenneitherweresome othersees whichtheydo list,see Snegarov,Bpi>3KH, 25.
Because ofthefactthattheyareonlyfoundin thechrysobull, theirauthenticity has beenques-
tioned,mostrecently by Antoljak,MaiceflOHHja, vol. 1, 688-93, 698-708, buttheirgeneral
importis confirmed byothersources,see Krâstanov, TpaMOTH, passim. The charters havemost
recently beenpublishedbyTachiaos,UTi-vèc, vol. 1,pp. 68-69, 69-73, 73.
112 Laurent,
Corpus,vol. 5, pt. 1, no. 781, pp. 600-01; see also Soloviev,"Sceau," passim;
Vlasto,Entry,178; Vodoff, Naissance,85.
113 Koch,
Byzanz,214 and Ochrid,151,claimsthatthevitaeof Borisand Gleb makeitclear
thatJohnwas notresidingin Kiev,anditis truethataccordingto Nestor'sLectioJaroslavsum-
monedJohn,who came and afterwards departed,Abramoviö, >Khthh,17, 19, buttheseterms
in no way implya journeyfromOchridto Kiev and theplain sense of the vitaeis thatthe
metropolitan was residingin Kiev.
Those who rejecttheOchridtheoryincludeTixomirov, Cbjbh, 155-56; Dvornik,Making,
177; Honigmann, "Studies," 131; Mo§in,IIocjiaHHe, 93; Vernadsky, "Status," 295; Snegarov,
Bpi»3KH, 24-6; Cubatyj,IcTopiH, vol. 1, 253-56; Antoljak, MaiceflOHH ja, vol. 1, 398,n. 408a.
Perhapsthemostbizarreattempts to linkthe spreadof Christianity in

KievanRus' withBulgariaare thoserelating to PrincessOlga andthepriest
Gregorywho was presentat hertwoimperialreceptions in Constantinople.
The PrimaryChronicledoes not statewhereOlga was bornbut simply
U4
reportsthata wifecalled Olga was broughtforIgor fromPleskov, and
accordingto theRussianredaction ofhersynaxarium vitaofthesecondhalf
of thethirteenth century she was a Pskovian.115However, a fragmentary
chronicleof thelate fifteenth-earlysixteenthcenturyclaims thatshe was a
Bulgarian116 and its discoverer,Leonid Kavelin,concludedthatPleskov
shouldbe identifiedwithPliskain Bulgaria.117 Although he laterabandoned
thistheory,118it has occasionallybeen resuscitated,119 despiteits glaring
contradictionofthefactthat formost of herlifeshe was a pagan.120
One of thoseattending Olga's twoimperialreceptions at Constantinople
114 PSRL The variants are «l>tt>> ILibCKOBa,ILiecKOBa, IlbCKOBa, see Scheffer,
1, 29.
Apparat,83.
115 Ed. ähthh, app. 7-8, cf.7. On thedating,ibid.,24-32. The SouthSlav
Serebrjanskij,
redaction, ed. ibid.,app. 6-7, whichis closerto thelostoriginalRusianversionthanthesur-
vivingRusianredaction andis perhaps,ibid.,14,ofthemid-12thcentury, does notspecifyher
origins.Since latervitaerecordthe legendthatshe predictedthefoundation of Pskov,they
place herbirthelsewhere,viz. in thenearbyvillageof Vybuto,thusthe 16thcentury vita,ed.
ibid.,app. 8-12, cf. 8, 10, or Vybutts(k)aja,thusthevitaof theLibergraduum,PSRL 21,1,
6-31, cf.6, 22. Fora bibliography ofthelegendslinkingOlga to Pskov,see Ikonnikov, Ohht,
vol. 2,pt. 1,851,854.
110 Ed. Leonid (Kavelin),Otpmbok, 295-99, cf. 296. The fragmentary chroniclecoversthe
period 862- 1174, but begins witha princelygenealogy in which the lastnamed princeis Dmi-
trijIvanovich(1483-1509), grandsonof Ivan III of Muscovy(1440- 1505),ed. ibid.,296. It
is foundin the 16th-century codex Uvarov206 and has also been editedby Pavlova,JleTo-
rmceii,8-ll,cf.9.
117 Leonid (Kavelin),Poloni,217, 219. Cf. Leo diaconus,Historia,vii, 8, PG 117, 857:
raicncovßa; AnnaComnena,Alexias,vii,3, ed. PG 131,80- 1212,cf.541: r&icncoßa.
118 For a one: on thebasis of theassertionin a shortchroniclein the17th
yetmorefantastic
century codexPogodin1578 thatOlga was thedaughter of Tmutarakhan, a Cumanprince,see
Byékov, OnacaHHe, vol. 1, 153-54; Kavelin, 3aMenaHHÔ, vii-viii,considered thatshe was a
BlackBulgar.
119 E. 4; Nikolaev,4>aKTop,99-101; Sabev, "Millénaire," 836.
g. Ilovajskij,3aMeTKH,
Tixomirov, Cbjbh,139,founditprobable,althoughelsewherehe acceptsherPskovianorigins,
idem,Pyci,,299.
120 As npoHcxoxaeirae, 332. Soxan', OiepKH,21-22, seeksto obvi-
pointedbyMalysevskij,
atethisdifficultybypositingthatthechronicleaccountofherconversion is a laterdistortion
by
schemingRussianecclesiasticswho wishedto suppressthefactthatthefirstsaintof theRus-
sian churchwas a Bulgarian.Malysevskij, npoHcxoxaeHHe, 23-26, proposedthefar-fetched
theorythattheidea ofherBulgarianoriginshad beeninspiredby a glossin theSlavonictrans-
lationof Constantine Manasses'Breviarium historiaemetricum whichmentions thecaptureof
Pliska,ed. Bogdan,Cronica,1-222, cf. 201. For a detailedrefutation of herallegedlyBul-
garianorigin,see Mixajlov,PycH,134-37.
in 946 or 957121was the priestGregory.122 Speculationshave made him

variouslya Greek,123a priestof theLatinrite,124
a Bulgarian,125and more
theBulgarianhieromonk
specifically whowas consideredto havecompiled
theChronographus Judaicus,a worldhistory based mainlyon theOld Tes-
tamentand John Malalas' Chronographia,which containsbetweentheend
of Ruthand thebeginningof book v of Malalas a gloss to theeffectthat
Gregory, presbyterand monkof all theBulgarianchurches,at the com-
mand of Symeon of Bulgaria translatedKHHrtiâßtTa BStïaBeTxa<T>
cKaâioipe(OEpa^HHOBaro 3aB*fcTa
hcthhh8coyiti8126Originallyit was con-
sideredthatGregoryhad translated theentirechronograph,127 but since it
has been establishedthatit was compiledfromexistingSlavonictransla-
tionsin thethirteenth
century,128theglossmustrefereitherto Malalas or to
theOld Testament.The claim thatit refersto theformersince no cleric
121
Theyare describedby Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae,
ii,
15, ed. PG 112,73-1445, cf. 1108-1112. Since he datesthemWednesday, 9 September,and
Sunday,18 October,and duringhis reign(944-59) thesedatesfellon thosedaysonlyin 946
and 957, Olga's visithas traditionally beendatedto 957 becausethePrimary Chronicledatesit
to 6463, viz. 954-955, PSRL 1, 60, e.g. M. Obolenskij,Cjiob,42-4; Laehr,Anfänge,103;
Levöenko,OnepKH, 222; Vlasto,Entry, 250. RecentlyLitavrin, passim,has argued
.ZJaTHpoBKe,
for946 forseveralreasons,theprincipalone beingthatthedescription of thereceptionsforms
thefinalsectionof a chapterrecounting thereceptionof threeembassiesto Constantinople in
May, Augustand September-October, and the firstwas definitely in May 946. However,
Pritsak,"Ol'ga," 13-14, thinksthe receptionof 9 Septemberwas in 946 and thatof 18
Octoberin 957. On thereceptions see also Litavrin,IlyTeniecTBHe,and idem,Cbjhh. His dat-
ingto 946 has beenacceptedbysome,e.g. Tinnefeid, "Olga," butnotall,e.g. D. Obolensky,
"Baptism," 161; andidem,"Ol'ga's." The questionofthedatemustbe consideredopen,see
theremarks ofPoppe,"Christianisierung," 460, 464, andD. Obolensky,"Rus'," 41.
122 PG 112, 1112.
123 ThusLaehr, 52; Vodoff,Naissance,51; Arin'on(= Arrignon), OTHomemm, 119,
Anfänge,
considershima Byzantine diplomatwhohadbeensentto Kiev fordiplomatic négociations.
124 Thus
Jugie,"Origines,"258, and idem.,Schisme,174; Stökl,Geschichte, 56; Cubatyj,
IcTopiH,vol.1, 178.
125 Nikolaev,4>aKTop,103; Pavlova,Bpt3KH,103;
Mixajlov,Pvchh,69. Gregoryand the
assistantinterpreters receivedthe same amountat each reception,viz. 8 and 12 miliaresia
respectively. Thathe receivedless has beentakenby Nikolaevand Mixajlov,ibidem,to be a
typicalinstanceofByzantineBulgarophobia.
126 The remainsunedited,butthegloss has oftenbeen edited,e.g. Kalajdoviõ,
chronograph
HoaHH,99, 178; Evseev,TparopaE,356-7; B. Angelov,Btnpoca,50; Obolenskij,JleTonnceu,
xiii. The considerableliterature on thechronograph cannotbe givenhere,fora résumésee
Tvorogov,XpoHorpa<|>u, 16-18, 23-25.
XZI Thus
Kalajdoviõ,HoaHH,15; Obolenskij,JleTormceii, xiv, xxix; Golubinskij,Hctophä,
vol. 1, pt. 1, 900; ithas evenbeenrepeatedrecently byE. Georgiev, Pa3iiBeTi>T,303.
128 See Istrin,OßjiacTH,185-6; 16. An earlierdatingto the 10th
Tvorogov,XpoHorpa<J>u,
century,arguedby Saxmatov,SHiuouioneflHfl, 15-16, 33-34, cannotbe maintained,see
Weingart, Kroniky, pt. 1, 33-35.
wouldfeel obligedto assertthattheBible containsthetruth,129 is uncon-

vincingin view of thefactthatthephrasedivineold testament can hardly
referto Malalas' Chronographia; moreover, theglossfollowsRuth,thelast
book of theOctateuch,whichcontainstheold convenant, theprototype of
thenew,to whichtheglossclearlyrefers.130
The identification of Symeon'sGregorywithOlga's was firstsuggested
M.
by Obolenskij, who claimedthatafterSymeon'sdeathin 927 he wentto
Russia, where he compiledan accountof Olga's embassyto Constantino-
ple, as well as of otherevents,whichwas laterused in thecompilation of
thePrimary Chronicle.131 This was thenfurther elaboratedintothetheory
thathe had goneto Constantinople, whencehe was sentto Kiev to prepare
Olga for and
baptism,132 finally reached itsapotheosisin theidea thathe in
c960 leftKiev to return to Bulgariawherehe becamebishopat Ochridand
died in clO12.133In fact,of course,all thatis knownof Symeon'sGregory
is whatis statedin the gloss and to identify him withOlga's is another
instanceof arbitrary monoprosopomania. As forOlga's Gregory, ALLthat
is knownabouthimis thathe attended thetworeceptions, anditis noteven
129 ThusIstrin, AneKcaHflpHH, 355; in orderto substantiate his theory, he had to positthata.
theinformation aboutGregorywas takenfromthetitleof theSlavonictranslation of Malalas;
b. thephraseKHHru... coyni8was thetitlewhichthe 13thcentury compilerof thechronograph
wishedto give to his work,butc. he was unable(HecyMen)to keephis own titlefrombeing
contaminated by thetranslation title(!) and anywayd. old testament onlymeanseventsB.C.
as opposedto eventsA. D., ibid,356-58. All ofthiscan scarcelybe termed convincing.
130 ThusEvseev,TparopHÔ, 362-4; Weingart, Kroniky, pt. 1, 38-9. The view thatit refers
solelyto Ruth,thusSobolevskij,JlHTepaTypw, 266, is highlyimprobable sincethatbookalone
is hardlytheprototypeoftheentirenewcovenant.
131 M. 202-7, 220; idem,Cjiob, 87-8; this was acceptedby
Obolenskij,HccjieaoBaHHH,
Leonid(Kavelin),Pyiconuct, 17-18.
132 Lebedincev,Hanane,282. This was 75-81, who
acceptedby Barac, CocTaBHTejiHX,
added sundryequallyspeculativetheoriesof his own,e.g. thathe is to be identified withthe
monkGregorywho compiledtheGreekVitaS. Basilii iuniorisascetae Constantinopolitanil
Accordingto Soxan', OwepKH, 22, at Olga's courthe in all probabilitybecame her main
adviser,notonlyin questionsof Christianity but in othersconcerninginternalpoliticsand
externalstaterelations.
133 Kavelin,Onncaime,vol 1, 669, vol. 3, 9-11, 361-62; idem,PoaoM, 219-22. The
of himas thebishopof Ochridis based on a partlyillegibleand totallyobscure
identification
inscriptionon the churchof St. Sophia, Ochrid,discoveredby Grigoroviö,Oiepic, 100:
rPHrOPIOY ... IKHNHN ErEIPAZ ... TON 0EOrPAOQN N0MÍ2N E0NH TA MYZÍ2N
EKAIAAIKEIFIANEO0Í2Z... witha datethatcouldbe either<j(pK(1012) or<tcûk (1312). Gre-
gorycouldequallywellbe thepersonto whomthechurchwas dedicated,thusFilaret,CBKThie,
thanthepersonwhobuiltthechurchand/or
7, rather taughttheMoesians,whilethedatecould
be equally thatof Gregory'sdeath,thusFilaret,ibid, 8, or thatof the construction of the
church,thusSobolevskij,JlHTepaTypu, 267, n. 2. The identification of thetwoGregorieswas
first proposedbyBiljarskij,
tentatively CocTaB,122-3. ForKavelinitwas a fact- bothomit-
tedto mention thatthedateoftheinscription is dubious.
certainthathe evervisitedKiev.134
If the sourcesare silentaboutthe activecontribution of Bulgariansof
any degreeto theconversionof Kievan Rus', theyare no morerevealing
about the materialtransfer thither of literaryworks. The sole sourceto
mentiontheremovalof codices to Kiev is thevitaordinariaof Vladimir,
whichstatesthatthe bootywhichhe carriedofffromChersonincluded
books,135 butevenifthestatement of thisvita,whichis notpriorto thelate
thirteenth century,136is to be credited,it scarcelyrefersto Slavonic
codices.137This absence of evidencehas only fueledspeculation,138 the
principalsuggestionsbeing thatOlga took books back afterher visitto
Constantinople in the mid-tenth century;139 manuscripts arrivedas booty
carriedoffin Svjatoslav'sBulgariancampaignsof 967/8and 969-97 1;140
broughtby refugeesfromByzantineoppression;141 bootycarriedoffto
Constantinople and there sold on the market or sent as imperialgiftsto
Kiev;142bootygiven to Rus' troops who aided Basil II in his conquestof
134 The fact that

Gregory and the assistant interpretersreceived fixed amounts, see above n.
1 16, whereas the otherspresentreceived varyingamounts at the two receptions,would perhaps
indicate that they were Byzantine officials, while the others received gifts, thus Ajnalov,
Otcpkh, 299; Parxomenko, Hanano, 126-7, suggests that he may have been Olga's guide in
Constantinople. At all events the usual assertion that he was a member of Olga's suite, e.g.
Poppe, "Christianisierung," 463, remains an unprovenassumption.
135 Ed.
Serebrjanskij,)KHTHÄ,app. 17-21, cf. 21.
uo
Serebrjanskij, ibid., 59-62, who calls it the JieronncHo-npojioxHoename, dates it to the
14th century;Sobolevskij, IlaMÄTHHKH,11, who calls it the oouvHoe xHme, to the late 13th
century; see also Saxmatov, JlereHfla,1052-57.
137 As
Angelov, Bonpocy, 137, would have it, cf. idem, HcTopHHTa, vol. 1, 37. So also
Xaburgaev, CTaHOBJieHHe, 17; Koèev, "Anfange," 507.
138
Typical is the reply given by Lunt, "Interpreting," 260, to his own question: How did
they(sc. the exemplars for East Slavic codices) come into the hands of the Rus' ? We can only
speculate. He then suggests three ways, but- unlike many scholars- he specifies that it is
speculation, not fact. His conjecture that some may have come directly from Bohemia and
Moravia requires more detailed study.
139 Thus 16.
Xaburgaev, CTaHOBJieHHe,
140
E.g. Zukovskaja, H360PHHK,12; Rybakov, H360PHHK,12; Angelov, Bonpocy, 134; Kuev,
Ci>fl6aTa, 14; Schmücker, "Bemerkungen," 92; Litavrin,üepeBopoT, 402.
141
E.g. Mosin, IIepHOflH3aiíHH, 52; Kuev, Otfl6aTa, 15; Vodoff, Naissance, 98; Mixajlov,
PycH, 132; Rogov,CBH3H (1978) 44.
142
E.g. Sobolevskij, MaTepnanw, 136; Gudzij, JÏHTepaTypa,35; Sèepkina, Bonpocy, 203-4;
Pavlova, Bpi>3KH,103. It has even been suggested thatperhaps the entire (Bulgarian) Imperial
library (die gesamte Zarenbibliothek) was carried off in the sack of Preslav and presented by
the Byzantine emperor to Vladimir on the occasion of his baptism, thus Kronsteiner,"Litera-
tursprache," 10-11 (who has forgottenthat at the time of Vladimir's baptism there were co-
emperors on the Byzantine throne) and Scepkina, IfoyHeHHio,233, who estimates its size as
being between 200 and 300 books. On what this estimate is based remains a mystery.
Schiwaroff, "Rolle," thinks that the Byzantines sent only a part of the Bulgarian imperial
library,but fails to say what theydid withthe rest.
Bulgaria.143There has even been speculation about individual codices144

and exemplars,145not to mentionconjecture about the arrival of the Greek
codex used for an allegedly East Slav translation.146In fact the actual
143 Thus 334, n. 44; Vodoff,Naissance,105; Lunt,"Interpreting," 260.

Poppe,Kypmioirfc,
The participation of Rus' troopsin theconquestis reported by Scylitzes,ed. Thurn,loannis,
355. Schiwaroff, "Rolle," 149,talksvaguelyofa transfer ofbooksafterBasil IPs conquestof
Bulgaria,butitis notclearwhether he meansas bootyoras a Byzantinegift.
144 Mo§in,"Listiéi," 7-64, has
suggestedthatthe 11thcentury Novgorod(or Kuprijanov)
folia represent the remainsof an evangeliarypresentedto Vladimirof Kiev by Samuel of
Macedonia. Even iftheSouthSlav originof thetwofolia,usuallyconsideredto be East Slav,
was correct, therestofMoSin'stheory wouldremainan utterly unsubstantiated hypothesis.On
thefoliasee Smidt(=Schmidt),Karajior,no. 12.
145 Thusthearrivalofthe
exemplarofthe1073 florilegium has beenassociatedwitha. booty
fromSvjatoslav'sBulgariancampaigns,thusVlasto,Entry,252, noteb; b. thedowryof Prin-
cess Anne(it had been takenfromtheBulgarianimperiallibraryin Preslavand keptin the
libraryof St. Sophia,Constantinople), thusSöepkina,Bonpocy,202-3; c. property takento
Rus' by BulgarianrefugeesfleeingByzantineoppressionin the early 11thcentury,thus
Zukovskaja,H36ophhk, 12; d. bootygivento troopssentby Vladimirto assistBasil II in his
conquestofBulgaria,thusVodov,Naissance,105.
Theseviewsreston theassumption thattheextant1073 codex is a faithful reproductionof
an equallysumptuousBulgariancodex,a view thathas been forcefully challengedby Whit-
man,"Izbornik,"252-67, and again by Lunt,"Izbornik,"359-76. Theycontendthatthe
imported exemplarprobablyconsistedoftwomodest,unadorned octavovolumes.
146 Viz.
George Hamartolus'Chroniconbreve, allegedly translatedin Jaroslav' s day
(1019-1054). The argumentprovidesan excellentexampleof a conjecturebased upon a
hypothesis deducedfroma theoryand goes as follows:Weitzmann, "Illustration," passim,on
thebasis of miniatures in a ninth-century manuscript of Gregoryof Nazianzus' homilies,viz.
Paris,codexgraecus510, postulatedthatilluminated codices of thehistoriesof Sozomenus,
Theodoretand Malalas once existedand,ibid.,129-30, datedtheiroriginto Justinian's day,
viz. 527-65. He further pointedout, ibid, 130-31, thatonlythreeilluminated codices of
Byzantinehistoriesexist,one Greek,viz. codexMatritensis vitr.16-2, of aboutthelate 13th
century (thedateis disputed)containing JohnScylitzes'Synopsishistoriarum with574 minia-
tures,andtwoSlavonic,viz. the14th-century BulgariancodexVaticanusslavicus2 containing
ConstantineManasses' Breviariumhistoriae metricumwith 69 miniatures,and the
13th-14th-century East Slav Moscow TheologicalAcademycodex 100 containingGeorge
Hamartolus'Chroniconbrevewith129 miniatures.Wilson,"Scylitzes," 218-18, proposed
thetheory thattheexemplaroftheMadridScylitzesbelongedto a verysmalland specialclass
of illuminated codices keptin the imperiallibraryat Constantinople and sentas diplomatic
giftson specialoccasions,andthattheSlavonictranslations weremadefromtwosuchcodices.
Franklin, BpeMeHH, 327-28, has now suggestedsuitableoccasionsuponwhichtheGreek
illuminated codex of GeorgeHamartolus'Chroniconbrevemighthave been despatchedto
Kiev: Vladimir'sconversion;the arrivalof Greekmetropolitans (sic, a metropolitan?); the
consecration (sic) of St. Sophia's at Kiev (presumably he meansits foundation in 1037 as it
was notconsecrated untilthe1060's); themarriage ofVsevolodJaroslaviö to a Byzantineprin-
cess (viz. 1046).
BeforesomeBoltinianhistorian (see note76) seizesuponone oftheseas the mostsuitable
occasion,it shouldbe pointedout thata. Weitzmann' s postulateremainsa theory;b. even
Wilson,"Scylitzes,"217, admitted thathis notionof "diplomatic"illuminated codicesbased
uponWeitzmann' s theorywas a hypothesis', c. thetwo Slavoniccodicesbothcontainminia-
turesdefinitely notcopied fromany Byzantinecodex,forManasses see Dujöev,Miniatures,
127; forGeorgesee Popov,3aMeTKH, 131-41, and Vzdornov,HjiJiiocTpaiiHH, 220-22, and
circumstances in whicha particularsurvivingBulgariancodex arrivedin

knownfromthetimeofArseniusSuxanov'sthirdmissionto
Russiaare first
theEast in 1653/4-1655/6.147
Untilnow fewearlyEast Slav codiceshave been examinedin sufficient
detailtodetermine whether theywerecopiedfroma Bulgarianexemplar,148
and in even fewercases is thereagreementas to the provenanceof the
latter:East Bulgariain thecase oftheOstromir
evangeliaryof 1056-57,149
the eleventhcenturyCudov Psalter,150 and the eleventh-twelfth
century
Viktorovfragment of Antiochus'sPandectes;151
WestBulgariain thecase
thusneitheris a simplycopy of an alleged Byzantinearchetype;d. indeed,no illuminated

ByzantinecodexofeitherManassesor Georgehas beentraced;e. disagreement aboutthedat-
ing of thehypothetical Byzantinearchetypes meansthatin neithercase is thepostulateof a
diplomatic codexeithernecessary orcertain.
In thecase of Manasses,thearchetype is usuallyconsideredto havebeencontemporary to
theauthor,viz. 12thcentury, see e.g. Dujèev,Miniatures,127; Bozkov,MnHHanopH, 88, but
some scholars,e.g. Grabar,"Illustrations,"194; Dzurova,Catalogo,43, considertheminia-
turesPalaeologanin style,viz. contemporary to the14th-century Slavoniccodex,in whichcase
thereis clearlyno needto posittheexistenceofa priorGreekcodex.
In thecase of GeorgeHamartolus, the Byzantinearchetype is also usuallyconsideredto
have been contemporary to theauthor,viz. 9thcentury, see, e.g. Weitzmann, "Illustration,"
131; Pobedova,OrpaxeHHe, 380, or a littlelater,i.e. of thelate 9thor 10thcentury, thus,e.g.
Vzdornov, HjuiiocTpaiiHH, 212. Others,however,see 1lth-century characteristicsin theminia-
tures,e.g. Franklin, BpeMeHH, 327; Bozkov,Meheutioph,95 (who considersthemsimilarto
thosein theScylitzescodex,viz. theycouldnotantedatethelate 1lthcentury), whileAjnalov,
MHHHâTwpH, 22-3, andJleTonHCb, 132,sees in thedepictionofthearmourand weaponsLatin
influences due to thecrusadesand the establishment of the Latin empire,i.e. the archetype
couldnotantedatethe12thcentury.Protasov,HepTH, passim,detectsBulgarianinfluences and
considersthattheminiatures onlygo back to theByzantinearchetype via a 13th-century Bul-
gariancodex. Clearlyanydatinglaterthanthemid-eleventh century wouldnegatetheidea ofa
"diplomatic"illuminated codexusedforthetranslation.
Finally,last- butby no meansleast- f. theallegedEast Slav originof thetranslation of
GeorgeHamartolus'Chroniconbreveis itselfan unprovenhypothesis, cf. Thomson,"Rus-
sia," no. 50.
147 For the transfer of Bulgarianmanuscripts to Russia fromthenon see Kuev, Ci>fl6aTa,
41-46.
148 Kuev, ObflGaTa,15-30, lists 29 instances,but severalare dubious and at least one
incorrect;he claims,ibid.,28, thatthe 1144 Halyc tetrevangelium was copied froma Bul-
garianprotograph as itskalendarincludesthefeastof St. Johnof Rila. In factthekalendaris
on ff. 242v-256r and ff.229-260 are a 14th-century additionto the codex, on whichsee
Smidt,KaTajior,no. 53.
149 Smidt,KaTajior,no. 3. The recentclaim
by Despodova,PaKonncH, 16,thattheexemplar
was Macedonianis based noton linguistic evidencebuton acceptance,ibid.,62, of thetheory
thattheOstromir codex was copiedfromtheNovgorod(or Kuprijanov)folia,thesole surviv-
ingfragment of a codexwhichhadbelongedto SamuelofMacedonia. On thisunsubstantiated
theory see aboven. 144.
150 Smidt,KaTajior,no. 3 1.
151 Smidt,KaTajior,no. 201.
240 FRANCIS J. THOMSON
of the eleventh-century Eugenius fragmentsof a psalter152and the

eleventh-twelfth century Tolstojpsalter,153whilethepresenceof Glagolitic
letters in a fewearlyEast Slav codices154 mayindicatelinkswithWestBul-
garia, where Glagoliticremained longer in use.155
The first instancein whichthecircumstances ofthearrivalof a particular
exemplarare knownpostdatestheKievan period: mostEast Slav codices
oftheSerbiannomocanonhaveinterpolated betweentheprefaceto andtext
ofthecanonsof Carthagethecolophonof a codexcopiedin Bulgariaat the
requestof theDespotJamesSvjatoslav(7-1275) forMetropolitan Cyrilof
Kiev (1242/3-1280/1), probablyin 1262, and an epistlefromJamesto
Cyril, which revealsthat thelatterhad requesteda copyof thenomocanon,
whichJameshad obtainedfromthe patriarchand had had copied for
Cyril.156
It is sometimes assertedthatuntiltheincorporation of East Bulgariainto
the ByzantineEmpiremostcodices wentto Kievan Rus' fromthereand
thatafterwards untilthefall of Macedoniain 1018 mostwentfromWest
Bulgaria,and thenthe flowended.157This is, however,based upon the
premisethattheByzantineauthorities in Bulgariapursueda policyofpiti-
less Graecizationl5S and systematic Hellenization159and thatthe period
until1185,whentheuprisingbeganwhichled to theestablishment of the
secondBulgarianEmpire,was an epoch ofRomanization.160 This premise
notonlypresupposesa nationalistic Hellenicself-consciousness foreignto
themultinational ByzantineEmpire at thetime,161butis contradictedbythe
evidence.ClearlyGreekbecametheofficiallanguageofadministration and
152 Smidt,KaTajior, nos. 29-30

153
Smidt,KaTajior, no. 47.
154 For brief
surveys see Karskij, IlajieorpaQHJi,212-13, and Il'inskij, JIhctkh,101 -2. The
claim, thus Shevelov, Elemente, 74, repeated by Issatschenko, Geschichte, vol. 1, 35-6, that
the vast majorityof these codices come fromNovgorod and indicate links with Moravia rather
than Macedonia, is unproven with regard to theirnorthwestRusian origin and purely specula-
tive with regardto the theoryof theirMoravian provenance. See also Birnbaum, "Novgorod,"
and de Vincenz, "Elements."
1:0 Thus Durnovo, BBefleime,36, n. 6;
Speranskij, IlaMHTHHKH,531-32; Ischizewskij,
99-100.
Geschichte,
1M) Both
colophon and epistle have often been edited, e.g. B. Angelov, JlHTepaTypa,vol. 2,
142-47. There are various corruptreadings of the date, the main ones being sv|/Sh ejurnx,s'|/öh
E HHflHX,svJ/öheflHHHX, ibid., 143 -45; for other variants see Scapov, HacneflHe, 148-49. It
was thus either 1262 or 1270, but only the formercoincides withthe 5th indiction.
157 See, for 528-530; Mosin, üepHOflinamiH,58-9; Tóth,
example, Speranskij, IlaMHTHHKH,
IIpeanocbiJiKH,192.
158 Thus
Speranskij,üaMHTHHKH,533.
13y Thus Mosin, 60.
IlepHOflH3auHH,
160 Thus Zlatarski,Hctoohh, vol. 2, 167.
161 See - -
Browning,Byzantium,77 8 ; B . Angelov, Crpamimi, 86 7 .
theecclesiasticalhierarchy was Graecized,butclaimsthattherewas a mass

replacement ofthehigherand evenlowerBulgarianclergydowntopriests
and subdeaconsby Greeks}62thatGreekoustedSlavonicas theliturgical
language,163andthatSlavonicmanuscripts weresystematically destroyed164
are belied by the existenceof eleventh-and twelfth-century Bulgarian
manuscripts,165 as well as by continuing translationwork.166 It would be
exaggerated to claim167 thattheGreekhierarchy patronized Slavonicletters
and liturgy,and undoubtedly theperiodwas one of relativestagnation as a
naturalconsequenceof therelegation of Slavonicto second-rate status,but
ofculturalcontinuity therecan be no doubt.168
How Byzantineculturein itsSlavonicformas receivedin Bulgariawas
transferredto KievanRus' remainsthusforlack of evidencein thesources
an enigma. Theirsilence is perhapsnot surprising as it did not involve
great events, but was a continuingunspectacular processwhichmayhave
been initiallymore intensebut never halted. The centersof transfer
undoubtedly includedAthos,wheretherewas an East Slav monastery from
the mid-twelfth centuryon,169and perhapsto a lesser degree Constan-
162 Thus, 61. To supportthisview he refersto Litavrin,

Kaliganov,IIpo6jieMH, BojirapHM,
367-68. However,thelatteronlytalksofa partialreplacement. In fact,althoughsomeofthe
urbanclergywerereplacedby Greeks(in partno doubtnecessitatedby the growthin the
Greek-speaking population), thereis no evidenceeitherthatthiswas doneon a largescale,or
thatitaffected thecountry clergy.
163 ThusMosin,IIepH0flH3an.HH, 69.
164 Thus Hctophh,vol. 2, 265.
Zlatarskij,
lõ:> The list
givenby Dinekovin Dinekov et al, HcTopHx,vol.1, 246, is unreliableas it
includesWestBulgarianmanuscripts of theearly11thcentury whichcouldhave beencopied
before1018andlate 12thcentury oneswhichcouldpostdate1185.
166 See Thomson,' ' ''
Continuity,to appear.
10/ As does Dostál, "Relations," 173-4. Litavrin,
BojirapHH,351-52, with some
however,arguesthattheinitialsettlement
justification, of 1019 withtheestablishment of an
autocephalous archseeheadedby theBulgarianhierarch Johndid indeedfavourtheprivileges
oftheBulgarianclergy.At all eventsthereis no evidencefora processof Graecization before
theappointment ofhisGreeksuccessor,Leo, in 1037.
168 See D.
Angelov,"Länder," 151- 166; Dujcev,HflenTa, 5-19; Andreev, HfleaTa,17-37;
Meöev, HßaH.
169 The claimthattherewas a Rusian,viz. East Slav, thereas earlyas 1016,thus
monastery
Mosln,PyccKHe (ix), 63; Dujcev,IJeHTpw, 123,andMont,128; Mamalakes,"Opoç, 73, cf.673;
Lemerle,Actsde Saint-Pantéléèmôn, 5, et al, is based on thearbitrary identification
of two
separatemonasteries as one. An act,datedonlyFebruary ofthe14thindiction, butwhichmust
be of 1016 sinceit was signedby Nicephorus, Protosof Athos(1010-1019) and Theodoretus,
Superiorof theLaura (1010-before1018),see thetableof indictions in Grumei,Chronologie,
254,bearsthesignature ofone Gerasimusofthemonastery xox>Pôç (sic), ed. Lemerle,Actesde
Lavra,vol. 1, no. 19,pp. 154-55, cf. 155. The onlyotherreference to thismonastery is in an
act of 1081 to whichtheilliterate monkCyriacusxov Pcoç(sic) addedhis signand whichthe
scribesignedwiththewordsÔnocKupiaKoö tod Pouç (sic), ed. Bompaire,Actes,no. 6, pp.
60-64, cf.63-4.
tinople,Jerusalem,and Sinai,buttheprocessnevertheless remainedessen-

The claimthatByzantium
tiallyBulgarian.170 used everymeanstoprevent
thedevelopment of culturallinksbetweenitsrestlessSlav subjectsand the
independentSlav lands to thenorth111is unfounded.Thereis no evidence
fora wide-spreadknowledge of Greekin KievanRus',172noryetformuch
In the mid-twelfth centurywe may assumethatthe monastery of Xylourgou - thatis, the

Dormitionmonasteryof Our Lady of the Carpenter,t| koîutioiç xfjç ©eoiÓKoi) xov
EDÀoupyoí) - was inhabited by East Slav monkssinceitsinventory of 1142 listsa numberof
ßißta'apodalica (sic) ed. Lemerle,Actesde Saint-Pantéléèmôn, no. 7, pp. 73-76, cf.74, while
themonastery is referredto in an act of 1169 as Xylourgou ti'toitœv'Povacov(sic), ed. ibid.,
no. 8, pp. 82-86, cf. 83. (In theconfirmations of thisact of 1188 and 1194 themonastery is
referred to as beingthatxœv'Pcoç(sic) and icoviepop.ováx©vxœv'Pcoç(sic) respectively, ed.
ibid.,86.) Xylourgouis firstmentioned in an act of 1030,ed. ibid.,no. 1, p. 30, and in two
othereleventh-century acts, 1048,ed. ibid.,no. 4, pp. 48-50, and 1070,ed. ibid.,no. 6, pp.
63-64, butnowhereis thereanymentionof a Rusianconnection and itclearlyonlycameinto
East Slav handsin thecourseofthetwelfth century.
To identify themonastery too) Pôç withXylourgou,whoseRusian connectionare attested
onlysomeone hundred and twelveyearslateris completely arbitrary. The monastery tod Pôç
is just anotherof themanyeleventh-century foundations whichdisappeared, onlytheirnames
beingpreserved in contemporary documents.For otherinstancessee, forexample,thelistsof
signatories to an act dated 19 April 1015, ed. Dölger,Schatzkammern, vol. 1, no. 103, pp.
273-75, cf.275, and to thesecondAthonite typiconof 1045-46,ed. Meyer,Haupturkunden,
151-62, cf. 162. The suggestion thatthesingularformof itsnameindicatesits founder, viz.
oftheRusian,as opposedto itsinhabitants, viz. oftheRus', thusMoSin,PyccKHe, (ix), 61-2,
and Lemerle,Actesde Saint-Pantéléèmôn, 4, is unlikely,butin eithercase themostobvious
interpretation is thatitrefersto Norsemen, verylargenumbers ofwhomservedin thearmiesof
Basil II (976-1025),see Blöndal,Varangians,42-53; Davidson,Road, 179-80, 239-42.
Verylittleis knownabout East Slav-Athoniterelationsin the earlyperiod. The picture
paintedby Mosin,PyccKHe, was correctly judgedby Dölgerin his review,180: Das Bild,das
' '
M. entwirft, ist,wie die häufigen'Vielleicht'schonäusserlichanzeigen,starksubjektivund
bedientsich nichtseltender "Tradition", um LückenspärlicherQuellenüberlieferung zu
überbrücken. ThatAthosdid playa rolein thetransfer of Byzantinecultureto theEast Slavs
in theeleventhcentury is undoubted, butthatit was themainsourceforthat,thus,Birnbaum,
Rus' 4, is an instanceof what Dölger in his review of MoSin, PyccKHe,209, called
unbegründete Vermutungen. For a bibliography of Rus'-Athoniterelationssee Prosvirnin,
"A<J>oh," passim.
170 Litavrin, IlepeBopoT, 397, 400, would limitofficialcontactsbetweentheRus' and Bul-
garianchurchesto theperiodaftertheend of Bulgaro-Byzantine hostilitiesin 1018 and before
theappointment of thefirstGreek,Leo, to thearchseeof Ochridin 1037; otherwise contacts
were unofficial.However,this divisionof contactsinto officialand unofficialis a pure
hypothesis, unsubstantiated by any historicalevidence,and his whole articleteems with
phrasessuchas: It is, in myopinion,impossibleto excludethepossibility... (p. 398); it seems
possibleat thisstage(naturallyonlyhypothetically) to drawtwomainconclusions...(p. 399);
/considerthusthesupposition veryprobablethat...(p. 402).
171 Mosin, 49.
IIepHOflH3aimH,
172 See Hösch, "Griechischkentnisse,"250-60; Thomson,"Quotations,"and "Implica-
tions,"passim. Recentclaimsto thecontrary of thesestudiesof
eitherignoreor are ignorant
thelevelofa knowledgeofGreekin Rus', e.g.: It maybe assumed(McmkhonojiaraTb)thatat a
certainlevel of educationChurchSlavonic-Greekbilingualism (flByjnMHHe)was generally
thusUspenskij,Hctophh,32. This is notmerelyunsubstan-
presupposed(npeanojiarajiocb),
workbeingundertaken
if anytranslation and thereceptionof the
there,173
aspectsof Byzantineculture174
literary in Kievan Rus' passed through an
essentiallyBulgarianprism.EarlyBulgarianliterature was theintermedi-
arybetweenConstantinople and Kiev,175notmerelyin thesenseof beinga
passivevehicleforthetransfer,butas an activeagentin revisingByzantine
cultureto meet Bulgarianrequirements and in the processcreatingthat
corpusparadigmatum}16 the structural
prototypes,whichlasteduntilthe
dawn of the modernera. That is Bulgaria's lastingcontribution to the
receptionof Byzantineculturein Kievan Rus',177and Boltinianhistori-
tiated- it borderson theridiculous.Certainly Uspenskij'sown graspof Greekleaves much

to be desired: he, ibid.,35, thinksthatECb3jn> is a translation forócvGoçand claimsthatthe
latterwordis feminine in gender.
173 See Thomson,
"Implications,"passim,and idem,"Made in Russia," to appear. What
Schmücker, "Bemerkungen," 91, meanswhenhe assertsthatmuchof theliterature available
in Bulgariawas nottakento Kiev in Slavonicbutwas translated in Rus' fromGreekby Bul-
gariansis unclear- thiswouldinvolvedual translations ofthesameworks,ofwhichhe gives
no instances.Uspenskij'sclaim,Hctophh,30, thata large corpusof textsverydiversified in
contentand genrewas translated in Kievan Rus' is merelythe umpteenth repetition of an
unprovenassertion.Some of thisscholar'sstatements abouttranslated literature
give rise to
doubtsabouthis understanding of thenatureof mediaevalculture;e.g. theidea thattheworld
chroniclesof JohnMalalas and George Hamartoluscould notpossiblyhave any practical
interestfor theRussianreaderand wereonlyof interest to Russiansas partofByzantine cul-
ture,ibid.,30, ignoresthepatently obviousfactthatformedievalman all historywas Heil-
geschichte, all eventseitherpresageor fulfilthedivinewill. It is preciselyin thesetwoByzan-
tinechronicles thatByzantinehistory is viewedfromthisstandpoint as theprolongation of Old
and New Testament history.No matter how greatthestylistic difference, thePrimary Chroni-
cle has an absolutelyidenticalviewof history, whichUspenskijdescribes,ibid.65-6, by cit-
ingEremin,JlHTeparypa, 64, 70-71; Uspenskijomitsto pointout thatEremin,ibid.66, 68,
69, specifically refersto Greeksources,includingHamartolus, in dealingwithwhathe calls,
ibid. 64, the Chronicle'sphilosophyof history.On the notionof divineprovidencein the
Chroniclesee Sielicki,"Opatrznosc,"passim.
ll* The artistic
aspectswerelargelyassimilateddirectly, see Birnbaum,"Component,"12,
althoughwhathe means,idem,"Rus'," 9, by thestatement thattheBulgarianimpactdid not
includetheveryessenceof the Orthodox faith,its liturgicalmanifestation and thecarefully
selectedknowledge thatwentwithit is unclear- theliturgy certainlypassedthrough theBul-
garianprism,whereitwas enriched byoriginalhymns, see G. Popov,IIpoH3BejjeHHJi,passim.
175 Lixacev,JIirrepaTypu, 12-21, andPa3BHTHe, 23-44, greatlyoverestimates thesuprana-
tionalaspectsof Slavonicliterature as theintermediary; see thereactionsto theformer article
byGraseva,JIirrepaTypH, 62-71; Dujcev,IIpo6jieMH, 8-23; Dinekov,JIirrepaTypa, 51-72.
176 Pikio(=Picchio),Mhctoto,114; see also idem,
"Impact,"262.
177
Uspenskijis proneto makingassertionssuch as the SouthSlavs played an auxiliary,
intermediary role,notan independent one: theorientation was Greek,thewritten language
(riHCbMeHHocTfe) Bulgarian,HcTopHX,25, andRussianliterature (writtenlanguage,education)
was at the initialstage nothingmorethana copy(ckojiok)madefromByzantineliterature,
ibid., 30. See also his remarksat a round-table held on 24 February1988,in Kavko,Ctoji,
30-31. This approachlargelyignoresBulgaria'sactiverole in the transmission and hence
givesa distorted viewoftheprocess.
ans178who, abhorring a historicalvacuum,seek to fillthe silence of the

sources by theirown unsubstantiated hypothesizing or by recourseto
suchas theJoachimChroniclemerelyobscurethatachieve-
mystifications
ment.
University ofAntwerp
WORKS CITED
Abraham,W. Powstanieorganizacyikoscioia laciñskiegona Rusi, vol. 1, Lviv,

1904.
Abramovic, D., éd. JKhtha cbmtux MyveHHKOB Eopnca h Fjieôa h cjiyxõhi hm
{= IlaMJITHHKHnpeBHQ-pyCCKOH
JIHTepãTypM, 2, 1916).
KneBo-IIevepcbKHänarepHK(= Ilari htkh mobhTa nncbMeHCTBa jjaBHboï
YKpaïHHA, 1931).
Ajnalov, D. "JleTonncbTeoprHHAMapTona (Kpinraua). BucTaBicaöuBineö TpoHiie-
CeprneBoäJlaBpLiNo100," DeuxièmeCongrèsInternational
des Études
éd. D. Anastasijevicand P.
Belgrade,1927, Compte-rendu,
Byzantines,
Granic,Belgrade,1929,127-35.
"MHHHaTiopM flpeBHeöiiiHXpyccKHXpyKonnceô b My3ee Tpoime-
CeprneBoñJTaBpuh Ha ee BHCTaBKe,"IlaMHTHHKH
fípeBHeñnncbMeHOCTH
h
HCKvccTBa,190(1925) 11-35.
"OnepKHh 3aMeTKHno hctophhapeBHe-pyccKoro HCKyccTBa, ii,"
H3BÖPJIQ13,ii (1908) 290-307.
zum Gedächtnis,"Orientaliachris-
Ammann,A. ''Wladimirdem Apostelgleichen
tianaperiódica,5 (1939) 186-206.
b B-bJirapcicaTa
Andreev, J. "HfleflTa3a npHeMCTBeHocira jj-LpacaBanpe3cpe^HOBeKO-
" ''
BHeTo(XII-XIV b.), TpyjjoBeHa BejiHKOT-bpHOBCKHxyHHBepcHTeT KnpHJi
HhieTom"12,iii(1974-75)17-37.
Angelov, B. JÎ3 HCTopHXTaHa pycKo-ö'bJirapcKHTe bpt>3kh,2 vols.,
JiHTeparypHH
Sofia,1972-1980.
pycKa h cp-bôcKaJiHTeparypa,2 vols., Sofia,
H3 crapara 6-bJirapcKa,
1958-1967.
**K Bonpocy o Hakane pyccKo-öojirapcKHX cBH3eô,"
JiHTepaTypHwx
TOffPJl,
14(1958)132-38.
"Kt>m BT>npoca3a khhxobhoto aeno Ha IIpe3BHTepFpHropHHMhhx,"
-
CTapoö-bJirapcKa Jinrepa Typa, 3(1 978) 48 55 .
"IIpoHHKBaHeHa CTapoötJirapcKH cmmemin b CTapaTa pycKa JiHTepa-
Typa," CTapoö-bJirapcKa
JiHTeparypa,2 (1977) 20-45.
CrpaHHHHH3HCTopHMTa Ha crapoõTíJirapcKaTa Sofia, 1974.
JiHTeparypa,
178 On thistermsee note76.

Länderund das bulgarischeVolk in den Grenzen

Angelov,D. "Die bulgarischen
des byzantinischenReiches im XI.-XII. Jahrhundert (1018-1185).
in
Verhältnisse),"
(Sozial-ökonomische Hussey,Proceedings,151-166;
Sofia, 1945.
PycHHO-bJirapHBHCTopHJiTa,
Sofia, 1986.
ed. PycKO-ö'hJirapcKHBp'bSKHnpesBeKOBeTe,
"CpeflHOBeKOBHaBtJirapHHh KneBCKa Pvchä," in E-bJirapo-yKpanHCKH
Bp-b3KH npe3BeKOBere,Sofia, 1983.
Antoljak, S., and Panov, B. CpeffHOBeKOBHaMaKexoHHja,
vol. 1, Skopje, 1985.
OTHOineHHH
Ann 'on, Z. (= J. Arrignon), "MejK,iryHapo(mn>ie Khcbckoh PycH b
cepeflHHeX b. h KpemeHHekhjtthhhOjibra," BmaHTHÜCKHÉ 41
BpeMeHHHK,
(1980)113-24.
Astraxanskij,V. "K Bonpocyo cy^böe 6h6jihotckhh apxHBaB. H. TaTHmeBa," in S.
Luppov and N. Paramonova, eds., KmiroToproBoeh ÕHÕJinoTeiHoe jjejio b
Pocchh b XVII-nepBoñ nojioBimeXIX b. CöopHHKHaymihixTpyjjoB,Len-
ingrad,1981, 85-94.
Azbelev, S. "HoBropoacKajiTpeTbÄ JieTonncb.(BpeMa h oöcroHTejibCTBa
bo3hhkho-
BeHHH),"TOßPJI, 12 (1956) 236-62.
pa3BHTHHniKonbih npocBenieHHH
Babisin, S. OcHOBHweTeHfleHiiHH b flpeBHeôPycH
(X-nepBannojioBHHaXIIlBB.),Kiev, 1985 (avtoreferat).
Bakalov,G. "La politiqueculturelle
etreligieusede Byzanceà l'égarddes Slaves,"
HUS, 12/13(1988/1989)387-99.
Barac, G. "0 cocTaBHTejiHX«IIoBecTH BpeMeHHBixneT» h ee HCTOHHHKax
npeHMymecTBeHHo eBpeöcKHX,"in idem, Coõpaime TpyjjoBno Bonpocyo
sjiehieHTeb naMXTHHKax
eBpeiícKOM MpeBHepyccKoñüHCbMeHHOCTH, vol. ii,
Berlin.1924.7-263.
'
Benesevic, V., 'CHHaöcKHÖcnncoKotiiob HHKeñcKoronepBoroBceneHCKoro
coöopa,"
HsBecTHJiHMn. Aicaz. Hayic,Vlcepn^ 2 (1908) 281-306.
K. Pyccxanhctophh,
Bestjuzev-Rjumin, vol. I, St. Petersburg,
1872.
' '
Biljarskij, P. 'CocTaB h MecfluecjioB
McTHCJiaBOBa
cnncKaeBaHrenHH' H3B.no OPJÍQ
10. iii ri861-63Ì 110-137.
Birnbaum,H. "The Balkan Slav Componentof Medieval Russian Culture,"in
Birnbaum, ed.,Culture,3-30.
"Old Rus' and theOrthodoxBalkans: Differences in Kind,Extentand
Significance of theEarlierand LaterCultural
Impact,"Cyrillomethodia-
num,8-9(1984-85)1-15.
"When and How was NovgorodConvertedto Christianity?" HUS,
12/13(1988/1989)505-30.
, and FlierM., eds.,MedievalRussianCulture(= CaliforniaSlavic Stu-
dies,12, 1984).
Blöndal,S. TheVarangiansofByzantium. AnAspectofByzantineMilitaryHistory.
Translated, Revised and Rewrittenby Benedikt S. Benedikz, Cambridge,
1978.
Bodjanskij, O. "IIapajiHnoMeH3oHapHH,"HOHflP, 14 (1847) i-viii, 1-119.
Bogdan,J.,Cronicalui Constantin
Manasses. Traduceremedio-bulgara
facuta pe
la 1350,Bucarest,1922.
Bogdanova, N. "0 BpeMeHHb3hthhXepcoHa khh3cmBnaflHMHpoM," BmaHTHñcKHñ

BpeMeHHHK,47 (1986) 39-46.
Boltin, I. Otbqt reHepâJi-MâaopaEojimm Ha nucbMokhm3hUJepoaroBa,coHHHHTtJix
St. Petersburg,1789.
PoccHdcKoäHCTOpHH,
(= Archivesde VAthos,
Bompaire,J. Actesde Xéropotamou 3, 1964).
Bozkov, A. MHHHaTiopHot MajjpHjjcKHHp-bKonncHa HoaH CxHJiHna.M3CJiejjBane
B-bpxyMHHHãTIOpHTeOT pT>KOIIHCaHa ÎïoâH CKHJIHUaOT XU-XIII BÕKB
MajjpHMCKaTaHauHOHanHaõnõjinorexa. Ct>c 170 ubgthh h hqpho-ôqjih
Sofia, 1972.
HJiiocTpaifHH,
Brajcevs'kyj, M. "HemBecTHoe iracbMO naTpnapxa 4>othh KHeBCKOMy
Karaiiy
h
AcKOJibflyMHTponojiHTy MnxaHJiy Cnpiray," BmaHTHECKHä
BpeMeHHHK,
47H986ì31-38_
Brogi Bercoff,G. "RhetoricalReworkingand Ideological Backgroundin the
Istorija Rossijskaja of V. N. Tatisèev," Europa Orientalis,1 (1988)
339-60.
Europa Orientalis,5
"V. N. Tatishchev:l'innovationet la tradition,"
(1986)373-420.
Browning,R. Byzantiumand Bulgaria. A ComparativeStudyacross the Early
MedievalFrontier, London,1975.
Bulanin, D. "«OicpyxHoe nocjiamie» KoHCTaHTHHonojibCKoro naTpnapxa $othh b
pyKorracnx
flpeBHepyccKHX XVI-XVII bb.," Palaeobulgarica, 5, ii (1981)
35-54.
Byckov, A. OnncaHHe uepKOBHO-cnaBXHCKHX h pyccKHXpyxonncHUXcõophhkob
vol. 1, St. Petersburg,1882.
HMnepaTopcKoÉlIyõJiHVHOÈÕHÕJiHOTeKH,
Cankova-Petkova, G. "KyjiTypHH h nojiHTHHecKHBpi»3KHh OTHoineHHHMexay
BT>JirapHH,KneBCKa PycHH h BroaHTHH npe3 cpe^HOBeKOBHe,"in D.
Angelov, ed. Bpi>3KH,71-81.
Cubatyj, M. IcTopix xpHcmxHCTBaHa PycH-YKpaïHU vol. 1, Rome, 1965 (= Ilpaui
FpeKO-KaTOJiHUbKoïoorocjioBbCKOïaKaneMiï,
24-25).
London,1976.
Davidson,H. TheVikingRoad toByzantium,
Mos-
Derzavin, N. IIjieMeHHbieHKyjibTypHbiecBJi3H6ojirapcKoroHpyccKoroHaponoB,
cow, 1944.
vol. 1, Prilep,
Despodova, V., and Slaveva, L. MaKexoHCKHcpeAHOBeKOBHHpaKonHCH,
1988.
Dinekov, P. "ET>Jirapo-pycKH
JiHTepaTypHHnapajiejiHb cpeflHOBeKOBHeTO," in idem,
Sofia, 1979, 353-65.
JJoxBajiaHacTapaTaoitJirapcKajiHTepaTypa,
"McTopHHecKaTaMHCHHHacTapoõ^JirapcKaTa JiHTepaTypa, ^Tapoo-bJi-
2 (1977) 5-19.
rapcKajiHTcpaTypa,
"0 pacnpocTpaHeHHHapeBHeoojirapcKoft JiHTepaTypH Ha PycH,' in V.
Bazanov et al, eds., PyccKO-õoJirapcKHe h JiHTepaTypHbie
(pojibKJiopHue
CBX3H,vol. 1, Leningrad, 1976, 27 - 3 1.
"CTapoô-bJirapcKajiHTepaTypa - Haina ropaocT h Haina TpeBora,"
JlHTepaTypHa 14, ii (1970) 51-72.
MHCbJi,
et ai, eds. HcTopHMHa õzjirapcicaTaJiHTepaTypa,vol. 1, Sofia, 1962.
Dobszewicz, T. Wiadomosc historycznao biskupstwieKijowskimrzymsko-

katolickim otzaiozeniajego az do roku1339,Gniezno,1883.
Dölger,F. Aus den Schatzkammern des HeiligenBerges. 115 Urkundenund 50
Urkundensiegel aus 10. vol. 1,Munich,1948.
Jahrhunderten,
[Review of Mosin, "PyccKHe"],Byzantinische 43 (1950)
Zeitschrift,
45
180; (1952) 209.
Dostál,A. "Les relations
entreByzanceet les Slaves (en particulier
les Bulgares)au
Xle et Xlle siècles du pointde vue culturel,"in Hussey,Proceedings,
167-75.
Dujcev, I. "LleHTpH BinaHTHôcKO-cjiaBHHCKoro oömeHHÄ h coTpyflHHHecTBa,"
19 (1963) 107-129.
TOffPJI,
** ''
HfleHTa 3a npneMCTBeHOCTTa b cpeflHOBeKOBHaTa6-bJirapcicaflT>pacaBa,
27 (1969) 5-19.
HsBecTHXHaE'bJirapcKOTOHCTopHiecKOiïpyxecTBO,
TheMiniatures oftheChronicleofManasse(sic), Sofia,1963.
"Le MontAthoset les Slaves au moyenâge," in Rousseau,Millénaire,
vol. 2, 121-143.
"Hhkoh npoßjieMH Ha CTapocjiaBAHCKaTa h CTapoß-bJirapcKaTa JiHTepa-
Typa,"JlnreparypHa MHCbJi,13,v (1969) 8-23.
Durnovo,N. BBeaeHHeBHcropHiopyccKoroMiJKa, 2nded.,Moscow,1969.
Dvornik,F. TheMakingofCentraland EasternEurope,London,1949.
Dzurova,A., Stanèev,K. and Japundzic, M. Catalogo dei manoscritti
slavi della
BibliotecaVaticana,Sofia,1985.
Eremin,I. JlnreparypajjpeBHeüPycH,Leningrad,1966.
Evgenij (Bolxovitinov). Onncanne KneBo-neêpcKoä JläBpbi,c npHcoBOKynjieHHôM
pã3HbIX rpaMMãT H BbMHCOK,o6T>HCHHIOmHXOHOt, TãKÃCeIUIãHOB JlâBphl H
Kiev, 1831 (quotedas JlaBpti).
o6eHxnewep,
OimcãHHeKhqbocoQheckotocoâopa h Khôbckoè nepapxHHc npHcoBOKy-
njitHHGM pa3HhixrpaMMat h buiihcok,oõ-bxcHJiiowHX
OHoe,TaKxe nuaHOBh
(paca/joBKoHcraHTHHonojibCKOÉ h KneBCKoÈCoQhèckoé iiepKBHh Äpocjia-
BOBaHaarpoÕHX, Kiev, 1825 (quoted asCoôopa).
Evseev, I. 'TpHropHñ npe3BHTep,
nepeBOflHHK
BpeMeHHGojirapcKoro
iiapn CHMeoHa,"
WoBnPsrri ''' norm is6-fx&
FHB = Fonteshistoriaebulgaricae,Sofia.
Fedotov,G. A TreasuryofRussianSpirituality,New York,1948.
Felmy, K., et al., ed. TausendJahreChristentum in Russland. ZumMilleniumder
TaufederKieverRus1, Göttingen, 1988.
Filaret(Gumilevskij).Hctophm pyccKoäuepKBHb iixthnepHOffax, vol. 1, Moscow,
1857.
CBXThiewxHhixcjiaBXH,Cernihiv, 1865.
Fine,J.The EarlyMedievalBalkans:A CriticalSurveyfromtheSixthto theLate
Twelfth AnnArbor,1983.
Century,
G. WaysofRussianTheology,
Florovsky, vol. 1,Belmont(Mass.), 1979.
"
Franklin,S . K Bonpocyo BpeMeHHh MecTenepeBO.uaXpohhkhTeoprHHAMapTonaHa
cjiaBHHCKHHH3HK," TOffPJI,41 (1988) 324-30.
Friese, C. De episcopatuKioviensi cuius sedes olim fuit Kioviae, nunc vero

Zytomiriae in Ukraina,euisquepraesulibusbreviscommentano, quam ex
SimonisOcolscii opere et ex variisantiquioribus
monumentis descripsit
ad praesensque usque tempusperduxitChristianusGottliebFriesius,
Warsaw,1763.
Fuchs,F. Die höherenSchulenvonKonstantinopel imMittelalter(= Byzantinisches
Archiv,8, 1926).
Gajek, J. and Hryniewicz,W., ed. Chrystuszwyciezyi. Wokói ChrztuRusi
Kijowskiej,Warsaw,1989.
Geizer, H., Hilgenfeld,H., and Cuntz, O. PatrumNicaenorumnomina latine,
graece,coptice,syriace,arabice, armenice,Leipzig, 1898 (= Scriptores
sacrietprofani,vol. 2).
Georgiev, E. Habano oojirapo-pyccKHX h JiHTepaTypHHX
KyjitTypHLix cBH3eÄ, in
12-22.
Angelov, Bdt>3KH,
PaauBerbTHao-bJirapcKarajiHTepaTypaBlX-XB.,Sofia, 1962.
Georgiev,P. "L'église bulgareà la finde (sic) Xe siècle et au débutde (sic) Xle
siècle," MiscellaneaBulgarica,5 (1987) 241-46.
"L'organisationreligieusedans les terresbulgaresdu Nord-Estaprès
l'an 971," in Dobrudza.Étudesethno-culturelles. Recueild'articles,éd.
D. AngelovandD. Ovcarov,Sofia,1987,146-58.
Giljarov,V.IIpeMaHHHpyccKoaHaâjibHoaJieTonHCH, Moscow,1878.
Goetz,L. Kirchenrechtliche undkulturgeschichtliche DenkmälerAltrusslands nebst
Geschichtedes russischenKirchenrechts (= Kirchenrechtliche Abhand-
lungen,18-19,1905).
Golubinskii, E. HctodhmdvcckoAwdkbh,vol. 1,pt. 1 (= YOKZ7P, vol. 198, 1901).
"OöpameHHe BceÄ PycH b xpHCTHaHCTBOBjiaflHMHpoM h coBepnieHHoe
yTBepacfleirae b Heö xpHCTHaHCKoô Bepw npH ero nepeeMHHKax," 7KMHI1,
190(1877)100-63; 191(1877)26-47.
*' ''
O TaK Ha3HBaeMOH HoaKHMOBCKoftJieTonHCHTaTHnieBa, IIpHöaBJieHHH
K infamilo TßopeHHÄ Cbätlix Otucb b pyccKOM nepeBOfle, 28 (1881)
602-40.
Gorlin,M. "La chroniquede Joachim,"Revuedes étudesslaves,19 (1939) 40-51.
de la Chroniquede JeanSkylitzèsà la Bibliothèque
Grabar,A. "Les illustrations
Nationalede Madrid," Cahiers archéologiques.Fin de l'Antiquitéet
MoyenAge,(1971) 191-211.
Granic, J. "KirchenrechtlicheGlossen zu den von Kaiser Basileios II dem
Erzbistum
autokephalen vonAchridaverliehenenPrivilegien,"Byzantion,
12(1937)395-415.
Graseva, L. "OrapocnaBflHCKHJiHTepaTypHb hobo ocBeTJieHHe,"JlnreparypHa
MHCM, 13, iii (1969) 62-71.
Grigorovic,V. OiepK nyreinecTBHJi no eßponeäcKoä TypUHH.(C icaproà oxpecTHOcren
OxpHffCKoroh npecnaHCKoroO3ep), Moscow , 1877.
[as reported in] "IIpoTOKOJiw3ace,iiaHHÔObe3.ua," Tpyjju TpeTbero
ApxeojiormecKoroCi>e3jjab Pocchh öhiBinerob Kneße b aßrycre 1874 rom,
vol. 1,Kiev, 1878,xvii-lxxxv,
cf.lxiv-lxv.
Grumei,V. La Chronologie(= Traitéd'étudesbyzantines,

1, 1958).
Gudzij, N. "JlHTepaTypa Khcbckoä PycH h flpeBHeftnrae HHOCJiaBHHCKHe
JiHTepa-
TypH," in A. Robinson, ed., HccjiejjoBãHHM
no cjiãBXHCKOMy
JiHTeparypo-
BefíGHHK)H QOJIbKJIOpHCTHKe. JJOKJiajJhlCOBOTCKHXyiOHLIX Hã V
Moscow, 1960, 7-60.
cjiãBHCTOB,
MexMyHapoMHOMCT*e3Me
Hannick,C. "Der slavobulgarische Faktorbei der Christianisierung der Kiever
Rus'," in SlavistischeStudienzumX. Internationalen in
Slavistenkongress
Sofia1988, ed. R. Olesch and H. Rothe (= Slavistische
Forschungen, 54,
1988),345-55.
Hoffman,J. "Poczatkihierarchii kosciolawschodniegona Wolyni,"RocznikPol-
skiegotowarzystwa naukowegona Obczyznie, 6 (1955-56) 72-75.
Honigmann, E. "Studies in Slavic Church History,"Byzantion,17 (1944-45)
128-82.
Hösch,E. "Griechischkentnisse im altenRussland,"in W. Gesemannet al., eds.,
Sertaslavica inmemoriam AloisiiSchmaus,Munich,1971,250-60.
Hrusevs'kyj, M. IcTopiñ YKpaïHHPycH, vol. 3 (= 36ipHHKicTopH^Ho-fpiJibocoipNHOï
cenatiHayKOBoroToBapHCTBaiMeHH nieBieHKa, vol. 3, 1901).
Hussey,J.,et al, ed. ProceedingsoftheXIHthInternational
CongressofByzantine
Studies.Oxford, 5-10 September1966,London,1967.
Ikonnikov,V. OnuT pyccKoäHCTOpHorpatpHH, vol. 2, pt. 1, Kiev, 1908.
irinskij, G. "Kt>m Btnpoca 3a 6i>JirapcKOTO
bjihhhhcBi>pxycTapopycKOTO m>pK0BH0
nperjiex, 1, ii (1929) 243-48.
npaBo," E-bJirapcKH
"IIoroflHHCKHeKHpHJiJio-rJiarojiHHecKHe jihctkh," Byzantinoslavica, 1
(1929)86-118.
Ilovajskij, D. "HCTOpHKO-KpHTHHeCKHe 199, XÜ (1888)
3aMeTKH,"PyCCKHÊBeCTHHK,
3-18.
A. Geschichte
Issatschenko, derrussischen
Sprache,vol. 1,Heidelberg,1980.
Istrin, V. AjieKcaHnpHXpyccKHXxpoHorpaQoB HccjiejjoBâHHeh tôkct (= HOHflP,
168-69. 1894Ì.
"H3 oöJiacTHflpeBHe-pyccKoô
JiHTepaTypu,iii," 7KMHI1, 350 (1903)
167-86.
OvepK HCTopHHapeBHepyccKoñ Jinreparypu momockobckotonepnojj
(11-13 BB.),Petrograd,1922.
Ivanov, J.CeßepHaMaKeaoHHH.HcTopHiecicHH3jjnpBâHbMy
Sofia, 1906.
Jacobs,A., ed. ZÍ2NAPAI - ZONARA. Die byzantinischeGeschichtebei Joannes
ZonarasinslavischerÜbersetzung
(= SlavischePropyläen,98, 1970).
Janin,V. "fleHbflecjrroroBeKa,"3HãHHe- cHJia,3 (1983) 15-18.
"KaK h KorflaKpecranH HOBropojmeB,"Hayxa h penaran, 11 (1983)
28-31.
"KpemeHHe HoBropoßa h xpHCTHaHH3amui
ero HacejieHHH," in Tolstoj,
61-63.
Bße/jeHHe,
Jugie,M. "Les originesromainesde l'Église russe,"Échos d'Orient,40 (1937) no.
187,257-70.
Le schismebyzantin.Aperçuhistorique etdoctrinal,
Paris,1941.
Kalajdovic, K. HoaHH Eiccapx Eojirapcxna. HccjieMOBamie,oô-bxcHJUonjee

HCTOpnio
cjioBeHCKoroûKãHJiHTTepaTypLiIXHXcTOJieTHà, Moscow, 1824.
Kaliganov, I. "HcTopHKo-jiHTepaTypHHe npoÖJieMH bjihähhh Ha
loacHocjiaBHHCKoro
PycH," CjiãBHHCKHejiHTepaTypHjX MexMynapofíHHñcbe3A cjiaBHCTOB,
Co<pHX,cGHTHÕpb1988 r. floKJiaw CoBercKoà ¿jejieramiH,ed. P. Niko-
laev,Moscow,1988,51-66.
"HecKOJibKocoo6paaceHHü o MeToamce myneHHflöonrapo-cepöcKO-
pyccKHXcpeflHeBeKOBHX
JiHTepaTypHHXCBjneÄ," CTapoõ-bJirapcKa
JiHTepa-
Typa,18(1985)58-73.
Karamzin, N. HcTopHMrocyjjapcTBa poccHÉcKoro,vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1818Z
(18425).
Karskij, E. CjiaBXHCKax
KHpHJiJioBCKâxnaneorpaQmi,Leningrad, 1928.
A.
Kartasev, OiepKHnoHCTopHHpyccKoauepKBH, voi. 1, Paris, 1959.
Kavko, A., ed., "KpyniHö ctoji: lOOO-ncrae xpHCTHHHH3aiíHH PycH," CoBercKoe
6 (1988)10-75.
cjiäBXHOBexeHHe,
schichte,vol. 4 (= Corpus scriptorumchristianorum
Kawerau,P. Ostkirchenge
orientalium,
456, 1984).
Klimenko,M. Die Ausbreitungdes Christentumsin Russlandseit Vladimirdem
Heiligenbis zum 17. Jahrhundert. Versucheiner Übersichtnach rus-
sischenQuellen,Berlin,1969.
MOSCOW,1980.
KIOSS,B.HHKOHOBCKHñCBOffHpyCCKHGJIGTOnHCHXVI-XVIlBeKOB,
Kocev, N. "Die Anfangeder russisch-bulgarischen literarischenKontakte,"in
Felmy,Jahre,503-509.
Koch,H. "Byzanz,OchridundKiev,987-1037. Zur950. Wiederkehr des angebli-
chenTaufjahres(988-1938)," Kyrios,4 (1938) 253-92.
"OchridundByzanzim Kampfum die Christianisierung Alt-Reussens
(Kievs)," Bulgaria. Jahrbuchder Deutsch-bulgarischen Gesellschaft,
Leipzig,1940-41, 143-49.
towardsUnionwithRome (9th-16thCenturies),
Koncevicius,J. Russia's Attitude
Washington, 1927.
Konidares,G. "Zur FragederEntstehung derDiöcese des Erzbistums von Achrida
30 (1959) 1-19.
undderNotitiaeNo. 3 bei Parthey,"©eoA-oyia,
Kotkov, S. ed. YcneHCKHäcöopHHXXII-XIII bocob,Moscow, 197 1.
Kovalevsky,P. "L'église russeen 1054," in O. Rousseau,ed., 1054-1954. U église
et les églises, neufsiècles de doloureuseséparationentrel'Orientet
l'Occident. Étudeset travauxofferts à Dom LambertBeaudouin,vol. 1,
Chevetogne, 1954,475-83.
Krâstanov, T. 'TpaMOTH Ha BinaHTHHCKHHMnepaTopH3a OxpHflCKaTaapxne-
nHCKOnHH," H3BeCTHM. H apXHBeHHHCTHTyT.
IJ-bpKOBHOHCTOpHVeCKH UtB-
2 (1984) 62-69.
TpajieHirbpKOBeHHCTopHKoapxeojiorHvecKHMyseÈ,
Kratchkovsky,I., and Vasiliev,A. "Histoirede Yahya-ibn-Sa'ïdd'Antioche,con-
tinuateur Patrologiaorientalis,18 (1924) 705-833,
de Sa'ïd-ibn-Bitriq,"
23(1932)345-520.
O. "Zur Literatursprache
Kronsteiner, derKiewerRus'," Die slawischenSprachen,
15(1988)7-14.
Kuev, K. C-bfíõaTãHa cTapo-6-bJirapcKHTe npe3 BeKOBere,2nd ed., Sofia,

p-bKoimcH
1986.
Kulczynski,I. Specimenecclesiae ruthenicaeab originesusceptaefideiad nostra
usquètémporainsuis capitibusseu primatibus RussiaecumS. Sede Apos-
tolicaRomanasemperunitae,ed. I. Martinov, Tournai,1859.
Kumor,B. "Problem jednosciKosciola na Rusi z Kosciotemkatolickim do koñca
XII wieku,"in Gajek,Chrystus, 45-53.
* '
Kuz'min, A. 'KpeweiiHe Pycrf b TpyaaxpyccKHXh cobõtckhxhctophkob,Moscow,
1988.
"06 HCTOHHHKOBeflHeCKOÔ OCHOBe «HcTOpHH POCCHÜCKOÜ» B. H.
TaTHmeBa," BonpocuncTopHH 9 (1963) 214-18.

Labunka,M. "ReligiousCentersandtheirMissionsto KievanRus': FromOl'ga to
Volodimer,"HUS, 12/13(1988/1989)159-93.
Laehr,G. Die Anfängedes russischen Reiches. PolitischeGeschichteim9. und10.
Jahrhundert {^HistorischeStudien,189, 1930).
V. "Aux originesde l'égliserusse. L'établissement
Laurent, de la hiérarchiebyzan-
tine,"Échos d Orient,38 (1939) 279-95.
Le Corpusdes sceauxde VEmpirebyzantin, vol. 5, pt. 1,Paris,1963.
Lavrovskij, P. "HccjieflOBaHHeo JieToiracH
ükhmobckoö," YweHue 3aimcKHBroporo
oTMejieHHxHMnepaTopcKoñAKaxeMHHHayK, 2, i (1856) 77-160.
Lebedincev, P. "K Bonpocy o khcbckom MHTponojiHTe XII Beica MnxaHJie," HreHHHB
HecTopa JieroiiHciía,10 (1896) 3-14.
HcTopHvecKOMOõw.
"0 Hanajie xpncTHaHCTBa b KneBe no TopacecTBeHHoro iiphhhthh xpH-
CTHaHCKOÔBepM npH CBHTOMBjiaflHMHpe, KHeBCKâM CTãpHHã, 21 (1888)
265-83.
"Ilo noBOfly 900-JieTHH nepHHroBCKOö apxaepeÄCKOo Kaêapw,"
KHeBCKaxcTapHHa,38-9(1892).
'
"npHMenaHHflk florale' A. C. IlaBJioBa," Htqhhä b HcTopn?. oônj.
HecTopajieTOimcua, 11 (1896) 27-33.
Lemerle,P. etal., ed. Actesde Lavra, vol. 1 (= Archivesde YAthos,5, 1970).
Actesde Pantéléèmôn (= Archivesde ï Athos,12, 1982).
Leonid(Kavelin),"flpeBHHÄpyKonncb," PyccKHà bgcthuk,201, iv (1889) 3-24.
"HecKOJibKO HOBHX 3aMeHaHHÔ k HanieÄ craTbe: «OTKyaa poflOM 6mia
cBHTafl BejiHKan KHHrHHHOntra?» (PyccKan CTapima, mom> 1888 r.) - no
noBoay cTaTbH H. H. MajiuineBCKoro: «O nponcxoÄfleHHH BejiHKoô KHHrHHH
Outra cbhtoä» (KneBCKaH CTapHHa 1889 r., Mecniî hiojil h aBrycT),"
KHôBCKancrapHHa,27 (1889) i-viii.
"OTKyaa poflOM 6wjia cBHTan BejiHKaa KHHrHHH pyccKan Ojibra?"
49 (1888) 215-24.
PyccKaxcTapHHa,
'
'OTpbiBOK (Hanajio) CTaporo pyccKoro JieTonnciia (862- 1 174 roa) Komia
XV Beica," BjiajjHMHpcKHe
enapxnajibHuebcuomoctk,10 (1886), unofficial
295-99.
part,
CHCTeMamiecKoe onHcamie cjiaBXHo-poccnÉcKHX
pyKoimceü coõpaimx
rpa<paA. C. YBapoBa. {Co BKJiKweHHeMl50
HOMepoBcoôpamui H. H. Ilap-
CKoro,onncaHHbixn. M. CTpoeBbiMB ãJKpâBHTHOM

nopxxKè), vol. 1, Mos-
cow, 1893;vol. 3, Moscow,1894.
Levcenko, M. OiepKHnoHCTopHHpyccKO-BmaHTHÈCKHXOTHoineHHa, Moscow, 1956.
*'IhaHMooTHOineHHH
Bn3aHTHHh PycH npn BjiaflHMHpe,"BmaHmäcKHä
1 (1953) 194-223.
BpeMeHHHK,
Lewin,P., ed. Seventeenth-Century
Writingson theKievan Caves Monastery(=
Literature:Texts,vol. 4, 1987).
HarvardLibraryofEarlyUkrainian
Litavrin,G. EojirapHXHBmaHTHJiBXI-XnBB.,Moscow, 1960.
"KyjibTypHuft nepeBopoT b BojirapHH h flpeBHan Pycb," KnpHJio-
MeToaneBCKHCTyffHH, 4 (1987) 393-403.
"0 aaTHpoBKe nocojibCTBa khähihh Ojibra b KoHCTaHTHHonojib,"
HcTopHxCCCP,5 (1981) 173-83.
KHHrHHH
"IlyTeiiiecTBHepyccKoft Ojibrnb KoHCTaHTHHonojib. IIpoõJieMa
HCTO1HHKOB," BH3ãHTHÉCKHÉBpeMeHHHK, 42 (1981) 35-48.
"PyccKo-BinaHTHftcKHecbh3hb cepeflHHeX Beica," Bonpocu hctophh, 6
(1986)41-52.
, and Florja, B. "npHHHTHe xpHCTHaHCTBa HapoâMH IíeHTpajibHoô h
lOro-BocTOHHoôEßponbi h KpemeHHePycH (HeKOTopbiecpaBHHTejibHHe
conocTaBJieHHÄ)," 4 (1988) 60-67.
CoBercicoecjiaBXHOBejjeiiHe,
Lixacev, D. "flpeBHecjiaBHHCKne JiHTepaTypw KaK CHCTeMa/'CjiaBXHCKueJiHTepa-
Typu. VI MexxyHapoMHuÈcT>e3M cjiaBHCTOB.(upara, aBrycT1968). ffoK-
jiajju cobqtckoè ffejieraiwH,ed. D. Markov and A. Robinson, Moscow,
1968,5-48.
h cramn, Sofia,
FojiGMEñTCBHTHa pycKaTa JiHTeparypa.H3CJiexBaHHX
1976.
3uoxa h cthjih,Leningrad,
PaaBHTHepyccKonJiHTepaTypuX-XVIÏBGKOB.
1973.
Lunt,H. G. "On Interpreting the Russian PrimaryChronicle:the Year 1037,"
SEEJ,32 (1988) 251-64.
"The Languageof Rus' in theEleventhCentury:Some Observations
aboutFactsandTheories,"HUS, 12/13(1988/1989)276-313.
"On theIzbornikof 1073," HUS, 7 (1983) 359-76.
Luznyc'kyj, G. YKpaiHCbKauepKBaMixCxoMOMiSaxoMONi. HapHCicropiï YKpamchKoï
iiepKBH,Philadelphia, 1954.
Makarij (Bulgakov), HcropHxpyccKonuepKBH,vol. 1, St. Petersburg,1889.
Malysevskij, I. "KTOôbiJinepBbiôMHTponojiHTKHeBCKHÔ?" TpyxbiKhôbckoèxyxoB-
3, x (1883) 123-71.
HoÉaKã/jeMHH,
Ojibrn cbhtoô," KneBCKax
"IIpoHcxoameHHepyccKoô bcjihkoô KHJirHHH
crapHHa,26 (1889) 1-27, 325-53.
Mamalakes, I. To eÂyiov"Opoç ('AOoç) ôiòt uiaou tœv aicóvcov (= MaKeôovucrj
ßißAioeTiicn,33, 1971).
Mansi, J. Sacrorumconciliorumnova et amplissimacollectio,vol. 3, Florence,
1759.
b
(BinpocbT 3a npneMCTBeHocTTa
Mecev, K. "LJapHßaH AceH BTopHh JiHTepaTypa.
pa3BOH Ha 6i>JirapcKaTaKHHacHHHaot XI jxo XIII bck)," T-bpHOBCKa
vol. 3, Sofia, 1984, 19-25.

KHHXOBHawKOJia,
fürdie Geschichte
Meyer,P. Die Haupturkunden derAthosklöster,
Leipzig,1894.
Mixajlov, E. "Ei>Jirapo-pycKHTe KyjrrypHHB3aHM00TH0ineHHH0TKpanHa X jxo30 -Te
roflHHH Ha XIII B. B pycKaTah ö^JirapcKaTaHCTOpHorpa^HH,"
FoühiiihhkHa
(paxyjireT,60 (1967)
4>HJioco<pcKO-HCTopH?ecKH
CoQhückhsiyHHBepcHTer,
193-258.
KHeBCKaPycHHh Bi>JirapHH
npe3 ab., in ß. Angelov, ed., BpT>3KH,
62-70.
*' ''
Pyen h 6i>JirapH
npe3 paHHOTO (602 - 964) , Fomhuihhk
cpeflHOBeKOBHe
Ha Co<pHñcKHHyHHBepcHTeT,HcTopHiecKH (paxyjireT, 66 (1972-73)
77-143.
Morgajlo, V. "PaöoTa B. H. TaTHHjeBa Haa tckctom HoaKHMOBCKOö JieTonHCH,"
ApxeorpaQHiecKHäexeroxHHK3a 1962 rojj, (1963), 260-68.
Mosin,V. "Novgorodskilisticii Ostromirovo prilozi,5
jevandjelje,"Arheografski
(1983)7-64.
*' O
nepHOflH3auHH
pyccKO-wacHocjiaBHHCKHX pHBixcBH3enX-XV
JiHTepaTy
BeKOB,"TOffPJI,19 (1963) 28-106.
"IIocnaHHe pyccKoroMHTpononHTaJleoHa 06 onpecHOKaxb Oxph^ckoh
pyKonHCH,"Byzantinoslavica 24 (1963) 87-105.
"PyccKHe Ha A(î)OHeh pyccKo-õroaHTHHCKHe oTHoineHHHb XI-XI! bb.,"
Byzantinoslavica9 (1947-48) 55-85; 11(1950) 32-60.
Müller,L. "Die Chronik-Erzählung überdie Taufe Vladimirsdes Heiligen," in
SlavistischeStudienzum X. Internationalen in Sofia
Slavistenkongres
1988,ed. R. OleschandH. Rothe(= Slavistische Forschungen,54, 1988),
429-48.
Die TaufeRusslands.Die Frühgeschichte des russischenChristentums
bis zum Jahre 988 (= Quellen und Studienzur russischenGeistes-
geschichte,6,1987).
Zum Problem des hierarchischen Status und der Jurisdiktionellen
Abhängigkeit der russischenKirche vor 1039 (= Osteuropa und der
deutscheOsten,Reihe3, vol. 6, 1959).
Nasonov, A. HoBropoffCKaxnepsax neToimcbcrapulerò h MJiamneroh3bojjob, Len-
ingrad, 1950.
Nazarko, I. Cbhthh Bojiootmhp BejiHKHH,Bojioaap i XpncTHTejibPycH-YKpaïHH
(960-1015),Rome,1954 (=AnalectaordinisSanciiBasilii Magni. Sectio
I, Opera,4).
Bishop Nestor of Smoljan, "KpemeHHe Pycn no aamiMMHoaKHMOBCKOH jictoiihch,"
Palaeobulearica, 12, ii (1988) 3-7.
Nikolaev, N. CmBMHoo-bJirapcKHXT Qaxrop b xpHCTHjmmauiuiTa Ha KneBcxa PycHX,
Sofia, 1949.
Nikol'skij, N. K. "IIoBecTb BpeMeHHwx neT KaKhctohhhkjuir hctophh HaâjibHoro
nepHOflapyccKOHnncbMeHHOCTH h KyjibTypbi.K Bonpocyo flpeBHeömeM
pyCCKOMJieTOnHCaHHH," VOl. ',C6opHHKIIOpyCCKOMyX3HKyHCJIOBeCHOCTH
AKaxeMHHHayKCCCP,2, i, (1930) 1-107.
Nikol'skij, N. M. HcTopHxpyccKoÈLiepKBH,
Rjazan', 19311 (Moscow, 19833).
254 FRANCISJ.THOMSON
Obolensky,D. "The Baptism of PrincessOlga of Kiev: the Problemof the

Sources," in H. Ahrweiler,éd., Philadelphie et autres études,
4) Paris,1984,159-76.
(= Byzantina-Sorbonensia,
TheBogomils.A StudyinBalkanNeo-Mamchaeism, Cambridge,1948.
'Olga s Conversion: The Evidence Reconsidered, MUS, 12/13
(1988/1989)145-58.
"Rus' i Bizancjumw potowieX stulecia:problemchrztuksieznejOlgi,"
inGajek,Chrystus,29-43.
Obolenskij, M. HccjieaoBãHHHh 3âMeTKHkhx3XM. A. OôoneHCKorono pyccKHMh
CJIâBMHCKHM apÔBHOCTMM. {IIpHJIOXeHHM K COVHHeHHIO ew. «O
MocKBa, 1870, h xp. crams), St.
nepBOHavajibHoÉpyccKoä JieTonHCH»,
1875.
Petersburg,
"HeTonHceu nepeflCJiaBJiÄ-CysflajibCKoro,cocTaBJieHHMÔ b Haqane XIII
Beica(Mexfly 1214 h 1219 rr.)," BpeMeHHHK Hmii. MockobckotooônjecTBa
HCTODHHHIIpeBHOCTeÉpOCCHÈCKHX, 9 (1851) Í-C, 1-113.
HecKOJibKocjioBo nepBOHaiajibHoapyccKoaJieroiiHCH, Moscow, 1870.
Okolski,S. Chioviensiumet Czernichoviensiumepiscoporum sanctaeet catholicae
EcclesiaeRomanaeordoetnumerus descriptus,Lviv, 1646.
Orlowski,K. Defensa Biskupstway DyecezyiKiiowskieyrzetelnym opisaniemz
przydatkami niektorymi dia niey potrzebnemi, swiatu remonstrowana,
Lviv, 1748.
Pancenko, A. "ScTeTHHecKHeacneKTWxpHCTHaHH3amHïPycH,"
PyccKaxJiHTeparypa,
1 (1988) 50-59.
Bishop Partenijof Leucas, "Cbcth naTpaapcHb Bi>nrapHH
h ot otJirapcKH
naTpHapwHX,10 Man 1953-10
npoH3xofl,"in JJeceTrojjHHHE-bJirapcKa
Maäl963, ed. G. Klisarov,J.Iliev andT. Sâbev,Sofia,1963,61 -77.
Poltava, 1913.
Parxomenko,V'. HaiajioxpHCTHaHCTBaPycH,
Paszkiewicz,H. TheOriginofRussia,London,1954.
* Ha3MBaeT
Pavlov, A. 'floraba o npoHcxoxfleHHH ripesami*,KOTOpoe
apeBHepyccKoro
nepBoro pyccKoro MHTponojiHTa MnxanjioM Chphhom," HTemui b
11 (1896)22-6.
HcTopHiecKOMOõmecTBeHecTopajieToiiHciía,
in B. Kastelov
Pavlova, R. "flpeBHHTe6i>nrapo-pycKHKHHXOBHHHe3HKOBHBpT>3KH,"
h 6T>JirapHCTH.
and V. Simeonov, eds., EbJirapHCTHKa CraTHH h H3CJiejj-
BaHHX. E-bJirapHCTHKab vyxõimaTa. üopTpern Ha ÕTtJirapHcm, Sofia,
1981,101-106.
JieToiraceu,"E3HK h JiHTeparypa,35, v (1980)
"Hob BjiaflHMHpcKH
1-11.
Pavlov skij, A. BceoõinHH HJiJiiocTpHpoBaHHbiä no MonacTbipñMh
nyreBOffHTejib
CBXTbiMMecTaM Pocchèckoè HMnepHH h CbxtoA rope AQoHy, Niznyj
Novgorod,1907.
Pelesz,J.Geschichteder Unionder ruthenischenKirchemitRomvonden ältesten
vol. 1,Vienna,1878.
Zeitenbis aufdie Gegenwart,
'
Pestic, S. 'HeoöxoflHMoeflonojiHeHHe roaamno «HctophhPocchäckoä» B. H.
k HOBOMy
TarameBa (tt. I-VII. H3fl.AH CCCP, 1962-68)," in A. Sapiro, ed., Üpo6-
JieMHHCTOpHHifceOflaJIbHOftPoCCHH,
CÖOpHHKCTaTeÖ K 60-JieTHK) npO(J).B. B.
MaBpoflHHa, Leningrad, 1971, 215-22.

** ''
PyccKaflHCTopnorpa^HH XVIII BeKa, vol. 1, Leningrad, 196 1.
Petkanova-Toteva, D. "Khhscobhh bpt>3khMeacay BtJirapHHh PycHHnpe3 cpeflHo-
''
BeKOBHeTO, E3HK h JiHTepâTypa, 5 ( 195 8) 362 - 74 .
Petrov, N. "upo pi3b6jieHy naHariio 3 3BipHem>KHX nenep, mo hí6h-to Hajieacajia
nepinoMy KnïBCbKOMy MiTponojiiTy Mnxaïny CnpHHy," 3anncKH
IcTopHiHo-(piJiojioriiHoro
BiMjjiJiy axajjeMU Hayx, 1 (1919)
BceyxpaïHCbKoï
114-16.
Petrov,V. BocnHTaHHeHoõyieHHeBMpeBHepyccKOMrocyffapcTBeIX-XVBeKOB, Mos-
cow, 1982 (avîoreferat).
Picchio,R. "The Impactof EcclesiasticalCultureon Old RussianLiteraryTech-
niques,"in Birnbaum,ed.,Culture,247-279.
(Pikio). "Mäctoto Ha CTapaTa 6-bJirapcicaJiHTepaTypa b KyjiTypaTa Ha
''
Eßpona, HbpBHMexayHapoxeHKOHrpecno 6-bJirapHCTHKa.
cpeflHOBeKOBHa
Co0hm23 Man- 3 iohh 1981 . ffoKJiaxH. jjoKJiajju,Sofia, 1982,
ÜJieHapHH
110-160.
Platon (Levsin), KpaTKaimepKOBHax vol. 1, Moscow, 1805.
poccHÜCKaxHCTOpHX,
Pobedova, O. "OTpaaceHHe BinaHTHHCKHXHJiJiiocTpHpoBaHHHxxpoHHK b TßepcKOM
(TpoHUKOM) ciiHCKe XpoHHKH FeoprHH AMapTOJia," Actes du XIV e Congrès
International
des Études Byzantines.Bucarest,6-12 septembre,1971,
vol. 1,Bucharest,
1974,373-90.
Podskalsky,G. Christentum und theologischeLiteraturin der Kiever Rus'
(988-1237),Munich,1982.
Pogorelov,V. "KoHnoKptcrapycHTe?" CnaBñHCKa õecejja,2, iv (1938) 146-53.
N. Icropnw nijjßajiHHH
Polons'ka-Vasylenko, YKpamchKoï npaBocjiaBHoï ijepKBH,
Munich,1964.
PopOV, G. TpHOnHH npOH3BeffeHHH Ha KOHCTãHTHH IIpeCJiaBCKH (= KHpHJIO-
MeTonHeBCKHCTynHH, vol. 2, 1985).
Popov, G. V. "3aMeTKH o TBepcKoö pyKoimcH Xpohhkh TeoprHH AMapTOJia
(no3flHeöiiiHe aoaenKH h Bonpocbi peKOHCTpyKiWHnepBOHanajibHoroooJiHKa
KOfleKca)," BH3aHTHÉCKHÈBpeMeHHHK,39 (1978) 124-47.
Popov, N. A. "MaTepHajibi äjih hctophh KpecTOBosflBHÄeHCKoro BH3K)KOBa MOHa-
CTbipH," WHM,P161 (1891) 1-45.
Poppe,A. "Christianisierungund Kirchenorganisation der Ostslawenin der Zeit
vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert," ÖsterreichischeOsthefte, 30 (1988)
457-506.
"Hc KypHJioirt"h "He KypHJioBHirfe", International
Journalof Slavic
Linguisticsand Poetics,31-32 (1985) 319-50.
[entryMichai] Siownikstarozytnosci slowiañskich,vol. 3, Warsaw,
1967,242-43.
"The PoliticalBackground to theBaptismof Rus'. Byzantine-Russian
Relations between 986-89." Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 30 (1976)
197-244.
Popruzenko,M. " B-bJirapHH
h KneBCKa ''
Pycb, PoxHHa1, iii ( 1939) 25 - 3 1.
3oHapw b cjiaBHHO-pyccKoft
Potapov, P. "Cyflbõa xpoHHKH jiHTepaType," H3bOPJIC,
22,ii (1917)141-86.
Priselkov, M. OwepKH no uepKOBHo-nojiHTHiecKoahctophh Khôbckoé PycH,
(= 3anncKH HcTopHKo-fpHJiojiormecKoro
QaKyjibTera HMneparopcKoro
CaHKT-IIeTepôyprcKoro vol. 116, 1913).
yHHBepcHTeTa,
O. "When andWherewas Ol'ga Baptized?"HUS, 9 (1985) 5-21.
Pritsak,
, and Struminsky, B., eds. Lev Krevzas Obronalednoscicerkiewney and
Zaxarija Kopystenskyj'sPalinodija, {- Harvard Library of Early
Ukrainian Literature,3, 1987)
Prokic,B. "PostanakOhridskogpatrijarhata," Glas SrpskeKralj. Akad.nauka,90
(1912) 175-267.
"Prvi arhiepiskopJovan"Glas SrpskeKralj. Akad. nauka,88 (1911)
267-303.
Die Zusätze in der Handschriftdes Joannes Scylitzescodex Vin-
dobonensis hist, graec. LXXIV. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
sogenannten westbulgarischen Reiches,Munich,1906.
Prosvirnin,A. "AcJxmHPyccKaHiiepKOBb.
EH6jiHorpa<J>HJi," 15
EorocjioBCKHerpyffu,
(1976)185-256.
Protasov, N. "HepTbi CTapoöojirapcKoöoflexflHb cnaBHHCKOÖ MHHHaTiope,"Tpyffbi
CeKUHHapxeojiorHHHHCKyccTBO3HãHHM, 3 (1929) 87-95.
Rajkov, D. E-bJirapHTe b cTapara pycKaKHHXHHHa.
h E-bJirapHM pa3xa3
MoKyMeHTajieH
3a 6-bJirapCKOTO
HCTopnvecKO mcmncTBOb pycKaTa KHHXHHHa ot XVIII Bex
Ha XIX bõk,Sofia, 1983 .
HiTbpBara nojiOBHHa
Moscow,1959.
Ramm,B.IIancTBOHPycbBX-XVBeKax,
Rapov, O. "0 aaTe üphhhthä xpncTHaHCTBa KHjneMBjiaflHMHpoM h KHeBJiflHaMH,"
BonpocuHCTopHH,6 (1984) 34-47.
PyccKax uepKOBbb IX- nepBoä TpeTHXII b. IIphhhthg xpHcmaHCTBa,
Moscow,1988.
Rogov, A. KyjiBTypHbiecbä3H KneBCKOöPycH c bajiKaHCKHMH cTpaHaMH, in N.
KyjibTypuh EajucaHhi,vol. 1, Sofia, 1978,
Todorov et al., eds. CjiaBMHcxne
42-49;
cbh3Hb KOHiieXII-XIII b.," in E. De-
"PyccKo-öojirapcKHeKyjifeTypHHe
mina, ed., Ä3uk h nncbMeHHOcTbcpexHeõoJirapcKoronepHona, Moscow,
1982,20-26.
*
CTpaHaMHb nepHoa
'KyjiBTypHHecbä3h KaeBCKooPycHco cnaBHHCKHMH
eexpHCTHaHH3aiiHH," 34-36.
inTolstoj,2tee,tfeÄfre,
Rousseau,O., ed. Le Millénairedu MontAthos963-1963. Etudeset Melanges,2
vols.,Chevetogne, 1963-64.
Rozen, V. (= W. von Rosen.) ÜMnepaTopBacmmü Eojirapoöoäua. H3BJieveHHJi m
JIxt>hAHTHOxHäcKoro,
jieTCMHCH (= 3aiiHCKHHmh. Axaff. HayK,41, 1883,
app. 1).
ôubuihx b pyccKoñwpkbh co BpeMeHH
Rudnev, N. PaccyxffeHHeo epecxx h pacKOJiax,
BejiHKoroffo
BjiaffHMHpa Hoairnarpo3Horo, Moscow, 1838.
Russov, S. OcaraxBOTHOineHHHKpyccKoñHCTopHH,HJiHBOo6meoffpeBHeñPycHy St.
1834.
Petersburg,
THEBULGARIAN
CONTRIBUTION 257
Rybakov,B. "B. H. TarameBh JieTonncH

XII BeKa," HcropHXCCCP, 1 (1971)
91-109.
, ed., H3ÕopHHK CBATOcjiaBa1073 roña. CõopHHKCTâTeÈ,Moscow, 1977.
Rykov, Ju. and Turilov, A. "HeiBBecTHHÔ 3iiH3Ofl oojirapo-BHsaHTHocico-pyccKHX
CBjneôXI b. (KneBCKHÄ nHcaTejibFpHropHÔ^hjiocchJ)),"flpeBHeaumerocy-
fíapcTBaHa TGppHTopHH CCCP. MaTepHâJibih HccjießOBäHHJi. 1980 roa,
Moscow,1984,170-76.
Sabev, "Millénairede coopération
T. ecclésiastiquebulgaro-russe. Aspectsessen-
tielsetprincipaux
éléments,"inFelmy,Jahre,831-848.
Sâbev, T. CãMocToàHã HapojjHocma irbpxBa b cpexHOBexoBHa E-bJirapun.
XpHCTHJIHH3aTOpCKH IlpOIfeC, OCHOBâBaHÔ H BT>3XOM, äBTOKeQäJlHJI H
h ¿n>pxaBa,pojiñ h 3Ha?eHHe,Sofia,
nojioxeHHe.IJ-bpKBa
MexnywbpKOBHO
1987.
Sansterre,J. "Les Missionaireslatins,grecs et orientauxen Bulgarie dans la
secondemoitiédu IXe siècle," Byzantion, 52 (1982) 375-88.
Scheffer,L. Textkritischer Apparatzur Nestorchronik (= Handbuchzur Nestor-
chronik, vol. 2, ed. L. Müller,Forumslavicum,49, 1977).
Schick,E. Kirchengeschichte RusslandsindenGrundzügen, vol. 1,Basel, 1945.
Schiwaroff, N. "Die Rolle Bulgariensbei der Taufe der Kiewer Rus," Die
slawischenSprachen,16 (1988) 143-53.
Schlözer,A. L., ProbeRussischer Annalen,Bremen,1768.
Schmücker, A. "Bemerkungen zur Genese der bulgarisch-russischenliterarischen
Wechselseitigkeit im Mittelalter,"in P. Hill, ed., Bulgarien 1300.
Referate derSektion"SpracheundLiteratur"des Symposiums Bulgarien
in GeschichteundGegenwart, Hamburg9.-17. Mai 1981 (= Slavistische
Beiträge,vol. 155, 1982),89-97.
Seliscev,A. CTapocmBXHCKHn x3hiK,vol. I, Moscow,1951.
Senkovskyj, O. I., EäMyHjjoBa cara. Cxa3aHHe 06 EñMyHxe Phhtobhhgh Pamapt
ArHapoBHie,cKaHffHHaBCKHX bhtx3xx,nocejiHBWHXCJi
b Pocchh b Havane XI
BeKa,St. Petersburg,
1834.
Serebrjanskij,I. "flpeBHe-pyccKHeKHHaeecKHeähthh. O63oppeaaKiuioh tckcth,"
WHßP, 254 (1915) i-iv,1-295, 1-186, i-v.
Shevelov,G. Die kirchenslawischen Elementein der russischenLiteratursprache
unddie RolleA. Saxmatovsbei ihrerErforschung,in A. SaxmatovandG.
Shevelov,Die kirchenslawischenElementein der modernenrussischen
Literatursprache,Wiesbaden,1960,43-106.
Sielicki,T. "OpatrznoscBoska w zyciunarodui cziowiekana kartachnajstarszej
kronikiruskiej,"inGajek,Chrystus,
81-93.
Smokina (= Smochinä), N. P. and N. N. "BHOBbHaôaeHHHft<î>parMeHTflpeBHero
eßaHrejiHH," in V. Dubrovina, ed., H3y?eHHe pyccKoro H3biKa h
HCTOVHHKOBejjeHHe,Moscow, 1969, 68-79.
Snegarov, I. ffyxoBHO-KyjiTypHH h PycHXnpe3 cpeMHHTe
bpt>3khMexxy E-bJirapHX
BeKOBe(X-XVB.' Sofia, 1950.
HcTopHx Ha OxpnjjcKara apxnenHCKonmi(or ocHOBaHero h jjo
vol. 1, Sofia, 1924.
3aBJianxBaHeTOHaEajiKaHCKHnnojiyocTpoBOTTypmiTe,
Sobolevskij, A. "HaiiepKOBHO-cjiaBHHCKOoyHHTejibHoonHTepaTypfci,"
Ü3B0PJIQ 13,
iv (1908) 264-89.
' b oôJiacTHcjiaBHHCKoft h apxeo-
'MaTepHajiH h HccjieflOBaHHH $HJiojiorHH
jiorHH." C60PAC 88. iii (1910) 1-286.
"IlaMJiTHHKHflpeBHe-pyccKOÄ
HHTepaTypH,nocBHmeHHMeBnaflHMHpy
cbhtomv," Htzkhx b HcTopnvecKOMoöwecTBe HecTopa Jieroimcua, 2
(1888).
H3bOP£Q 6, ii (1901) 177-202.
''fflecTOOTeBKHpHJinaOHJiocoQa,''
au Xle siècle," Byzantion,
Soloviev,A. "Un sceau gréco-russe 40 (1970) 435-36.
Solov'ev, S.HcTopHJiPoccHHc/jpeBHeÉuiHXBpeMeH,vol. 1, Moscow, 1959.
Soxan', P. OiepKHnoHCTopHJiHayKpaHHCKo-o'bJirapcKHBp'baKH,Sofia, 1979.
Speranskij, M. IÎ3 hctophhpyccKO-cjiaBMHCKHX
JiHTeparypHUX cBX3eñ. CõopHHKCTa-
reä,Moscow,1960.
'
pyccKoBiracbMeHHOCTH
'OTKyaa HflyTcTapeönrae naMHTHHKH h JiHTepa-
Typw?"Slavia,1 (1928-29) 516-35.
Stokes,A. "The StatusoftheRussianChurch,988-1037," Slavonicand East Euro-
pean Review,37 (1958-59) 430-42.
Stökl,G. RussischeGeschichtevon den Anfängenbis zur Gegenwart,(= Kroners
Taschenausgabe, 244, 1962).
und Reichsidee,"Die slawischen
Nationenbildung
"Christianisierung,
Sprachen,16 (1988) 155-66.
MOHacTwpeöPocchäckoö uepKBH,St.
Stroev, P. Ciihckh nepapxoB h HacTOHTejieft
1877.
Petersburg,
* h CmojichckhcenHCKonw,"
Stroganov,P. 'CTaBpoiraniajibHHÔEh3K>kobMOHacTwpb
YJfO^TP212(1905)41-67.
Sambinago, S. "HoaKHMOBCKanneTonncb," HcTopHiecKHe 3aimcKH 21 (1947)
254-70.
X BeKa," BmaHTHñcKHÜ
Saxmatov, A. "flpeBHeöonrapcKaHeHimKJioneflHfl BpeMeH-
HHK,1 (1900) 1-35.
"KopcyHCKaa JiereHflao KpemeHHHBjiaflHMHpa,"in Cöophhk crareä,
nocBMweHHbix novHTarejiHMHaxaxeMHicyh 3acjiyxeHHOMynpoQeccopyB.
K JlaMaHCKOMy ero yweHoàjjexTejibHOCTH,
no cjiyvaio iuiTHjjecjiTHJieTHJi
vol. 2 (= 3anncKH Hctophko-Qhjioji. <pax. Hmii. CaHKT-IIeTepõyprcKoro
7otä,vo1. 84, 1908), 1029-1153.
"Pa3bicKaHHHo flpeBHeftniHX pyccKHXJieTonHCHbix cBoâx," Jleronncb
3aHXTHñHMn. ApxeorpaQmecKoäicoM.3a 1907, 20 (1908) i-xx, 1 -686.
' '3aMeTKHk
flpeBHeôineôhctophhpyccKOHuepKOBHoôäH3hh, HayiHbiE
HCTOpHiecKHÈxypHaji, 4(1914)30-61.
Scapov, ìdL.ffpeBHepyccKHeKHJixecKHeycTaBbiXI-XVBeKOB, Moscow, 1976 (quoted
as BeKOB).
KHMxecKHeycraBbih uepKOBbb xpeBHeñPycH XI-XIV bõkob,Moscow,
1972.
BmaHTHäcKoeh loxHocjiaBXHCKoe npaBOBoeHacjiejjne Ha Pycn b XI-XIII
Bexax,Moscow,1978.
Sèepkina, M. "KBonpocyonpocBemeHHHPycH," in IJjiHCKa-IIpecjiaB.
Upoy^BanusiE
ed. H. Vâzarova,vol. 1, Sofia,1979,200-205.

MaTepmjiH,
' *K ''
H36opHHKa1073 roaa, in Rybakov,H36opHHK,220 - 34.
H3yHeHHK)
Sevõenko,I. Byzantine
RootsofUkrainianChristianity,
Cambridge(Mass.), 1984.
Smidt (=Schmidt), O., éd. Cboxhlié Karanor cjiaBjmo-pyccKHx b
khht,xpaHXWHXCH
CCCP. XI-XIIIbb.Moscow,1984.
Tachiaos,A. nrtyèçéicKA,r|aiaaTiiaiç iaxopiaç xœvópGoôó^covIXaßcov,vol. 1,
Thessalonica, 1984.
'The GreekMetropolitans of Kievan Rus': An Evaluationof Their
Spiritual and CulturalActivity," HUS, 12/13(1988/1989)424-39.
N.
Tal'berg, Hctophm pyccKoÉ uepKBH, Jordanville[NewYork],1959.
vols.
TatiScev,V.HcTopHxPoccHñcKaxBceMHTOMax,1-2, Leningrad,1962-63.
Taube,M. de. RomeetRussieavantVinvasiondes Tartares, vol. 1,Paris,1947.
Thompson,M. NovgorodtheGreat. Excavationsat theMedievalCityDirectedby
A. V.Artsikhovsky andB. A. Kolchin,London,1967.
Thomson,F. "Continuityin the Developmentof BulgarianCultureduringthe
PeriodofByzantineHegemonyandtheSlavonicTranslations ofWorksby
theThreeCappadocianFathers,"to appearin theacta of theconference
"The Role and Significance of SS. Cyriland MethodiusfortheSpiritual
and CulturalCooperationbetweentheBalkanNations- 9th-10thCentu-
ries," Sofia,10-16 June,1985.
"The Implications of theAbsenceof Quotationsof Untranslated Greek
Worksin OriginalEarlyRussianLiterature, Togetherwitha Critiqueof a
DistortedPictureof Early BulgarianCulture,"Slavica Gandensia, 15
(1988)63-91.
" 'Made in Russia'. A
Surveyof theTranslations AllegedlyMade in
KievanRussia," to appearin theacta of theconference "MilleniumRus-
siae Christianae. Tausend JahreChristlichesRussland, 988-1988,"
Münster, 5-9 July,1988.
Quotations ofPatristicandByzantineWorksbyEarlyRussianAuthors
as an Indicationof theCulturalLevel of KievanRussia,Slavica Ganden-
sia, 10 (1983) 65-102.
Thurn,I(oannes=Hans),loannis ScylitzaeSynopsishistoriarum.Editio princeps.
(= Corpusfontium historiaebyzantinae,vol. 5, 1973).
Tinnefeid,F. "Die russischeFürstinOlga bei Konstantin VII. unddas Problemder
'purpurgeborenen Kinder',"RussiaMediaevalis,6, i (1987) 30-37.
Tixomirov, M. flpeBHÄÄ Pycb,Moscow,1975.
HCTOpHHeCKHe CBH3H pVCCKOrO HapOfla C KMKHHMH CJiaBHHaMH C
flpeBHeömHXBpeMeH jxo nonoBHHWXVII Beica," in V. Piceta, ed.,

CjiaBMHCKHä cöopHHK,Moscow, 1947, 125 - 20 1.
PyccKoeJieroiiHcaHHe, Moscow, 1979.
Todorov, N. et al., eds. CnaBXHCKHeKyjibrypuh EajixaHhi,vol. 1, Sofia, 1978.
Tolstoj, N., ed. BBeaemie xpncTHaHCTBay HapoffOBIJeHTpajibHoäh Boctohhoè
Eßponbi.KpenjeHHePycH.{Coophhktcshcob), Moscow, 1987.
Togan,A. Zeki Validi.Ibn Fadian's Reisebericht fürdie Kunde
(= Abhandlungen
des Morgenlandes, vol. 24, 1939,fase.3).
Tot (=Tóth), I. "HcTopHHecKHenpeanocwjiKHBO3HHKHOBeHHH h pacnpocTpaHeHHH

iracbMeHHocTH
flpeBHeoojirapcKoô Ha PycH," Dissertationes slavicae, Sec-
16 (1984) 149-99.
tiolinguistica,
Trillmich,W. Thietmarvon Merseburg,Chronik,(= AusgewählteQuellen zur
deutschenGeschichte undderNeuzeit,vol. 9, 1974).
des Mittelalters
Tschizewskij(=Cyzevs'kyj), D. Geschichte der Literaturim 11., 12.,
altrussischen
und13. Jahrhundert. KieverEpoche,Frankfurt, 1948.
Turilov, A. 'TpHropHÜ OhjiocoQ- HeH3BecTeHkhhäobhhk ot XI BeK," in I. Pex-
Cramn h H3CJiejjoBaHHH.
h 6-bJirapHCTH.
livanov, ed., E-bJirapHCTHKa
b
E-bJirapHCTHKawyxÖHHa.üopTpemHa 6-bJirapHCTH. 1981-1986, Sofia,
1986,186-89.
Leningrad, 1975.
Tvorogov, O. ßpeBHepyccKHexpoHorpaQbL,
Uspenskij, B. x3biKa (XI-XVII bb.) (= Sagners
HcropHJipyccKoroJiHTeparypHoro
slavistischeSammlung, 12),Munich,1987.
A.
Vaillant, "La Bulgariedans la chroniquede Kiev," Priloziza knjizevnost,
jezik,
istorijuifolklor, (1957) 207-211.
23
Vasenko, P. 'KHHra CrtneHRanuapcxoropomocjiobhjìh ee 3HaveHHeb apeBHepyccKoñ
HCTOpHVeCKOÉ IIHChMeHHOCTH,Vol. 1 (= 3aiIHCKH HcTOpHKO-QHJIOJIOrH-
vecKoro QaKyjibTeTa Ihm. CaHKT-IIeTepõyprcKoroyHHBepcHTeTa, vol.
73), 1904.
Vasil'evskij,V. "PyccKO-BinaHTHucKHe otphbkh,ii," 7KMHI1vol. 184 (1876)
117-78.
Verdière,C. "Originescatholiquesde l'église russejusqu'au Xlle siècle," Études
2 (1857) 131-304.
de philosophieetd'histoire,
de théologie,
Vernadsky, G. "The Statusof the RussianChurchduringthe FirstHalf-Century
Following Vladimir's Conversion,"Slavonic and Eastern European
Review,20 (1941) 294-314.
Vincenz,A. de. "West Slavic Elementsin theLiterary Languageof KievanRus',"
HUS, 12/13(1988/1989)262-75.
IIpaBocjiaBHoïuepKBH, vol. 1, New York,
Vlasovs'kyj, I. HapHCicropiï YKpaïHCbKoï
1955.
Vlasto,A. TheEntryoftheSlavs intoChristendom. AnIntroduction to theMedieval
HistoryoftheSlavs,Cambridge,1970.
Vodoff,W. La naissancede la chrétientérusse. La conversiondu princeVladimir
de Kiev(988) etses conséquences(Xle-XIIIesiècles),Paris,1988.
"Quelques questionssur les débutsde la langue liturgiqueà Kiev
(Xe-débutdu Xle siècle),to appearin theacta of theConference forthe
Celebrationof theConversionof theRussiansto Christianity,Thessalon-
ica, 26-28 November,1988.
- rpaaa Ha
Vojnov, M. "IIpecjiaB, Cpeaen;, OxpHfl TpH cpeflHOBeKOBHH
npecTOJiHH
6i>JirapcKHiiape h naTpaapcH," HcropHiecKH nperjiejj, 24, iv (1968)
72-76.
Vzdornov, G. "HjunocTpaiura k XpoHHKe TeopniH AMapTOJia,"BmaHTHacKHñ
BpeMeHHHK,30(1969)205-25.
M. Byzantskékroniky
Weingart, Pfehleda rozbor
v literaturecirkevnèslovanské.
filologicky, part 1 (= SpisyfilosofickéfakultyUniversity Komenskéhov

Bratislava ,cis'o 2, 1922).
Weitzmann, K. " Illustration fortheChroniclesofSozomenos,TheodoretandMala-
las," Byzantion, 16 (1942-43) 87-134.
Whitman, R. "The 1073 Izbornik:theManuscript and itsSources,"IndianaSlavic
Studies,4 (1967) 252-67.
Wilson,N. "The MadridScylitzes,"Scrittura e civiltà,2 (1978) 209-19.
E.
Winter, Russland und das Papstum,vol.l (= QuellenundStudienzurGeschichte
vol.
Osteuropas, 6, pt. 1, 1960).
Xaburgaev, G. A. "GraHOBJieHHe
apeBHepyccKoöiracbMeHHOH KyjibTypub cbh3Hc
KpemeHHeMPycH b 988 r.," Bôcthhk MockobckotoyHHBepcHTera,$hjio-
jiorHH,1988,v, 10-17.
Zachariaevon Lingenthal,K. "Beiträgezur GeschichtederbulgarischenKirche,"
Mémoiresde VAcadémieImpérialede St. Pétersbourg, Vile série,8, iii
(1864)1-36.
Zásterová,B. "Observationssur le problèmede la christianisation
en Russie,"
11
Byzantinoslavica, (1950) 240-54.
Zavitnevic, V. [Review of Priselkov, 0?epKH], Tpynu Khôbckoè MyxoBHoä axa-
jjeMHH,1, iv (1914) 628-51.
"BjiaflHMHpcbhtoö KaK nojiHTHHecKHÔ fleHTejib,"TpyMHKneBCKOÈjny-
xoBHOÉaxajjeMHH,2, vi, 351-441; viii, 635-755 (1888).
Zenkovsky, S. TheNikonianChronicle,vol. 1,Princeton,
1985.
Zernov,N. TheRussiansand TheirChurch,London,1954.
Zlatarski, V. HcTopmma õ-bJirapcKara BeicoBe,vol. 2, Sofia,
m>pxaBa npc3 cpeffHHTe
1934.
"Koñ e 6hji 6i>JirapcKH
apxHerracKonb OxpHflnpn noKopHBaHeToHa
BtJirapHHOTBacHHHHII?" XpHCTHaHcicaMHCBJil,viii (1909), 464-72.
Zykov, E. "H3BecTHH o BojirapHH b IIoBecTH BpeMeHHHxJieTh hx hctohhhk,"
24 (1969) 48-53.
TOfiPJI,
Zukovskaja, L. "H36ophhk 1073 rojia.. Cyatöa KHHrn, coctohhhc h 3aaaHH
in Rybakov, IÍ36opHHK,5-31.
rovHeHHJi",
Moscow, 1983.
AnpaKocMcTHCJiaBaBejiHKoro,

The Bulgarian Contribution To The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Rus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Bulgarian Contribution To The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Rus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The President and Fellows of Harvard College

The conversion ofKievanRus' didnotlead to theintroductionofByzantine

1 See Derzavin, Cbh3h; D.

The reasonis notfarto seek: Thereis a strangediscrepancybetween

5 MoSin,IIepH0flH3auHH, 50. The lackof information aboutthespreadof Bulgarianlettersin

10 See Müller,Problem,53-5. It is ifthechronicleis reallyso Graecophile, thatit

arriveen masse as displacedpersonsafter1037 whenthefirstGreek,Leo,

churchoftheProphetElijahin Kiev,mentioned in thePrimary Chroniclesub 945, see PSRL 1,

thathas been quoted19is thatof themonkof St. Menas' Monastery20 who,

19 187. The Nicon Chronicle,PSRL 9 (1862), 68, reportsthatin

Tatiscev'seffortsto obtainmoreof thecodex remainedfruitless as Mel-

27 Ibid. 113. The

brokeoffafterthewords:Andreturning home,he sentto Constantinople to

31 Ibid.,110. On thismiraclesee below.

In eithercase hisdespatchis anachronistically

son fortheinsertion of thenameMichael remainsuncertain, themostplausiblehypothesis,

whichalso includesthe story,39 and by the sixteenthcenturythisversion

39 Ed. 1-119, cf. 102-3.

The anachronismwas onlyfullyeliminatedin the seventeenth

metropolitan of Moscow, beforeretiring to the Miracle Monastery.)See Vasenko,KHHra,

(927-70) second son, of whomJohnScylitzesreportsthathe was also

53 ed. Thurn,Ioannis, 3-500, cf. 346. This attemptto resolvethe

logical to him would scarcelyhave seemed logical to a tenth-century

62 On theculturalroleof theGreek in KievanRus' see Tachiaos,"Metropoli-

archimandriteJoachim,71 by Benjaminwho owned the codex,72by an

71 Thus lxiv-lxv.He saysJoachim

andhistorians whohaverecourseto itpainta falsepictureofevents.76

Kuz'min,KpemeHHe, 321. Beforeitbecomesyetanotherunchallenged apodeicticaxiom,letit

80 Leo diaconus,Historia,x, 10, ed. PG 117,908-09, talksof fierycolumnsin thenorthern

only underhim were othersees established,86 althoughthe thesis that

Those historians who accepttheveracityof thisinformation interpretit

ordo et numerusdescriptus, Lviv, 1646. Okolski(1580-1653) was Dominicanprovincialin

Macedoniaintotheempirethepatriarchal statusof thesee was reducedto

thata hierarchcould not have been subjectedto such an humiliation - historyknowsmany

withknownhistoricalfacts: Basil IPs threechartersforthe archseeof

1, 80, reportsthattheirmotherwas Bulgarian; assumingthatthismeansDanubianand not

Perhapsthemostbizarreattempts to linkthe spreadof Christianity in

in 946 or 957121was the priestGregory.122 Speculationshave made him

wouldfeel obligedto assertthattheBible containsthetruth,129 is uncon-

134 The fact that

Bulgaria.143There has even been speculation about individual codices144

143 Thus 334, n. 44; Vodoff,Naissance,105; Lunt,"Interpreting," 260.

circumstances in whicha particularsurvivingBulgariancodex arrivedin

thusneitheris a simplycopy of an alleged Byzantinearchetype;d. indeed,no illuminated

of the eleventh-century Eugenius fragmentsof a psalter152and the

152 Smidt,KaTajior, nos. 29-30

theecclesiasticalhierarchy was Graecized,butclaimsthattherewas a mass

162 Thus, 61. To supportthisview he refersto Litavrin,

tinople,Jerusalem,and Sinai,buttheprocessnevertheless remainedessen-

In the mid-twelfth centurywe may assumethatthe monastery of Xylourgou - thatis, the

tiated- it borderson theridiculous.Certainly Uspenskij'sown graspof Greekleaves much

ans178who, abhorring a historicalvacuum,seek to fillthe silence of the

Abraham,W. Powstanieorganizacyikoscioia laciñskiegona Rusi, vol. 1, Lviv,

178 On thistermsee note76.

Länderund das bulgarischeVolk in den Grenzen

Bogdanova, N. "0 BpeMeHHb3hthhXepcoHa khh3cmBnaflHMHpoM," BmaHTHñcKHñ

Dobszewicz, T. Wiadomosc historycznao biskupstwieKijowskimrzymsko-

Friese, C. De episcopatuKioviensi cuius sedes olim fuit Kioviae, nunc vero

Grumei,V. La Chronologie(= Traitéd'étudesbyzantines,

Kalajdovic, K. HoaHH Eiccapx Eojirapcxna. HccjieMOBamie,oô-bxcHJUonjee

Kuev, K. C-bfíõaTãHa cTapo-6-bJirapcKHTe npe3 BeKOBere,2nd ed., Sofia,

TaTHmeBa," BonpocuncTopHH 9 (1963) 214-18.

CKoro,onncaHHbixn. M. CTpoeBbiMB ãJKpâBHTHOM