Raev Etudes Byzantines 2007

8/2/2019 Raev Etudes Byzantines 2007

1/14

REVUEDESETUDES BYZANTINES

TOMES 64-65ANNEES 2006-2007

DEBOCCARDPARIS2007


2/14

REVUE DES ETUDES BYZANTINESTOMES 64-6s (2006-2007)

O ARTICLES1. Bemadette MARTIN-HISARD, La Vie de Georges I'Hagiorie(1009/1010-29 juin l065). Introduction, traduction du texte gdorgien,

notes et 6claircissements ...... 52. Jean-Claude RIeotNGln, Remarques sur le texte de la Chronographie d,eMichel Psellos (2) 2053.DirkKRAUSMULLER,AbbotSandMonksinE1eventh-CentuIystoudios:An Analysis of Rituals of Installation and Their Depictions inlllumin ted Manuscripts 2554. Stephanos EFTHvMIADIS, Le monastEre de la Source ii Constantilople et

ses deux recueils de miracles. Entre hagiographie et patriographie .... 2835. MariaPerene, Gylou, d6mon et sorcjdrc du monde byzantin au mondendogrec . . . . . . . . . . . . 31l6. MikhailRAEV, The Russian-Byzantine beaty of 97J: Theophilos andSveneld ........... 3297. Guillaume SIINI-GUILLAIN, Manoudl Kyd6nds (vers 1300-1341), diplo-mate bvzantin, pdre de Ddmdtrios KyddnEs ...... . .. 3418. Frederick LeuttrzEN. Psellos and the Nazireans ...................... 3599. Richard DrErRrcH, Style-switching in the Grottaferata Text of DigenesAkrites ........... 36510. lean-Pierre GnELors, Note sur la disparition de Saint-Jean au Dihippion 369

0 BrBLlocRApHD (voir liste ddtaillde p.469) ... .. . ... . .. . .. . ... . 3'/30 TABLE DEs MATGRES. . .. .. . . .. . ... . . 4690 REsuMEs D'AUTEURS . . . . ... 4'/40 Srcl.Es F.T ABRitvlATroNs. III

ISSN; 0766-5598TSBN: 2-7018 0199 0


3/14

THE RUSSIAN-BYZANTINE TREATY OF 971THEOPHILOS AND SVENELD,KMikhail RAEV

The treaty between the Kievan prince Sviatoslav and the Byzantineemperor John Tzimiskes signed in July 971 at Dristra has been the subject ofdiscussion for three centuries. A number of scholars have investigated most ofthe problems conceming dating, structure, and articles on the obligations ofthe Rus and Byzantines, as well as hampered readings of certain words.However, the reconstruction of the document's original form and the descrip-tion of primary sources still remain to be undertaken. In this paper, I will dis-cuss issues raised by the insertion of the names of Theophilos and Sveneld inthe beginning of this treaty.The Russian chronicle Pov?'st' Vremennykh le"r (hereafter PVL) referred tosynkellost Theophilos when he, the emperd John Tzimiskes, the Russianprince Sviatoslav and his legendary voevoda Svenelcl, signed the treaty atDristra, the modern Bulgarian town of Silistra, which put an end to Russiancampaigns in the Balkans in 968-971.2 Scholars have offered two answers tothe question, "Who is Theophilos?".The first group identifies him with Theophilos, the rippepetq of Euchaita,who, according to John Skylitzes, was sent to the Pechenegs by the Byzantineemperor John Tzimiskes after the treaty of Dristra to negotiate free passagethrough their territory for the Rus troops.3 Though he did not succeed, hereceived their approval in all other matters.a

*This paper was developed as a part of my research visit to the Centrc d'Histoire etCivilisation de Byzance, Collbge de France, Paris. I am really g.ateful for rhe financial supportwhich the Eddington Fund, Trinity College, Cambridge provided me with in order to conducrthis research.I would like to express my gmtitude to my supervisor, Prof S. Franklin, for read-ing this text many times, to Dr. C. Zuckerman, Dr. M. Featherstone, Prof. J.-C. Cheynet and theresearch staff of the libnry for Iheir support and hospitality. I owe an acknowledgement to Dr.J. Shepard, Dr. S. Ivanov, and Dr. C. Holmes for their rcading and useful comments on the textof this paper. I am grateful to Siobhan Carew for the proofreading of final draft.LOn the dignity of synkellos, see E. HERMAN, The Secular Church, in Tie CambriclgeMedieval History: The Blzantine Empire,Iy,p tl2 Government, Church, and Civilisation,ed. J. M. HussEy, Cambridge 1967, p. I l3- 1 14; N. OrKoNoMrDEs, ae s listes de prdsAance btzan-tin?s d?\ lt et ( siicler. Pcri\ 1972.p.J08.2.The Poydst' Vremennykh let. Compiled and edited by D. OsrRowsKr (Harvard Library ofEarly Ukainian Literature: Texts Series l0), Cambrid8e Mass. 2003, p.536.3. S. KAsHTANov, O protzedure zakliucheniia dogovorov mezhdy Vizantiei i Rusi'iu v x v., inFeodal'naia Rossia yo vsembno-istoricheskom protsesse, Moscow 1972, p.214. However, in

Revue des Endes Byzantines 64-65,2UJ6-2U)7 ,p.329-340.


4/14

MIKHAIL RAEV

The second group equates Theophilos with the metropolitan of Euchaita,Philotheos. who wai referred to twice by the late tenth century historian Leothe Deacon. Moreover, his seals - unearthed and published in the last fewdecades - explicitly witness his position as the metropolitan of Euchaita andsynkellos.5

The first author who mentions Philotheos (tDr)"60eog) as bishop ofEuchaita, a town in Asia Minor, is Leo the Deacon in the third book of his"History". According to him, Nikephoros II Phokas -sent Philotheos toPatriar;h Polyeuktos as an envoy soon after he acquired the imperial title' Heasked the Pairiarch to help in negotiations with lhe parakoimomenos JosephBringas, who had been in charge of imperial affairs since the unexPecteddeath of the emperor Romanos II (959-15.03.963) The envoy was unsuccess-ful in his -ission, as he was imprisoned on his arrival at Constantinople'6There is no infotmation available aboul his life after August 16,963, whenNikephoros was crowned emperor by the Patria.rch Polyeuktos in the capital'?

T^he next reference to Philotheos occurs in the context of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations in 969, which Leo the Deacon describes in the fifth bookof h]s work. There, Nikephoros sent him again as an envoy, together with thepatrician Nikephoros Erotikos, to the Bulgarian government in order to nego-iiate an alliance against the Rus, who had recently invaded Bulgaria 8 The dat-ing of this mission is the subject of continuous discussions and is usually

the same article Kashtanov only agrees with F Ditlger, S Mikucki' and I Sorlin that theTheoohilos from the Russian cfuonicle is the same person as referred in the work of Johnif"liir"r. ia"rn. rt a. fhe close investigation of the historiographical trend reveals that neither oftnJ ..frolars mentioned above identified the Theophilos of the Russian chronicle and JohnSkylitzes with Philotheos oi Leo the Deacon see F. DoLcER' Re8?rten der Kaiserurkunde desosirdmischen Reiches vo 565'I453 1, Regesten von 565'1025, Mtrnich-Berlin 1924' p 89' 92'i!; s.u,"u.*t, gtua"s sur la diplomatiqui russe la plus ancienne (lt Bul[ettn international dei;iriJi;" potonox" a"s sciencis et dei lertres, vII' cracovie 1951, p 34; I SoRLLN' Les hait6sO" nytun""'uu"" la Russie au x' siecle (lI)' Cahiers du monde tusse et soviAtique2' 1961'p.470.'4.lo^"",.Sc\LlrzAE,SyroprisHitoriarum,edITHL'RN,BerlinNewYork1973'p309-310ae50 (hercafter IoANNIS_ SCYLITZ-AE): JEAN SKYLITZES' Empeteurs de Constantinople, texlet.uauit p* n.niu"" et annot6 par J-C Cnsvrer (Realitds byzantines 8)' Paris 2003' p 258(hereafter JEAN SKYLITZES)'---J.in" fittt..ttotu. *iro suggested this identification was S RuNcIMAN'The First BuLgarianz^pii", t"ia"" 1930, p.214;-later H. GR6corRr agreed with it,ln The Canbridge Medie'''al-Hiiryl: The Byzantine'Empie ' Iv , patll Byzantium and i'J NeiS',bo&rs' ed J M HussEY'Cambridee 1966. o. 162. ft I. This identification was supported in V LAURENT' l" Corpus des,riiu, ai t "rpii ttyrantin "l ll . L'Eglise 'Paris 1963 ' p 587 (hereafter LAlJRrNr'.1963)6.LsorrDrlconrCAI-oENsIs,l/lori.tLibriDecem'rcc'CBHAssl'Bonn1828'p44"?l(hereafter LEo DIAcoNars); LEv DlAKoN' lstorra' transl M KoPYLENKo' ed G LITAVRIN' comm'M. Sruzrnaov and S.IvANov, Moscow 1988' p.27 (hereafter LEv DIAKoN)'

?. LEo DhcoNUs, p.47-48; LEv DtAKoN, p.29-30' ft 488. LEo DrAcoNars, p. 79rt'6; Lev Dreron. p. 44-45 , ft. 15


5/14

THE RUSSIAN.BYZANTINE TREATY OF 97Iapproached in the chronology of the events that occurred in the Balkans dur-ing the second half of 960s., According to ko the Deacon, the emperorNikephoros II Phokas was forced by circumstances to begin these negotia-tions, as he was afraid that Bulgarians and Rus would unite against theByzantine Empire. Apparently he considered the Rus campaign as directlytargeting Constantinople. For this reason, Nikephoros II Phokas ordered anumber of measures to be undertaken, including a strengthening of the capi-tal's walls, the installation of ballisric weapons on them, the closing of theBosporus with a chain, the supply of infantry with ams, and the amouring ofthe cavalry. Because of the Rus campaign, according to Leo, the emperorthought it was better to wage a war on only one set of people instead of two.Nikephoros justified his decision to negotiate with Bulgarians because oftheir Christianity. As to the Rus, the emperor considered them under influenceof Kalokyros, an envoy he had earlier sent to the Kievan prince Sviatoslav, topersuade him to attack Bulgaria, but the envoy had, in tum, convinced theRus to help him conquer the Byzantine tfuone. Philotheos and NikephorosErotikos negotiated a marriage between the young emperors Basil andConstantine, the sons of the late emperor Romanos II, and two Bulgarianprincesses, in order to strengthen the long-lasting peace and friendshipbetween the two peoples.ro Leo the Deacon informs us that shortly beforeemperor Nikephoros II Phokas was murdered (December 10,969), the twoprincesses were presented in the Byzantine court.rr This reference providesthe latest date on Philotheos' activities.Though there are no more references to Philotheos but in regard to possi-bility for his identification with Theophilos, I will outline here the informa-tion about the latter in John Skylitzes and the PVL.The new Byzantine emperor, John Tzimiskes, sent a mission to thePechenegs led by the riplreper5g of Euchaita Theophilos in late July 971. Thereasons for this lay in the victorious end of the Byzantine campaign againstthe Rus in Bulgaria, and in the peace treaty signed between both parties.According to Skylitzes, our main source about this mission, the Byzantineemperor and the Russian prince Sviatoslav concluded peace negotiations and,later, a treaty. One of the points was that a mission should be sent to thePechenegs to negotiate the passage of Rus troops back to their homeland. Themission was unsuccessful, though it won the Pechenegs' agreement to enterthe circle of the Byzantine friends and allies.l, The PVL refers to Theophilos,in the beginning of the Byzantine-Russian treaty of 971, as the person who,together with the emperor John Tzimiskes, was involved in concluding it.t3The existence of Philotheos is supported by the recently published fourlead seals. They can be divided into two goups: type I - where he appeared as

9. LEv DrA(oN, p. 45, ft. 21 .10. LEo DrAcoN'Us, p. 63q3, 775-80e: LEv DrAKoN, p.44-45.11.LEo DhcoNUs,p. 86rr 17; LEv DrAKoN,p.48.12. IoANNrs Scr-lrzAE, p. 309ae-3 lCFo; Jear SxvurzEs, p. 258.13. See ft 2.

33t


6/14

MIKHAIL RAEVthe metropolitan of Euchaita,l4 and type II - where the title synkellos wasadded to the prevlous formula.15. First, I will try to conelate all data available to prove that Philotheos wasthe original name in Byzantine sources, and to reconstruct his life and careerin chronological order. Then, I will discuss the reasons why his name wasmistaken in Skylitzes, by outlining scholarship on the common sources usedby him and ko the Deacon, and proposing how the metathesis ofPhilotheos'name occurred. Later, I will provide a description of problems existing inByzantine sources, and will explain how they interfered in the PVL and ear-lier compilations that were used for its creation. I will limit myself in propos-ing possible ways as to how the metathesis of Philotheos' name entered inde-pendently into PVL and Skylitzes. Here,I will not propose a stemma betweenthese works, as the mistake in one name is insufficient evidence for establish-ing inter-textual relationships. Apart from clarifying the metathesis ofPhilotheos' name, I will argue that the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 97iexisted in a form similar to text in Leo the Deacon and John Skylitzes, whichNestor, compiler of the PVL, later reworked, to produce the current form ofthe treaty. Finally, I will tly to explain how the name of Sveneld, a chieftainof Igor and Sviatoslav, was inserted into treaty's text.

As summarised above, two groups of scholars have identified Theophiloswith Philotheos or vice versa.r6 Here, we must point out a potential chrono-logical discrepancy: it is, of course, possible that as Philotheos was last men-tioned in the second half of 969, while Theophilos was referred to events of971 only, that the former had died and was replaced by the latter.r? However,since we do not have any seal proving the historicity of Theophilos, while onthe other hand there are enough sources and textual problems to enable us tosupporl a notion of a metathesis, we will try to explain below how these prob-lems relate to and to open up the connections between Byzantine and eadyRussian historiography.

The unexpected death of Emperor Romanos II on March 15'963, threwthe Byzantine Empire into a state of internal political crisis. One question was

14. LAURTNT, 1963, p.587, n'766; J -C CHEYNET, C. MoRxrssoN, w. satw,lzs scea*x byzan-tins de la collection Henri Seyrir , Pais 199 I , n' 248 (hereafter CIIEYNET, 199 I ).15.V.LAUREN-r, Le Corpus des sceatLx de I'empire byzantin. V/3, L'EgIise' Pais 1972'p. 129, n' 1?82 (hereafter LAURENT, 1972); L IoRDANov, Pechat na Filotei' sinkel i mitropolit nabvkhaita, r;kovoditel na diplomaticheski misii v Bdlgai'a,in Prinosi kjfi biilgarskata arkheolo'gia, l,Sotra 1992, p. 120- 124.

16. The only peison arguing on the account in the Russian sources' who identified Philotheosas Theophilos, was A. SAKHAR1\ , Diplomatia Svidto.trard, Moscow 1982' p. 13, 134-137 ' 187 '189, l9i-196, 203-204.'llte problem is that he does not provide any arguments why Leo theDeacon mistook this name.17. I am indebted for the existence of this possibility to Dr. C Zuckeman


7/14

THE RUSSIAN-BYZANTINE TREATY OF 97 1paramount: who would exercise power until the late ruler's sons could act forthemselves. The two groups of people aspiring to the throne were formedamong officials who had come to ptominence during the independent rule ofConstantine Vn (945-959) and that of his son Romanos II. On the one handwas Joseph Bringas, the parakoimomenos during the reign of the latter, whoalso persuaded the commander in chief of the Westem Armies, MarianosArgyros, to join him. The other group was consisted of Constantine VII'Sparakoimomenos , Basil - illegitimate son of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos ,and men from the military aristocracy of Asia Minor - Nikephoros and LeoPhokas, John Tzimiskes, and Romanos Kourkouas.Ls Due to his victories overthe Arabs in the late 950s and early 960s, and because of the conquest ofCrete and the city of Aleppo in Northern Syria, this group consolidatedbehind Nikephoros Phokas, and supported him as emperor. It is likely thatPhilotheos was closely comected to members of this group as he was sent asenvoy to negotiate with Joseph Bringas.le According to Leo the Deacon, hewas a Bishop of Euchaita. It seems he was raised to this high ecclesiasticalsee after the death of his predecessor, Philaretos, who, according toV. Grumel, lived in the time of the Patriarch Polyeuktos (956-970), was asynkellos, and probably died either before or in between 959 and 963.,0 It isalso certain that Leo the Deacon does not provide us with the right title ofPhilotheos, as, in the tenth centuy, Euchaita was placed in the fourth positionof the mehopolitan sees under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and itsincumbents were definitely metropolitans. The significance of the town as anecclesiastical centre rests on St. Theodoros Tyron, who was bom and livedthere, and during that period it was a significant pilgrimage centre.2r Ttvo leadseals published by V. Laurent and J.-C. Cheynet attest the title of Philotheosand can be dated to the period prior or after 963.22 Indeed, when he wasrefened to in 969 as one of the people who negotiated the marriage betweenthe two Bulgarian princesses and the heirs to the Byzantine throne, Leo theDeacon mentioned him as a proedros of Euchaita.'z3 This title is applied to themetropolitans and bishops in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but it doesnot indicate whether or not the person mentioned held the position of synkel-/os. In other words, the fact that the PVL refers to Philotheos as a synkellos,while in Skylitzes he is just the tiplreperiq of Euchaita - another indefiniteterm -, does not mean that he was promoted to this position in 971; there are

18. LEv DrAKoN, p.20-29; loAl.rMs ScyLnzAE, p.256; JEAI SKylrrzis, p.216-217.19. See ft.2.20. V. GRTMEL, Titulature de m6tropolites byzantins. I, Les mtropolites syncelles, REB 3,1945, p.92-ll4; the seal of Philaretos is published in Catalogue of Byzantine Seals atDumbarton Oaks atul in the Fogg Museum of Art,lV, ed. by E.MCGEER, J. NESBITT, andN. OrKoNoMrDEs, Washington D.C. 2000, p. 45.21.For Euchaita, see N. OKoNoMrDis, l,e d6doublement de S. Th6odore et les villesd'Euchaita et d'Euchane, An.Boll.l04, 1986, p.32'7-335a and also Ch.WALTER, Theodore,archetype of the warior saint, RtB 57, 1999, p. 163-210.22. LAURENT, 1963, p.587; CHEYNET , I991, n'248.23. See fi.3


8/14

MIKHAIL RAEVat least three other occasions when he might have also been promoted. Thefirst one could have been soon after the coronation of Nikephoros II Phokas,as a reward for his help in the revolt and his time in prison. Another mighthave been during the period before his mission to Bulgaria, because an envoywith responsibility for such negotiations had lo have an appropriate dignityFinally, there are convincing arguments for his promotion after the murder ofNikephoros II Phokas. On the one hzurd, Philotheos remained in close contactwith the new Emperor and the group who had supported him, as theByzantine and Russian sources for 971 suggest. Three persons, who partici-pated in the promulgation of Nikephoros II Phokas as Emperor, took part inthe plot that led to his murder: John Tzimiskes, Romanos Kourkouas, andBasil the Parakoimomenos. Jean-Claude Cheynet has proposed thatPhilotheos might have been in close contact with the former two, as Euchaitawas in the theme of Armeniakon, from where came the kin of Kourkouas, towhich both John Tzimiskes and Romanos Kourkouas belonged'24 However, Ifind that he remained in close relation not so much with the new emperor orthe previous one but with rbe eminence Srise in these events, Basil theParakoimomenos. He played a major political role in the reign of EmperorConstantine VII, and though not in power during rhe reign of his son retailedhis important position in the Byzantine political system, and would have hadthe power to promote Philotheos to this position. The importance of Basil inall spheres of Byzantine government in rhe period 940s-980s, has beenemphasized in the recent research.25 On the other hand, a convincing argu-ment for Theophilos' identification as Philotheos and for the latter promotionafter December 10th,969 is provided by the seal from Silistra (Dristra) pub-lished by I.Iordanov. There, Philotheos held the office of synkellos. The sealis dated in 971 .'?6 As for the date of Philotheos' death, available data is insuffi-cient to ascertain whether or not he died later in 971 or in the following years.

The metropolitan of Euchaita has a significant place in crucial events ofByzantine history in the 960s and eady 970s. Though references in sourcesand relevant seals enable us to trace his career and ascertain his place inByzantine intemal and intemational politics, we find that the metathesis ofhisname may indicate a probable connection between Leo the Deacon, JohnSkylitzes and the early Russian chronicles. The change of the syllables from

24. JEAN SKYLrzEs, p.258, ft.70.25. W. G. BRoK(AAR, Basil Lacapenus. Byzantium in tlle tenth century'in Studia Byzantina

et Neohellenica Nee aL?dica,III, ed. W. F. BAKKTR, A F. vAN GEMERT, and W. J. AERTS, l-eiden1912, p.199-234; C. HoL\aFs, Political elites in the reign of Basil ll' rn Blzantium in the Year1000, ed. P. MAGDAT-INo, kiden 2003 (hereafter P. MAGDALTN1, Byzantium), p.58-62' 457-458'469-475. I am deeply obtiged to Dr. C. Holmes for letting me consult her work before its publi-cation.

26.IoRDANov, 1992,p.120-124; the earlier published seal is in V. LAUREN"T' 1972,p 129.


9/14

THE RUSSIAN-BYZANTINE TREATY OF 97 1@rl"d-0eo6 to O6-e1)"o6 raises the question of how the Russian-Byzantinetreaty was inserted into the PVL. This problem relates to the question ofwhether this treaty is genuine or not, which I will address in detail in anotherstudy.It is worth noting that the two Byzantine authors - Leo the Deacon andJohn Skylitzes - who recorded the name of Philotheos/Theophilos, have beensubjects of continuous research. M. Siuziumov implied that the former - whofinished his work post 991 - did not influence the latter, whose treatise datespost 1092. In Siuziumov's opinion, they used two common sources. He iden-tified the first one as an ecclesiastical chronicle hostile to Nikephoros IIPhokas, while he named the second "The family chronicle of Phokas".Siuziumov dated their creation in between 976-985 for the former text, andpost 985 for the latter, but prior to 991, which is the terminus post quem forthe work of Leo the Deacon.2? Kazhdan re-dated both works: the ecclesiasti-cal chronicle to post 985 and the family chronicle in Nikephoros II's reign to963-969.28 The existence of the metathesis in John Skylitzes suggests thatthese two treatises, which he used, might already have been compiled into asingle work before his compilation.Indeed, both Skylitzes and the PVUs compiler utilized earlier works.J. Shepard, in his research on the suggested source of Skylitzes for the 1030s-1050s, raised the hypothesis that the author used a treatise dedicated toKatakalon Kekaumenos - a general during the reigns of Byzantine emperorsin the period 1034-1057 -2e Another finding points out that for the late ninthand first half of the tenth centuries Skylitzes used the Chronicle ofTheophanes Continuator,3o which, for the period to 948, conveys one of theChronicle of Symeon Logothete's redactions.3r Three more pieces of evidenceprove the existence of literal activity in the period from the 980s to the secondhalf of eleventh century. Firstly, N. Panagiotakes identified a source related toSkylitzes for the period of the 970s-980s.3'? Secondly, an abbreviated version

27.M.SuzuMov, Ob istochnikakl L'va Diakona i Skilitsa, in Vizantiikoe obozrenie,17,Iuriev 1916, p. 106-166.28.A.Kraoar, Iz istorii vizantiiskoi istoricheskoi literature: Istochniki L'va Diakona iSkilitsy dlia tretei chetverti x stoletia, yf20, 1961, p.106-128. The author also concluded thatthe creator of this chronicle certainly did live during the second half or the end of the tenth cen-tury.29.J.S|EPARD, A suspected source of Scylitzes'Synopsis Historion: the great CatacalonCecaumenus, BMGS 16 , 1992, p. 1'7 I -181 .30. See L TELRN in IoANNES ScylrrzEs, p.vur, and the latest research by J.-C. CHEYNET inJEAN S(YLrzis, p. xn-xn.3l.For the chronicle of Symeon Magister, see A. KAZHDAN, Khronika Simeona Logofeta,W 15,1959, p.125-143 (hereafter K,AZ{DAN, Khronika); for Theophanes Continuatus, see IDEM,Iz istorii vizantiiskoi khronogafli x v. O sostave rak nazyvaemoi "Khroniki ProdolzhiteliaFeofana", l/l/ 19, 1960, p.76-96.

32. N. PANActorAKEs, Fragments of a Lost Eleventh Century Byzantine Historical Work, in@tMLLqv. Studies in honour of Robert Browning, ed.. C. CoNsrA\.n\DEs, N. PANAGToTAKES,E. JEFFREyS, A. ANcELou, Venice 1996, p.320-357. For the last detailed research on late tenthea ier eleventh century soulces, see A. MARKopouLos, Byzantine history writing at the end ofthe First Millennium, in P. MAcDAT-tNo, Blzdntium,p.IS3-19'7 .


10/14

MIKHAIL RAEVof the two sources used by Leo the Deacon and John Skylitzes exists in thepart after 961 of the late copy of the Slavonic translation of the Chronicle ofSymeon Logothete.3r This hints that a similar compilation, based on theTheophanes Continuator's redaction, could have be utilized by Skylitzes too.In Kazhdan's opinion, the redaction of Theophanes Continuator and that ofthe Continuator of George the Monk were copies of the second redaction ofthe Chronicle of Symeon Logothete.3a Finally, in relation to the notes above,Markopoulos mentions unedited copies of this chronicle with continuationsup to 963, 1018 and 1043.35Investigations illuminating the ways how the treaty of 971 entered theRussian chronicle without influence from John Skylitzes' and Leo theDeacon's works support this interpretation.It was A. Shakhmatov who researched the structure and stemma of thePVL in the beginning of the twentieth century. He argued the existence oftwo earliest versions of this chronicle in Laurentian and Hypatian codices,to present copies of the original text finished in 1113 by Nestor, a monkin the Kievan Cave Monastery. When Shakhmatov compared the PVLwith the Novgorod First Chronicle,36 he defined the existence of an earlierwork - which he named the Initial Compilation - the compiler of the PVLused with some Byzantine works in their Slavonic translations - theChronicle of George Monk and the Life of St. Basil the New. Shakhmatovdated the Initial Compilation to 1093-95. He also suggested that it wasbased on conieclure of the Kievan Cave Monastery chronicle of 1073 andthe Ancient Novgorod Chronicle of 1050s. Shaklmatov presumed thatthey differed from each other but had a common underlying texi - whichhe named the Ancient Compilation - and dated to 1039. The scholarargued that the Russian-Byzantine treaties were inserted in the PVLbetween 1095 and 1113.37

33. For instance, such a continuation of the Chronicle of Symeon Logothetes, where the twoabove-mentioned sources for the reigns ofNikephoros II Phokas and John Tzimiskes were com-piled and added, was tanslated into Slavonic Though this was a tmnslation from late fourteenthientury, its Byzantine oiginal had the closest redaction to the o ginal Chronicle of Logothetesin comparison with tie survived Byzantine manuscripts - for the historiography see KAZHDAN,Khronii


11/14

THE RUSSIAN-BYZANTINE TREATY OF 971Research on these problems continued during the Soviet period with theworks of V Istrin38 and M. Priselkov3e. The former criticized Shakhmatov's

tbeory and argued that a cbronicle, based on that of George the Monk, andwhich he named Khronograph po Velikomu lzlozheniiu, influenced theAncient Novgorod Chronicle. Istrin suggested that the Khronograph poVelikomu lzlozhenilu lay in the creation of the Ancient Compilation and thatthe lack of references to it in the Novgorod First Chronicle does not mean thatthere was an Ancient Novgorod Chronicle, but that these references wereshortened or omitted by the later compiler.4 O. Tvorogov suppofiedShakhmatov's stemma on the Initial Compilation and the PVL and how theyentered into the later chronicles.ar He proved that while the Khronograph poVelikomu lzlozhenii, was used for the Initial Compilation, for the PVL,Nestor used the Chronicle of George the Monk in its Slavonic translation.V Ziborov offers one of the latest pieces of research in this area. He arguesthat, despite anonymity of the Initial Compilation's author, from othereleventh-century works ascribed to Nestor one may presume that he, as ayoung monk, created the Kievan Cave Monastery chronicle - which Ziborovre-dated to 1077.4'? This theory begs the question as to why lhese earlierchronicles were extended and I. Danilevskii offers a plausible explanation. Hefinds certain eschatological motives in the PVL that suggest its continuationup to the Second Advent of Christ.a3

J. Malingoudi offers the latest survey on the tenth century Russian-Byzantine treaties. She finds similarities between them and suggests theirdependence on Byzantine diplomatic practice. Malingoudi vows that all threeRussian-Byzantine treaties of 911, 944, and 971 were delivered fromConstantinople where a book with their copies existed. Then, someone trans-lated them in the period 971-1113 into Old Church Slavonic, and most likelyafter 1095 they were presented in Kiev where Nestor used them for the cre-ation of the PVL.a Kashtanov developed this hypothesis further, and pro-

38.V.M.IsrRrN, Khronika Georgia Amartola \, (lrevnem slavianorusskom perevode, \I,Petro$ad, 1922, p.268 408 (hereaftff Khronika Georgia Amarrola), and also IDEM, Ochetkdtevnerusskoi literatary domoskovskogo periotla, x1-xrl fr., Saint-Pete$burg 1922, p. 84- 108.39. M. D. Pnrser-rov, lrtoia russkogo letopisal,ill x1-rfl yy., Saint-petersburg 1996, p.48-83.40.V.lsTRrN, Zamechaniia o nachale russkogo letopisaniia, Iryestiia otdelelniia russkoToia4)ka i slorestnosti Akatlemii Nauk,XKyl,Leningrad 1923, p.56 66, 74.4l. O- V. TvoRocov, Povest' Vremennikh Let i Khrcnograf po velikomu izlozheniiu, Zrar11Otdela Drevnerusskoi literatury28, 1974, p.99-133 IDEM. Povest' Vremennikh Let iNachal'nyi Svod, ibidem3l, 1976, p.3-26, and the complere research on this topic in IDEM,Drevnerusskie khronografy. Lenin}rad l9'7 5.42. Y . Ztsonov , O letopisl NeJlrra, Saint-Perersburg 1995, p. 1 29- 1 56.43.I. DAMLEvsKn, Eskhatologicheskie motivy v PVL, in Il istochnika,l, sb. sratei v chest,S. M. Kashtanov, ed. S. O. SHMTD, Moscow 1997 , p.l'72-220.zl4. J. MALrNcouDr, Russko-vjzantiiskie dogovory v x v. v svete diplomatiki, W57,l99j,p.86 87.


12/14

MIKIIAIL RAEVposed that the Kievan metropolitan Nikephoros (1104-1121) was the mostiikely couri"r or commissioner of these documenisj5

ihe outline of the discussion above about the origins and sources of thePVL provides options for identifying possible ways-for the insertion of theno.ri'uo-nyruntin" heaty of qit wittr the metathesis of the name ofPhilotheos. One of them is through the Slavonic translation of the Chronicleoi G"org" the Monl< But, in Istrin's publication of lhis work' no continuationuft".-mJ "u"nt. of 948 exists.ft Another option is based on the opinion ofS. flantlin who has implied that people in eleventh-twelfth ceniury Kievan[o, nua u much better knowledge of Greek than was previously thought'47The lack of Slavonic ffanslations of many chronicles could eventually mean;;i th"y were used in the Byzantine original' Hence,.given the Slavonictiuntfmi,n of the Chronicle oi G"o.g" the Monk, covering the period 842-g+g, it on" of the redactions of Chronicle of Symeon logothetes'43 I find pos-,iUi" it ut u"tto. -ay have used by himself, or with the help of another monk'ii, nyruntin" continuation for the years of the Emperors Nikephoros IIPhokas and John Tzimiskes. Based on data from such a source, he composedthe Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971.

The existence of Sveneld's name in the text of the Russian-Byzantinetreaty supplies an argument for the invention of the treaty's text by Nestor'irt"i'. it'ni "onuinciig explanation as to how his name was inserted Sveneldas a peculiar personaliy first appears in the PVL in events related to the deathoi pin"" tgoi (stzttl-'9+trn [ie was also mentioned as one of Sviatoslav's

45. S. KAsIIrANov, K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii t'eksta russko-vizantiiskikl dogovolov x v v,o.tu*pou",tiv.em"nnitl'ler'nvostochnaiaEvropalDrevnosti.i'Srednelekov'e:i"iiiin""ion stuktura Drc\'nerusskogo gosudanoa, vlll' chtenia pamiati v r Passlrro'Moscow 1996,p.42.46. Khronii(a Georgia Amartola. p 572+i.S.p-"t*^, Ci""f. in Kievan Rus" DOP46, 1992'p 69-8t See also IDEM' Byzantium'nrniiui.itodiet i, the translation of the Christian cuhure ' ATdershotm02'--;t.il t,K;t*^., Khronika, p.125 128' 141-143 For the reconstruction for the connec-ti"rt t"it*t,ft" Sy."ot f,og"tftJt". family of ctuonicles' see atso A MARKoPouLos'

p 279-;;; A. ;;;;;;., ;,; hanh;hrifiIiche u b;rl iek runy des ".Geot8i u.s c ontinuatus" ( Redaktion,lr- thessaloniki l98a,p. 144-l7l: and also loi cerrain probtem\ olthe Chronicle olSymeoniir"ii"","' *" r.l"-i*-Jo*lo". Bvzanrium. gllg-l tig.* ry9!5',lf^**i* i"th'zdi."ii'ii)ir'i"t, ,. trkheologii' istorii i etnografii Tavrii, Yll ' Semfitopol .2000' p 342-356;i.rra rii"r"*"oiu, The Log;thete Chonicle in vat Br' 163, 9cl^y-' r2:; p'419-4341i. iv""i"L", sy-L. Logotietis: some philological remarks' Bvz 7I '2o0:': ?.?:'.262 ii.'wf,'p.ize eor tie discussion on rhe diaring of Igor's rule' see.C' ZuCKERMAN On thea* .f,f," fi"rJ, C.nversion to Judaism and thtchronology of the Kings of the Rus Olegiiilt..;ildy; rh; Anonymous Khazar l-tter from the Genizah of Cairo' REB 53' 1995'r. i:l'Jlri, fo. iri t.-slarion rn Russian, see IDEM, Rus', Vizantia i Klazaria v-seredine x veka:ii"or.-y"nt ""r.g,f-,' ii'iin" i ikh sosedi' VI (Sbomik statei k ?0-letiiu akad G G'Litavrina), Moscow 1996. P 68-80


13/14

THE RUSSIAN.BYZANTINE TREATY OF 97 I 33gguardiaff and as the chieftain, who,-with princess Olga, led the army againstth3.Dr9v_lianl tribe.5o Again the pVL referred to Sv"eneld ln Sir. *ir"r, tuadvised Sviatoslav to retum home by horse and, according io itre ct.onicter,later Sveneld arrived in Kiev safely.ir In the Ancient CooipiLti* other dataexisted, which the Ancient Novgorod chronicle transmittea. itre.e, Sveneldll.l!l-e-0. earlier in 922.when ^Igor handed him a rribute from the Drevliany.urher reterences show that in 940 he besieged a castle of the Ulychi tribe for!!"1 f"gs and that jn 942 Igor transferred to hi- on"" more tlie taxes fromthe Drevliany tribe.52 In the pvl, Svenerd was still involved afte. qz1 in.".-tain political and military affairs. Though many schorars do not oiscuss trishistoricity,53 the abundance of fairy-talei about hi* in th" lut. "l"u.nth ""n_ury/early twelfth century in the Kievan Rus society u, .onu"y"J in th" pVLsuggests his virtual non-existenca.Here I will try to propose a solution of the problem as how Sveneld,sname entered the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 9Zt. es Shakhmatov haspointed out, the text about the signing of thii treaty and rhe treatv itself wereinserted after 1095, and the Novgoiod First Chronicle .onu"i. tt" non_

1:rvorked passage without this part. In the first sentence of the Novgorod FirstChronicle, _Sviatoslav, realising the small number of hi, ;;, decided toretum to Kiev to recruit more soldiers, in the second one Sveneld advised himabout the danger of the pechenegs.5a Therefore, ," rnuy -gu" tt ut if in theOld Church SlavoniclByzantine text of the Ckonicle of G.oig. ,fr" Vont 1o.,if we accept the hypothesis of Malingoudi about the copy tiom-itre originatB/:Tjrn: dossier with copies of rreaties brought ro fi"u)'tn" _irtat"n num"of Philotheos existed, Nestor inserted Sveneldl name in inventeJ treaty,s textas cnunter-balance. Moreover, in support of the artificiality of the heaty of971, Kashtanov proved that its ifiit;latio has analogues ooi *ith ott". t"nthcentury Russian-Byzantine treaties, but with the l;r Russian treaties fromthe first half of the twelfth century.55Finally, I will add one more argument conceming data transmission from amanuscript of the second redaction of the Chronicl-e of Syrneon Logothetes,and I will continue to events in the 960s and their rewo.ti"g Uf the Russiancompiler in a text, which does not have collations with tne 6lgina, Uut fewnames. As outlined above, the Russian_Byzantine treaty of 97iwas insertedwith a text preceding it. In that paragraph it was mentioned that thePechenegs were enemies of Sviatoslav un-d fo. thi. reason he ,.ni"nuou. ,n

50.PVL, p.334,364.51. PVL, p.510,515.52. Novgorod First Chronicle. o. 109- I t053. For Sveneld resrored biog;aphy, see M. ARrAMoNov, Voevoda Svenel,d, ir Kul,turaDrevnei .Ru:ti. Moscow t966. p.lO-'tsi n. eoe".. Z \tudidw "uj "ri,*r.y, iuiop^*o*".ruskim. I. Swenetd - ojciec Mtuiszy. c7y swen"fa _ oj"i.. ,"..iy. lrriio 2kiu))*"r". xvt,Wanzaw-Poznan I 97I. p. 85-102.54. Novgorod Firct Chronicle, p. 123 .

-_ 55. S. KAs{rANov, Intitulatsia russkikh knia"heskikh akrov x_xv vv. (Opyt pervichnoi klasi_tuat\iit.in Vsponoeatel nre istorichcskie disrsrpliny. vtU. Lningra a iS;i) fi_ji


14/14

34O MIKIIAIL RAEVthe Byzantine emperor to negotiate a peace treaty at DJistra'56 Therefore' withr"gurd to th"

"o-plexityof riconstructing the original text from where it was

"o-pi"d, t suggest that it contained the place where the peace treaty wassigrreA, ano iie partlcipants: Emperor John Tzimiskes and Frince Sviatoslav'Li to tie synkeliot Philotheos and his mistaken name, I find that he was men-tioned in a context similar to Skylitzes with regard to his mission to thefechenegs. T}lis shows that Nestor, the alleged author of the PVL' based on ashort deicription of events, created an unauthentic treaty' which ftom mypoint of "iew justified some literary aims' In. another study' I will discuss^Nestor's means and ends in inventing the treaty's text'Mikhail ResvTrinity College, Cambridge

56 .PVL, p. 49s , 499 , sO2.

Documents

Raev Etudes Byzantines 2007