Глава II. Крещение св. Владимиром всей Руси и совершенное утверждение христианства на Руси при его преемниках

I. Vladimir - his own baptism and his baptism of the country. Having reached the most reliable events, such as the baptism of Vladimir, we still did not get rid of the so-called folk stories. On the contrary, now we have before us a story of this kind, which can be called such due to its advantage and superiority (κατ ’ ἐξυχήν). Ambassadors from different nations come to the Grand Duke of Kyiv offering their faiths; the prince sends his ambassadors to the nations to inspect local faiths; finally, of all the faiths, Russians choose the best faith: this, more or less known to everyone, the story of the baptism of Vladimir. It is a deplorable duty to encroach on something about which so many are so accustomed, and so would like not to doubt, and in which the vanity of these very many finds such satisfaction. But the inexorable duty of a historian forces us to say that this story does not contain anything true, that it is a later fiction, and even a fiction, in all likelihood, not Russian, but Greek. Let us first convey in detail this story, which has become, so to speak, classic in our history. Being a later insertion in the chronicle and being placed in it without any connection with the previous one, it says the following: Under the year 986, which is the 8th year of the reign of Vladimirov 215. The Bulgarians of the Mohammedan faith 216 came to Vladimir and said: “You are a wise and intelligent prince, but you do not know the law (you adhere to an unkind, untrue faith); believe in our law and bow to Mohammed.” And Vladimir asked: “What is your faith?” They said: “We believe in God, and Mohammed commands us to circumcise the secret uds, not to eat pork, not to drink wine; after death we will commit fornication with our wives: Mohammed will give each of them seventy beautiful wives, he will choose one (of them) the most beautiful, he will place the beauty of all on (this) one, and she will be a man’s wife.” And here too, they said, it is worthy to commit all kinds of fornication; whoever is poor in this world will be the same there. And they spoke a lot of other flattery, which cannot be written for shame’s sake. Vladimir listened to them with great pleasure (listening sweetly) when they talked about wives, for he himself loved women and was strongly devoted to fornication; but he didn’t like cutting off the uds and not eating pork, and he didn’t want to hear about the prohibition of drinking, saying: “Drinking is fun for Russians, we can’t live without it” 217 . Then the Germans came, saying: “We have come, sent (to you) by the Pope.” They said to Vladimir: “This is what the Pope ordered me to say to you: your land is like our land, but your faith is not like ours; for our faith is light, we bow to God, who created heaven and earth, the stars, the month and every breath, and your gods are wood.” Vladimir asked: “What is your commandment?” They said: “Fast according to your strength, (and then) whatever you eat or drink, do it all for the glory of God, as our teacher (Apostle) Paul said.” Vladimir said to the Germans: “Go back, because our fathers did not accept this). Hearing about (all) this, the Jews of Kozar 218 came, saying: “We heard that Bulgarians and Christians came, each teaching you their faith; Christians believe in Him whom we crucified, and we believe in the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” And Vladimir asked: “What is your law?” They answered: “Be circumcised, eat neither pork nor hare 219, keep the Sabbath.” Vladimir asked: “Where is your land?” They answered: “In Jerusalem.” He asked: “Is it still there now?” They answered: “God was angry with our fathers and scattered us across different lands for our sins, and our land was given over to Christians.” Vladimir said: “So, how can you teach others when you yourself are rejected by God and wasted? If God loved you and your faith, then you would not have been scattered across different lands: or do you want the same to happen to us? After this, the Greeks sent a philosopher to Vladimir, saying: “We heard that the Bulgarians came and taught (convinced) you to accept their faith; but their faith defiles heaven and earth, they are cursed above all people, for they have become like Sodom and Gomorrah, on which the Lord threw flammable stones to drown them. In the same way, the day of their destruction awaits them, when God will come to judge the earth and destroy all those who create lawlessness and do filth: “for they wash their waste (and) pour it into their mouths and smear it on their lips, like Bokhmit, and their wives also do the same filth and something worse - they eat from the copulation of men and women.” Hearing this, Vladimir spat and said: “Oh, disgusting”! 220. The philosopher continued: “We also heard that the (Germans) came from Rome to teach you their faith, but their faith is a little (somewhat) damaged against ours 221, for they serve on unleavened bread, that is, handkerchiefs, which God did not betray, having commanded to serve on bread, (for it is said: and before the apostle, let us receive bread, and saying: Behold, this is my body, broken for you..., they did this they do not create, and (therefore) their faith is (not entirely) correct.” Vladimir said: “The Jews came to me and said that the Germans and Greeks believe in the One whom we crucified.” The philosopher answered: “Indeed, we believe in Him, for the prophets predicted - some that God would be born, others that He would be crucified and buried, on the third day He would rise and ascend to heaven. They beat those prophets, and ground others with saws. When the prophecies came true, (God) descended to earth, was crucified, and after resurrection ascended to heaven, then (He) waited 46 years for their repentance. And because they did not repent, he sent the Romans against them, who destroyed their cities, and scattered them to different countries, in which they are still in slavery.” Vladimir asked: “But why did God come to earth and accept such passion”? The philosopher said: “If you want, (prince), to listen, then I will tell you step by step and in detail why God came to earth.” Vladimir said: “I’m ready to listen with great pleasure (I’ll be glad to listen).” And the philosopher began to speak in this way... This is followed by a very lengthy speech by the philosopher to Vladimir, which sets out in detail the entire sacred history of the Old and New Testaments from beginning to end, from the creation of the world to the ascension of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the apostles. Having thus shown the plan of the divine economy for the salvation of people, or what God came to earth for, the philosopher concluded his speech: “God has provided a day on which he wants to judge, coming from heaven, the living and the dead and to reward everyone according to his deeds - to the righteous the kingdom of heaven and beauty unspeakable and joy without end and eternal life, but to sinners endless torment of fire and worms. putting to sleep." Having said this, the philosopher showed Vladimir the canvas on which the Last Judgment of the Lord was written, and pointed out to him on the right hand the righteous going to heaven in joy, and on the left the sinners going to torment. Vladimir sighed and said: “This good is at the right hand, but this grief is at the left.” The philosopher said: “If you want to be with the righteous at the right hand, then be baptized.” Vladimir, putting his words on his heart, said: “I’ll wait and a little longer,” because he wanted to test all faiths. Having given the philosopher many gifts, Vladimir released him with great honor. Under 987. Vladimir summoned his boyars and city elders and told them: “The Bulgarians came to me, saying: accept our law. Then the Germans came, who also praised their law. Then the Jews came. After all, the Greeks came, blaspheming all the laws, and praising (only) their own, and they spoke a lot, narrating from the beginning of the world about the existence of the whole world. Their stories are cunning and wonderful; everyone loves to listen to them. They say that there will be another light, and whoever enters their faith will be resurrected after dying and will no longer die forever, and whoever enters another faith will burn in fire in the next world. “How will you make me smarter, what will you advise,” Vladimir asked the boyars and elders. The boyars and elders answered: “You know, prince, that no one blasphemes his own, but praises him; If you want to test it thoroughly, then you have husbands: let’s go and test the service of each of them, how they serve God.” This speech was loved by the prince and all the people; They chose 10 good and intelligent men, and told them: “Go first to the Bulgarians and test their faith.” They went and, when they arrived, they saw their bad deeds and bowing in the ropats 222 and returned home. And Vladimir said: “Now go to the Germans, look at (them) too, and from there go to the Greeks.” They came to the Germans and watched their church service. (Then) they came to Constantinople and went to the king. The king asked why they came, and they told him what had happened. Having listened to them, the king was glad and did them great honor that day. The next morning (the next day) the king sent to the patriarch and ordered to say: “The Russians have come and want to see our faith, order the church to be cleaned and prepared 223, gather and prepare (all your) clergy 224 and perform the service yourself so that they can see the glory of our God” 225. Hearing this, the patriarch ordered the clergy to be convened, and they held a festive service, as is usual on holidays, lit the censer and composed chants and hymns. And they went with them (the ambassadors) to the church and placed them in the middle of the church 226, showing them the beauty of the church, the singing and the bishop's service and the presence of the deacons, explaining to them how they serve their God (explaining to them the order of their worship). They, being in amazement and surprise, praised their service. And kings Vasily and Constantine called them and said: “Go to your land,” and they sent them away with great gifts and with honor. When they came to their land, Vladimir called his boyars and elders and said: “Here the men we sent have arrived; Let’s listen to what they saw, let them tell it before the squad.” The ambassadors said: “We went to the Bulgarians and watched how they bowed in the church, that is, in their ropata: they stand beltless, bowed, squat down (on their haunches) and look here and there like mad, “there is no joy in them, but the sadness and stench are great, their law is not good.” Then we came to the Germans and saw that they performed many services in their churches, but we did not see any beauty. After this we came to the Greeks, and they led us to where they serve their God, and we do not know whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth one cannot see such a spectacle and such beauty. We don’t know how to tell you, we only know that God is with the people there and that their service surpasses the service of all other countries. We cannot forget such beauty; just as every person, if he tastes something sweet, then no longer wants something bitter, so we don’t want to stay here 227. (Having listened to the speeches of the ambassadors), the boyars in response to them said (to Vladimir): “If the Greek law had been bad, then your grandmother Olga, who was the wisest of all people, would not have accepted it.” 228 Vladimir said: “So, where are we going to be baptized?” The boyars said: “Where you like.” “Last summer,” in 988, Vladimir went with an army to Korsun, a Greek city, took it and was baptized in it... Anyone who loves entertaining and intricate stories, without caring about anything else, for whom a fairy tale is preferable to any real story, as long as it has the indicated quality, should now be completely satisfied with the story about the baptism of Vladimir, for the dignity of intricacy belongs to it undeniably. But a little criticism, a little just some measure of faith, and such a miracle should immediately happen to a lengthy story that only the bare skeleton will remain of it, and then only one half of this bare skeleton will remain. Let us assume that the story belongs to the chronicler himself. Is it possible, with some seriousness, to accept that all the speeches of the ambassadors that he conveys are their authentic speeches, and not just his own composition? If the chronicler had been a direct contemporary, even if he had stood in the grand ducal court while the ambassadors were with Vladimir, then even then he could only convey to some extent the content of the speeches, but not the speeches themselves in their true form. But the chronicler lived and wrote more than a hundred years after Vladimir. True, he still found alive people who remembered the baptism of the Russian land or who were born shortly after it 229, but how much seriousness is there in the reference to these persons, made in support of the fact that the chronicler could convey the authentic speeches of the ambassadors? Here is some St. Petersburg native and resident still alive, born in the year of Catherine the Great’s death, who knows the past only from his own memory, and not from books. Ask him about any famous conversations that Catherine ever had during her reign, what will he answer you, that is, what will he be able to answer you? Some of the people mentioned could tell the chronicler only something they had seen in childhood, while others could only tell him something they had heard first-hand about the event in childhood, and neither one nor the other could in any way tell him the true speeches of all those persons who appear to be speaking in the story. And thus, after more than a hundred years, the chronicler could not have known at all what the ambassadors who came to him said to Vladimir, what he himself answered them, and in general, what was said by anyone. Consequently, we repeat, all the speeches that are put into the mouths of the persons speaking in the story are nothing more than a simple later invention of the chronicler himself. And, therefore, after the destruction of the speeches, only those two bare facts remain in the story: firstly, ambassadors came to Vladimir with an offer of faiths, and that, secondly, he sent his ambassadors to inspect the faiths on the ground 230. Of these two bare facts, only the first is probable in itself, the other is a completely impossible thing, namely: it could be that ambassadors or missionaries came to Vladimir preaching about faiths and offering them, but it could not be that Vladimir himself sent his ambassadors to inspect faiths locally. Our researchers rightly note that this choice of faith by Vladimir is the only case in all known history. But it is not entirely clear how they do not notice that it is both an accident and impossible, that it is an invention, on the one hand, perhaps, intricate, and on the other hand, completely untenable, to say the least, with which it is time for serious science to finally part ways. The visiting preachers explained to Vladimir the tenets of their faith; but this is not enough for him, and he wants to experience more about them. What should the test be? “Having sent, test,” the boyars and elders allegedly say to Vladimir, “each of their services, who serves God in what way,” that is, the test should consist of observing the rituals of each faith. Already the historians of the last century Tatishchev and Metropolitan Platon were able to understand that testing or observing rituals is a strange matter 231. It really is not only strange, but simply completely incredible. What are rituals? External conditional actions that in themselves have no meaning. Which in themselves are neither good nor bad. Which for an outsider remain completely incomprehensible and which do not and absolutely cannot give the slightest idea of ​​the faith to which they constitute an external affiliation. What reasonable purpose would Vladimir have in sending an embassy to observe actions that were incomprehensible and had absolutely nothing to say, and how could he come up with the idea of ​​sending an embassy that had no meaning? Go and see which people perform church services better. But what can it mean here - it is done better: with whom it is accomplished more cheerfully, with whom it is more magnificently furnished 232? Could Vladimir really have a better faith in something like this, and doesn’t the reader see that the matter is taking on a completely, so to speak, trivial meaning? How the idea could come to force Vladimir to judge the dignity of faiths by the dignity of rituals to the later Orthodox Russian, or the later such Russians - it is not difficult to understand when such a thought is not considered strange even at the present time. How the later Orthodox Russian could write about the impressions of the ambassadors everything that is read in the story, this, of course, is already completely clear to us - he himself tells us through the lips of the ambassadors 233. But even suppose that the embassy would have made sense, although it could not have had one. It will still remain completely impossible. Vladimir decided to accept Greek or Orthodox Christianity, allegedly after choosing between many faiths offered to him; but is this choice, whatever it may be, something conceivable in application to a given case? People change their faith in two ways - either mechanically, because they are ordered to do so, or out of inner and sincere conviction. Vladimir changed paganism to Orthodox Christianity, of course, not in the first, but in the second way. If choice were allowed during a mechanical change of faith, then it would be possible to some extent, namely, the choice of a faith that is more advantageous in one or another external respect: but is the concept of choice compatible with a change of conviction? If I change one opinion to another out of sincere conviction, then, obviously, because I find one opinion false and another true: how can there be a place for choice here, that is, a place for choice, when I have already decided which opinion is true instead of my former false one? The reader may not immediately understand us. A very simple thing is that when I change opinions out of sincere conviction, it does not happen that I first abandon the false opinion and then begin to look for the true one. But in such a way that I leave a false opinion only at the same time as I accept the true one, that one replaces and, so to speak, displaces the other, and that this change occurs completely directly. The exact way of expressing this change of opinion out of sincere conviction is not that I accepted such and such an opinion (true) after leaving such and such an opinion (false), but that I abandoned such and such an opinion because I accepted such and such an opinion. If the old opinion is abandoned, then a new one is necessarily assumed, which is accepted in its place, and this latter is the reason why the first is abandoned. Of course, even when changing opinions out of sincere conviction, an internal choice is possible, which takes place within the person himself (and can happen if a person simultaneously becomes acquainted with several different opinions than his own), because the change is accomplished through the internal process of thinking and discussion. But this choice is inseparable from the most spiritual act of changing a false opinion to a true one (preceding the adoption of a new opinion). And after it has taken place, there can be no room for an external choice of opinions, because such a choice has already been made. It is clear what follows from what has just been said in relation to Vladimir’s change of faith. If he decided to leave his paganism, it could only be that instead of it he decided to accept another well-known faith at the same time. But it could not be that he first decided to leave paganism, and then began to choose another faith for himself; he could decide to leave one faith only together, simultaneously and inseparably with how he decided to accept another. Ergo is imaginary, supposedly made by him, the choice of faith is an impossible thing. We know that Vladimir converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity; therefore, it is necessary to think that the determination to accept it appeared in him at the same time as the determination to leave paganism appeared, or that he directly, without any choices, changed one thing for another. And thus, if we assume that ambassadors or missionaries came to Vladimir with a proposal of faith, then it is necessary to think that, not convinced by any of the missionaries of other nations, he was convinced by the Greek missionary, which was followed, without any choice of faiths, by the adoption of the Orthodox faith 234. So, we repeat, it is impossible for Vladimir to choose a faith and for this purpose send ambassadors to the nations. In itself, it is only possible that ambassadors from nations came to him offering faiths and that the preaching of the Greek ambassador resulted in his conversion to Orthodox Christianity. This last was not only possible, but completely possible. It was possible not only because it is possible in itself, but also because we have direct historical indications in this sense. The Popes have long been trying most diligently to spread Christianity and their power among the new pagan peoples of Europe and, among other peoples, among our fellow Slavs. And what is most important and direct is that - as positive evidence assures us - they have not forgotten about us at all. (See at the end of this chapter the additional section “The Assurances of Some Roman Catholic Writers,” etc.). Thus, the arrival of a papal ambassador to Vladimir was possible, so to speak, as an opportunity itself. We have no information at all about the special missionary zeal of the later Greeks. But Russia was a country so close to Greece (so territorially an eastern country, destined to be part of eastern Europe), and so in living ties with Greece and even in land contact with it (our Tmutarakan and Greek possessions in Tauris), that for the Greeks there was every interest in seeing us as their co-religionists and people subordinate to themselves in church terms. As a result of this, it was very possible that, following the pope’s embassy, ​​they would hasten to send their own embassy to Vladimir 235. Competing with the pope and the Greeks, the Bulgarians and the Khazars could send their embassies to Vladimir. So, we say, it was very possible for ambassadors or missionaries to come to Vladimir with an offer of faith. But this in itself was not possible in reality. In addition to the story included in the chronicle, we currently have three ancient storytellers who talk about the baptism of Vladimir. They are: Metropolitan Hilarion, a contemporary of the Yaroslavs, who wrote between 1037 and 1050, the monk Jacob, a contemporary of the Izyaslavs, who wrote around 1070, and Nestor of Pechersk, a contemporary of our most ancient chronicler, for whom he himself is unfairly mistaken. If there were facts, firstly, of the arrival of ambassadors from the nations to Vladimir, and secondly, of his conversion to Orthodox Christianity by the preaching of a Greek ambassador or missionary, then these writers should have known and should have spoken about them. But all three not only say nothing about them, but on the contrary, they positively, directly and clearly make it known that the matter was completely different, namely, that Vladimir decided to accept Christianity on his own, without any intervention, participation or assistance from anyone. Metropolitan Hilarion speaks about the baptism of Vladimir in his famous Sermon on Law and Grace. In the story of this baptism, read in the chronicle, the main idea is that Vladimir and all Russians had the intelligence and sense to distinguish the faith of the Greeks from all other faiths offered to them, to see that it is the best of all faiths. If Hilarion knew anything about the coming to Vladimir of ambassadors from different nations offering different faiths, then it would be necessary to assume that he, wanting to praise the great sense and wit of Vladimir - which he does - would pay attention precisely to this side of the matter. That is, the fact that Vladimir, having before him and listening to many preachers, did not allow himself to be carried away by preachers of false faiths or confessions of the wrong and was able to see and understand that, of all faiths, preference should be given to the Greek faith. But what do we find in him? Hilarion finds one of the most surprising features in the action of Vladimir, who accepted the Christian faith, that is a complete and diametric opposite to the story of the chronicle. Namely, he finds it worthy of surprise that Vladimir decided to accept this faith without being enlightened by anyone in it and without being called to it by anyone, that he, without hearing any preachers, with his great mind was able to understand that Christianity is better than paganism. “What faith! How did you burn in the love of Christ? How are you seeking Christ? he asks Vladimir. And he answers: “I have not seen the apostle, who has come to your land, and with her poverty and nakedness and hunger and thirst, your heart is inclined to humility. I have not seen casting out demons in the name of Christ, the sick are alive, I have put fire to cold, I have not seen the dead rise: I have not seen all of these, so what faith is there? Amazing miracle! Some kings and rulers, seeing all the things that come from the saints, did not believe, but rather gave them up to passions and torments. But you, O blessed one, without all this, came to Christ, only from good sense and wit, understanding that there is one God, the Creator of the invisible and visible, heavenly and earthly, and as an ambassador into the world of salvation for the sake of His beloved Son. And having thought, he went into the holy font. And even if you think of foolishness, the power of God is imputed to you” 236. Weighing these words without preconceived thoughts, without the desire to defend the story of the chronicle at all costs, one cannot help but admit and agree that they say the decisive and diametric opposite of what is narrated in this latter. The monk Jacob, discovered about fifty years ago by the Right Reverend Macarius, wrote “Praise to the Russian Prince Volodymer,” which represents the absolutely first experience of a historical legend about the baptist of Rus' 237. In this praise, Jacob deliberately talks about the reasons that disposed Vladimir to leave paganism and accept Christianity. Knowing nothing and not saying a single word or hinting about the ambassadors who supposedly came to Vladimir to convince him to change his faith, he explains his action, firstly, by the fact that God himself, “seeing the kindness of his heart and looking down from heaven with His mercy, enlightened his heart to accept holy baptism,” - secondly, by the fact that “having heard about his grandmother Olga, how he went to In Tsar City she received holy baptism, and how (after that) she lived well before God, adorned with all her good deeds,” that, having heard all this about his grandmother, Vladimir was inflamed with the desire to imitate her and that this good competition, kindled in him by the Holy Spirit, made him a Christian. Thus, according to the monk Jacob, Vladimir was disposed to accept Christianity, firstly, by what Hilarion points to - enlightenment from above, or, in other words, his own mind and his own will, illuminated by this higher enlightenment, - secondly, the example of grandmother Olga. The Monk Nestor of Pechersk, as we said, unfairly mistaken for a chronicler, speaks of the baptism of Vladimir in the Legend of Boris and Gleb. Like the two previous ones, without knowing anything and without saying anything about the ambassadors who came to Vladimir, he says, like both of them, that Vladimir decided to accept Christianity on his own, being prompted to do so by enlightenment from above, and differs from the two previous ones only in that he seems to let it be known that Vladimir had a special, supernatural revelation. Here are his words: “In those years there was a prince who owned all Russian land named Vladimir. He was a righteous man and merciful to the poor and orphans and widows, but a pagan by faith. God created for him “a certain comma” 238 so that he would become a Christian, as in ancient times Placis 239. Placidas was a righteous and merciful man, only a pagan by faith, as it is written in his life. But when he saw our Lord Jesus Christ appear to him, he bowed to Him and said: “Lord, who are You and what do You command Your servant?” Having received the answer: “I am Jesus Christ, whom you unknowingly worship, go and be baptized,” he immediately took his wife and children and was baptized... So with this Vladimir, the appearance of God made him become a Christian 240 . We assume that the story of Vladimir’s baptism, included in the chronicle, belongs to the chronicler himself. But of the writers we have just cited, the authority of one, as a contemporary of him (Nestor), is completely equal to his authority, and the authority of two, as his elders in time (Hilarion and Jacob), is much more important. The fact of ambassadors coming to Vladimir and his conversion to Christianity by the preaching of the Greek ambassador, if it really took place, would represent such a large and important fact in the history of Vladimir’s baptism that it could not but be generally known, and, therefore, as such, could in no way remain unknown to the mentioned writers. But knowing about it, they should not have passed it in silence due to the same great importance of it, for which, if it existed, they should not have remained in the dark about it. Meanwhile, they not only say nothing about it, but on the contrary, they directly and clearly present the matter in a completely different way and completely eliminate any thought about the embassy. We believe that this absolutely necessarily follows the conclusion that the fact of the embassy did not exist at all and that it is nothing more than the fiction of the chronicler himself. This embassy, ​​as we said above and as we repeat again, is a completely probable and completely possible matter in itself. But that it did not take place in reality and that in this area it is a later invention - by the chronicler himself or someone else, which we will talk about below - for this, in addition to what has just been said, we have one more very convincing proof. Simultaneously with the writings of the monk Jacob, the Right Reverend Macarius opened and published “The Life of Blessed Volodymer,” the author of which does not call himself by name and generally remains unknown. The publisher himself, and after him some others, adopted the life of the same monk Jacob. But this cannot be considered fair. Not to mention the fact that the life of Jacob belonging to him is completely unthinkable together with the “Praise to the Russian Prince Volodymer” belonging to him 241. The news of the Life is in such decisive contradiction with the news of Jacob that it positively eliminates the idea of ​​the same author 242 . Our life of Volodimer, belonging to an unknown author, consists of three parts: The first part contains a narrative about the baptism of Vladimir and his baptism of the Kievites, namely, about sending ambassadors to inspect the faiths of the Bulgarians, Germans and Greeks in Constantinople, with a report from the returning ambassadors about what they saw, - about Vladimir’s campaign against Korsun and about his baptism in the latter, - about the one-time baptism of Kiev residents by Vladimir on the river after returning from Korsun. In the second part - brief, fragmentary news about Vladimir’s construction of the Church of the Virgin Mary of the Tithes, about his virtues, about his death on Berestovoy and about his burial in the Church of the Virgin Mary, which he created. In the third part - praise to him as the baptizer of Rus', who revealed himself to be the second Moses and the second Constantine the Great. Comparing the life with the chronicle, we find that the first part of it is the same story about baptism, which is read in the chronicle, only without the beginning and in a more abbreviated form regarding the details of the presentation, namely, that in the first case the story is missing from the arrival of ambassadors from the peoples to Vladimir (and the speech directly begins with the sending of ambassadors by himself to inspect the faiths on the ground). That the brief news of the second part is read in the chronicle along with its other news. That the third part is the same praise to Vladimir, which is in the chronicle (under 1015), only with an addition and some extension against this last one. The two stories about the baptism of Vladimir, which make up the first part of the Life and read in the chronicle, obviously and indisputably have the mutual relationship that either the first is shortened from the second or, on the contrary, the second is extended from the first 243. Which of the two? Although shortening the story by omitting details from it and, consequently, damaging its interest is not particularly advisable; although shortening a story by omitting its entire initial part is a completely strange thing: however, the practice of our old compilers of collections shows that this was their custom 244. Consequently, it is possible that the Life was not a very clear abbreviation from the chronicle (an abbreviation along with some addition - in the third part). But the compilers of such abbreviations, as far as we know, never presented their simple adaptations (arrangements) as their real works. In ancient Rus', author's fame was not at all something too highly valued so that people were motivated to value it too much and seek it too much. And therefore, we not only did not have the custom of creating this glory for ourselves through such counterfeiting and plagiarism; but even real authors quite often did not put their names under their works 245. Meanwhile, the author of the Life of Volodimerov speaks of it as his real work. At the conclusion of the Life, turning with prayer to the kings Constantine and Vladimir, of whom he had previously compared the latter with the former, he cries out: “I pray (to you) and deed kindly to you 246, by writing this little grammer, who, praising the vayu, wrote with an unworthy mind and a bad and ignorant meaning.” It is obvious that in these words the Life is presented to us as a real work of the speaker, and if we take into account the fact that the speaker wanted to remain unknown, without identifying himself by name, therefore, did not seek authorial glory for himself, then we will have absolutely no reason to suspect deception, that is, that deception so that a simple abbreviation of someone else’s finished work is presented as a real work. Thus, the Life of Volodymer must be taken not as an abbreviation from the chronicle, but as a real independent work 247. But if this is so, then it will, on the contrary, follow from this that the story of baptism, read in the chronicle, is a dissemination and secondary edition of the Life. The further consequence from here is clear. If the older or original edition of the story of baptism, which we have in the Life, does not know and does not talk about the coming to Vladimir of ambassadors from the nations with an offer of faiths, but speaks only about sending ambassadors to Vladimir to inspect the faiths: then it is clear that this coming of ambassadors to Vladimir, unknown to the author of the first edition, was composed (and added) only by the author of the second or secondary edition 248. So, the sending of ambassadors to Vladimir by different nations with a proposal of faith, which in itself is completely possible, in reality is nothing more than a later invention. After the embassies to and from Vladimir, which we conveyed above, the story of baptism, read in the chronicle, further speaks, reproducing the aforementioned life of Volodymer by an unknown author, about Vladimir’s conquest of the faith from the Greeks through the capture of their city - Chersonese Tauride or Korsun. After listening to the returning ambassadors who went to inspect the faiths locally, Vladimir decided, in accordance with the opinion they presented, to accept the faith from the Greeks. He asked the boyars: “Where will we receive baptism?”, and, receiving the answer: “Where are you?”, last summer, in the summer of 988, he went to war against Korsun, a Greek city. After a more or less lengthy and stubborn siege, he finally took the city with the help of a means indicated by one traitor who was found among the besieged (Anastas) 249. Having entered Korsun, Vladimir sent to Constantinople to the then Greek kings Vasily and Constantine 250, ordering them to say: “I took your glorious city; I hear that you have a maiden sister: if you don’t marry her to me, then I will do the same with your capital as with this city.” The kings replied that Christians should not give maidens in marriage to pagans, but that if he was baptized, he would receive both the princess’s hand and the kingdom of heaven. Vladimir replied that he had already come to Korsun with the accepted intention of being baptized, “because,” he said, “I had already made an inquiry about your faith and I love it.” The kings were delighted to hear this and sent their sister with dignitaries and elders to Vladimir. Vladimir was baptized, and after baptism he married the princess. If this conquest of faith by Vladimir were really true, then it would represent a historical incident that is very original and very puzzling and as unique of its kind as the choice of faith (so that in general our church history would be unique of its kind). To the resolution of an extremely embarrassing bewilderment, and this conquest of faith turns out to be nothing more than a simple plot. Against the testimony of the story of baptism, read in the chronicle, which, according to the above, we have every reason not to believe, we now have before us the testimony of the above-mentioned monk Jacob. Whom we have no reason not to trust and whose authority, as the most ancient historical writer of all, is unconditional and indisputable. Jacob says and informs us that Vladimir was baptized not in Korsun, after he took it, but somewhere else and before the campaign against Korsun, which he undertook already, being a Christian and two years after baptism, and during which (campaign) he just married a Greek princess - the sister of the emperors. Thus, after everything said above and after what has now been said or added to this, we get the following negative for the history of Vladimir’s baptism: firstly, he was inclined to accept Orthodox Christianity not by the preaching of a Greek or any Orthodox missionary who came to him, but by someone else; secondly, he was baptized not in Korsun from the Greeks, but somewhere and from someone before. Having finished with what did not happen, we now turn to what could have been, and in fact was, namely, what disposed Vladimir to accept Christianity, from whom, when and where did he accept it? Let's start with the last one: “from whom, when and where.” The question of Vladimir's acceptance of the Christian Orthodox faith contains two separate questions. Firstly: by whom he was converted to it or who was its preacher before him. Secondly: from whom he received baptism. Neither the Greek ambassador, about whom the story speaks, nor any outside missionary came to Vladimir to preach Orthodox Christianity. Consequently, one must look for his preachers at home, and, therefore, it is clear that such were those Varangian Christians who were in very large numbers in Kyiv from the time of Igor. These Varangian Christians made Igor an internal Christian and persuaded his wife Olga to openly accept Christianity: they also converted Vladimir to Christianity. If these home Christians were able to convert the first two to Christianity and to Christianity, then it is obvious that they could do the same with the last one, and thus, this eliminates any questions about the possibility of the matter. What disposed Vladimir to accept Christianity, we will talk about this below; and here, for the sake of completeness, we just must not leave aside to say that about such an apparently unexpected circumstance as the conversion of Vladimir to Christianity by the domestic Christian Varangians, we find a written legend, this is precisely in one Icelandic saga 251. As for Vladimir’s baptists in the closest sense, or those from whom he received baptism itself, it is possible to assume several cases: Firstly, he could have been baptized by the priests of the same household Varangian Christians who converted him to Christianity or were disposed to accept it; secondly, he could send for baptists to Greece or Bulgaria; thirdly, he himself could go for baptism to one or another of the now named countries. It would seem most likely to think that, having decided to accept the Christian faith, Vladimir immediately entered into relations with the Greeks, from whom he was supposed to receive hierarchy and church government and with whom his church connection was generally necessarily assumed. However, no matter how probable this is in itself and no matter how unlikely, at first glance, it is probable that it happened in reality, it is certain that Vladimir received baptism not from the Greeks and without any relations with them, and that he did not engage in these relations with them for two whole years after baptism. Now above we have cited the testimony of the monk Jacob that Vladimir took Korsun from the Greeks only two years after his baptism. But at the same time, the monk Jacob makes it absolutely clear that the relations into which he entered into with the Greeks after the capture of Korsun were his first relations with them after the adoption of Christianity - that the campaign against Korsun was undertaken precisely with the aim of establishing them. Jacob says that Vladimir undertook this campaign, among other things, with the aim of bringing Christians and priests to his land who would teach his people the Christian law. Standing under besieged Korsun, Vladimir prayed, according to Jacob: “Lord God, Master of all! I ask this of you, give me the city, that I may accept it (and) and bring peasant people and priests to my land, that I may teach my people the law of the peasant.” If Vladimir had previously had relations with the Greeks, then these much-needed Christians and priests would obviously have been brought to Russia first. If this did not happen, then it necessarily follows that there was no intercourse. Indeed, the strange and unexpected fact that Vladimir did not enter into relations with the Greeks for two whole years after baptism is not based on the testimony of the monk Jacob alone, although we would have absolutely no right to deny faith to him alone. Below we will see that Russia, for a significantly long time after Vladimirov’s baptism, remained without a metropolitan and without proper church government. But if Vladimir had been baptized by the Greeks, then what reasons could have prevented the latter from giving us a metropolitan and introducing full church government to us more or less soon after this baptism? It is impossible to come up with any reasons, and, therefore, the only possible conclusion from this is that Vladimir was not baptized by the Greeks and that for one time or another after baptism he really did not establish relations with them. Finally, we can add that the Greek chroniclers do not talk about Vladimir’s baptism from them, although they talk about his marriage to their Greek princess. If it was not the Greeks who baptized Vladimir, then it was either the Bulgarians or domestic Christians. After accepting the Christian faith, Vladimir had the need to enter into relations with the Bulgarians in order to borrow from them Slavic liturgical books (which, as must be accepted, he received directly from the Bulgarians, and not through the Greeks, see below). It is very likely to think that he entered into these relations not after, but before the approach to the baptism of the people. However, it does not seem at all probable that he was baptized by them, that is, that, intending to introduce Christianity in the country, he entered into relations with them before his own baptism and that for this latter he either called baptists from them or went to them to be baptized. Why would he do this? To make the act of your baptism more solemn? But in this case, he would have necessarily turned to the Greeks, for what were these Bulgarians to Vladimir, so that by baptism from them great solemnity could be given to the latter’s act? Moreover, as we will see below, one should hardly think that Vladimir sought to add solemnity to this act of his baptism. Thus, regarding the question of his baptizers, it seems most likely that, having been converted to Christianity by the Kiev Varangian Christians, he was simply baptized by the hands of the priests of these latter. The story included in the chronicle dates Vladimir’s baptism to 988. But this turns out to be not entirely accurate. According to the testimony of the monk Jacob (in Praise of Vladimir) and the Venerable Nestor of Pechersk (in the Life of Boris and Gleb), Vladimir was baptized in 987; namely, the first of them says that Vladimir, who died in 1015, lived 28 years after baptism, and the second directly says that it was in the year 6495 from the creation of the world. The Greek chroniclers also speak in favor of Jacob and Nestor: Vladimir took Korsun after baptism two years later (according to Jacob), and according to the chroniclers named now, this could have been no later than the beginning of 989 252. So, putting aside the fables of the story, we get the following little information regarding Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity and his baptism: Like his grandfather Igor and his grandmother Olga, Vladimir was disposed to accept Christianity by the Kyiv Varangian Christians; he was baptized, in all likelihood, by the priests of these Varangian Christians; the year of his baptism is 987, which was the ninth year of his reign. Now we have pointed out the strange circumstance that Vladimir entered into relations with the Greeks not at the time of his conversion to Christianity, but only two years after his baptism. We must return to him again. The circumstance is indeed very strange, but at the same time we do not have the slightest right to doubt it, for we have absolutely no reason to suspect the reliability of the historical testimony of the monk Jacob. How to understand it and how to interpret it for yourself? It can be explained if we assume something that is not usually assumed, but which is very possible and natural to assume. The matter of Vladimir’s baptism is usually presented in such a way that, having decided to accept Christianity and being baptized himself, he immediately began to baptize his entire people. But things could have been different. Having decided to accept Christianity and being baptized himself, Vladimir could not suddenly begin to baptize the people. Believing the story included in the chronicle, and forgetting about any naturalness, they usually believe that the order to baptize the entire people cost Vladimir as little as it costs any gentleman to order a footman to change from a bad caftan to a good one: he ordered it, and it was done. In reality, of course, this could not be so. Changing faith is not a joke for the people, and therefore ordering it cannot be a joke. Igor and Olga did not dare to introduce Christianity into Russia; Vladimir dared to do this. But is it surprising if, before getting down to business, he spent quite a long time gathering his courage? Having been baptized himself, Vladimir could have found it necessary and prudent to prepare the people for a change of faith, and thus, one or another significant time could have passed between his own baptism and the baptism of the people. Having accepted this assumption that Vladimir did not immediately after his own baptism begin to baptize the people, we will also understand the apparently strange circumstance that not before his own baptism and not immediately after it he entered into relations with the Greeks. Having been baptized himself, but not yet deciding to begin the baptism of the people, Vladimir did not enter into relations with the Greeks because his own baptism was a private matter, and that he did not yet have a need for these relations. For some time, until the general baptism of the people, he could only be content with becoming a member of the Kyiv Christian community 253. We said above that one should hardly think that Vladimir wanted to give solemnity to the action of his baptism. Now, we hope the reader understands our words. If Vladimir did not begin to baptize the entire people immediately after his own baptism, that is, if he found it necessary to conduct the matter with caution, then it is quite possible to assume that this baptism was performed not only not solemnly, but completely secretly from the people. That Vladimir found it prudent to act in such a way as not to announce to the people his intention to accept Christianity, but to appear to them after accepting the latter. By announcing his intention, Vladimir could have feared more or less strong protests, and the accomplished fact could have been easier and more conveniently imposed on the people. The story placed in the chronicle, telling about the baptism of Vladimir in Korsun, adds: “Behold, it is not right to say that (Vladimir) was baptized in Kyiv, or else deciding: in Vasilevo, the friends will say otherwise.” It seems to us that in this, according to the author of the story, what is wrong, in fact, we need to look for what is right, namely, we think that Vasilev should be considered the most likely place of Vladimir’s baptism. If he wanted to be baptized secretly from the people, then it was natural for him to do it not in Kyiv, but somewhere on his estate, which Vasilev could have been. The latter obviously received its name from the Christian name Vladimir: is it not very natural to assume that he received it precisely in memory of the baptism of the prince 254 in it? Before turning to the speech about what disposed and prompted Vladimir to leave paganism and accept Christianity, we consider it necessary, making a small digression, to return to the famous story of Vladimir’s baptism, placed in the chronicle, in order to give some possible explanations about it. The original edition of the story is the edition that is read in the Life of Volodimerov by an unknown author, i.e. the story originally appeared, it is implied - originally composed, in the form in which it is in the Life, or in other words - the Life is the originally composed story of the baptism of Vladimir. In this first edition, presented by the Life, the story speaks of Vladimir sending ambassadors to the peoples to inspect or inspect the faiths, namely to the Bulgarians, Germans and Greeks, and then about his campaign against Korsun and his baptism in this city at the hands of the local bishop. After the first edition, a second edition appeared - the one that is read in the chronicle. In the second edition, to the embassy sent by Vladimir to the peoples, an embassy from the peoples to Vladimir with a proposal of faiths was added, which was delivered and supposedly took place in front of him, and a fourth was added to the three peoples mentioned above - the Jews of Kozar. Giving its added part in a lengthy treatment, in the form of a conversation between Vladimir and the ambassadors, and a very lengthy speech to the prince is put into the mouth of the Greek ambassador, the second edition accordingly processes what was found in the first edition. She speaks in much more detail about the stay of Vladimir’s ambassadors in Constantinople, adds precise information about the illness to which Vladimir suddenly suffered and from which he was miraculously healed in Korsun, and puts into the mouth of the Bishop of Korsun a lengthy instruction addressed to the newly baptized. The story, therefore, was composed in two stages, and it began with what in reality is an impossible task - with Vladimirov’s embassy to the peoples to inspect the faith. Who was the first creator of the famous story remains unknown. But there is every possibility to assume that he was not Russian, but Greek, that is, one of the many Greeks who lived in Russia in the pre-Mongol period. Having compared Vladimir with Constantine the Great, the author appeals to both of them in his final prayer: “O saint of Tsar Constantine and Volodymyr! help your relatives against you and save the Greek and Russian people from all troubles.” The Russians, so to speak, did not pretend to take it upon themselves to pray for the Greeks, considering them people too high for them to need the prayers of others, and considering themselves too small to extend their unsolicited concerns to them, and the word “Greek” we underlined strongly makes one suspect the author of the Greek 255. To the question: how did it occur to someone to compose our story, the general answer is that in the same way that it occurred to a thousand other people to compose a thousand other stories, i.e., that people are generally gifted with the inclination to compose. There was a man who wanted to force the world to believe the truth that we, the Russians, chose a faith from all faiths and chose the one that we found the best, and so he composed a story. If we accept that the original author of the story was a Greek, then it will become even clearer to us how it could have appeared. The medieval Greeks were not at all shy about fabrication, as anyone who has even a slight acquaintance with them knows very well. Meanwhile, for what Greek could it not be pleasant and desirable to convince the Russians that the faith that they - the Russians accepted from them - the Greeks is the best faith? Thus, the matter of the birth of our story would be explained very simply. But we strongly suspect that it should be explainable and even simpler, namely, that the story in its original form appeared not as a directly intentional fabrication, but as the fruit of a simple ignorant misunderstanding. If only we agree to accept that the author of the story in its original form was not Russian, but Greek, then its origin can easily and naturally be explained in precisely this simplest way. In the Nikon Chronicle we read under the year 1001: “That same summer Volodimer sent his guests, and some later, to Rome, and others to Jerusalem and Egypt and Babylon, to spy on their lands and their customs” (I, 111). Let us agree to assume that this news, true or false, is not a later fabrication, but was already read in the chronicles of our author’s time, and more than half of the matter will be explained for us. The embassy, ​​which the Nikon Chronicle speaks of, was, according to its testimony, not before baptism, but after it, and not for observing faiths, but for observing the life and way of life of peoples, i.e. it was similar to the embassies and trips of Peter the Great to Western Europe or the embassies there of the current Chinese and Japanese. But the Greek author could not have read the news in the chronicle himself, but heard it orally from not entirely intelligent narrators, or, while reading, he could have confused it and imagined that the embassy took place not after, but before the baptism. If this last thing happened to him in one way or another, then he had a story ready about Vladimir’s ambassadors to inspect the faiths, apparently based on the Russian chronicle. The remaining half of the story is explained even more simply. There is every possibility to assume that our author had in his hands the Praise of Vladimir by the monk Jacob, because he undoubtedly had in his hands another essay 256. But in this praise he read that Vladimir, standing under the besieged Korsun, prayed to God: “Lord God, Lord of all! I ask you this, give me the city, may I accept it and may I bring people, peasants and priests to their land, may they teach people the peasant law.” The monk Jacob says quite clearly that Vladimir prayed like this already in the third year after baptism. But suppose in the Greek author some inattention in reading, excused by the fact that baptism and the taking of Korsun from Jacob are spoken of not in one place, but in different places. Take the above words separately, by themselves: indeed, it was very easy to think that a person was speaking here who had not already been baptized, but was just about to be baptized. And if this last thing happened, how easy it was for this to happen, then the author had a story ready about Vladimir’s campaign near Korsun to win the faith, apparently also based on Russian news 257. When the author understands the news of the Nikon Chronicle about Vladimir’s embassy of guests to spy on lands and customs in the sense of an embassy to spy on faiths, and when he comments on this bare news in such a way that the ambassadors of the Bulgarians and Germans saw their bad deeds, and when they were in the church of the Greeks, they did not know where they were standing - on earth or in heaven: then, of course, he is commenting completely on his own. But naturally, he had to comment like that, because Vladimir really accepted the faith from the Greeks. After the first edition, the second appeared, in the expanded and processed form as the story is read in the chronicle. Who does this second edition belong to, the chronicler himself or someone else and was inserted into the chronicle after him? We are of the decisive opinion that it is not the first, but the last. What was added to the first in the second edition is a deliberate composition, which cannot be explained by any unintentional misunderstanding. But studying the chronicle leads us to a high opinion of the chronicler and we in no way think that he was a writer. Then, there is every possibility of thinking that even in its first edition the story appeared after the chronicler. We said above that the second part of the Life of Volodimerov, by an unknown author, consists of brief news about Vladimir’s construction of the Church of the Tithes of the Mother of God, about his virtues, about his death and burial, and that these news are the same as those read in the chronicle along with its other news. One can understand the matter in such a way that the chronicler took these news from the Life of Volodimerov and inserted them into a number of his other news, from which it will follow that the chronicle was written later than the Life. But it is much more likely to understand the matter in such a way that the author of the Life takes news from the chronicle, namely, that, having composed the story of the baptism of Vladimir, he added to it several fragmentary historical news taken from the chronicle (which, therefore, was written before him). The motives for which he could do this latter are very clear: his own goal was to give a story about the baptism of Vladimir, which he had invented; but he wanted to give the story a title and a type of life. Accordingly, he had to add some information from Vladimir’s further life after baptism and end with his death - this is what he does, adding to his own (that is, his own composition) story about the baptism the brief information we indicated, taken from the chronicler. In the same way, regarding the praise of Vladimir, which makes up the third part of the Life and which is one and the same with the praise read from the chronicler, it seems most likely to think not that the chronicler took it from the author of the Life, but the opposite. This praise is the same in the chronicle and in the Life, but in the latter with some additions to the former. Namely, in the chronicle Vladimir is compared with Constantine the Great, in the Life he is first compared with Moses and then with Constantine the Great. If the chronicler took the Life from the author, and not vice versa, then what incentive would he have to publish the first comparison? Finally, we have almost positive evidence that the Life was written after the chronicle. The author of the Life says that Vladimir lived “30 years and 3” according to holy baptism. These 30 years and 3 can only be explained by the fact that the author had at hand such a list of Nestor’s Lives of Boris and Gleb, in which, as in some lists that have come down to us, and between them in one list of the 12th century 258, the year of Vladimirov’s baptism erroneously stood 6490 instead of 6495 259. But Nestor, whom the author of the Life had in his hands, was a contemporary of the chronicler. (And, therefore, if the author lived after the first, then after the second) 260. If the story in its first edition, as one might very well suspect, was not composed intentionally, but was composed accidentally and unintentionally, then its moral teaching, that we Russians chose a faith and accepted the one we found best of all, was a matter more accidental than intentional. But the purpose was not at all accidental, but directly intended, this moral teaching was for the author of the second edition. Not content with stating the fact that we Russians accepted the Greek faith because, after making a choice, we found it to be the best, he sets out to show that it really is the best faith. In relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism, he achieves this in such a way that he forces the Jewish and Mohammedan ambassadors themselves to portray their faiths to Vladimir as untenable faiths, namely, forcing the Jewish ambassador to portray Judaism as a faith rejected by God, and the Mohammedan ambassador to portray Mohammedanism as an immoral and shameful faith. Into the mouth of Ambassador Papa, a preacher of the same Christianity as the Greek Ambassador, the author was not able to put such speeches that would serve to condemn Latinism (and as for the dogmatic-ritual heresies of the Latins, the author was enough to understand the incongruity of expounding them before Vladimir the pagan). Here he achieves his goal in a different way: Firstly, with the help of that naive and artificial means that he ties his father’s ambassador, the preacher of the teachings of the wrong, and forces him to be very laconic and “not able to speak” in front of Vladimir. Whereas, on the contrary, the Greek ambassador, the preacher of the teachings of the right, puts into the mouth the most extensive speech. (Although this speech represents an apology for Christianity in general, and not Orthodoxy in particular, and could just as easily have been the speech of the Pope’s ambassador as of the Greek one). Secondly, through a teaching about the Latins to Vladimir, who had already been baptized and taken a Christian point of view, which he forces the Bishop of Korsun, his baptizer, to speak to him, and in which the Latins’ retreat from the purity of Orthodoxy is shown historically, and their corrupted customs, implying corrupt teaching, are exposed from common Christian sense. Finally, this most extensive speech, put into the mouth of the Greek philosopher and, so to speak, dominating the entire story, except for the indicated particular purpose, is generally designed to impress the reader that to speak in such an abundant way, so to speak - covering and drowning all voices, that only a preacher of the one true faith could have such a speech, flowing uncontrollably like a river 261. The practical goal of our edition of the story is to strengthen the Russian people in their attachment to their faith and increase their aversion to other people's faiths. In the pre-Mongol period, there was no place for open propaganda of any foreign faith. Likewise, at that time Orthodoxy was not threatened by the danger of secret propaganda of any other faith. Thus, in the pre-Mongol period we had no urgent need to worry about turning Russian people away from foreign faiths. But if there was no urgent need, then the matter took place and not in such a way that exceptional zealots of the fatherly faith could not find any reason for themselves to take care of its protection. In Kyiv and other large cities, a considerable number of people of the Latin faith constantly lived as soldiers in the armies of the princes (in some numbers Varangians after their influx had ceased and Germans), as foreign traders, as temporary artisans and permanent residents (colonists) who accepted Russian citizenship 262 . In Kyiv and at least in some other large cities, mainly in Rus' beyond the Dnieper or in our own pre-Mongol Rus', there were a considerable number of Jews 263. Russian merchants who carried out foreign trade, in addition to the Latin West, traveled to Mohammedan Kama Bulgaria and to the varied or all-faithful Crimea. Finally, our princes of the pre-Mongol period should not at all be imagined in such complete disunity with the West as the Moscow sovereigns of the 15th-17th centuries were, but on the contrary should be imagined in almost the same lively and close communication that exists now, since the time of Peter the Great. Thus, if there was no propaganda of other faiths between the Russians of the pre-Mongol period, either overt or secret, then some of their classes were in fairly extensive communication with people of other faiths. And this could inflame the jealousy of some especially zealous champion of his fatherly faith, so that in the form of strengthening in our ancient ancestors the consciousness of the superiority of their Orthodox faith over all other faiths and in the form of educating and strengthening in them an aversion to other faiths, we could create our story 264. (It can be assumed with some, however, not particularly high, probability that our unknown author of the second edition was prompted to compile it by the example of a similar story, which he saw among some of the Gentiles who lived in Kyiv. Namely, the Jews have a story about the adoption of Judaism by the Khazars. Around the half of the 8th century, part of the Khazars, the Kagan or sovereign with the highest nobility, accepted Judaism. How it happened, remains unknown. But in the first half of the 12th century, the Spanish Jew Jehuda Halevi wrote a story about this conversion, in which he presents the matter in this way: The Khazar sovereign, who was zealously devoted to his idolatry and had pious feelings, several times appeared in a dream an angel who addressed him with the words: “your feelings are good, but your service to God (gottesdienstliches Thun) is not right.” To find out the image of the right service to God, the sovereign turned to a pagan philosopher, a representative of pantheism, to Christian and Mohammedan teachers. Having listened to the lengthy speeches of everyone, the sovereign was not satisfied with any one, and since the Christian and Mohammedan teachers referred to Judaism as the starting point of their faiths (bewahrheitende Voraussetzung), he wanted to listen to the Jewish teacher as well. This latter convinced the sovereign of the truth of Judaism. The story of Yehuda Halevi, written with the aim of showing the superiority of Judaism over philosophical paganism, Mohammedanism and Christianity and, according to the Jews, i.e. from their point of view, performing its task excellently, enjoyed and enjoys the greatest glory among them, was and is still called an “immortal creation” 265. Taking into account that the Jews of the whole world, by their living consciousness of themselves as a single people and by their exclusive position among other peoples, are constantly in mutual communication with each other, it is not impossible to assume that the story of Yehuda Halevi, so dear to the national-religious pride of all of them, reached our Kyiv Jews. The circulation of such a story among Jews could have given the thought and zeal to some Russian or Greek to revise the story of baptism, read in the life of Volodimerov by an unknown author, as it reads in the chronicle. - The idea of composing embassies to Vladimir from the peoples with a proposal of faiths could have been inspired by the author in the chronicle in which he read that to Yaropolk shortly before his death sent in one year ambassadors first by the Greeks and then by the Pope, Nikon Chronicle under 979. – About the sources used by the author of the story when compiling a lengthy speech to Vladimir by the Greek philosopher and the teachings of the Bishop of Korsun to him, see Sukhomlinov On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument, St. Petersburg, 1856, p. 54 sqq and Pavlov Critical experiments on history of the ancient Greco-Russian polemic Against the Latins, St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 8 sqq 266. Turning to the speech about what disposed Vladimir to accept Christianity, we will first talk about opinions with which we do not agree. The Right Reverend Philaret looks for Vladimir’s special disposition to accept Christianity in his special spiritual mood, presenting him as a grave, remorseful sinner who does not find peace for his soul in paganism and seeks it outside of this latter. “The terrible fratricide,” says the Right Reverend Philaret, “victories bought with the blood of strangers and one’s own, gross voluptuousness could not help but burden the conscience of even a pagan. Vladimir thought to ease his soul by erecting new idols on the banks of the Dnieper and Volkhov, decorating them with silver and gold, and slaughtering fat victims in front of them. Moreover, he even shed the blood of two Christians on the idol altar. But all this, as he felt, did not bring peace to the soul - the soul was looking for light and peace." Perhaps this is an attractive idealization of a person, but, nevertheless, it is not at all consistent. The fratricide committed by Vladimir is one of those special types of crimes that are caused and justified by so-called political necessity, and we, unfortunately, do not know a single example, either in ancient or modern history, of such a crime falling like a lead weight on the conscience of the one who committed it. The son of Vladimirov, the Christian Yaroslav, like his father and completely out of the same motivation as him, raising his hand against his brother, not only did not consider himself a criminal, but, on the contrary, with hope he called upon the truth of God to his aid: “And go up to Svyatopolk, who called God, the river: it was not I who started beating the brothers, but he; may God be the avenger of the blood of my brothers... Lord judge me in righteousness.” Vladimir had exactly the same excuse, and he justified himself with exactly the same words, as the chronicle directly says 267. To assume that victories bought with the blood of strangers and one’s own could weigh on the conscience of even a pagan is not only a strange, but also a ridiculous stretch. Who doesn’t know that victories bought at any price, not only in pagan times, but also in all Christian times, not excluding our present ones, do not bother the conscience of the happy winners in the slightest and bring them one thing, which is considered the greatest, pleasure, and nothing more? Let's not consider Vladimir some extraordinary exception from all people? Everyone considers Vladimir to be a rude, extraordinary sensualist on the grounds that the chronicle directly speaks of this. Let’s admit frankly, we don’t quite believe, or, better yet, don’t believe at all the news read in the chronicle that Vladimir had 800 concubines 268, and, moreover, not being fed up with fornication, he brought other people’s married wives to himself and corrupted girls. Vladimir was not an eastern sovereign, not Solomon and not Sardanapal (although in the chronicle he is compared with the first), but a European sovereign. If what was said about Vladimir were said about another European sovereign, wouldn’t everyone consider such speeches from the first word to be a completely incongruous plot? Why would something completely incongruous when applied to others be consistent when applied to Vladimir? Vladimir, of course, did not know either about the Solomons or the Sardanapals, but if he wanted to be an eastern sovereign in relation to the largeness and splendor of the harem, then he had before him the example of the Khazar Khagans: however, these eastern sovereigns in Europe had only 25 wives and 60 concubines 269. Finally, doesn’t it make any sense that Vladimir, having a harem of 800 concubines, still brought other people’s married wives and corrupted the girls? The incongruous news was obviously invented for the purpose of contrasting Vladimir the pagan as sharply as possible with Vladimir the Christian, and to believe it would mean to believe something completely incredible 270 . But even if we allow something like this, then even in this case, among the Russians of the 10th century, Vladimir will not at all represent an unusual and out-of-the-ordinary exception. The fact is that between our ancestors along the Norman line or the Russians in the proper sense, due to special circumstances, voluptuousness reigned before Christianity, completely unlimited. In ancient times, Russians lived almost exclusively by attacks on other peoples and military robberies 271. The main prey in these attacks were captives and female captives, as a result of which they developed a deliberate and extensive trade in male and female slaves. Over time, the Russians ceased to be exclusively robbers, but the trade in slaves and female slaves, as a matter of habit, continued to be their specialty. And so it was, as we positively know, in the 10th century 272. But regarding this special kind of product, a custom was introduced that while it was in the hands of the merchants, they, the merchants, used it themselves: positive evidence from the 10th century tells us that every slave sold was for the Russian, if he only wanted it, and his concubine. And that this was considered a completely natural and ordinary matter 273. At that time, the prince was the very first merchant, and in this sense, Vladimir probably sometimes had not eight hundred concubines, not one thousand. We do not know whether he and his slaves indulged in that unbridled voluptuousness described in the chronicle. But even if this were so, then in this case his conscience should have been tormented as much as the conscience of every person is tormented by something completely natural and accepted. Finally, no matter what the reality may be, the Right Reverend Philaret forgets about one very simple circumstance, from which it must follow that voluptuousness has nothing to do with it: in such young years as Vladimir accepted Christianity (or not at the age of 30, or no more than 30), extreme voluptuous people never come to repentance. So, there is no reason or probability to assume that Vladimir should recognize himself as a grave sinner. But even if, finally, we were to assume this, then the conclusion that Eminence Philaret draws would not follow from this. We will not resolve the question of why God tolerates and allows false religions: but it is an undoubted fact that He tolerates and allows them. And as a result of this, in false religions, as well as in the true one, people find peace and consolation for their troubled consciences, although imaginary. About the beginning of Vladimirov’s reign in Kyiv, the chronicle says: “And Volodymer began his reign in Kyiv alone, and placed idols on a hill outside the courtyard of the tower: Perun was made of wood, and his head was silver, and his mustache was gold, and Khorsa-Dazhbog and Stribog and Simargla and Mokosh; and I devoured them, I called them gods, and I brought my sons and daughters and devoured the demon and desecrated the earth with my demands, and the land of Ruska and the hill-from was defiled with blood.” Bringing this news in connection with the news of the so-called Joachim Chronicle of Tatishchev, S. M. Solovyov presents the whole matter of Vladimir’s baptism as follows: Vladimir’s elder brother Yaropolk was an adherent of Christianity and the patron of its followers, as a result of which he was unloved by the Kyiv pagans. Having raised a war against his brother, Vladimir declared himself on the side of the pagans and, as a result, with the help of Yaropolk’s Kyiv ill-wishers, he achieved victory over him and the grand-ducal throne. Owing to the achievement of the last pagan party, Vladimir marked the beginning of his reign with the most zealous zeal for paganism... But “Russian paganism was so poor, so colorless that it could not successfully argue with any of the religions that took place in the southeastern regions of what was then Europe, especially with Christianity.” All the efforts of Vladimir (with his uncle Dobrynya) to raise paganism to some extent only led him to the fact that they showed the insignificance and inconsistency of the latter and showed him the path to Christianity, the preachers of which appeared before him in the person of the Kyiv Christians of the Varangians. First of all, if Solovyov thinks that Vladimir was convinced first of the insignificance and falsity of paganism, and then of the truth of Christianity, then he represents the matter, as we said above, in a completely incorrect and completely impossible way from the psychological point of view. Vladimir could only be convinced of both at the same time, but not first of one and then of the other. (If we are not mistaken, Solovyov presents the matter, approaching not in letter, but in meaning, the story placed in the chronicle, in such a way that in view of the religions of south-eastern Europe, which were all superior to paganism, Vladimir first became convinced of the insignificance of the latter, and then began to decide which of these religions was the best. If so, then this is completely untenable). Then, the episode of Vladimir’s efforts to raise paganism (not in view of all the religions of south-eastern Europe, but in view of the Greek Christianity that was in Kyiv) in itself would not represent anything incredible; but we cannot admit it because it does not seem probable to us from the factual side. It is not on the basis of Tatishchev’s imaginary Joachim chronicle, but in itself it is quite probable to assume that Yaropolk was a person disposed towards Christianity, but it seems completely inconvenient to assume what Solovyov assumes further. If Yaropolk, as the supposed Joachim chronicle says, “gave great freedom to Christians” in spite of people, that is, if he gave great freedom to Christians, despite the enmity of his squad for this behavior, which should be understood here by people, then this would mean that he decided to act too independently. But he died at the hands of Vladimir at only 20–23 years old: is it likely to assume that in such years he showed such independence? If his squad was decisively hostile to Christianity, then he himself, with all his disposition towards Christians, could not give them great will, and, therefore, could not incite his squad against himself. We are not talking further about the fact that Solovyov decides to prefer the evidence of Tatishchev’s imaginary Joakim chronicle to the positive evidence of the real original chronicle, which tells us something completely different 275, but let us ask him what it means: “Yaropolk gave great freedom to Christians”? Yaropolk could only give Christians complete freedom; but we know that they enjoyed such complete freedom during the time of Svyatoslav: what could he add to that? Finally, we assumed above that the hostility of the squad towards Christianity was something probable: but is it probable, however, in reality? The squad was not at all hostile to Christianity under Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav: why on earth would it suddenly become hostile to it under Yaropolk? When the chronicle speaks of Vladimir setting up idols in Kiev at the beginning of his reign, it is not known how to understand it - whether it is so that Vladimir did something ordinary here, which other previous princes did, or so that Vladimir showed special zeal for paganism and did an extraordinary thing. Most likely the latter, as everyone usually understands. But if this is so, then one should think that the author of the chronicle (or an unknown later addition to it, which is very likely to be suspected here) attributed such a special zeal for paganism to Vladimir on his own and arbitrarily, guided by the same impulse by which he makes him an incredibly voluptuous and depraved person. (Speeches about the extraordinary debauchery of Vladimir and his zealous zeal for paganism form one whole in the chronicle - under 980): he exposes himself with his own testimony. He says that Vladimir placed Perun and other gods on a hill outside the palace courtyard. But we positively know from his own words that Perun stood there under Igor 276. Consequently, either Vladimir did not need to place Perun there, or he only replaced the dilapidated statue with a new one. True, the chronicle says that Vladimir not only himself erected idols of Perun and other gods in Kyiv, but also ordered Dobrynya to do the same in Novgorod. From which the most likely conclusion, apparently, is that this assignment was not an ordinary matter. However, in Novgorod it could only be the same as in Kyiv - either an ordinary matter, or a matter without meaning. “And Dobrynya came to Nougorod,” the chronicle says, “put an idol over the Volkhov River, and the priest of Nougorodstya became a god for him.” But weren’t the Novgorodians previously pagans and didn’t have idols before? What can this installation of one idol mean, if not that at the beginning of each reign it was customary to install a new idol in the main cities, or if not simple nonsense that was invented by the chronicler (or his complement) for his special purpose? There is no reason to deny, and we do not deny, the fact that under Vladimir a human sacrifice was made once (and the lot randomly fell on a Christian 277. But in this circumstance there is no reason to see evidence of the special pagan piety of Vladimir. We have positive evidence both in general that human sacrifices were in the custom among the pagan Normans, and in particular that they were in the custom among Norman-Slavs in Russia before Vladimir 278. While we do not find it likely to think with Solovyov that Vladimir at the beginning of his reign had reasons to be and indeed was a zealous pagan, we think and see reason to think that he was a person disposed towards Christianity from the very beginning and from his very childhood. Not on the basis of Tatishchev’s imaginary Joakim chronicle, as we said above, but in itself it is probable to assume this about Vladimir’s elder brother Yaropolk: but it is absolutely the same probability to assume the same about Vladimir himself. Together with Yaropolk, he was raised by his grandmother Olga. If he was younger than Yaropolk, who remained after Olga about 18 years, then it is necessary to accept that he was not very many years younger - about two years, no more, and perhaps even not younger, for he could be the youngest son not by age, but because he was born of a concubine. Consequently, having Olga as his teacher for up to 10–11 years, and maybe more, he had the same opportunity with Yaropolk to get the same mood of thoughts with him. But, we repeat, if we accept as very probable that Olga managed to make Yaropolk a person disposed towards Christianity, then she could have made Vladimir the same. There is no improbability, but on the contrary there is every probability of thinking this way in itself; but in addition, we are led to think this way by certain positive indications. Of the five legal wives of Vladimir, called the chronicler (under 980), four were Christians: a Greek, two Czechs and a Bulgarian. If at the beginning of his reign Vladimir considered himself obliged to appear, and in fact, was a zealous pagan, then, on the one hand, what a means of pleasing the pagans - to take Christian wives, and on the other hand, a zealous pagan and at the same time a strong preference for Christians. Further, if we know about the Greek woman that she appeared in the form of a slave taken in war, then we do not know anything like that and hardly have the right to assume about the other three. Assume that all three of them were of noble origin and married Vladimir voluntarily, which is the most likely assumption. Why on earth would Christian fathers want to give their daughters away, and why would Christian daughters want to marry a zealous pagan? Thus, both in itself and on the basis of the positive data that we have, it seems most likely to think that Vladimir was a person more or less disposed towards Christianity from the very beginning of his reign. There were many Christian Varangians in Kyiv, and so they turned his disposition towards Christianity into a complete determination to accept it. The Christian wives we were just talking about, of course, could not appear in this case as anything other than zealous assistants to people who were trying to persuade him to Christianity. We know that the Polish prince Mieczyslaw I, who converted to Christianity shortly before Vladimir, was convinced to accept it precisely by his Christian wife 279: why, to some extent, could not the same happen with us? 280. Igor and Olga were smart enough to understand the superiority of Christianity over paganism, and the first of them leaned towards it internally, and the second decided to openly accept it. But for Vladimir it was much easier than for both of them, because, in addition to his own mind, he had their example before him. And, therefore, the question: how Vladimir became convinced of the superiority of Christianity over paganism does not require any special explanation. So, we repeat again, it seems most likely to think that Vladimir decided to accept Christianity not after vain efforts to raise paganism, but having a disposition towards it from childhood and then from the very accession to the grand-ducal throne, he walked towards it, so to speak, the direct path. The circumstances we mentioned above make it clear that the efforts of the Kyiv Varangian Christians to finally win him over to the side of Christianity could not have been particularly great. More or less long before the final decision to accept Christianity, more or less soon after ascending the throne, Vladimir takes Christian wives: if at the conclusion of these marriages he had not already internally decided to become a Christian, then there is an obvious possibility of assuming that he was not far from such a decision. Looking for Christian wives, Vladimir, obviously, himself was moving towards Christianity, he himself was looking for a final rapprochement with it 281. This is how it seems to us most likely to imagine the matter of Vladimir’s personal conversion to Christianity. But he not only accepted it himself, but at the same time decided to carry out an extremely important coup d’etat - to make Christianity the faith of his entire people. Having accepted the true faith, Vladimir, naturally, should have been inspired by the desire to give the same faith to his people. But, we think, it is necessary to assume that state motives also took an active part in this last decision of his, that he acted here not only as an equal to the apostles, but also as a great sovereign. Peoples destined for historical life live in well-ordered states. Peoples who are just beginning to live as a state usually join the peoples who, having begun to live long ago, serve in a given place as representatives of this statehood, in order to be their heirs by historical succession. The new history of our part of the world or Europe is that new peoples who appeared in it for state life joined the existing representatives of this life - the Greeks and Romans, in order to become one with them and continue the Greco-Roman world. For each of the new European peoples, real state life begins with the adoption of Christianity. On the one hand, this means that peoples borrowed the desire for such a life and this very life from the Greeks and Romans, depending on whether they received Christianity from one or the other. On the other hand, or vice versa, this means that in each of the nations Christianity was introduced by such sovereigns who were aware of the need to establish state life in their countries. Such a sovereign in the person of Vladimir appeared in our Rus'. We do not have information about Igor’s state character to answer the question: did he have a personal conviction in the superiority of Christianity over paganism and an awareness of the need for the latter in state forms. Judging by his wife Olga, it is more likely to answer yes than no. But be that as it may, he could not think about changing the faith of the state when he could not dare to personally become an open Christian. Igor's successor was his son Svyatoslav. He was, if you like, a brave and brilliant knight, and if you like, an empty adventurer, in any case, least of all a real sovereign. Not only could he not think about making a great state reform through the introduction of Christianity, but on the contrary, his Norman aspirations, the entire basis of which was the right of the fist and the sword, were completely hostile to Christian concepts of citizenship. Vladimir represents a decisive contrast to his father. This is not at all a daring knight, but a sovereign-gatherer and builder of the earth in the strict and precise sense of the word. He wages a lot of wars, but war for the sake of war has no meaning for him, and all wars are waged by him exclusively for state purposes, for expansion or to protect the borders of the state. Once, in his aggressive aspirations, he is carried away beyond the limits of prudence, subjugates a people that he was not able to keep as his tributary - he admits this and hastens to leave the people alone: ​​Having undertaken a useless campaign against the Bolgars in 985 and having won a useless victory over them, he hastens to make peace with them and leave, for he realizes with his advisers that “this tribute will not be given to him.” The campaign against Constantinople after Oleg and Igor became for the princes of Kyiv, so to speak, a traditional means of gaining glory for themselves; but we see that Vladimir does not have the slightest thought about this glorious, but useless, campaign. After the wars, undertaken solely for the benefit of the state, Vladimir was busy with what should constitute the occupation of a true sovereign, namely, building and cutting down or settling cities around his capital and consulting with his squad “about the construction of the land and the rules of the land.” In the few words of the chronicle: “and Volodimer was thinking (with his squad) about the system of the land and about the rules of the land,” we are told the undoubted news that Vladimir was a true sovereign, who set the goal of his activities to improve the state and cared diligently about this. Finally, the news from the Nikon Chronicle that we cited above that Vladimir sent ambassadors to other countries to inspect the way of life and life of other peoples, if only we agree to recognize this news as true, involuntarily reminds us of Peter the Great and lets us know that Vladimir was not just one of the true sovereigns, but precisely one of those true sovereigns out of the ordinary, to which this latter also belonged. But if all this is so, then Vladimir, who was personally led and came to the conviction of the superiority of Christianity over paganism, could not help but come to the conviction of the state necessity of introducing it in his country instead of paganism. It would be completely unfair and unfounded to imagine Rus' of the 10th century as alienated from others and self-enclosed, as it was, for example, in the 16th – 17th centuries. On the contrary, at that time the Russians considered themselves to fully belong and, in fact, fully belonged to the family of European peoples, constituting exactly the same living member of it as we again later became after Peter the Great and as we currently are. But while we belonged and wanted to belong to the family of European peoples, we found ourselves, so to speak, a freak in it. All other European peoples, with the exception of only us and the Hungarians, were already Christian and began to live that new civil life that they received along with Christianity and which decisively separated them from the pagan peoples, as a special moral world. To enter this world, to become the same as everyone else, and not to be an individual, and we had no choice but to follow the example of others and become Christians. In its gradual movement from West to East, Christianity came directly to us: before that, the Poles remained ahead of us, but in 966, that is, 12 years before Vladimirov’s accession to the throne, they accepted Christianity, and thus the turn was handed over to us. A man with true statesmanship abilities, a sovereign with the ability to understand the demands of the time that distinguishes great people, Vladimir understood Russia’s present need to become a Christian country in order to become a completely European country. And this political conviction, combined with a direct and immediate desire to give the people the true faith, led to the fact that he not only accepted Christianity himself, but decided to make this the faith of his state. Representatives of Christianity from whom Vladimir could borrow it were at that time the Greeks and the pope. If missionaries had come to him from one or the other, then he would have accepted Christianity from the side whose missionaries would have convinced him to do so 282. But Vladimir’s converts were the Kyiv Christian Varangians. Their own Christianity was of Constantinople origin 283 . But since at that time the Greeks and Latins constituted two more halves of one Orthodox Church, for the division happened somewhat later, and since they themselves, the Varangians, did not have the slightest personal interest in persuading Vladimir to accept Christianity from the Greeks, it is necessary to assume that, having convinced him to accept Christianity, they then left it completely to his own will - from whom to accept. Thus, it is necessary to think that for Vladimir the question was not decided in advance, but had to be decided by him himself: from whom should he accept Christianity. Vladimir decided to be baptized by the Greeks, and not by the Pope. It goes without saying that he did not decide the issue for himself from a theological point of view. For, intending to accept Christianity, he was not yet a theologian, and even if he had been, then the question itself, as such (as a theological question), did not yet exist, since the Greeks and Latins, as we said, then still constituted two halves of the same Orthodox Church. The immediate reason that prompted Vladimir to prefer the Greeks to the pope, of course, was that the latter was very far from us and until that time we had not had any relations with him. Meanwhile, the Greeks were almost our neighbors and we have long had the most active and lively connections and relations with them. And that the very position of our country in the East pointed us precisely to Eastern Christians. But deeper political considerations should have forced Vladimir to evade the holy father. Having been baptized by the pope, Vladimir would have joined the numerous host of sovereigns surrounding him, he could have received a royal crown - all this was very flattering... But, on the other hand, having entered the host, he would be the youngest and last in it; having entered this host, he would have become a very limited member of its freedom. On the contrary, having been baptized by the Greeks, Vladimir remained on his own, retained all his freedom and did not expose himself to any danger of being among boys and in the service of others... Divine Providence rises above human judgments and affairs, invisibly controlling them. By accepting Christianity, we could not choose between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy (we could not not only because we were unable to, but also because non-Orthodoxy did not yet exist): By the arrangement of Providence, we found ourselves standing on the right side of the first. (In the non-theological and non-church sphere, it is usually, or at least for the most part, thought that our acceptance of the faith from the Greeks was the consequence of our centuries-old ignorance with all its sad fruits; This ignorance, of course, is a fact; but below we will see that in judgments about its causes we are far from fair). Two years after his own baptism, Vladimir decided to begin the baptism of the entire people. Before doing this, he decided to enter into relations with the Greeks, since for the future Russian Church he needed the highest hierarchy from the latter, that is, bishops with a metropolitan or some other primate at the head. For this purpose, Vladimir, apparently, should have sent an embassy to the Greeks expressing his need and asking for its satisfaction. But he acted differently: he went to war against the Greek city of Tauride Chersonesus or Korsun, expressed an adamant intention to take it, and only as a winner began relations with the Greeks. How to understand this strange act of Vladimir? They usually say that the pride of power and glory did not allow Vladimir to humiliate himself in the reasoning of the Greeks and appear before them in the role of a supplicant, that having appeared to them as a supplicant and not as a winner, he could rightly fear humiliation and insult from Byzantine arrogance, and at the same time they refer to the example of Olga (Karamzin and the Reverend Philaret). But when they assume in Vladimir the pride of power and glory and the extreme delicacy of this pride, they imagine him as some kind of Tamerlane, a conqueror of the demi-monde, which in fact did not happen at all and without which the pride supposed in him becomes completely incredible, forcing one to imagine him as a completely ridiculous person. The pride of Vladimir, it is true - who won quite a lot of victories, but especially glorious victories, and considered himself strong to take tribute only from peoples wearing bast shoes, and not boots 284 - if this pride really was in him, should have been very moderate. And given the degree to which it could be imagined in him, he could not see anything humiliating for himself in turning to the Greeks with a request. When they talk about Byzantine arrogance and conceit, they speak the absolute truth. But, firstly, this arrogance, ridiculous and pretentious in our opinion, could not seem so at all to Vladimir and his contemporaries, who saw in the empire not a pitiful ruin and not an internal emptiness under the external splendor, but something completely different. And who, without having any claims to equate themselves with her, had to have all possible respect for her. Secondly, it is completely untrue that this arrogance, reaching the point of real stupidity, allowed itself to positively insult the barbarians when they appeared to the Greeks in the form of petitioners, and that it was precisely this insult that Olga suffered on her visit to Constantinople. We have already said above that nothing offensive happened to Olga in Constantinople, that she was received there in a completely appropriate manner. Why on earth would Vladimir be afraid of insults? Moreover, when they refer to this unprecedented insult, they strangely consider it necessary to present the matter in such a way that it is as if Vladimir himself had to personally go to Constantinople. Thus, neither Vladimir’s pride nor the fear of insults from the Greeks can explain Vladimir’s strange and mysterious act. What could be the matter? Firstly, it is not incredible to think that Vladimir was afraid of certain claims from the Greeks and wanted to remove them in advance and decisively. The Greeks were not pope; however, they also had a very strong inclination to look at the peoples who accepted their faith and became dependent on them in church terms, as people at their side, and in political terms, as their vassals. At the beginning of the 9th century, the Taurian Russians accepted Christianity from the Greeks, and Patriarch Photius hastens to call them subjects of the empire, although they did not think about citizenship at all 285. The emperors of Constantinople, as we have the right to think according to some indications, included the names of the peoples who supported the Orthodox faith in their title, considering them as vassals to themselves and as if claiming to be in relation to them the same as the Western Roman or German emperor was in relation to their electors and princes 286 . It is not incredible to think that Vladimir was afraid of such claims from the Greeks and that, by the way, it was this that forced him to appear before them for the first time with the sword of the winner in his hands, for in relation to the winner there could no longer be any claims. Secondly, it is necessary to think that the matter was in Vladimir’s desire to marry a Greek princess, the sister of the Constantinople emperors, which he expressed after the capture of Korsun. For a barbarian and the ruler of a barbarian country, such as Vladimir, getting the hand of a Greek princess was a very difficult thing, and if Vladimir wanted this, then he really had to fight with the Greeks and present his desire to them only as a winner. Marriages with barbarians, naturally, must have extremely offended the pride of the Greeks 287 . Marrying barbarian princes, naturally, must have seemed a terrible thing for Greek princesses. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Greeks entered into such marriages only in cases of urgent need, especially those when they did not themselves marry barbarian princesses, but had to marry off their princesses as barbarians. But why might Vladimir need this marriage with the Greek princess, which he so strenuously sought? To assume that, in order to satisfy simple vanity, to be related to the emperors would be very petty, and the urgent energy in achieving an insignificant goal would make one assume that Vladimir is a completely empty person. In order for this energy to receive meaning, it is necessary to assume something more, some real need, recognized by Vladimir. It is necessary, in our opinion, to assume what we talked about a little higher, namely, that when Vladimir converted the entire people to Christianity, state concerns went inseparably with religious concerns. That, having decided to baptize his people, he not only wanted to give them the true faith, but also to introduce them into the family of civilized peoples, that he wanted to make them not only a Christian people, but also a European people in the entire sense of the word. With this last assumption, Vladimir’s desire to marry a Greek princess will be completely understandable to us. The Greeks had to become the civilizers of Rus', and for Vladimir it was extremely important that they had a conscientious desire to be as zealous as possible civilizers, so that without any second thoughts they had the disposition to wish all the best for Rus'. But how was this achieved? It is clear that marriage with a Greek princess seemed to be the best way to achieve this: by entering into kinship with the Greek emperors, he would thereby acquire their genuine and possibly zealous goodwill 288 . Having taken Korsun 289, Vladimir immediately sent an embassy to Constantinople to the then emperors Vasily and Constantine, on the one hand, asking for the Russian Church, which then had to appear, what it needed from the Greeks, and on the other hand, asking himself for marriage to the sister of the emperors, Princess Anna 290. Whether it was the desire to return Korsun, or the fear of Vladimir’s threat, as the author of his Life and the story of his baptism says, to appear near Constantinople, and most likely, as the Greek chroniclers say, the desire and urgent need to receive military assistance from Vladimir against the rebels who appeared then and threatened great danger 291, forced the emperors to agree to Vladimir’s desire to enter into a war with him kinship Having married in Korsun the sister of the emperors 292 and then either actually received or - as one should think about (which is now below), - only hopeful of immediately following this a metropolitan and bishops for the future Russian Church, and, in any case, having received and taking with him the required number of priests, Vladimir returned to Kiev to begin the baptism of all his people. Vladimir was baptized (himself personally) in 987, Korsun was taken by him two years later, the third after his baptism in 989 293. The general baptism of the people, which Vladimir began after returning from Korsun, naturally began with the people of Kiev. This first attack on him, as evidence leads us to believe, was made without the metropolitan and bishops, with only priests; i.e., based on the evidence, it turns out that Vladimir did not bring the metropolitan and bishops himself, but that they were sent to him only some time after his return, and that he baptized the Kyivans with the priests who were with him and the priests he brought, without waiting for them (the metropolitan and bishops) to arrive. The life of Volodimer, by an unknown author, and the story of his baptism, read in the chronicle, say that Vladimir took priests from Korsun with him, but they do not say that he took the metropolitan and bishops. Then, about the baptism of the Kyivans, they say that Vladimir performed it with the priests (Tsaritsyn and Korsun), and they do not say that with the metropolitan and bishops. If the author of the life, which repeats the story, was guided only by his own considerations, then it would be natural for him to assume that Vladimir himself brought the metropolitan and bishops with him. If he does not talk about the latter, speaking only about priests, then he makes us assume that in this case he is reproducing some positive evidence that he had. (Perhaps the entry was read in the chronicle, perhaps the entry was read somewhere else). The legend about the baptism of the Novgorodians, read in later editions of the original chronicle, 294, although not with complete certainty, nevertheless makes it clear that the metropolitan and bishops arrived in Russia only in 991. “In the summer of 6499 (991), we read in it, “Volodimer was baptized and took from Patriarch Photius from the first metropolitan of Constantinople Leon of Kyiv and Novgorod, Archbishop 295 Yakim Korsunyanin... and Archbishop Yakim came (in this year 991) to Novugorod”... The chronicle can, however, be understood in such a way that she speaks only about the arrival in 991. Bishop Joachim to Novgorod, leaving unknown when he arrived with the Metropolitan from Constantinople to Kyiv. But it is more likely and more straightforward to understand it in such a way that it dates the very arrival of the metropolitan with the bishops to the same year 991. The selection of candidates for metropolitans and bishops (with a set of officials or clergymen for each of them), which for the first time, as it must be assumed, was carried out with special care, was not an easy matter. And therefore, it is not surprising that the sending of the metropolitan and bishops could have been significantly slowed down. As for the baptism of the Kyivans (namely, only them), Vladimir, having ready-made priests whom he could give to the baptized, did not need to wait for the arrival of the metropolitan and bishops. In Korsun, with negotiations about the marriage and with its very consummation, with negotiations on the structure of church government, with the recruitment of priests and other necessary people, Vladimir had quite a lot to do. Therefore, one must think that he stayed in it for more or less a long time, and that he returned from it to Kyiv either only at the very end of 989, or even in the next 990. Since there is no reason and it cannot be assumed that upon his return he acted with haste and immediately performed the baptism of the Kyivans as soon as he arrived in Kyiv; then in general it seems necessary to take the year 990 as the year of this baptism (the fourth from Vladimirov’s own baptism). The life of Volodymer of an unknown author and the story of his baptism, placed in the chronicle, represent the case of Vladimir’s baptism of Kiev in such a way that he returned from Korsun, crushed the idols that were in the city, gave the order one fine evening after that to everyone to appear the next morning at the river for bathing (which is baptism as an external action) in the new faith, and made people out of pagans Christians. That is, they present the matter in such a way as if the whole short story consisted of what was ordered and carried out. Following the Life and the Tale, new researchers, for the most part, imagine the baptism by Vladimir of both the Kievites and the entire people in general in the same way: in Kyiv - ordered and carried out; in other cities - he came, gave orders and it was carried out. We allow ourselves to think with complete confidence that this was not entirely true. When an entire people had to be baptized, then, of course, there could be no thought of instructing everyone in the faith everywhere; in such cases, out of inevitable necessity, most people follow a simple order. But if it was not possible to instruct everyone anywhere, then there was an opportunity everywhere to instruct some who, by their conscious behavior in changing the faith, could serve as a kind of proof for others. It was possible, if not completely, then at least to some extent, to introduce a new faith everywhere in such a way that its adoption would not seem a matter of coercion, but a matter of freedom and conviction. To assume that Vladimir, when converting the people to Christianity, did not want to do what was possible, which was required by all sorts of arguments of human reason and which was simultaneously required by the dignity of the new faith itself, would mean imagining him as one of those despots who, knowing only one thing: “I command and obey,” do not want to give the slightest place to free conviction, even where there could be nothing but benefit from it, and where it would be desirable for themselves. Monk Jacob, putting into the mouth of Vladimir, who stood under besieged Korsun, a prayer to God: “Lord God, Lord of all! This I ask of you, give me the city, that I may accept and bring people, peasants and priests to their land, that people (my) will teach the peasant law,” lets us know directly that Vladimir wanted to introduce, and, therefore, introduced, Christianity in his people not only through coercion, but also through teaching. It goes without saying that there can be no positive speech about what is only assumed. And, therefore, we cannot say anything positive about how the Kievans were prepared by Vladimir for baptism. It can be assumed that the people were ordered to gather for meetings - that several such meetings were appointed in different parts of the city - that during one time or another they took place regularly, at certain times, and that thus they represented, as it were, temporary schools (catechetical schools) for adults. It can and should be assumed that special attention was paid to those individuals who, for one reason or another, had special authority among their fellow citizens. That these persons, who had influence on others by their example and word, were gathered at special gatherings, at which they were instructed in Christianity and persuaded to accept it with special diligence and by people especially capable of this. Taking what has just been said as completely probable, we find it not impossible to make another assumption. The Greek priests brought by Vladimir from Korsun were people capable of teaching; but they did not know the Russian language and could only communicate through translators, which is very inconvenient when applied to the work of teaching. In order to be able to properly teach those being baptized, priests had to be found who could speak to the people in their own language and who would thus carry out the catechumen under the guidance of Greek priests. Such priests were partly already represented by the priests of the Kyiv Varangian Christians who had been in Kyiv before; but these priests were comparatively too few for the entire number of those who were baptized. If other priests could not be found to help them, capable of being teachers from the side of language, then, of course, they would have to be content with them alone and with what they could do. But these other priests could be found, and precisely - firstly, among the Bulgarians, and secondly, directly among the Russians - other Russians, special from our Kyiv ones and who became Christians before these latter. Sooner or later, Vladimir had to acquire Slavic liturgical books from the Bulgarians. And if so, then it is more natural to think that he took care of them before the baptism of the people, so that by this time he would already have them available. But by acquiring books from the Bolgars, Vladimir had a ready opportunity to acquire at the same time priests who could be the preparers of his people for Christianity. If someone imagined that Vladimir could not suddenly turn his thoughts to the Bulgarians, then the chronicle positively answers us that he was well acquainted with them even before baptism: In 985. he had a war with them or with the pre-Danube part of them 296, then before or after this war he married a Bulgarian woman. Other Russians, special from the Kyiv ones and who became Christians before them, from whom Vladimir could take priests, were the Hungarian or Ugric Russians, who lived and still live on the other side of the Carpathians in northeastern Hungary. And who were converted to Orthodox Christianity, as we noted above, a whole century before us. The language of our fellow Bulgarians is quite close to our Russian, and in ancient times it was even closer, however, in any case, not so much that a Bulgarian and a Russian could understand each other from the first word. But these Ugric or Hungarian Russians were exactly the same Russians as us, and even spoke the same dialect as the Kievans, the so-called Little Russian now; therefore, they were exactly what Vladimir needed. They were the immediate neighbors of our Red or Galician Rus', and Vladimir could not help but know about them; and therefore, assuming it is probable that he took care to acquire priests from Bulgaria, one cannot but assume just as much and even more probable that he took care to acquire the latter and from them - the Hungarian Russians. We do not know how Vladimir performed the baptism of the Kievites. It may very well be that the matter happened similar to how it appears in the Life of Volodymer and in the story placed in the chronicle, namely, that all the inhabitants of the city were baptized at the same time (and not in parts), that they appeared at the place of baptism, which was the river, on the appointed day, by order of the prince. Only at the same time, the Life of Volodimerovo and the story are presented in a completely incredible way when they say that (all) “the people (hearing the order of the prince) walked with joy, rejoicing and saying: if this were not good, the prince and the boyars would not have accepted this” 297. It must be thought that the catechetical preaching of the priests bore all its fruit and that a more or less significant number of people were convinced through it and brought to consciousness of the falsity of paganism and the truth of Christianity. All such people, who may very well have represented an imperfect minority in the general mass, no doubt, with the greatest joy and heartfelt jubilation went to fulfill the order to be baptized. It must be assumed that there were a very large number of those who, although they themselves were not consciously convinced of the superiority of Christianity over paganism, preferred the judgment of the higher to their own judgment and obediently went to be baptized, actually saying what the life and story put into the mouths of everyone. But then it is necessary, and all plausibility requires the assumption that there was a certain, and perhaps a considerable, number of those who remained deaf to the preaching and in whose eyes the prince and the boyars were apostates from the old fatherly faith. Some of these could be forced to obey by threats or even outright force, while others were probably not forced by any means and either sought salvation in flight 298 or became, so to speak, pagan martyrs. Metropolitan Hilarion, silent about the last category of stubborn ones, clearly speaks about the first: “yes, even if someone commanded not through love, but through fear, he is baptized, since his good faith is coupled with power” 299. Following the baptism of the Kyivans or immediately before it, as it goes without saying, Vladimir destroyed the pagan idols in Kyiv that were located in places of public prayer, and immediately then the necessary and possible number of Christian churches was cut down. A special question is when the church was built in honor of the angel of St. Vladimirov. Vasily, placed in the place of that Perun, who was located on a hill near the courtyard of a country tower, that is, after Vladimir’s own baptism or after the baptism of the entire people? It would seem probable to think that Vladimir honored his angel immediately after his baptism; but since the chronicler makes it very clear that the hill on which Perun stood with other idols was the main pagan prayer site of the Kyivans, then in fact it is much more likely to believe that Vladimir decided to destroy this prayer site only either immediately before or immediately after the baptism of the Kyivans, and that thus he found it necessary to endure pagan prayers near his own palace for three years after his own conversion to Christianity 300 . For the baptism of other cities after Kyiv, it was necessary to appoint priests (who could be given to those baptized in these other cities). Only bishops could ordain priests, and, therefore, it is clear that Vladimir could begin to baptize other cities after Kyiv only after the arrival of the metropolitan and bishops. The time of arrival of the metropolitan and bishops, as we said, should be 991. In any case, they arrived no later than this year, for this year the bishop appointed to it came to Novgorod. The Novgorod Chronicle identifies the arrival of a bishop in Novgorod and the baptism of the Novgorodians, that is, it presents the matter in such a way that the Novgorodians were baptized by the bishop in the same year in which he came to them, or immediately after his arrival. We think that this was not so and that the bishop lived for more or less a long time in an unbaptized city (just as the bishops of Rostov lived in an unbaptized city for a very long time). It is necessary to think that in the order of baptism of the rest of Rus' after Kyiv, some conformity with circumstances and conditions was observed. And this conformity required that after Kyiv the Kiev region be baptized in the closest sense, and that only then the baptism of other large cities with their districts that served as centers should begin. The Rus' of that time, just united from separate regions, did not yet represent a continuous and compact whole, as it does now; it also consisted of many separate wholes, such as the private regions that became part of the entire state: Kiev or Polyana, Chernigov or Severyansk, Smolensk or Krivichi, Novgorod or Slavic in the narrowest sense, and so on. Kyiv, which ideally became the capital of the entire state, called the mother of Russian cities 301, in fact, in the concept of the people, still continued to be such only for the Kyiv region or for the region of the Polyansky tribe. Thus, the great change that the people allowed to happen to them in Kyiv did not yet say anything to the other Russian regions, because other regions were still looking at their capitals and their older cities. But for the Kyiv region in the closest sense, for the Polyanskaya land, the example of Kyiv was absolutely obligatory. The region could not be separated from its capital, from its oldest city, in which its head was located. “Whatever the elders think of, the suburbs will become on the same,” was the attitude of the regions to their centers: Kyiv decided to fulfill the will of the prince and change the faith - what could the region do if not on the same, that is, to follow his example without further vain thinking and hesitation? 302 Thus, it is necessary to think that after Kiev the Kiev region was baptized and that in the further, although probably rapid, but still gradual, baptism of the rest of Rus', the order was observed to baptize first those from whom less resistance was expected, and on the contrary, to give those from whom more resistance was expected more time to get used to the idea of ​​the need to change their faith. If we now accept what has been said that Novgorod was not baptized immediately after Kyiv in 991, but in an unknown year some time or other after that, then we will understand how Vladimir prepared the rest of Rus' for the adoption of Christianity. The bishop was sent to Novgorod immediately as he arrived with the metropolitan from Greece; but the city was not baptized immediately after this, but after one or another period of time. It is clear that the bishop, sent to the city immediately upon his arrival from Greece and before it was decided to baptize the latter, was sent to prepare the inhabitants for baptism. As Vladimir acted in relation to Novgorod, so he could have acted in relation to all the cities in which he intended to establish episcopal sees or - which is the same thing - to all the most important cities, for the sees were established in these cities. The baptism of all Rus', after Vladimir began it, obviously should have been the main subject of his activity. After the year 990, in which this baptism began, Vladimir reigned for 25 years: therefore, he had absolutely enough time to use all his concerns in this regard. We have no positive information about what Vladimir managed to do; but we have positive information about what he did not do and what was done after him. Assuming with perfect right and justification that everything that is not mentioned later was already done by him, we get that he baptized half of Rus'. And precisely - that he baptized the entire part of it, which in terms of population was purely Russian-Slavic or Russia in the proper and closest sense, and that he left the non-Russian part of Rus' - foreign (and foreign) - unbaptized. Their own Rus' consisted of: the Novgorod Slavs (not including the foreigners subject to them), the entire part of Rus' beyond the Dnieper, starting with the Krivichi sitting in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and ending, probably, with the northern (some) part of the Tivertsi sitting on the Dniester, and in Rus' before the Dnieper or this side the tribe of the Northerners, who, sitting along the Desna, Semi and Sule, occupied the current Chernigov province, the northern parts of the Poltava and Kharkov provinces and the western part of the Kursk province, in the east along the city of Kursk inclusive. Foreign (and foreign) Rus' consisted of: the huge region of Rostov with Belozerie, which was inhabited by the foreigners Merya and Ves, the Murom region, inhabited by the foreigners Murom, and the land of the Vyatichi with the Radimichs. The last ones - the Vyatichi and Radimichi - were Slavs, but the Slavs were not of our Russian, but of the Lyash or Polish tribe and were the latest immigrants to us. Having settled not among the real Russians, so that they could be surrounded by them and their influence on all sides, but on the edge and, on the one hand, adjoining them, and on the other, the foreigners (the aforementioned Mera and Murom) 303, for a very long time they had the inclination to recognize themselves as Russians even less than the real foreigners. If we were to judge by space, then it would be necessary to say that the smaller half of Rus' was baptized by Vladimir, for our own Rus' then related to foreign Rus' in approximately the same way as European Russia currently relates to Siberia. How the baptism of his own Rus' was carried out and carried out by Vladimir, we have absolutely no information. The news of the later chronicle of Gustinskaya that Vladimir, having divided the state into appanages between his sons, “sent ambassadors with them (in their region) and priests, commanding them, and commanded everyone throughout his entire region to teach people and baptize people and build churches as soon as possible” 304, could not at all be accepted as positive evidence. But as an assumption it would not only be completely probable, but it would also have to be made. If only it were not untenable that in 991, from which the baptism of all Rus' began, the sons of Vladimir were still very young and that only a few of them had already been assigned to appanages. What the Gustinskaya chronicle suggests (stated as a positive fact) about the sons of Vladimir, then, of course, it is absolutely necessary to assume about his posadniks. But we think that not only this should be assumed, but much more, namely, that, firstly, Vladimir himself personally took an active part in the baptism of, if not all, then most of the regions, and secondly, that he himself personally supervised as diligently as possible to ensure that Christianity was established in the regions as quickly and successfully as possible. Vladimir did not accept Christianity in old age, but precisely in the years of a person’s greatest capacity for activity (not possible at 30 or just over 30 years old): obviously, there is every possibility of assuming the broadest direct participation. If the great princes of Kyiv, according to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenite (De administr. imper., p. 9), even without any special need, had the custom of spending the whole half of the year traveling around their land, in the so-called polyudia, then even more so Vladimir had to undertake trips around the regions in view of such a deliberate and important need as their baptism and the establishment of Christianity in them. Vladimir's sons, as they grew up and were assigned to appanages, were supposed to gradually remove the burden of personal concerns from him 305. (In later editions of the original chronicle, under the year 991, the legend about the baptism of the Novgorodians is read; but there is nothing in it about the baptism itself. This is the legend: “Bishop Joachim came to Novgorod, and destroyed the treasury and flogged Perun and ordered him (to be dragged) and thrown into the Volkhov. Having tied him with ropes, they dragged him through the dung (“in the dung”) and beat him with sticks and shoved. And at that time a demon entered into Perun and he began to shout: “Oh woe, oh, I fell into these unmerciful hands.” When they threw him into Volkhov, then, sailing through the great bridge, he threw his club at him and said: “The Novgorod children will remember me with this,” and now, beating her, they give joy to the demons 306. (bishop) so that no one anywhere takes it over. Pidblyanin 307 went to the river in the morning, intending to carry pots to the city, and Perun sailed to the shore, and pushed him with a pole and said: “You are Perunishche, you ate and drank your fill, and now swim away,” and the “uncouth” 308 floated out of the world. – The silence of the legend, which seems to be a legendary excerpt from the whole, about Vladimir’s participation in The baptism of the city should not necessarily be understood in the sense that Vladimir did not take part in this. The legend is silent in general about the participation of civil authorities, which is necessarily assumed. If this is true, then the matter should be understood in such a way that Vladimir relied on Dobrynya, who was the mayor of Novgorod, as on himself). When we say that under Vladimir all of Russian Rus' proper was baptized, this should in no way be understood in the sense that every single person was baptized. There was no doubt that there were very many who did not want to be baptized, both in Kyiv and throughout all of Rus'. In Kyiv itself, that is, precisely in the city of Kyiv itself, police supervision, as one must assume, was so strong and effective that those who did not want to could not hide and had to either be baptized involuntarily, or flee, or perhaps be executed. But in the Kyiv region, that is, in its suburbs and villages, and in the rest of Rus', both in cities and villages, a significant part of those who did not want to be baptized had the full opportunity to hide, and, consequently, they hid. Thus, this matter of the baptism of Rus' by Vladimir should be understood in such a way that a greater or lesser majority of the inhabitants were baptized, that paganism was declared a prohibited and persecuted faith (religio prohibita, intolerata, illicita). And that, although it has not yet ceased to exist, it has become a secret faith, like the split of the Old Believers during the times of its strongest persecution. We have already begun to say above that the complete submission of the Russians in changing their faith to the will of the prince and the so-called peaceful spread of Christianity in Rus' is nothing more than an impossible invention of our immoderate patriots who want to sacrifice common sense to their patriotism. There is no doubt that the introduction of the new faith was accompanied by considerable unrest among the people, that there were open resistances and riots, although we do not know any details about them. There is a proverb about the baptism of Novgorodians that “Putyata baptized them with a sword, and Dobrynya with fire.” This obviously means that in Novgorod the new faith was met with open indignation and that the most energetic measures were required and used to suppress the latter. It is very possible that such disturbances were not only in Novgorod. At that time, Rus'’s own, in addition to being divided into many regions, was also divided into two large halves, which were made into a tributary union to foreigners before the founding of their own state. Namely, the northern half, with Novgorod at the head, which paid tribute to the Varangians before Rurik, and the southern half, with Kiev at the head, which paid tribute to the Khazars before him. In all likelihood, one should think that half of Rus', which has long been to some extent drawn to Kyiv, followed his example in changing the faith with much less tenacity than the northern half (consisting of Novgorodians, Krivichi, Polochan and Dryagovichi), for which the example of Kyiv could not have the slightest moral obligation 309 The primary defense of any faith is natural for its deliberate servants, who, on the one hand, are obliged to do so by their calling, and on the other hand, are motivated by personal interest. Our paganism did not have deliberate ministers in the proper sense or priests, but only magicians, whose private religious and public service consisted in divining the future in the general practice of everything supernatural. There is no doubt that the class of magicians in pagan Rus' was very numerous; we have positive evidence to conclude that the Magi had a desire to oppose the introduction of Christianity 310; But for all this, we do not at all believe that the government should defeat them in a real systematic struggle. The class of our Magi was not an organized class, so that the struggle on their part could be carried out by the general mass and according to one common command. They represented numerous fighters, but scattered and solitary, and in this state of affairs the government, as it did after 311, had no difficulty in getting rid of them by the fact that they suddenly disappeared and went missing, being, as they became dangerous, either imprisoned or put to death. We said that Vladimir baptized all of his own Rus' and left foreign Rus' unbaptized. During the 25 years that he had at his disposal, he was fully able to baptize not only the first, but also the second. If he did not do the latter, then, no doubt, it was not due to lack of time. It cannot be assumed that the reason for this is that he encountered insurmountable resistance among foreigners. There could be this resistance; but if he wanted to overcome and crush him, if he wanted to resort to baptism with fire and sword, as, according to the proverb, happened with the Novgorodians, then, no doubt, he would have managed to insist on his own and achieve his goal. It is necessary to think that he left the foreigners alone for the time being due to reasons of state prudence. All of them have long been tributaries of Rus' (Merya with Vesya and Murom - since the time of Rurik, Vyatichi - since the time of Oleg); but while they remained foreigners, they were all not strong towards Rus' and still did not constitute real Rus'. It was necessary to take care to Russify them. But in order to more successfully and quickly achieve this latter, prudence required not to irritate them, not to artificially arouse the feelings of their special nationality and not to give them a reason to raise the banner of rebellion for their fatherly faith, which would easily create a stubborn enmity that would alienate them from the Russians for a long time. Taking care of their Russification before their baptism was prescribed by politics or state prudence, but at the same time the matter was carried out in such a way that with the achievement of one goal, another was achieved; Having become Russian, they, so to speak, eo ipso had to become Christians. The Vyatichi and Radimichs, as we have already said, were not foreigners in the proper sense, but they were so obstinate that they had to be treated even more carefully than with real foreigners - after the first conquest by Oleg, then they were conquered again by Svyatoslav and twice by Vladimir himself. So, Vladimir, as the baptizer of Rus', must be understood as such in a possibly extensive, complete and personal sense. He was her baptizer not only in the sense that he laid the first foundation for the introduction of Christianity into it and its replacement of paganism - that he made the first certain approach to its baptism, but also in the sense that he really baptized all of Rus' and the entire Russian state in the closest sense of this latter, as his own Rus'. The baptism of all Rus' should not at all be understood to mean that every single person was baptized. The complete installation of Christianity in it should be presented not so much as internal and real, but as external and simply external. But the matter, by its very essence, could be done in both respects only more or less superficially; what Vladimir could have done for the general baptism of Rus' and for the complete establishment of Christianity in it, was not only begun by him, but also completed completely and to perfection. We said above that Vladimir was not only the baptizer of Rus', but also wanted to be its enlightener, wanted and had the intention of making it a country not only Christian, but also European in the entire sense of this last word. Soon after returning from Korsun, either having brought himself along with the priests or receiving a little time later, together with the metropolitan and bishops, learned people and teachers, Vladimir distributed to these latter “deliberate children” to teach children, that is, his boyars and, in all likelihood, the best citizens of Kyiv. In a very unfortunate way, assuming that the children of a deliberate child were recruited to be trained as priests, in this order of Vladimir, they usually see concern related to the church. But the children of noble people could not be recruited for the now stated purpose. For, on the one hand, they were needed for public service, and on the other, their fathers could not have the slightest desire to give them for training as priests, who had to be chosen not from the nobility, but from completely different classes. Children of noble people could be recruited for teaching only with the aim of becoming people more or less enlightened, regardless of any practical goals. In other words, the above-mentioned order of Vladimir means that from the generation of recruited children he wanted to introduce Greek enlightenment into high Russian society. We will return to a detailed discussion of this later. This is the story of Vladimir’s own baptism and his baptism of Rus'. Ambassadors or missionaries from different nations did not come to him with offers of faith, although they could come. He did not send his ambassadors to inspect local faiths and to choose the best among them, for such an embassy is an impossible and unthinkable thing. He accepted Greek Orthodox Christianity not in some unprecedented way in history and not with some fabulous intricacy, but completely simply and naturally, as all European sovereigns accepted Christianity. We do not at all harbor vain hopes that everyone will immediately agree with us to see in the story of the baptism of Vladimir, placed in the chronicle, what it really is, that is, a simple composition. People who are accustomed to imagining that we are a completely special people and that everything with us was not like human beings, of course, will not immediately give up their opinion. But we have firm confidence that, in the light of criticism, the life of this legend is very short-lived and that, in any case, its disappearance from history is nothing more than a matter of time. Let us briefly repeat the actual story of Vladimir’s baptism with everything that preceded it. Immediately or shortly after the founding of our state by Rurik, Christian Varangians began to come to serve our great princes from Constantinople. And in the second half of the reign of the third of them, Igor, so many of these Varangian Christians gathered in Kyiv that they formed a whole community, which took care of the proper organization of itself in relation to religion, established churches and priests. This community from the time of Igor continued and remained to exist in Kyiv until the baptism of Vladimir. It was natural for the Christian Varangians to adhere to the conviction that Christianity should replace paganism in Russia, as it replaced it in almost other countries, and in any case, it was natural for them to be inspired by the immediate desire to convert a country that was in the darkness of pagan superstition to the one true faith. From here it had to happen that the Christian Varangians who were near the great princes became preachers of Christianity before them. The superiority of Christianity over paganism is so great and so obvious that with some ability of preachers to preach and with some ability of listeners to understand it, not blocked by any prejudices, the success of preaching is exactly the result that should be. And so, in this way, the preaching of the Kyiv Varangians as Christians had the result that Russia, through its princes, became a Christian country. The Varangians converted Igor and his husband Olga to Christianity, and the former would have become the common faith of Rus' from their time, if they had found it possible to dare to change the faith of the people. After Svyatoslav, who was anti-Christian in character, the grand-ducal throne passed to Olga's grandchildren. It is very likely to assume, as they do, that Yaropolk, after the education received from Olga, was also inclined by the Christian Varangians to the side of Christianity, like herself and her husband Igor; but if he had the intention and determination to introduce Christianity into Russia, then his early death at the hands of his brother prevented him from doing so. Yaropolk was succeeded by Vladimir. The Christian Varangians turned to him with their sermon in the same way as to his predecessors, and the consequence of the sermon was what, in the absence of special exceptional obstacles, should have been - his conversion to Christianity. Completely possible in itself, this conversion should have happened all the easier because it had been prepared: the example of his grandfather and grandmother, the education received from the second, and finally, in all likelihood, the example of his brother - this is what Vladimir already had in advance in favor of the new faith. Not seeing any ambassadors or missionaries, not sending his ambassadors throughout the lands, Vladimir was disposed and convinced to accept Greek Orthodox Christianity by the Kyiv Varangian Christians. And then, as for the conversion of the entire people, in this last case, as one must think, he acted not only as a person who wanted to give others the true faith, but also as a sovereign who was aware of the urgent need for this state faith. Having decided to be baptized himself and to baptize his entire people, Vladimir did not find it possible to do both at the same time, but first he himself was baptized privately, and in all likelihood - in a more or less secret way, and began the general baptism of the people only after quite a long preparation. Before the general baptism of the people, Vladimir needed to enter into relations with the Greeks for the hierarchical structure of the future Russian church. Since for state purposes he considered it necessary for himself to have a kinship alliance with the emperors of Constantinople, he entered into these relations in a very original way, namely, as the conqueror of the Greeks. After embarking on the general baptism of the people, Vladimir had many years at his disposal; as a result, he not only began it, but also brought it to the very end, baptizing the entire Russian-Slavic part of Rus', which then constituted its own Russian state. Everything internal is expressed and personified in the external. The Christian church planted in Rus' demanded external representation, demanded a church in the sense of a building that would be the church of all Rus' and the mother of all Russian churches, which, in a word, would materially and monumentally represent the Russian spiritual church. (Just as in Moscow Rus' the Moscow Assumption Cathedral represented it, and now in St. Petersburg Rus' it is represented by St. Isaac’s Cathedral). Vladimir began to build such an all-Russian church, or, in other words, a church absolutely exceptional in size and splendor, the only one made of stone among wooden churches, soon after he began the general baptism of the people, namely, the next year after the campaign against Korsun, and, after building for five years, he finished in 996 312. As if entrusting baptized Rus' to the protection of this church, dedicated to the Mother of God (the Feast of the Dormition) and from the tithe given to it, which received the name Tithe, Vladimir prayed in it for Rus' for the first time after its completion: “Lord God! look down from heaven and see and visit your vineyards, and accomplish what your right hand has planted—this new people, whose heart you have set in mind to know you, the true God.” This church, which materially personified the spiritual Russian church, being erected on that hill on which there had previously been the main pagan prayer site and on which the idol of the main pagan god, Perun, had previously stood, represented a true trophy (triumph? Approx. Per.) of Christianity over paganism 313. Having accomplished the great work of baptizing Rus' and introducing it into the family of peoples called to historical life, having been the decider of its fate and our first Peter the Great, Vladimir, like this latter, died in old age, far from advanced, at 55-56 years of age and no more, on July 15, 1015 314. He had some individual, sharply prominent traits in his character that could not remain without memory in posterity and which are mentioned in one way or another in all the legends speaking about him. He was, firstly, one of those infinitely generous people who consider everything that belongs to them as much their property as that of everyone around them. Secondly, he was one of those truly humane natures who do not understand how you can be happy yourself when everyone around you is not as happy. For all this, looking at life, not as an ascetic, which he was not, but from that, for non-ascetics and within the limits of the completely correct point of view, that “life is given to us for life” (we mean what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Epistle to Timothy, IV, 3-5), Vladimir wanted the life of those around him to flow in complete contentment and joy, and for those who owe the prince contentment and joy there were as many people as possible. When Vladimir became a Christian, this inclination and the need of his nature to generously please people were expressed in the Christian virtue of boundless mercy towards the poor and wretched. He had it instituted that every week in the grand-ducal palace there would be a rich feast for all the palace and city officials and for the best city citizens, with and without him: “All week long, set up a feast in the courtyard in the Gridnitsa and come as a bolyar and a Grid and a socialist and a tenth and a deliberate husband with the prince and without the prince; There was an abundance of meat, of livestock, and of animals; there was an abundance of everything.” They organized deliberate feasts on the most extensive scales, on the occasion of some holidays (which in ancient times were generally celebrated in our country, unlike today, as discussed below). The chronicle says about the consecration and consecration of the church in Vasilevo: “build a church and create a great holiday, boiling 300 broth with 315 honey, and call (that is, every year on the day of consecration of the church) your bolyars and mayors, elders throughout the city and many people ... The prince celebrated 8 days and returned to Kiev for the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos 316 and then again created a great holiday, calling in a countless multitude of people.” The chronicle says about Vladimir’s Christian mercy towards the poor and wretched: “He commanded every poor and wretched person to come to the prince’s courtyard and collect everything he needed - drink and food and from the cowgirls in kunami 317. Build and behold, the rivers: “for weakness and sickness cannot endure my yard” - commanded to build a stake 318 and store up bread, meat, fish, various vegetables, honey in beans, and in others kvass, carry around the city, asking: where is the sick and the poor, you cannot go? I will distribute the goods according to the needs.” This testimony of the chronicle may seem exaggerated, but it is fully confirmed by the testimony of Metropolitan Hilarion and the monk Jacob. “Who confesses,” exclaims the first, “many are your nightly alms and daytime generosities, even to the poor, to the orphaned and to the sick, to the needy and to widows and to all who require mercy! I heard the word of the Lord... Do not place what is spoken as a matter of hearing, but put what you have heard into action, giving to those who ask, clothing the naked, satisfying the greedy and greedy, sending every consolation to the sick, redeeming what is due, freeing the laborers. Your generosity and alms are still remembered in people today.” The second writes: “Prince Volodymer did most of all the alms: if he is weak and old, he cannot milk the prince of the court and I need to take him, then he sends him to the court; Blessed Prince Volodimer will give everything to the weak and old. And I cannot say many of his alms: not only in his house he did alms, but throughout the whole city, not in Kyiv alone, but throughout the entire Russian land - both in towns and in villages, he did alms everywhere, clothing the naked, feeding the greedy and giving water to the greedy, strange peace with mercy; the poor and the orphans and the widows and the blind and the lame and the laboring, all having mercy and clothing and feeding and water.” On deliberate holidays, such as the consecration of churches, Vladimir distributed huge amounts of money to the poor - up to 300 hryvnia or more. Vladimir was not canonized immediately after his death, and not even very soon. What was the reason for this, we cannot say positively, but with probability we assume that it was in those abundant feasts of which we have just spoken. The memory of them lived for a long time among the people 319 and they could confuse and make it difficult for the people’s conscience to recognize Vladimir as a saint, for feasts and holiness, which - according to later, one-sided concepts - became an indispensable synonym for asceticism, should have seemed difficult to reconcile. Vladimir could have been recognized as a saint when the living memory of his feasts - honorable feasts and his dining - honorable tables finally completely disappeared, remaining only in folk epics, and when he remained to represent the people only as the baptist of Rus'. We don’t know exactly when or how this happened; the service to Vladimir was written according to the signs in the pre-Mongol period, but not at the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century or even earlier, as Eminence Philaret thinks and as Eminence Macarius is inclined to think, but probably at the end of the 12th or at the beginning of the 13th century, for for the contemporary Russian princes of its author, Vladimir is not a grandfather or great-grandfather, but already a forefather 320; then, as far as we have information at the present time, he is called a saint in the chronicle for the first time under the year 1254 (Ipatskaya, cf. in the same place under the year 1229), and the celebration of his memory as a saint is mentioned for the first time in the chronicle under the year 1263 (Lavrentievskaya). Monk Jacob, defending the deceased Vladimir from the criticism that he does not work miracles, says: “We are not surprised, beloved, if he does not work miracles after death: for many righteous saints did not work miracles, but they are holy. Saint Chrysostom speaks nowhere about this 321: How do we know and understand a holy person? Is it from miracles or from works? And the speech: Learn by works, not by miracles”... etc.. The Chronicle, and behind it the Life of Volodimer, 322 complaining about their contemporaries that they do not give him what he deserves for his great good deed of baptizing the Russian land, forgetting to pray for him on the day of his memory, as a result of which God could glorify him, they say reproachfully: “It is wonderful, how much good the Russians have done for the land by baptizing it. We, the peasants of existence, do not pay homage to him by giving up... Yes, if we had labored and brought prayers to God on the day of his repose, if God had seen our efforts towards him, he would have glorified and "... Vladimir was buried in the Church of the Tithes, built by him, in the chapel of St. Clement, where his marble coffin was placed next to the same coffin of his wife, Princess Anna, who had died before him 323. The relics of Vladimir, buried under the ruins of the Tithe Church during the Mongol invasion, remained in the ground until the first half of the 17th century, until Metropolitan Peter Mogila. This last one, renewed in 1635. Church of the Tithes, found the coffin of Vladimir and took out the remains from it (all or only part of it is unknown), of which the head is currently in the large church of the Pechersk Monastery, a hand bone - in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, one jaw from the head - in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral (This last one was sent as a gift to Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich by Peter Mogila in 1640, and the metropolitan, among other things, asked the sovereign to “order his sovereign master, with his royal treasury, to make a shrine on the relic of his ancestor, the holy and equal-to-the-apostles Prince Vladimir, which will be placed with his relic at St. Sophia, which will be built by the Grand Duke Yaroslav his son.” - Acts of Southern and Western Russia, III, p. 29 and 44. The transfer of the relics from the Tithe Church to St. Sophia, together with the coffin of St. Theodosius of Pechersk (sic), was supposed to be carried out in the same year, upon receipt of the reliquary - ibid., p. 29). (The Nikon Chronicle and the Degree Book claim that Vladimir not only wanted to be the baptizer of his Rus', but also thought about spreading Christianity between neighboring peoples. They say that he sent his missionary (a Greek by birth) to the Volga-Kama Bulgarians (the first - I, 95, the second - I, 147). The news, of course, is not particularly reliable (and in detail fabulous), but it cannot be said that it is completely and obviously incredible. Great people, to whom Vladimir undoubtedly belonged, have a tendency to create great and broad plans - and who knows, maybe - he actually dreamed of creating a union of the peoples of Eastern Europe, in contrast to the union of the new peoples of Western Europe. When the same Nikon Chronicle and Degree Book report that a number of Bulgarians came to Vladimir’s service and accepted Orthodox Christianity from him? and the Pecheneg princes (the first - I, 95 and 103, the second - I, 149), then they do not report anything incredible: These arrivals mean the same as the later “boyars’ “arrivals” to the princes and departures from them). II. Yaroslav, the finisher of Vladimirov’s work from the spiritual side. After the death of Vladimir, civil strife arose in his family. The eldest son, Svyatopolk, fearing the rivalry of the brothers or wanting at the same time to be the autocrat, decided to beat them. After killing three people - Boris of Rostov, Gleb of Murom and Svyatoslav Drevlyansky, he met resistance in Yaroslav of Novgorod. The internecine war that lasted between the brothers for five years ended in favor of Yaroslav, who took the throne of the Grand Duke, thus becoming Vladimir’s successor in establishing Christianity in Rus'. Having taken the throne of the Grand Duke not by right of seniority, but by chance, and having at the same time such a bad past as open enmity with his father, Yaroslav, fortunately, turned out to be a completely worthy successor to his father in both the state and church spheres. In this last area, he was a zealous continuer and finisher of what Vladimir began, but did not finish. Indicating what Yaroslav did and, at the same time, the relationship of his activity to the previous activity of Vladimir, the chronicler says: “As someone will destroy the earth, another will sow, so this one (Yaroslav): for his father Volodimer softened his gaze, enlightening him with baptism, and sowing the hearts of faithful people with book words.” The activity of Yaroslav or what he did was that he made Rus', baptized by Vladimir, bookish and literate, or in other words, that, after the introduction of external Christianity in Russia, he gave it the means to become Christian internally. We said above that Vladimir, immediately or shortly after returning from Korsun, recruited the children of the deliberate children and distributed them to the teachers received from Greece, and that this action of his should be understood as an attack on the implementation of the desire and concern to introduce enlightenment in Russia. These concerns of Vladimir to introduce enlightenment in Russia were undoubtedly supported by Yaroslav, as we will talk about this below. But what we are talking about now must be distinguishable from them and must be presented not as a continuation of what Vladimir has already begun, but as something new and special. Real enlightenment could only be introduced to a small class of selected and conspicuous children or the highest aristocracy. For only those who belonged to it could have the desire and motivation to send their children to real teaching, and only they could have the means to pay teachers for it, since it could not be free or government-funded. After the highest aristocracy there remained several classes of all other people. Here it was impossible to think about real enlightenment and at the same time it was impossible to leave people with nothing, because in this way they would remain not at all enlightened in Christianity. Real enlightenment here had to be replaced by simple literacy - the ability to read and then one’s own more or less diligent reading of teacher books. In order to bring Rus' to the opportunity to become literate and reading, it was necessary to deliver books to it, it is understood, borrowing the latter from the outside: this is what Yaroslav did. Concerns about means of public literacy or about these books under Vladimir were still premature, because throughout his reign the mass of the people should have remained cold to Christianity. And, consequently, have very little desire for teaching in it 324. But during the reign of Yaroslav, after forty to fifty years after baptism, Christianity had already managed, if not in all of Rus' - which is completely impossible to assume - then at least in Kyiv itself to more or less strengthen or take root in all layers of society. Thus, during the reign of Yaroslav, at least in Kyiv itself, an attachment to Christianity appeared in all layers of society and a larger or smaller part of its citizens became completely real Christians in their feelings. As a result, concerns about national literacy, premature under Vladimir, now turned out to be urgently needed. Yaroslav's great merit was that he, so to speak, without delaying the flow of history and the natural course of life, did not turn out to be deaf to the next urgent need of the time. The chronicle says about Yaroslav’s activities regarding the transfer of literacy and book literacy to Rus': “and (Yaroslav) gathered many scribes and translated from the Greeks into Slovenian writing, and copied many books, .. having written many (books), put them in St. Sophia - the church that he himself created.” The chronicler’s not entirely intelligible speech, it seems, should be understood in such a way that Yaroslav, firstly, gathered many scribes who rewrote ready-made Slavic translations. And secondly, that he found translators who translated from Greek into Slavic, and that in this way, in one way or another, he delivered quite a lot of books to the Russians. If this is not how the chronicler should be understood, then at least this is how the matter itself should be presented. In Bulgaria, before us, a lot of books were translated from Greek into Slavic; to translate the same books again and not want to simply use ready-made translations would obviously be a lack of any sense. Therefore, it must be assumed that before translating, Yaroslav took care to purchase ready-made translations from Bulgaria that existed there. After receiving these translations, he himself could, as the chronicle assures, force the translation of those books that were not in the translations, and which he found necessary - we will talk about this latter in more detail below. Yaroslav placed all the collected books, both through simple copying and through translations, in the saint he created. Sofia. To acquire translations of books in one way or another, collect them in one place and thus make one public library out of them is, apparently, a small matter and, in any case, too small to introduce literacy in the country. In reality it was a very difficult matter; this was all that could be done, and this fully achieved the intended goal. At that time there was no printing of books, but there was handwriting; writing was then statutory, and the material for books was leather glassine, as a result of which the writing process had to be completed extremely slowly. According to all this, the preparation of books at that time was a matter of such great difficulty and importance, which we cannot even form an idea about, and which to people who know how to imagine the matter only in the form of going to a store and buying a book, may perhaps even seem funny. Nowadays, if you only have money, it costs nothing to compile a library of even several million volumes. At that time, it was not only a matter of money, which required the same amount for one manuscript as now almost half a thousand printed books 325, but something else that could not be dealt with by any amount of money. It was necessary to find, firstly, skilled scribes; and since there is no doubt that such scribes at that time were unusually rare, it was obviously impossible to create extra scribes against how many of them were available with any money, and, therefore, one had to be content with those who were, no matter how few they were. Secondly, no amount of money could ensure that scribes wrote manuscripts faster than they could; but they could, as we have already said, write only extremely slowly. Suppose that Yaroslav compiled under St. Sophia has a library of five hundred medium-sized manuscripts (like the Ostromir Gospel). Each scribe could write only two such manuscripts per year; therefore, ten scribes could write five hundred manuscripts in only 25 years. The chronicle says that Yaroslav gathered many scribes. In Kyiv at that time, under no circumstances could he find more than ten scribes; Let us assume that he obtained ten more scribes from Bulgaria, and that in this way he was able to collect twenty scribes in total. For these twenty scribes to write a library of five hundred manuscripts, it took no less than twelve years and a half. From this it is clear that in the time of Yaroslav, compiling one decent library was a matter of the greatest labor, and that compiling such a library was an event of the greatest, truly historical, importance 326. One public library for the whole country, this was apparently too few, and this, apparently, did not sufficiently achieve the goal of its establishment that we indicated above. It actually wasn't very much. But, firstly, according to the then conditions of Rus', few such public libraries could actually be established, namely only two - in Kyiv and also in Novgorod. For at that time only these two cities were such central cities not only for their districts, but for all of Rus', that it was possible to establish public libraries in them with real meaning. To establish them in any other cities would mean spending enormous amounts of effort and money so that the expenditure would bring the most insignificant benefit (doing almost the same thing as building, for example, a bridge across the Volga in order to make it possible for one village to travel across it). Thus, by establishing a public library in Kyiv, Yaroslav actually did half the job. We do not know whether he was able to do the whole job, that is, to set up two libraries. But, in any case, there was no need for a second library yet, and what he did was all that needed to be done, for Novgorod, as we positively know, in the time of Yaroslav was still very far from realizing the need for a library of Christian educational books 327. Perhaps another reader, not immediately understanding the matter, will ask the question: how was the public library established by Yaroslav supposed to serve to establish literacy and book literacy in Rus'? In fact, this is quite simple, and after very little reflection on the matter, a completely opposite question will arise: how else could this have happened? For bookishness to take root, it was necessary for books to appear. For books to appear, it was necessary that they could be copied from something. But why would they write them off if the government had not established a state-owned public library for this purpose? Books already translated into Slavic had to be obtained from Bulgaria; books that had not yet been translated, but were desired to be translated, had to be obtained in the originals from Greece and then translated. Was this possible for private individuals? If Yaroslav had not done what he did, then there is no doubt that we would still not have been left without bookishness, but then we would not have immediately received a completely sufficient range of teaching writing for us, but would have acquired everything even more or less necessary, speaking almost without exaggeration, over the course of entire centuries. The chronicle does not tell us anything, but based on information about later times and the most likely naturalness of the matter, it is necessary to assume that the public library established by Yaroslav in Kyiv immediately gave birth to a special class of artisans - book scribes. That these scribes, representing ancient printing houses, began to copy - copy and sell books, and that this is how bookishness began... We do not know whether Yaroslav, when establishing his library, had in mind its necessity in another very important respect. Books then were written, not printed. If errors are possible when typing, they are ten and twenty times more possible when writing. So that, as copying occurs from scribe to scribe, errors do not completely fill the books, it is necessary that there be possibly correct lists from which new lists could be corrected, so that there exist, as we called such lists in the old days, “good translations.” But where could book scribes and anyone else in general look for good translations if they were not in a public, well-known and generally accessible place? So, Vladimir was the baptist of Russia, and Yaroslav was the instiller of bookishness in it, its - so to speak - its spoiler. We have already said above that national literacy, which presupposes only the ability to read and which we talked about now, should be distinguished from real enlightenment, as something special from it. After Vladimir, there is no doubt that Yaroslav also took care of maintaining education in the upper class of society, although we do not have any direct evidence regarding this. It is necessary to assume this, firstly, because the matter was started too recently for people to have already lost interest in it and given up on it. Secondly, Yaroslav was not at all the kind of person who was capable of abandoning the good undertakings of his father. If one can conclude from his concerns about raising his own children (which we will discuss in more detail below) to his concerns about education in general, then it is necessary to think that he cared about him no less than Vladimir 328. While completing the building of the Russian church, half of which had been erected by Vladimir, Yaroslav continued to take care of the completion of what remained not quite finished in the previously erected part of it. Immediately after the start of the baptism of the people, Vladimir ordered churches to be cut down in cities and priests to be placed in them. After some time, there is no doubt, he ordered the first to be cut down and the second to be placed not only in cities, but also in villages. But still, for the whole of Rus', so much of both was required that during the entire period of his reign some could not be cut down, while others could not be supplied in sufficient quantities. Yaroslav, according to the chronicle, diligently cared about the multiplication of priests and churches, although there is no doubt that his concerns still did not lead to the fact that there were quite enough priests and churches. The example of Novgorod shows that during the reign of Yaroslav the matter of preparing candidates for priesthood was still entirely in the care of the government. Under the year 1030, the chronicles report that Yaroslav, having come to Novgorod, gathered 300 people from the elders and the priest’s children and ordered them to teach books. This news, usually not entirely correctly understood, means that Yaroslav ordered the recruiting of the elders, who were representatives of peasant societies, and through them, peasant (but not their own) children 329, and also priestly children, and to distribute both of them to teach literacy with the aim of preparing them for priesthood. If the government itself had to take care of the preparation of candidates for priests in Novgorod, then it, of course, had to take care of them in other places. It always happens that when people do something, they also take care, if possible, of beauty, decency, dignity, depending on which of these qualities is required, in general, of external appearance and representativeness. Naturally, the founders of the Russian church cared not only that it existed, but also that it had a decent appearance. Vladimir began these concerns by building the Church of the Tithes; Yaroslav continued them, combining them with the same kind of government concerns. With the adoption of Christianity, Rus' became a European state. Consequently, it was necessary to take care of the representativeness of Kyiv not only as the capital of the church, but also as the capital of a European state. A decent capital certainly had to have a decent “Kremlin” or what at that time was called a city in the proper sense. The original Kremlin or city of Kyiv, pre-Oleg, was small and insignificant, which the chronicle makes clear when it calls it diminutively “gradok” 330. Vladimir built his new city on the fence that was before him, where the princely suburban tower stood and where the main place of prayer for the people of Kiev was, and where he (Vladimir) later built the church of St. Vasily and Tithes 331. But, probably, this second city did not correspond to the dignity of the capital of the state: Yaroslav built a third city, the comparative vastness of which is evidenced by the chronicle, calling it a “great city.” Imitating Constantinople, which was and should have been an ideal for us, Yaroslav named the main entrance gate to the city Golden - no doubt, arranging them to some extent in accordance with the prototype and decorating them according to the name. A church was erected on the gate in the name of the Annunciation for the purpose, as Metropolitan Hilarion explained, “if the Archangel gives a kiss to the Maiden, there will be a blessing for this city; to her: Rejoice, joyful one, the Lord is with you; to the city: Rejoice, blessed one of the city, the Lord is with you” 332. In his new city, Yaroslav built a new grand-ducal palace, which served as the residence for subsequent grand dukes, and which, if it was not good in all respects, which we do not know, was at least relatively extensive, for, unlike other princely palaces that existed in Kyiv and near it, it is called the “great courtyard” 333. With these civil buildings, having made Kyiv a small Constantinople, as the capital of the state, Yaroslav then wanted to make it the same regarding the Christian shrine. In his new city, he erected the Church of Sophia - the Wisdom of God, in accordance with the famous Sophia of Constantinople. With this last Sophia, which at that time was literally the only church in the entire Christian world, the Sophia erected by Yaroslav had nothing in common except the name. (Not at all being an imitation of it in form, as is usually thought), but compared to what other new peoples had at that time, it was undoubtedly a magnificent church, a church that the Russians had every right to be proud of. And about which contemporaries could say without boasting that it is “a marvelous and glorious church to all the surrounding countries, as if nothing else would be found in the entire midnight earth from east to west” 334 . Near the Church of St. Sofia, Yaroslav built two princely or - so to speak - court monasteries, a men's monastery - in honor of his angel St. George, and the female one - in honor of the angel of his wife, St. Irina. Having done what we have now indicated for the civil and church decoration of Kyiv, Yaroslav, of course, did not make it in any way similar to one of the current capitals. But everything is measured and assessed relatively - for its time, this little was so much that the capital city of Rus' received from then the right to be called a “glorious and great city 335.” Vladimir and Yaroslav were the planters of Christianity in Rus': the first baptized her externally, the second enlightened her with educational books, giving her the means to move from external to internal Christianity. The matter was far from completely over - a whole half of Rus' remained externally unbaptized; Christianity began to become internal and true only in Kyiv itself. Nevertheless, Rus' has now become a country, undoubtedly, and completely Christian. In the first respect, Christianity was not yet completely established in it, but already completely firmly and irrevocably; in the second respect, Christianity was just beginning, but for it it had already been done so that it would not stop at this beginning: in both respects, time remained to continue and finish its own. III. The final spread of Christianity in Rus' after Vladimir. We said above that Vladimir baptized half of Rus', which was purely Russian in population, and left unbaptized the other half, which was either foreign in population, like the Rostov and Murom regions with a significant part of the Novgorod region, or although Slavic, but not purely Russian, like the land of Vyatichi. When we say that Vladimir baptized the Russian half of Rus', then, as we have already noticed before, this should be understood not so that he baptized every single person in it, but so that he baptized the majority of the inhabitants, that he declared Christianity a faith that should be accepted by all, and that he banned paganism. Through concealment, which was very possible, there is no doubt that many more remained pagans, and thus in this baptized part of Rus' Christianity could have established itself completely only over time. With what gradualness it was installed here and how quickly it was finally installed, we have absolutely no positive information regarding this, and, therefore, we can simply assume that it was installed little by little, as time passed. In the same way, having no information at all about the final and complete establishment of Christianity in the foreign and foreign regions we have named, we will only say what we know about its planting in them as a faith that replaced paganism. If Kyiv did not leave us reliable information about its conversion to Christianity, then all the less we have the right to ask this from some remote foreign regions in which writing began too late or did not begin at all until later. Of which some did not soon begin to think, and others did not even think about keeping their individual chronicles 336 and in which oral tradition, as always happens in remote places, had all its freedom and all its freedom. We said above that Vladimir, guided by the motives of state prudence, did not want to baptize foreign Rus' by force and coercion. As much as we know and as much as we can assume, this force was not used in the matter of their conversion and subsequently, and among all of them Christianity was initially established by the moral efforts of preachers who were not armed, in the proper sense, but was finally established along with their Russification and as a result of this latter. The first founders of Christianity in Rostov and its region were its bishops, whose cathedra was established there during the first division of Russia into dioceses or during the first introduction of diocesan administration in our country, which happened in the fifth year after the baptism of Vladimir and in the third year after his return from Korsun, namely in 991. Not intending to baptize foreigners by force and coercion, as was the case with his own Russia (which was baptized not only by preaching, but also by coercion), Vladimir established an episcopal see in Rostov. It must be thought because in this city, too remote from its own Rus', the need for a bishop was recognized for the Russian colony that was in it and for officials 337, and that he already represented the convenience for the establishment of a see (which, probably, the no less distant Murom did not represent). And then the bishops, of course, from the very beginning had as their mission not by force and coercion, but by free persuasion, to persuade and convert foreigners to Christianity. The first Bishop of Rostov was Theodore, a Greek by birth, like all the first Russian bishops in general. With the assistance of civil power, which was then personified in the person of the appanage prince 338, by the hands of pagans or Christians called from baptized Rus', he built a magnificent wooden temple in Rostov. But his efforts, large or small, to somehow introduce Christianity among the local foreigners were completely in vain. The second bishop was Hilarion, probably also a Greek, although the later positive evidence about this has absolutely no historical authority. The preaching between foreigners and this second bishop was also unsuccessful. A later legend, which speaks of the vain efforts of Theodore and Hilarion to introduce Christianity among the Rostovites, says that both bishops, one after the other, “cannot tolerate unbelief and the annoyance of people, escaping” from their sees; but, not having conquered unbelief, they were completely protected from harassment by civil authorities 339. The third Bishop of Rostov was St. Leonty. According to some not entirely reliable news 340), he was born and raised a Greek of Constantinople. According to others, also not entirely reliable, 341 he was tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery, from which the most likely conclusion is that he was Russian. Reconciling the news in a not entirely plausible way, they want to present the matter in such a way that he was a Greek by birth, but that, having come to Russia, he took monastic vows and labored in the Pechersk Monastery, from which he was elevated to the see. If our information about the year of his successor’s installation is correct, then he occupied the department for an unknown amount of time, until 1077 342. St. Leonty managed to become the baptizer of Rostov, which his two predecessors sought in vain (unless, however, they really sought it). How he achieved this, that is, how he conducted the work of preaching that led to baptism, the details are completely unknown. His life, written a hundred years after his death, says that, leaving adults rooted in paganism, he tried to teach children. That the first, being irritated by his preaching, decided to kill him. But when they wanted to do this, he came out to them in sacred vestments, with the cathedral of priests and deacons. That they were amazed at the wonderful vision of his face, like the face of an angel, and that as a result of this a common desire to be baptized followed. The preaching of the first two bishops, which had no direct consequences, could have resulted, at least, in preparing the minds of the pagans for the acceptance of Christianity, and the church, built by the first of them, had to constantly preach to them that Christianity, accepted throughout Russian Rus', would not be eliminated. Having delivered a sermon upon arrival at the pulpit and then, urgently addressing it to the best and most already Russified citizens, St. Leontius was finally able to influence their prepared minds, and the rest followed their example, or at least the majority of these latter 343. The successor of St. Leontius was St. Isaiah 344, originally Russian, tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery, after which he was abbot at the Kiev Izyaslav Monastery of St. Dimitri. He occupied the Rostov department, to which he was elevated from the now mentioned abbess, from 1077 to 1089, therefore, for 12 years 345. St. Isaiah was the successor of St. Leonty in the work of apostleship and the successor of his works. Some of the residents of Rostov, who did not want to be baptized at the first time, remained not baptized under him, but he laid the foundation for Christianity in other cities and places in the Rostov region and the Suzdal region connected to it. We have already said above that both in everything and in the matter of changing the faith, the example of the older cities of each region was very important, which the younger cities considered themselves obliged to follow in everything. The example of Rostov was supposed to have an effect on other cities in the region, followed little by little by the villages that belonged to them. How much St. managed to do. Isaiah, i.e. to what extent he managed to establish Christianity in the Rostov region, we do not know. A very late biography writer vaguely says: “and (Isaiah) goes around other cities and places in the Rostov and Suzdal regions and exhorts the infidels to believe in the Holy Trinity - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and enlightens them with holy baptism.” The most important city in the region after Rostov was Suzdal, which formed the main city of the separate region of Suzdal: it is necessary to assume that Saint Isaiah first of all turned his attention to it. Under 1096 We find in the chronicle the news that this year in Suzdal the monastery courtyard of the Pechersky Monastery and the church, where there is St. Dmitry, Ephraim and the village went to the south.” Who exactly should be meant here by Ephraim remains unknown - if the bishop (metropolitan) of Pereyaslavl, which is usually assumed, but which is very unlikely 346, then the dacha could have taken place during the life of Isaiah, for this Ephraim was his contemporary. If his own successor at the Rostov department, which is not only much more likely, but which, strictly speaking, is the only probable one, then the dacha could only happen after his death. Be that as it may, the construction of the church that existed in 1096 can most likely be attributed to the reign of Isaiah, and thus the baptism of Suzdal can most likely be attributed to him. It seems very plausible to think that the Pechersk monks, who received the aforementioned church as a gift from Isaiah’s successor, were also the latter’s assistants in the baptism of the city, for, as we said above, he himself was one of the tonsures of the Pechersk Monastery 347. After the death of Yaroslav the Great, the Rostov region was annexed to the inheritance of Pereslavl of Russia or Kyiv and went to his youngest son Vsevolod. The son of this latter, the famous Vladimir Monomakh, in his youth traveled to Rostov many times and, as we have positive evidence, was very fond of him and his region 348. Since Monomakh’s youth falls precisely during the years of ruling the Rostov See of St. Isaiah 349, then with all probability it can and should be assumed that the bishop in his apostolic activity found the most zealous and zealous helper in the truly and zealously pious prince, as far as this was within the latter’s means and as far as it depended on him. St. managed to do a lot or little. Isaiah to spread Christianity in the Rostov region, in any case, he managed to make that first beginning, which was most important and which, soon or not soon, but necessarily had to be followed by the desired end. The further more or less rapid spread of Christianity in the region should have been greatly facilitated by civil power, which, on the one hand, with a solid start in place, could already use force and coercion without fear, and on the other hand, should have contributed to the goal by multiplying churches. The Rostov region consisted, in fact, of three regions - the Rostov region in the closest sense, the Suzdal region and Belozerye. After St. Boris, the Rostov region did not have its own princes for a whole century until the beginning of the 12th century 350. From that time on, princes appeared in it again, but the leading role in this case was not Rostov, but Suzdal. The first appanage prince given to the Rostov region at the beginning of the 12th century was not the prince of Rostov, but of Suzdal 351. Soon the Suzdal region in the newly founded Vladimir even became the center of all Rus', while Rostov began to have its own appanage princes no earlier than in 1207 352. The princes of the Suzdal region were at the same time the princes of the Rostov region. But since, of course, they first cared about the first and then about the second, then on this basis it is necessary to assume that Christianity was finally established not in the Rostov region, but in the Suzdal region. In the remote and vast Belozerye, which began to have its own separate princes only after the Mongol invasion, Christianity spread, no doubt, very slowly and was finally established very late 353. A later legend attributes the baptism of Murom to Prince Konstantin Svyatoslavich, grandson of Yaroslav the Great, great-grandson of Vladimir the Saint, by which, obviously, we must mean Yaroslav Svyatoslavich, the first prince of Murom after St. Gleb and the founder of the subsequent house of the princes of Murom and Ryazan, planted in Murom in 1096 and after a 33-year reign there, died in 1129 354. Making this prince live a whole century later against his actual time, the legend presents the matter as follows. After St. Gleb, who tried in vain to convert the Murom residents to Christianity, they lived on their own, living in filth and evil, for more than two hundred years. Finally, God breathed into the heart of the aforementioned Prince Konstantin Svyatoslavich the desire to become an educator of Murom, and he began to ask his father to let him rule in Murom. Released by his father and supplied by him with an army to take the city, Konstantin sent ahead of himself to exhort the Murom people to surrender and submit to his son Mikhail. When the Muromites killed this last one, Konstantin approached the city to take it by force. After a short resistance, the Murom residents surrendered and allowed the prince to come to them, but they resolutely did not want to accept Christianity. Finally, God, having heard the prince’s long and fervent prayers, softened the hearts of the stubborn people, and they expressed a desire to be baptized. This whole story is nothing more than fiction; we don’t know whether its origin owes to the general forces of the Murom people or to that one 16th-century rhetorician who wrote the legend. After St. Gleba Murom did not fall away from the power of Rus' and did not live on his own, but, remaining under the aforementioned power, he and his region belonged to the Chernigov inheritance 355. Prince Yaroslav Svyatoslavovich, who had no need to take Murom by force, but simply received it as his inheritance (from the inheritance of Chernigov), could not be its first baptizer because in 1096, in which he was placed in the reign of Murom (not by his father, who had long been dead, but by his elder brother Oleg), there was already a monastery in the city of Murom 356, from which it undoubtedly follows that in it Christianity was already there. To which preachers Moore owes his Christianity remains unknown. Since, belonging to the Chernigov inheritance, he at the same time belonged to the Chernigov diocese, it is most likely to assume here the works of the Chernigov bishops and the persons sent by them and who came from them. The existence of a monastery in Murom in 1096 shows that Christianity was introduced there not immediately before this year, but at least 10–15 years before, and, therefore, its first introduction there should be dated back to at least 1085–1080, which would mean that Murom was baptized 20–15 years after Rostov, and precisely at the same time as Christianity was spreading in region of Rostov, appeared in the city closest to him, this last one - Suzdal. That Prince Yaroslav or Konstantin Svyatoslavich, who reigned in Murom for 33 years, without being its first baptizer, could greatly contribute to the spread and establishment of Christianity in it, this is entirely probable, although we do not yet know anything positive 357 . The Ryazan region belonged to the Murom region. We also have absolutely no information about her baptism. Since Ryazan was closer to Chernigov, the main city of the entire appanage and the seat of the regional bishop, and since it was a part of the foreign region of Murom directly adjacent to its own Russia, baptized from the very beginning, it must be assumed with absolute probability that it became Christian before Murom and, in any case, not later than it. The Vyatichi and Radimichi, being not foreigners, but the same Slavs, only of a different tribe, were baptized much later than the foreigners mentioned above 358. From all the news that we have, it is clear that our princes had as much trouble with these ancient Poles on our territory as we do with modern ones. Having been conquered for the first time by Oleg, and then being conquered again many times, they remained only tributaries of Rus', who very poorly recognized its power and had their own princes, no less than until the end of the 11th century: Vladimir Monomakh in his spiritual letter, among his military campaigns, mentions three campaigns against the Vyatichi and their princes. While the Vyatichi remained Vyatichi, that is, while their region, being only under some jurisdiction of Rus', was ruled by its own princes, there was no point in thinking about trying to baptize them. These attempts could only begin when the Vyatichi were completely conquered by the Russians, and when, deprived of their princes, they received a government in the person of Russian officials, which happened no earlier than the end of the 11th century (probably after the campaigns of Vladimir Monomakh mentioned above). Before its complete conquest, the Vyatichi region was considered to belong, and after the conquest it actually began to belong to the appanage principality of Chernigov. In all likelihood, through the efforts of the Chernigov princes and bishops, Christianity was gradually introduced among them. However, we know absolutely nothing positive about these efforts. Of the probably considerable number of preachers who worked on the conversion of people especially stubborn in paganism, we know only one outsider - this is the monk of the Pechersk Monastery of St. Kuksha, who lived around the half of the 12th century and who, it is unknown how many Vyatichi he baptized, suffered martyrdom from the unbaptized. The history of this baptizer of the Vyatichi suggests that Christianity was just being introduced among them. If the pagans dared to raise their hands against him in view of the Russian authorities, then it is clear that he was one of the very first preachers, when paganism was still in all its strength and did not even think of giving way to Christianity. All the information we have about the Vyatichi forces us to assume that the latter spread between them very slowly and did not finally settle down very soon 359. The Novgorodians with the Ladojans and the Izborian-Pskovians represented in their current place of residence Slavic colonists who, having come from somewhere, settled in foreign, Chud or Finnish, land. And who, declaring themselves masters of foreigners and the supreme owners of their entire vast territory, really or nominally subjugating them to their power (just as Europeans occupied the lands of savages in America, Africa and Australia), founded their industrial-commercial (exploitation) state among them 360. It must be assumed that this founding of the colony took place more or less long before the founding of our state by Rurik. But, on the other hand, it seems equally probable to think that in the period of time that passed from the founding of the colony to the introduction of Christianity in Russia by Vladimir, the Russification of foreigners proceeded very slowly. And that at the moment of this introduction the relationship between the Slavs and foreigners in a peculiar state was almost the same as in Kyiv between the Varangians and the Slavs. On this basis, it is necessary to think that only very few cities in the Novgorod region were baptized by Vladimir - Novgorod, Ladoga, Pskov, and that then the rest of the rural-rural land was given to the future. We also know nothing about the subsequent baptism of the vast Novgorod region, the ancient limits of which can only be defined indefinitely: “where the scythe and the ax went,” as well as about the baptism of other regions that were discussed above. In general, we must assume that Christianity little by little spread in the region not so much through the deliberate efforts of the Novgorodians, which we have very little reason to assume, but by itself as the Russification of foreigners who, turning into Russians, at the same time or subsequently converted to Christianity. The foreigners in the area closest to Novgorod were soon or not soon to become Russified in a solid mass, and, consequently, Christianity was soon or not going to appear here as the faith of the entire population. But in more distant places, Russification, of course, took place only in the form of the appearance of larger or smaller individual and scattered spots on a continuous foreign mass, as cities (towns), graveyards and generally residential areas with a purely Russian population arose among foreigners. In a similar way, following Russification, Christianity was supposed to spread in these more remote places. At the very end of the pre-Mongol period, in 1227, the Novgorod prince (subsequent Grand Duke) Yaroslav Vsevolodovich forcibly baptized the Karelians, whose then territory consisted of: the southeastern part of Finland, part of the current St. Petersburg province, adjacent to Lake Ladoga, most of the Olonets province and part of the Arkhangelsk province to the so-called Karelian shores of the White Sea (Semyonov's Dictionary, see Karelia), i.e., the territory of which formed the northwestern part of the Novgorod possessions. In the Laurentian Chronicle, under the year 1227, it is read about our baptism: “that same summer, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich sent to baptize many Korels, not all the people,” with which words it is quite clear that until 1227 the Karelians remained pagans in their decisive majority or in their mass. But from the Karelians it should hardly be concluded to other foreigners of the Novgorod region. The Karelians occupied an area that was not beneficial for fishing Settlements and attractive in general for living (covered with swamps or barren rocky, as a continuation of Finland), as a result of which the Russians did not occupy or encroach on lands on their territory as patrimonial possessions and did not settle between them, striving for both purposes in the so-called Zavolochye (the area between Onega and the Northern Dvina to Mezen). And for this reason, contrary to other foreigners in the region, the Karelians could remain pagans in their decisive majority or in their mass until the very end of the pre-Mongol period 361. As we said, our Magi were supposed to be deliberate fighters for paganism against Christianity. Who were not priests in the proper sense, which we did not have at all, but who among our pagans were professional ministers of religion, as soothsayers of the future and as people called to do the miraculous - “magical” or magical (to help people in all their affairs). For divination and magic constituted a necessary element of all paganism. We have very little positive news about this struggle, which could not be, as we said, stubborn and dangerous, namely only two, dating back to the same time and giving the general conclusion that the struggle, while not being stubborn and dangerous, was, however, quite long. Under the year 1071, the chronicler says: a sorcerer appeared, seduced by a demon. Arriving in Kyiv, he began to preach to the people that in the fifth summer the Dnieper would flow back, and that the lands would move from their places to others, that the Greek land would take the place of the Russian one, and the Russian land in the place of the Greek one, and that other lands would also change their places. The chronicler does not say directly that this was a sorcerer who preached precisely the restoration of paganism, and not just a sorcerer who was concerned only with magic, with the separation and isolation of the latter from paganism - so to speak, with its removal from the religious sphere. (The chronicler reads several entries about the Magi of this second category - under 1024 and then under ours in 1071). But he makes it clear that in the sorcerer one should see precisely one of the direct, deliberately speaking fighters for paganism against Christianity, when he says that he addressed the people in Kyiv with an open sermon. The Magi of the second category, or Magi solely as Magi (as a kind of industrialists), with whom the Russian land was swarming not only at the time of the chronicler, but also until very recently, had no need and could not at all find it prudent to come out with open preaching of anything to the people. For the latter would mean deliberately giving themselves over to the government 362. How to understand the above sermon of the sorcerer is not entirely clear. But, as it seems, it has the meaning that the Christian lands will be struck by the pagan gods with grave disasters and terrible upheavals, and that the Russian land, in order to avoid the evils that threaten Christians, must again return to paganism. About how the people in Kyiv greeted the sermon of the sorcerer, the chronicler says: “I did not listen to him, but I laughed, saying: the demon is playing with you to your destruction.” The fate of the sorcerer, whom the government, no doubt, did not allow to preach for a long time, was that “one night (he) was missing,” that is, that he was secretly captured and then either forever imprisoned or, which is much more likely, put to death. Between 1074 and 1078 a sorcerer appeared in Novgorod 363. According to the chronicler, he acted like a god - he said that he foresaw everything (the future), blasphemed the Christian faith and promised to walk along the Volkhov in front of everyone (as if on dry land) 364). In Novgorod, even in 1074–78, Christianity was more nominal than real: the sermon of the sorcerer caused a rebellion against the government, all the residents turned to his (the sorcerer’s) side and wanted to kill the bishop. If this last thing had happened, and the Novgorodians had become pagans again, then, it goes without saying, they would not have become pagans for long: this would have been followed by a bloody reprisal against them by the central government, i.e., Kyiv, and they would have been baptized a second time with fire and sword. Fortunately for the Novgorodians, they were saved from the terrible drama by the resourcefulness and determination of their prince Gleb Svyatoslavich. When the bishop, having put on liturgical clothes and taking a cross, went out into the square and said: “Whoever wants to believe the sorcerer, let him follow him, and whoever believes (in Christ), let him go to the cross,” then only the prince and his retinue took the side of the bishop, and the whole people went to the sorcerer, “making a great rebellion,” that is, as it should be understood, decisively and violently speaking out against Christianity. In this state of affairs, Gleb took an ax under the hem of his dress, went to the sorcerer and started a conversation with him: “Do you know what will happen tomorrow morning and all day until the evening?” - “I know everything” (answered the sorcerer). “Do you know what will happen today?” “I will perform great miracles” (the sorcerer answered). At these words, the prince pulled out an ax and cut the sorcerer in two with it. The unexpected end had the effect that the people immediately dispersed. The proximity in time of the appearance of the Magi of Kyiv and Novgorod makes us suspect to some extent that their activities were connected, therefore, makes us suspect to some extent that representatives of paganism made an organized and general attempt at this time to restore their old faith. It is quite possible, however, that the proximity was simply accidental and that both magicians acted alone, representing lonely zealots or fanatics. [The Magus of Novgorod appeared approximately in the fifth year after the prophecy of the Magus of Kyiv: doesn’t this mean that the Magi found through their sorcery, through some kind of astrology, that the fifth year from 1071. will be a year of great events, favorable for them and their cause, and was it not in the confidence of this that the sorcerer of Novgorod appeared? In Kyiv, the death of Prince Gleb Svyatoslavich, killed in 1078, was foreseen. in Zavolochye (Nikita, the recluse of Pechersk, seduced by a demon, - in the Patericon): doesn’t this mean that the prince was killed by the Magi or at their instigation and that the Kiev Magi also participated in the plan?]. There is also a third news in the chronicle about the appearance of a sorcerer, in which, in all likelihood, the sorcerer of our category, that is, who spoke openly about the restoration of paganism and the expulsion of Christianity. This sorcerer appeared in 1091. in Rostov, which around 1071, when the sorcerer of Kiev appeared, had just been baptized. The chronicler makes it known that before the sorcerer had time to appear and begin his sermon, he was captured and executed: “in the same summer (1091),” he writes 365, “the sorcerer appeared in Rostov, which soon died.” It goes without saying that in addition to attempts to openly preach about the formal restoration of paganism in the place of Christianity, the Magi conducted a constant secret sermon about the preservation of paganism along with Christianity. In this last case, the government was powerless against them, and with their preaching, of course, they contributed a lot to ensuring that dual faith remained among the people for more or less a long time - open Christianity combined with secret paganism. We will return to speeches about this later. The assurances of some Roman Catholic writers that we Russians were converted to Christianity by Latin missionaries, and the actual attempts of the popes to convert us to Christianity and to delight us from the Greeks. For which Russian would it not be extremely unexpected to learn the original truth that our ancestors were converted from paganism to Christianity by Latin missionaries, that for the first time we belonged to the Roman half of the church and that we later found ourselves on the Greek side only as a result of an uncommendable betrayal of the Holy Father? However, there are some Catholic writers who argued and still do not mind asserting this. Medieval writing, as is known, left a lot of fabulous things everywhere. In medieval Latin writing, indeed, there are legends that speak of the above. And so some Latin writers seize on these legends. It goes without saying that they grab it for a reason, but for a practical purpose. Such a practical goal is the desire to serve the fulfillment of a dream that is very funny in essence, but never (even to this day) leaves the Roman throne, to attract us, Russians, under our roof and under our power. If we, Russians, were converted from paganism to Christianity by Latin missionaries, and if we found ourselves on the side of the Greeks, only by splitting off from the Latins, then history imposes on us the obligation to return again to the latter. Latin legends, which say that we were converted from paganism to Christianity by Latin missionaries, assign this task to the German missionary of the early 11th century, bishop or archbishop in partibus infidelium Brun or Bruno (Brun, Bruno), after the monastic name Boniface 366. Coming from a very noble family 367, Brun was distinguished by deep piety from early childhood; upon completion of his studies, he entered the clergy, then became a monk and finally, following the example of many, decided to devote himself to the apostolic work of preaching Christianity among the pagans. For his purpose, he asked the pope to ordain him to the rank of bishop or archbishop 368 in partibus infidelium and went to preach. The fruit of this sermon was supposedly our conversion from paganism to Christianity. These two ancient Latin writers claim or, what is also, say fabulous things. The first of them is the Italian Peter Damiani or Peter Damian (Petrus Damiani, P. Damianus), from the monks and abbots of the monastery of Fontis Avellani in central Italy (near the city of Gubbio, located not far to the north-west of the city of Perugio, which in turn is a little over 100 miles north of Rome) Bishop of Ostien and cardinal, who died in 1072, saint Roman Church, famous for his severe asceticism, church and social activities and writings. The second is an interpolator of the chronicle of the French monk Adhemar, who died around 1030, it is unknown when he lived, but no later than the end of the 12th century. Peter Damiani reads a whole story about the baptism of us, the Russians, by Bishop Brun. It is found in his life of St. Romuald, founder of the Camaldulian congregation in the Benedictine Order († 1027), to whose disciples, according to him, Brun, or, as he calls him by his monastic name, Boniface, belonged. The story is quite long and although it does not contain anything historical, real or imaginary, but tells only about the great miracles in which Brun allegedly performed our conversion to Christianity, but since it concerns us - Russians, we will present it in full. This is the story: “(Having gone to preach) and having come to the pagans 369, (Boniface) began to preach with such ardent insistence that no one doubted that the holy man was burning with the desire for martyrdom. But they (the pagans), fearing that the same thing would happen to them that happened after the torment of blessed Adalbert 370, when many of the Slavic tribe were converted by shining signs of miracles, for a long time with cunning deceit they kept their hands from the holy man. And while he was burning with a strong desire to die, they, not wanting to kill him, cruelly spared him. When the venerable man came to the king of the Russes (ad regem Russorum) and began to preach fervently with firm zeal, the king, seeing him dressed in rags and walking barefoot, thought that the holy man was doing this (preaching) not for the sake of faith, but rather in order to collect money. Therefore, he promised him that if he abandoned such nonsense, he would bestow riches on his poverty with the greatest generosity. Then Boniface immediately and without delay returns to the inn, dresses appropriately in the most precious high priestly jewelry, and in this form again appears at the king’s palace. Seeing him adorned with such magnificent robes, the king said: Now we know that it is not the need of poverty that motivates you to absurd teaching, but ignorance of the truth. However, if you want what you assure to be accepted as true, then let two high fires of logs be erected, separated from one another by the narrowest gap, and when they flare up from the placed fire in such a way that the fire of both merges into one, you go through (through) the gap: if the fire causes you any harm, then we will commit you to complete burning, but if (which cannot be believed) you If you come out healthy, we will all believe in your God without any hesitation. This agreement pleased not only Boniface, but also all the pagans present: Boniface, dressed in such a way that he seemed to intend to celebrate the celebration of the missa (liturgy), first cleansed the fire from all sides with holy water and incense, then entered the bubbling clouds of flame, and came out unharmed to such an extent that not the slightest hair of his head was burned. Then the king and others who were present at this spectacle rush in crowds to the feet of the blessed husband, tearfully ask for forgiveness and urgently beg to baptize them. And so, such a multitude of pagans began to flock to baptism that the holy man hurried to a certain vast lake and baptized the people in this abundance of waters. The king decided that, having left the kingdom to his son, he himself, as long as he was alive, would in no way be separated from Boniface. The king's brother, who lived with him, because he did not want to believe, was killed by the king himself in Boniface's absence. But the other brother, who lived separately from the king, when the venerable husband came to him, did not want to listen to his words, but burning with extreme anger against him for his brother’s conversion, he immediately seized (him). And then, fearing that if he kept him alive, the king would kidnap him from his hands, he ordered his beheading in front of his own eyes in the presence of a large crowd of people. But immediately he himself became blind and such a horror (tetanus) struck him and everyone who was present that they could neither speak, nor feel, nor perform any human action, but everyone remained numb and motionless, like stones. The king, having heard about this, struck by extreme grief, makes a firm decision not only to put his brother to death, but to cut with swords all those who were participants in such an atrocity. But when he hurriedly came there and saw the body of the martyr lying still in place, and with horror he saw his brother and the rest of the people standing without feelings and movement, then with all of his people he decided that first there would be a prayer (performed for them), perhaps Divine mercy would return to them the feeling that they had lost, then - if they agree to believe, then, having been forgiven for the crime, let them live, if not, then let them all perish from the vengeful swords. So, when the king himself and other Christians offered a long prayer, not only did the former feeling return to the numb people, but on top of that the thought of fervently desiring true salvation multiplied. For they earnestly and weepingly ask for forgiveness for their crime, receive the sacrament of baptism with great haste, and build a church over the body of the blessed martyr. However, if I tried to tell about all the gifts and virtues of this amazing man, which can be said without falsehood, then perhaps the language would not be enough, but the matter would not be lacking” 371... Such is the story. Ahead of her, starting a speech about Boniface, Damiani says that “now the Russian Church boasts of having him as its most blessed husband.” The interpolator of Ademarova’s chronicle says that Emperor Otto III cared a lot about enlightening the surrounding peoples devoted to idols with Christianity, for “he had two most venerable bishops (missionaries), i.e. Saint Adalbert, archbishop of the city of Prague, which is in the province of Bohemia, and Saint Brunus, bishop of the city of Osburg, who is in the province of Bavaria, a relative of the emperor” 372 . Then he talks about the missionary activities of both bishops. We will omit his speeches about Adalbert, whom he calls archbishop, noting only that fabulous nonsense is reported about his activities, and we will quote what he says about Brun and specifically in relation to Russia. “The example (of Adalbert, who poisoned himself to preach) was followed by Brun the bishop and asked the emperor to order instead of him to consecrate as bishop to his table, whom he chose, named Odolrika 373. When this was done, he humbly retreated to the province of Ugria, which is called White Ugria, in contrast to the other Black Ugria 374... He converted the province (and) another to the faith of Ugria, which is called Russia (Russia)... But when he reached out to the Pechenegs and began to preach Christ to them, he suffered from them, just as Saint Adalbert suffered 375. For the Pechenegs, raging with devilish rage, removed all the entrails of his womb through a small hole in his side and made him a courageous martyr of God. The Russian people bought his body at a high price, and they built a monastery in his name in Russia, and it began to shine with great miracles. A few days later, a certain Greek bishop came to Russia and converted the lower class of the people 376 of this province, who were still devoted to idols, and forced them to accept the Greek custom regarding growing a beard and other things” (in barba crescenda et ceteris exemplis) 377. Based on the stories just given, some Roman Catholic writers declare us to be the original Catholics and fugitives from St. father. If this were really so, then from this there would be absolutely no moral teaching for us, or, if you like, a moral teaching would follow that is the opposite of that which the mentioned writers derive: Our ancestors, being under the power of the pope, broke away from it; We would be strange if, without learning from their example, we again wanted to seek this power. But it goes without saying that this was not the case. It would be extremely naive if we renounced our own evidence, if we agreed to admit that we had forgotten or incredibly cleverly hidden from whom we accepted Christianity, and bowed under the assurances of two Latin fabulists. Having nothing to refute these fabulists except our own testimonies, we would have to leave Catholic writers to believe them as much as they want, and perhaps in revenge for them, invent something like the Pope himself being converted to Christianity by us - the Russians. However, they are blocked by vain lips and their own witnesses and, alas! - even Bishop Brun himself, their imaginary Russian Apostle. There is a Western writer who was not only a contemporary of our Brun, but his peer, schoolmate and relative - this is Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg. Thietmar speaks in his chronicle both about the baptism of Russians and about the missionary activities of Brun. Speaking about baptism, he does not hint in a single word that it was the fruit of Brun's preaching and directly states that Vladimir accepted the faith from the Greeks 378. Speaking about Brun's missionary activity, he does not hint in a single word that it extended to Russia, and makes it clear that it began after we adopted Christianity: Brun, according to his testimony, was ordained a bishop and began this activity after the death of Emperor Otto III under his successor Henry II, and Otto III died in 1002 379. From Brun himself a letter to Emperor Henry has survived to this day, in which he talks about his relations with Russia 380. From the letter it turns out that Brun really visited us in Russia, but not to preach, about which he does not say a single word, but after we were baptized. What he makes clear is absolutely clear and what is equally clear from the time when we had him and which is the reign of Henry himself (according to the signs, 1006-1007). Brun was with us in Russia by chance, namely along the way, going to preach from the Hungarians to the Pechenegs and returning from the latter. He was received by Vladimir very friendly, stayed with him for a whole month and, for his part (as he assures), did him a favor by facilitating the conclusion of peace with the Pechenegs. The true story of Brun's missionary work is that he set out on it after we had converted to Christianity. What he preached in Poland, i.e. how to think - in its pagan Pomerania. Then in Hungary, among the Pechenegs and Prussians, and finally, in 1009. he suffered martyrdom in a country that occupied the middle between Prussia and Russia, that is, apparently in Lithuania 381. All incorrect historical testimony and all kinds of fables arise from two reasons - either from an unintentional misunderstanding or from deliberate intent. Which of the two was the reason that Peter Damiani and the unknown interpolator Adhemara made Bishop Brun our baptizer, we cannot say positively. Since the time of Brun's missionary activity almost coincides with the time of our baptism, since he preached in countries neighboring our Russia and even visited it itself, it is obvious that there were reasons for misunderstanding. Nevertheless, however, we are somehow involuntarily led to suspect that this was not the reason, but a deliberate intent, a desire to create that practical truth that we were converted to Christianity by Latin missionaries 382 . In any case, the fable of Peter Damiani is very instructive. He lived very little time after Brun, so for us, distant people, he looks like a very real contemporary of his; in terms of his position and his qualities, he seems to be a completely authoritative person: if there were no other witnesses, his fabulousness would pass for real historical testimony. It is clear from his example to what extent fabulousness is possible in history and to what extent it is fundamental that the historian should first of all be a skeptic. If we Russians were not converted to Christianity by Latin missionaries, then, as we said above, the pope really made an attempt to convert us to Christianity; and then he made another attempt, namely, to reject Vladimir, who had already been baptized, from recognizing the power of the Greeks and to subordinate him to his own power. News of these attempts is read only in one of the newest editions of the original chronicle, namely, in the edition located in the Nikon Chronicle. But there is no reason to suspect that they were a later invention, because it is absolutely impossible to think of motives for which the invention could have been made. (On the contrary, it should be thought that in the oldest editions of the original chronicle that have reached us, the news is omitted, for which the motivation can easily be indicated, what is the desire of the authors of the editions to erase from our memory the story of our relations with the popes). Under 979 in the Nikon Chronicle it reads: “that same summer, ambassadors came to Yaropolk from Rome from the pope.” There is a mistake in the year. Because Yaropolk was killed by Vladimir, as we said above, not in 980. (which the Nikon Chronicle along with others incorrectly believes), and in 978. Since the news was transferred to an inappropriate year, in all likelihood, from the corresponding one closest to it, it should be understood in the general sense that the ambassadors came at the very end of Yaropolk’s reign. Then, in the Nikon Chronicle it is read under 988 that when Vladimir was in Korsun, which he had taken, “ambassadors from Rome came (to him) from the pope and brought the relics of the saints” 383. There can be no doubt about how to understand these two papal embassies. To Yaropolk, at the end of his short and unexpectedly cut short reign, when in fact he was just beginning to reach the age of mature youth, the pope sent an embassy to convince him to accept Christianity. For some reason, the pope did not send an embassy to Vladimir, immediately and shortly after he took Yaropolkov’s place 384. But then he learned that Vladimir, who had already been baptized, was in Korsun in order to establish ecclesiastical relations with the Greeks and to subordinate to them in ecclesiastical terms Russia, which he intended to baptize - and he (the pope) hastened to send an embassy to the prince in Korsun to try to subjugate him instead of the Greeks to himself 385. We will talk about further attempts of the popes to subjugate us to their power below. 1. The Life of Vladimir, belonging to an unknown author, most likely a Greek, and the corresponding part of the story about the baptism of Vladimir, placed in the chronicle. “The Life of Blessed Volodymer”, belonging to an unknown author, in all likelihood a Greek, as we said above, openly by the Right Reverend Macarius; which he first published in Christian Reading for 1849, - book. II, it was later reprinted by him in the History of the Russian Church (in the appendices to volume I, edition 2, p. 264 sqq). The Most Reverend Macarius accepts two types or two editions of his life (History vol. II, edition 2 p. 151). But this is not entirely true. One edition of the life itself is known, and then there are later compilations in which the life appears in conjunction with other ancient legends. The Right Reverend Macarius had at his disposal two lists of the life: Sakharov's 16th century, from which he published it, and Bolotov's 17th century, from which he presented variants. We know of another third list - in the manuscript of the fundamental library of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 198, fol. 232 vol., XVII century 386. We know of two of the later compilations that we have just mentioned: the first in the Rumyantsev manuscript based on Vostokov’s Description No. 436, fol. 264 fin., p. 697 col. 1 fin., not the beginning of the 16th century, as Vostokov thinks, but the 17th and, probably, the second half (second edition of the Right Reverend Macarius). The compilation is inscribed: “On the 15th day of the month of July, the memory of the blessed Grand Duke Vladimir, named Vasily in baptism.” It consists of: first 11 lines - the beginning of the prologue life, which we print below (This was the son of Svyatoslavl from the Varangian tribe... and ambassador throughout the language, testing the law as to how they believe), then the life from the very beginning (Khodisha his servants), but not to the end, but in the amount of three-fifths 387. The end is again from the Prologue (Rest to the God of the month...). Second compilation in the Milyutin Menaion under July 15, Synodal manuscript No. 807 f. 954. Inscription and a small beginning from the monk Jacob, who is below, and then the life. 2. Memory and praise to Vladimir of the monk Jacob. This extremely important historical monument was discovered and published by the Right Reverend Macarius simultaneously with the life of Vladimir now cited (after the Christian Reading, he also reprinted it in History, in the appendices to Volume I, 2nd edition, p. 255 sqq). Memory and praise are read in the lists in two forms - in full, with the title, which is now below, and in abbreviated form, namely, only its second smaller half (as indicated below) under the title: “The Life of the Blessed Vladimer, named Vasily in Holy Baptism, who baptized the Russian land.” The Right Reverend Macarius had the two above-mentioned lists of Memory in full form: Sakharovsky and Bolotovsky. We have at hand the third list - in the above-mentioned manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 198, fol. 188. Of the lists in abbreviated form, His Eminence Macarius knows one - Rumyantsevsky No. 434, fol. 486, p. 677; We have another list - libraries of the Trinity Lavra No. 792, l. 88. We are reprinting the Right Reverend Macarius, indicating some options according to Academic List No. 198 and with some amendments to it that we notice. "The month of July on the 15th day. Memory and praise to the Russian prince Volodimer, how Volodimeri and his children baptized and baptized the whole Russian land from end to end, and how Volodimer's woman Olga was baptized before Volodimer. Copied by Jacob Mnikh. Lord bless the father. Pauli, the holy Apostle, church teacher and luminary of the whole world, sending the scripture to Timothy, saying: child, Timothy, who has heard many rumors from me, also betrayed the faithful to those who would be content to teach them 430. And the blessed Apostle Luke the Evangelist wrote to Theophilus saying 431: Since many people began to tell the story of certain things that were in us, it pleased me, who went from the beginning and among everyone, to write to you, sovereign Theophilus, so that you understand about them, Jesus began to do and teach 432. To that Theophilus wrote the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of the Holy Apostle Luke. Then many saints began to write about their lives and torments. Likewise, I, the bad one, Jacob, having heard from many about the blessed Prince Volodymeri, the whole Russian land, about the son of Svyatoslavl, and having collected a little from many 433 of his virtues, I wrote, and about his son, the holy and glorious river of the martyr Boris and Gleb, - how to enlighten the grace of God in the heart of Prince Volodymer, son Svyatoslavl and grandson Igor, and the loving 434 man-loving God, who wants to save every person and come into the true mind, and the thirst for holy baptism. Just as the tree thirsts for springs of water 435, so did the blessed Prince Volodimer thirst for holy baptism, and God fulfilled his desire. He writes: I command those who are afraid to create it, and he will hear their prayer, and I will save 436; and the Lord himself says: ask and receive, seek and you will find, seek and it will be opened to you; everyone who asks will receive it, everyone who seeks will find it, it will be opened to the one who interprets 437 · and again he says: whoever has faith will be baptized and will be saved, but whoever does not have faith and will not be baptized will already be condemned 438 . Seek salvation, and receive from the woman 439) his Olza, who went to Tsaryugorod and received holy baptism, and live well before God, having been adorned with all good deeds, and rest in peace in Christ Jesus and in the faith of the blasphemy, - then Prince Vladimer heard from the woman 440 his holy Olza, named in the saint Helen's baptism, and I imitated her life - the holy Queen Helen, the blessed princess Olga; Then hearing Vladimer, his heart was inflamed with the Holy Spirit, even though he received holy baptism. Seeing God the desire of his heart, foreseeing his kindness and looking down to heaven with his mercy and bounty and the glorified God in the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, upon Prince Volodymer, he tested the hearts and bellies, God is righteous, knowing everything before, and enlighten the heart of Prince Volodimer of the Russian land and grant holy baptism. Volodymer himself was baptized, and enlighten his children and his whole house with holy baptism, and free every soul, male and female, who is holy for the sake of baptism. And Prince Volodimer rejoiced and rejoiced in the God of David 441, and like the wondrous holy prophet Habakkuk rejoiced and rejoiced in the Lord in God his Savior 442. O blessed time and good day, full of all good things, in which Prince Volodimer was baptized! And he was quickly named Vasily in holy baptism and the gift of God was his autumn, the grace of the Holy Spirit illuminated his heart and became accustomed to walking according to the commandments of God and living well in God 443, and holding firm and immovable faith. Baptize the entire Russian land from end to end, and trample down the filthy gods, pages and demons, Perun and Khorsa and many others, and crush idols and reject all godless flattery. And he created a church of stone in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos, a refuge and salvation for the faithful souls, and tithes were given to her, to provide for those priests and orphans and widows and the poor. And then the whole Russian land and all the cities were decorated with holy churches, and having rejected all the devil’s flattery, and having come from the darkness of the devil into the light with his children, he came to God and received baptism, and the whole Russian land was taken from the mouth of the devil and brought to God and to the true light. The Lord spoke with the prophet 444: drive away the wicked from wickedness, as you are my mouth 445: and Prince Volodymer became, as you are the mouth of God, and brought people from the flattery of the devil to God. Oh, how much joy and joy there will be on earth! And the angels rejoiced, and the archangels, and the saints jumped up. The Lord Himself said, “There is great joy in heaven for one sinner who repents 446.” Countless souls throughout the Russian land have been brought to God by holy baptism! Do every deed worthy of praise and full of spiritual joy. O blessed and blessed Prince Volodymer, blessed and Christ-loving and hospitable! Your reward is great before God. Blessed David also said: Blessed is the man whom you have punished, O Lord, taught him from your law and tamed the people of days 447. Blessed Prince Volodymer turned away from the service of the devil and came to Christ God, his Master, and brought all the people and taught me to serve God. For the Lord himself said: Whoever creates and teaches, this one will be called great in the kingdom of heaven 448. And you, O blessed Prince Volodymyr, became an Apostle among princes, bringing the entire Russian land to God with holy baptism, and teaching your people to bow to God, to glorify and sing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And all the people of the Russian land have come to know God through you, divine Prince Volodymyr! The Angels rejoiced, the pure lambs 449, now rejoice at the faithfulness and hasten and praise. Like the infants and Jews with the branches of Christ, crying out: Hosana to Christ God, the conqueror of death: thus, the newly chosen people of the Russian land praised the Lord Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and approached God with holy baptism, and rejected the devil and mocked his service and spat on demons and came to know God the true Creator and Maker of all creation, and they sing all the days of life and at every hour the wonderful song, the praise of the Archangel: glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will towards men 450. And you, blessed Prince Volodymyr, like the great Kostyantin, have conspired. As they, moved by great faith and love of God, confirmed the whole universe with love and faith, and with holy baptism enlightened the whole world and the law of God throughout the entire universe of the commandment and destroyed the churches of idols with false gods, and set up the holy churches throughout the entire universe for the praise of God, glorified in the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and baptized You will find salvation for the whole world, with your divine and god-wise mother, Saint Olena, and many times over, 451 you will bring countless multitudes to God through holy baptism, and you will consume demonic treasuries and destroy idol churches, and decorate the whole universe and cities with churches 452, and the commandments in the churches of the memory of saints perform singing and prayers and celebrate holidays for the glory and praise of God. Likewise, blessed Prince Volodimer made his woman Olga 453. That blessed Russian princess Olga, after the death of her husband Igor, the Russian prince, was sanctified by God's grace and received God's grace in her heart. Oh, how I will praise the blessed Princess Olga, brothers! - I don’t know. The body of a woman, having manly wisdom, was enlightened by the Holy Spirit, understanding the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth, going to the Greek land, to Constantinople, where the kings of the peasants and the peasantry were established, and having come, ask for baptism, and having received holy baptism, return to the Russian land, to your home, to your people, with joy great, sanctified in spirit and body, bearing the sign of the honorable cross. And then the treasuries of demons were crushed and began to live in Christ Jesus, loving God with all my heart and with all my soul, and following in the footsteps of the Lord God, having been illuminated by all good deeds and adorned with alms, clothing the naked, greedy solders and strange ones resting 454, beggars and widows and orphans are merciful to all and give to all who need them with quietness and love of heart, and pray to God day and night for their salvation. And having thus lived and glorified God well in the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, rested in the glory of faith, ending his life in peace in Christ Jesus our Lord. And God glorified his body and Olena, her name was given in holy baptism, blessed princess Olga, and her honorable body is in the tomb, and remains indestructible to this day. God glorifies his servants; the prophet said: I will glorify the one who glorifies me and the one who reproaches me will be 455. Blessed Princess Olga glorified God with all her good deeds, and God glorified you. Another 456 wonder you hear about her: in the coffin, where lies the blessed and honorable body of the blessed Princess Olga, - the coffin is a small stone in the church of the Holy Mother of God, that church from here blessed Prince Volodimer is stone in honor of the holy Mother of God, and there is the coffin of the blessed Olga, - and on the top of the coffin there is a window, and there you can see the body Blessed Olga is lying intact, and those who come with faith will open the window and see the honest body lying intact, and marveling at such a miracle, the body lying in the coffin will not be destroyed for so many years. And faithful people, having seen such a miracle, glorify God, marveling at the mercy of God, which he has on his saints. O wondrous and terrible miracle, brothers, and glorious! Every honest body is worthy of praise: it is intact in the coffin, as if sleeping, resting! Truly wonderful is God in His saints, the God of Israel 457. Then, seeing 458 faithful people, they will glorify God, who glorifies his servants. But for others who do not come with faith, the window of the tomb will not open, and they will not see the body of that honorable one, but only the tomb. Thus God glorified his servant Olga, the Russian princess, named Elena in holy baptism 459! After holy baptism, blessed princess Olga lived 15 years, and having pleased God with her good deeds and having passed the month of July on the 11th day in the summer of 6477, she gave up her honest soul in the hands of the Master Christ God. Listen to beloved 460! Blessed Prince Volodimer 461, grandson of Olzhin, baptized himself, and his children and the whole Russian land from end to end, idol churches and trebitsa everywhere, excavated and cut and crushed idols, and the whole Russian land and cities (pass?) and decorated the churches with honest icons 462 and created the memory of saints in churches singing and prayers. And you celebrate the holy feasts of the Lord, serving three meals: the first for the metropolitan with the bishops and the monk and the priests, the second for the poor and wretched, the third for yourself and your boyars and all your husbands. Blessed Prince Volodymer was likened to the king of saints by the Prophet David, King Hezekiah and the blessed Joseph and the great Kostyantin, who chose and willed God’s law more than anything else and served God with all his heart and received God’s mercy and inherited paradise and received the kingdom of heaven and settled down with all the saints who pleased God: so did 463 blessed Prince Volodymer, having served God with all his heart and all his soul. We are not surprised, beloved ones, if miracles are not performed after death: for many more holy and righteous people did not perform miracles, but they are holy. Saint John Chrysostom 464 speaks about this nowhere: from what do we know and understand a holy person, from miracles or from deeds? And the speech: learn from works, and not from miracles. You have created many and many miracles with your demonic dreams; and byahu the holy Apostle and byahu the lie Apostle 465, besha the holy prophet and byahu the lie 466 prophet, servants of the devil; Another miracle, and Soton himself is transformed into a bright angel. But understand from the works of the saint, as the Apostle said: the fruit of the spiritual is love, patience, good faith, kindness, meekness and self-control; against such there is no law 467. Blessed Prince Volodimer, love God with all your heart and soul and seek and keep His commandments. And 468 the whole country feared him and offered gifts to him. And Prince Volodymer rejoiced and rejoiced about God and about holy baptism, and praising and glorifying God about all this, Prince Volodymer, and in joy, with the humility of his heart, he said: “Lord, good Master! You have remembered me and brought me into the light, and I have come to know (You?), all creatures of the Creator. Glory to You. 469 God of all, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! Glory to You 470 with the Son and the Holy Spirit! In darkness, serve the devil as a demon, but You enlighten me with holy baptism. Like a beast, you do a lot of evil in filth, and live like a beast, but you tame me and punish me with your grace. Glory to Thee, God, glorified in the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Soul, Holy Trinity! Have mercy on me, guide me on your path and teach me to do your will, for you are my God." Prince Volodimer is jealous of the saints' work and their lives, and love Abraham's life, and imitate his love of strangers, Jacob's truth, Moses' meekness, David's gentleness, the bones of the great king, the first the king of the peasants, imitating his orthodoxy. Most of all, Prince Volodimer did alms: those who are weak and old cannot milk the prince of the court and need to take, then he sent them to the court: Blessed Prince Volodimer will give everything to the weak and old. And I cannot tell him much. almsgiving: not only giving alms in your own home, but throughout the entire city, not in Kyiv alone, but throughout the entire Russian land, in towns and villages. everywhere giving alms, clothing the naked, feeding the greedy and giving drink to the greedy, resting the strange with mercy, the churchmen honoring and loving and showing mercy, giving them their demands; the poor, and the orphans, and the widow, and the blind, and the lame, and the laboring, and showing mercy to all, and clothing, and feeding, and watering. Likewise, Prince Volodymyr abides in good deeds, the grace of God enlightened his heart, and the hand of the Lord helped him, and all his enemies fled, and everyone feared him. Wherever you go, you overcome: Defeat Radimitsa and put tribute on them, defeat Vyatichi and put tribute on them both, and take the Yatvingians, and defeat the Silver Bulgarians 471, and I went to Kazary and defeat them and put tribute on them. Think about the Greek city of Korsun, and Prince Volodymyr prayed to God: “Lord God, Master of all! I ask this of you, give me the city, may I receive it and may I bring people, peasants and priests to their land, and may they teach people the law of the peasants.” And God listened to his prayer and accepted the city of Korsun. And taking church loans and icons and relics of the holy martyr Clement and other saints. In the days of 472 there were two kings in Tsarigrad: Kostyantin and Vasily. And Volodymer sent an ambassador to them, asking their sisters to get married, so that he could direct his attention to the peasant law. And she will give him her sister, and she will give him many gifts, and she will give him the relics of 473 saints; put V17;. Thus the blessed Prince Volodimer lived well 474, and ended his life in the true faith of Christ Jesus our Lord, and with the faithful Olga: and she, having gone to Constantinople, received holy baptism, and having done much good in this life before God, and ended her life in good faith, and rested with peace, having given up your soul in the hand of God. And I still live as Prince Volodimer, the army from the Pechenegs. Volodimer was already obsessed with illness; in the same illness he will betray his soul into the hand of God 475. Prince Volodimer, departing from this light, prayed with his face, saying: “Lord my God! I did not know You as God, 476 but you had mercy on me and through holy baptism you enlightened me: and I knew You, O God of all, holy Creator of all creation, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! Glory to You with the Son and the Holy Spirit. Master God! Do not remember my malice: I did not know You in abomination, but now I know You in the form of 477. Have mercy on me 478: if you want to execute and torment me for my sins, do not give me over to execution, O Lord.” And speaking and praying to God, he offered his soul in peace to the Angel of the Lord, and succeeded. For the soul of the righteous is in the hand of God, and their reward is from God, and their building is from the Most High; For this reason they will receive the crown of beauty from the hand of the Lord. After holy baptism, blessed Prince Volodimer lived 28 years. Next summer, after baptism, go to the threshold [See. “Additions and Amendments”], in the third summer Korsun took the city, in the fourth summer the church was laid on the stone of the Holy Mother of God, and in the fifth summer Pereyaslavl was laid, in the ninth year the blessed and Christ-loving Prince Volodymer gave tithes to the church of the Holy Mother of God and from his property. About this the Lord himself spoke: where your treasure is, so is your heart There will be 479. The blessed Prince Volodimer has his treasure in heaven, having hidden his deeds with alms and goodness: there is his heart in the kingdom of heaven, and God will help him, and he will sit in Kyiv in the place of his father Svyatoslav and his grandfather Igor. in the place of his father Svyatoslav, and Oleg, coming from the army at the Hand of the City Bridge, broke off the army and strangled Olga in the rowing, and killed Yaropolk in Kiev, the men of Volodimerov. And Prince Volodimer sat in Kiev in the summer after the death of his father Svyatoslav, the month of June on the 11th day, in the summer of 6486. Prince Volodimer was baptized in the tenth year after the murder of his brother Yaropolk. Repenting and weeping 480, the blessed Prince Volodimer committed all this in abomination, not knowing God. Having come to know the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth, repented of everything and rejected the devil and demons and all his services, and serve God with your good deeds and alms. May you rest in peace in the month of July on the 15th day, in the year 6523 in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion with the Father” 481. 3. Prologue legend about Vladimir. We place this legend for the sake of its relative antiquity, not so much, however, for use, but for information, according to the oldest manuscript known to us, which is the Synodal parchment Prologue of 1400, No. 240, and in which it is dated July 15, - l. 139 vol.. “This is the day of Holy Prince Volodymyr, who baptized the entire Russian land 482. Behold the son of Svyatslavl, from the Varangian tribe, Prince Volodymer. First, I work with idols with great care according to my father’s tradition, so that when God is willing to choose people and people, I will breathe into this the grace of the Holy Spirit, and I will be awakened from sleep, from cruel idolatry, and sent to all languages, testing their law as they believe, and seeing (sic) the holy Greek faith, as I shine on the luminary and speech in to myself: I will do this, I will go into their land and captivate their cities, and I will convert a teacher, and whatever your thoughts, do them. He took Korsun 483 and sent an envoy to the Greek king, saying: Give me your sister, or else I will build your city, just as I built this one; He answered: there is no such custom here, the peasants give for filthy goods, if you baptize, then you will receive this and above all this, the kingdom of heaven. And Vladimir said: I will do this, when you come and the queen baptizes me. And at that time Volodymyr fell into an illness in both eyes, and the queen sent a speech to him: unless you are baptized, you will not get rid of this illness; He said: baptize me, for this is why I called you. And when the baptism was made, a great miracle happened: I entered into the holy font and opened his eyes, and it was as if he had no illness; Having received your sight, you all praised God, and were enlightened, rejoicing in soul and body. And he came to Kyiv and beat up all the idols: Perun, Khorsa, Dazhbog and Mokosh and all the other idols, and therefore calling the whole multitude of people, commanding them to be baptized, he named them a day, saying: if anyone does not appear in the morning on the river, he will be my enemy. And all the passions of husbands and wives and babies came down to the Pochayna River, and at the end of the accomplishment I stood in the water, hove up to the waist, and walked up to the neck, and the friends wandered, and sounded along the river a prayer standing like over those who were baptized, and from there the place was called holy, where now the church is Petrov, and so on (possibly a typo) letters]) to be the first intercessor for our salvation. Volodimir, looking up to heaven, prayed for the peasants, saying: look at these newly enlightened people and may the Lord grant them to see you the true God, establish the right faith in them, and help me, Lord, against the opposing enemy, and trusting in your power, I will trample his machinations. He commanded that churches be erected throughout the city, 484 and he himself created the church of the Holy Mother of God. Having stayed for several years, he began to get sick and reposed before God in the month of July on the 15th day; The Holy Mother of God laid his body in the church, which she herself had created, and the whole multitude of people wept over him, boyars like a father, people like an intercessor, orphans like a helper, beggars and widows like a mourner and a feeder. How can we properly praise you for having done the same work as the apostles? The Roman land praises Peter and Paul, Asya the Theologian John, the Egyptian land Mark, the Antiochian Luke (sic), and the Buckwheat Andrew, the whole Russian land praises you, Volodymyr, as the Lord's apostle, celebrating your memory with prayer songs. We offer crowns of praise to you, saying: Rejoice, Volodymera, received a crown from the Almighty God, rejoice, holy head, our leader and teacher, who has come out of darkness by knowledge of the light, rejoice, the venerable tree of paradise itself, who grew up for us, the holy martyr Boris and Gleb, from whom we are now sons. rusties are satisfied, accepting healing from the disease; Rejoice, faithful worker of Christ, and, having torn apart the flattering thorns and destroyed, having torn up the whole earth with baptism, and sowed with holy books, from them we will reap the sons’ fruits and useful handles (sic) to repentance, and the friends are already eating the meager food in the kingdom of heaven, even though we are worthy of this meal and we are unworthy, repenting about sin." 4. Banduri’s Greek legend about the baptism of Vladimir. This legend was found by the Slavic scientist of the first half of the 18th century Anzelm Bandury (Bandurich) in one of the new 485 letter manuscripts of the Paris Royal Library. It is printed by Bandurius in the Greek original with a Latin translation in his Imperium Orientale, vol. II. Animadverse. in librum Constant. Porph. De administr. imper. pp. 112–116, and then reprinted in the Bonn edition of the Byzantines, Constant. Porphyrog. vol. III. p. 357 sqq (in the same notes of the Bandurievs for the same book). In one Latin translation - by Stritter in Memor, pp. II, 959 fin.. In Russian in an abbreviated version by Schlozer in Nestor, II, 542 §3 and by Karamzin, I, approx. 447. In the list of the Paris Library found by Bandurius, the legend has no beginning. Recently, our Russian scientist V. E. Regel found a complete list in one manuscript of the Patmos Monastery of John the Theologian, i.e., with the beginning of the legend missing in the Paris manuscript. G. Regel published the list he found in his publication: Analecta Byzantino-Russica. Petropoli, 1891. The story has absolutely no historical significance. But we are publishing it in full Russian translation - firstly, for information, and secondly, as an example of the stories that the Greeks were capable of writing. “A detailed account of how the Rosov people were baptized.” Since the divine and all-good blessed mercy of the true God and our Savior Jesus Christ always and everywhere benefits us in everything in its goodness and fulfills all our desires: then it is necessary that we, no matter how little we know that is truly good, should not be silent about it, but should make it public and proclaim it as loudly as possible. So that the divine mercy of God and the incomparable compassion, which does not want the death of sinners, but always accepts conversion, may more arouse wonder and be exalted. So, it is worthy that we also offer a narrative and say in part how the countless people of Rosov learned true piety and were honored with divine baths and baptism. Many and great leaders ruled over the mentioned people for many times, whose titles we should not count due to the countless number of their names. After many times, a certain leader named Vladimir, who was much superior in intelligence and sense to the previous ones, came to rule over them. So, this one, sitting with himself (alone), was often very amazed and perplexed, seeing their numerous and large people bowing here and there and stubborn (immersing themselves) for the sake of the teaching and service of their worship (?), since some kissed and honored (the faith) of the Jews as the greatest and most ancient, and others pleased the faith of the Persians and clung to it, and others the faith of the Syrians, and others believed the Hagarians, and in all of them there was the greatest confusion and controversy about their teaching and faith. So, seeing and hearing so much discord and the great and varied confusion of this countless people, the keen-minded and great-intelligent leader, to whom power over them was entrusted, was amazed and perplexed and did not know what to do. One day, having chosen a favorable time, he calls to himself those who have the advantage in intelligence and experience and inquires from them how their people are mired in very many faiths and teachings, and sought to learn in detail the best of these (the best of these faiths), so that he himself would choose it. When they heard this, some of them, answering their leader, the great king (πρὸς τὸν μέγαν ῥ ῆγαν), said: “We, most illustrious and venerable leader, our sovereign lord, cannot well say who of all of us thinks correctly and honors God better than others. Only this (we know) that in the whole universe two are the best places, one of which is called Rome, and the other Constantinople, which is why we believe that in them alone there is true and right worship of God.” Hearing this, the great and wise chief again asked: “Tell me, how can we find out this in detail and make sure?” They said to him: “If you want to know what is reliable and true, then from all of us who are under your hand, choose four men from the best, who are sharper than others in experience and intelligence, and they were sent to Rome, and they, having thoroughly examined and experienced everything there, let them come to us again, and we, having heard from them the reliable and pure truth, will understand, and then let it be done as you command.” And they told this to their leader. He hastily carried out their advice and word and, choosing from among his four men who knew how to distinguish good from bad, he sent them to ancient Rome to explore and survey everything 486 there and study their worship of God well. They, so to speak, reach Rome on wings, and explore and inspect everything there and take a good look at the decoration of the divine churches and see (survey) the bishops and priests there. And not only this, but their patriarch himself, also called the pope, is seen, and very many hear from him for the benefit of (their) speech. And thus they return with haste and reach their country and appear before the great king and there they tell in detail what they saw and heard. They insisted that what they saw was great and true, and that there was no need for further research and exploration, and “if you want,” they said, “our brightest and most glorious autocrat and prince, to accept their faith, then let them know and you will be well initiated into their teaching.” When the princes who were with him listened to everything, especially those who had already been his advisers 487, they said to him again and again: “It seems bad to all of us that they should not explore and learn in detail about Constantinople, since this city, as some claim, is some kind of great and excellent. So, it is necessary that they explore and experience its worship and service 488, and so In this way we will choose the best from both.” Having heard this, the prudent and glorious king agreed and accepted (the advice) favorably. Therefore, he also sends the four men mentioned above many times to Constantinople, so that they too can survey and experience everything. And with great difficulty they reach it (Constantinople) and come to the one who was then holding the Roman scepter, I mean, Basil from Macedonia, and report the reason for their arrival. He, having kindly and courteously received them, immediately assigned some wise princes to them, so that they could show them all the best in the city, and so that they could understand their needs well and give answers to them. The (assigned) men, taking (them) and showing (them) much in the city worthy of seeing, entered the glorious and great divine church of the Wisdom of God (Sophia). And as they say (as the rumor goes, ὡ ς ὁ λόγος κρατεῖ), then a great holiday was celebrated in it - whether Chrysostom or the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of my God, I cannot say for sure, only an amazing and great holiday was celebrated. And these four men, being with our princes, examined the entire church and, seeing the great illumination of the holiday being celebrated and hearing the euphony of the songs, were perplexed in surprise. So, when they have been there for the evening hymn and the morning hymn 489, and have said and heard a lot, the time for the sacred and divine liturgy comes, and again the named men with the royal princes enter the venerable and greatest church to be spectators of the bloodless and divine secrecy. Having achieved so far in my story, I am amazed at the love of God for everyone, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So, when these pagan and barbarian men entered, as it is said, into the great temple, and standing there they looked at everything that was happening in the temple and carefully noted how at first there was the so-called small entrance, then the great one was completed with magnificence, and subdeacons and deacons came out of the holy altar with lamps and ripids, as well as very many priests and bishops, according to custom, with terrible and divine secrets and himself, who then had the priesthood, the patriarch, and like all those present, fell to the floor and fervently poured out prayer and cried out: Lord have mercy, and only 490 these four pagan men with open eyes and without fear looked and noticed everything that was happening. Therefore, our merciful and humane God opened the eyes of these men, and they saw something terrible and supernatural; having asked about it in detail, they learned the truth. For when this divine and great entrance ended and everyone stood up in adoration, the men who saw the strange vision immediately took the hands of the princes of the emperor who were near them and said to them the following: “We do not deny that everything that we have seen so far is terrible and great, but now what we have seen is beyond human nature. For we saw some winged youths, dressed in strange (and) beautiful clothes. They did not walk on the floor. church, but they rushed through the air, singing: holy, holy, holy, which amazed us all more than anything else and led us into great bewilderment.” When the princes of the emperor heard this, they answered them: perhaps you do not know all the sacraments of Christians and have never heard that angels descend from heaven and perform sacred acts with our priests. Having heard this, they said: what you are telling us is all true and clear, and we do not need any other proof, for we ourselves have seen everything with our own eyes. Let us quickly return to where we were sent from, in order to notify and certify to our lord what we have seen and what we have learned well. (So) they were sent there again with great joy and joy. They, having returned and arrived in their country, found a glorious and great king and, bowing to him, told everything that they saw. And they explained clearly, saying this: “We do not deny that we saw something great and glorious before in Rome, but what we saw (by us) in Constantinople amazes the human mind,” and they told him everything in order and in detail. Their great prince, when he had definitely learned the truth from them and was convinced, did not hesitate at all, but immediately sent to the most pious king of the Romans in Constantinople and asked the bishop to teach and baptize the vast number of people there. At that time, the Roman scepter was held by Basil from Macedonia. Having joyfully received the men sent from there, he sent them a certain bishop, famous for his piety and virtue, and with him two men, Cyril and Athanasius, 491 also virtuous and very intelligent and wise, who were filled not only with the knowledge of divine scripture, but were also well taught in external wisdom. As the writings they invented amply testify to this. They went there, taught and baptized everyone and led them to the piety of Christians. Seeing that these people were completely barbaric and ignorant 492, the named learned men did not find it possible to teach them twenty-four Hellenic letters (letters), therefore, so that they would not again deviate from piety, they inscribed and taught them thirty-five letters 493, which are called: ἆ ς, μπούκη, βέτδ, γλα ὼ δ, δοπρῶ ... etc. These are the essence of the thirty-five letters of the Ros, which everyone still studies and knows piety well. Some say that there was such a miracle there. While still containing superstition, the prince himself and his boyars and all the people, reflecting on their former faith and the faith of Christians, call the recently arrived bishop and ask the prince: what does he intend to preach to them and what to teach. When he offered the sacred book of the Divine Gospel and narrated about some miracles performed by God in human form, 494 the crowd of Rosov said: if we do not see something like this, and especially what you say about what happened with the three youths in the cave, then we will not believe you at all. He, believing the true word of the one who said: “Whatever you ask in My name, you will receive”, and: Believe in Me, the works that I have done, He will also do the same and greater things than these, he said to them: although you should not tempt the Lord God, but if you have decided to approach Him with all your heart, ask what you want, and God will certainly do according to your request, even though we are the smallest and unworthy. They immediately asked that the scroll of the Divine Gospel be thrown into the fire they had lit, and (promised) if it remained unharmed, they would begin to preach to God. We agreed on this. And after the priest raised his eyes and hands to heaven and cried: glorify your Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ our God! In the eyes of all the people, the book of the Holy Gospel was thrown into the oven. The furnace was lit for quite some time and, finally, went out completely, but the sacred scroll was found unharmed and undamaged and did not suffer any damage from the fire. Seeing this and being amazed by the greatness of the miracle, the barbarians without hesitation rushed to baptism and, purified in mind, glorified the Savior Lord, to whom be glory and Power now and ever and unto ages of ages, amen. If there were Greeks capable of composing stories like the one now presented, then it is not surprising that there was a Greek who composed our life of Vladimir. 5. Greek and Arab writers about the marriage of Vladimir to Princess Anna. Kedrin (ed. Paris, t. II r. 699. in Stritt. in Memor, pp. II, 1009): “(Emperor Basil) tried a lot to persuade (the patrician Delphine, an accomplice of the rebel Bardas Phocas) to retreat (with an army) from Chrysopolis (now Scutari), and could not convince. Having made ships at night and landing the Russians on them - for he managed to call on them for help and make their prince Vladimir his relative (κηδεστήν, son-in-law), having married (him) to his sister Anna - he unexpectedly crosses with them and, attacking the enemies, easily takes possession of the latter" (this is said by Kedrin between August 15, 987 and April 989, Krug's Chronologie d. Byzantier, S. 319 approx.). Elsewhere, ed. Paris, t, II p. 710 fin.. Kedrin calls Vladimir Vasily’s son-in-law. Zonara (ed. Paris, t. II p. 221, y Stritt. ibidd.): “When Delphine became a camp at Chrysopolis, the emperor suddenly attacked him with the Russian people, - for he entered into kinship with the Russian prince Vladimir through the marriage of his sister Anna, - and easily takes possession of his opponents.” Yahya of Antioch, beginning of the 11th century: “And Bardas Foka openly rebelled and proclaimed himself king on Wednesday, the day of the Feast of the Cross, September 14, 987, and took possession of the country of the Greeks as far as Dorilea and to the seashore, and his troops reached Chrysopolis. And his cause became dangerous, and Tsar Vasily was concerned about him because of the strength of his troops and his victory over him. And his wealth was exhausted and his need prompted him to send the Rus to the king - and they are his enemies - to ask them to help him in his present situation. And he agreed to this. And they concluded an agreement between themselves about the property and the king of the Rus married the sister of the king of Vasily, after he set a condition for him that he and all the people of his country would be baptized... And king Vasily and his brother Constantine set out with their troops and with the troops of the Rus and faced Varda Phokas in Abydos and defeated Phokas; and he was killed on Saturday, April 13, 989" (in the edition of Baron Rosen, cited above, pp. 23 and 25) 495. Elmakin, second half of the 13th century: “Emperor Vasily Varda Phocas began to be very afraid, and besides, he also lacked money. Therefore, he was forced to send the Russians, who were his enemies, to the king and ask him for help. This one promised it to him, asking him to enter into a kinship alliance. And the king married the sister of the Roman Emperor Basil, after he convinced him to accept the Christian faith" (Historia Saracenica in the Circle in (Chronologie S. 319; spoken between October 987 and April 13, 989, Circle ibid.). Among the Greek writers, a direct contemporary of Vladimir's capture of Korsun and his marriage to Princess Anna was Leo the Deacon of Kaloi. But, unfortunately, in his history, which ends precisely in the year 989, he does not talk about them either deliberately or in passing. But he only briefly mentions the first, namely, he says that the appearance of an extraordinary comet in 986 and the pillars of fire that appeared in the northern part of the sky, in addition to other disasters, foreshadowed the conquest of Chersonesus by the Tauro-Scythians (book X, chapter 10 beginning, in the Greek original at Gaza, p. 108, - in the Russian translation by D. Popov, p. 108). [Thietmar of Merseburg says that Vladimir brought himself a wife from Greece, named Helen, who was betrothed to the German Otto III, but who was insidiously admired by the latter (Chronic, lib. VII p. 52 beginning). The venerable bishop is angry with our - as he calls - the king due to some misunderstanding, probably considering him to be the culprit of that unsuccessful German embassy to Constantinople for a bride, about which the Hildesheim chronicle speaks of the year 995. Our Anna was Otto III’s own aunt, for the wife of Otto II, and his mother, Otto III, Theophano or Stefana was Anna’s own elder sister]. Anna, as we said, was born two days before the death of her father Roman the Younger, on March 13, 963 (Kedrin in the Circle in Chronol. d. Byzant. S. 318). 6. The saga of Olaf, son of Tryggviev. This saga, belonging to the collection of sagas of the so-called younger Edda, made in the first half of the 13th century by Snorro Sturlyuz (1188–1241), in the Icelandic original with a Russian translation, was published by Archpriest Sabinin in the Russian Historical Collection of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, vol. 4, book. I. M. 1840. Astrida, the wife of King Tryggvius of Norway, after her husband was killed by rivals, was forced to flee from her patronymic name. During her flight, she gave birth to a son named Olava, which happened in 969, in the 32nd year of the reign of Emperor Otto the Great. In the fourth year of flight, after hiding in different places, Astrida wanted to go to Gardarikia to King Valdamar (to Russia, to Vladimir), who, along with other Norwegians, had her brother Sigurd in his service. On the way, they were attacked and captured by sea robbers from Estland, but Olav was redeemed from captivity by his uncle Sigurd, who was sent by Valdamar to collect tribute in that country. Having become known to the king on one special occasion, Olav was brought closer to him by him and then began to enjoy such love from him as if he were his own son (being especially patronized by the king’s wife Adlogia, the smartest of all wives). Having accomplished great military feats at Valdamar and generally becoming the defense of his country from enemies, and also having marked himself with an aversion to idolatry, Olaf aroused the envy of those close to the king, who began to strongly slander him. Forced as a result of slander to leave Gardarikia, Olav went to Vinnland (the land of the Slavs of the Veneds on the Baltic Sea), where he married the ruler of the state Geira, daughter of King Burislav, and where he again conquered all the provinces and fortresses that had fallen from the power of Geira, and accomplished other famous deeds. After the death of his wife, Olav went on a journey, first to Denmark, and then again to Gardarikia, to King Valdamar. Having again been received by the latter and his wife very kindly and having spent the winter with him with his warriors, Olaf one night saw a great and remarkable vision in which a heavenly voice called on him to go to Greece to know the true God. Obeying this voice, Olaf immediately went to Greece, where he was instructed in the Christian faith by many glorious teachers and was granted baptism. After this, he asked a bishop named Paul to go to Gardarikia to preach Christianity to the pagans. The bishop, a great friend of God, agreed, but with the condition that Olaf should go ahead and explain the reason for his visit - the bishop, so that the leaders would not resist when he implanted the Christian religion there. Returning to Gardarikia, Olav immediately began to convince the king and his wife to accept Christianity. At first, the king expressed a decisive reluctance to leave his fatherly faith; but then, convinced by the speeches of his wife, who heeded the truth much more quickly, he changed his thoughts. Then the aforementioned Bishop Paul arrived, who baptized the king and his people (The saga speaks of Vladimir’s mother, who was very old and weak, so that she constantly lay on her sick bed, but who, under the inspiration of a reproachful spirit, foresaw the future and predicted Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity through Olaf: one might think that the saga here means Vladimir’s grandmother Olga). Olaf, the son of Tryggviev, - Tryggveson, king of Norway, was the introducer of Christianity in Norway, which work he began no earlier than 993-995, i.e., after Vladimirov's baptism. But the year of his approach to the baptism of the Norwegians was also the year of his return to Norway from long wanderings in foreign lands, and he himself was baptized somewhere (according to Neander - in England) and sometime during these wanderings. If he was baptized not in Greece and later than Vladimir, it can still be accepted that during his stay with the latter - and this is recognized as a fact - he really persuaded him to accept Christianity, for there is reason to believe that the intention to do the same was accepted by him more or less long before the actual baptism (cfr Neander Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. VI Band. 4 Aufl. S. 32) 496. Vladimir took the throne not in 980, but in 978, for according to the chronicle itself, all the years of his reign are 37 (in the general chronology under the year 852), and from the monk Jacob we find a completely definite testimony that he sat down in Kyiv in the month of June on the 11th day in the summer of 978. When the chronicle says that Yaropolk reigned for 8 years (under the same 852), then the years of reign should be understood not from 972, in which Svyatoslav died, but from 970, in which he imprisoned Yaropolk during his lifetime; when the monk Jacob says that Vladimir sat down in Kiev in the eighth year after the death of his father Svyatoslav, then he must see the mistake that occurred from forgetting that Yaropolk took the grand-ducal throne not after the death, but during the life of Svyatoslav. That is, the Volga-Kama Bulgarians (who were called Silver by us, one must think, from the Trans-Kama or Ural silver). See about them Bestuzhev-Ryumin Russian history, I, 74 (with reference to literature). “Russia has joy and drink, we cannot live without it.” About the Kozars or Khazars, who had their capital Itil at the mouth of the Volga and for whom, from the middle of the 8th century, Judaism, brought from the Greek empire, was the faith of the sovereign and nobles, see Bestuzhev-Ryumin ibid. I, 78 (with reference to literature). “Hare” was added probably because the old Russians loved to eat it. “When Volodymer heard this, he spit on the ground and said: this is an unclean thing.” “Little bit corrupted with us.” That is, to clean and prepare in a festive way, which decoration and preparation consisted especially in the fact that rich shrouds were hung on the icons and that many censers and lamps were hung in the churches in order to create the most brilliant illumination possible (φωταγωγία - illumination, see below). “Add a krylos.” By krylos, i.e. choir, we mean not the choristers, but the staff of the patriarchal liturgical “officials.” The actual states of administrative episcopal officials were called kliros (see below), and then the states of liturgical officials, since many of the administrative officials were also liturgical officials. In general, the tsar gives the order to the patriarch in the story so that he performs for the Russians in St. Sophia, a festive divine service is possible in a solemn manner. “I’ll put it in a spatial place.” The meaning of the not entirely clear words is probably that if you do not accept the Christian faith, then we will go to Constantinople to accept it there. “I am the wisest man of all.” The Pechora monk Jeremiah, about whom the chronicler, without making it clear, however, whether he himself found him alive, says that he “remembered the baptism of the Russian land” (Collected Chronicles, I, 81), and the Kiev boyar Yan Vyshatich, who died in 1106, being about 90 years old, and about whom the chronicler says: “From him and I heard many words, even written in these chronicles.” We are embarrassed to prove at length that the speeches cannot be anything more than a later invention, because it is so obvious and because in the field of non-ecclesiastical history it is considered unnecessary and somewhat strange to prove it. But take, finally, the speeches themselves. Could Mohammedan preachers really come to Vladimir in order to make possibly shameful speeches before him and thus prove to him that their faith is the most shameful in the world? Did Jewish preachers really come to say that Jews are a people rejected by God? Could it be that the papal preachers could only say what the story puts into their mouths, and isn’t it clear that Vladimir’s meaningless answer: “You go again, because our fathers did not accept the essence of this,” means that the compiler of the story did not see the possibility of getting rid of the meaning from Christians who were the same as the Greeks? It is very clear to you how everything you read in the story could have been written by a later and somewhat naive Russian (or how all this could have developed among later Russians). But for all this to be so in reality, it would be more than strange to accept it. (By putting into the mouths of the Pope’s ambassadors the words: “Whoever drinks or eats, it is all to the glory of God,” the author of the story wants to say that the Latins ate strangled meat among all things, for which the Greeks reproached them so much. And by forcing the ambassadors to refer to the Apostle Paul, - 1 Cor. Chapter 10, he wants to make it known that the Latins referred to the Apostle incorrectly, reinterpreting his words. For the decree of the Apostolic Council, Acts 15, 29. By forcing the Greek philosopher to tell Vladimir about the Mohammedans that “they wash their waste, pour it into their mouths and smear it on their lips,” etc., the author of the story, as it is necessary to think, repeats the fables invented by the Greeks about the Mohammedans themselves. Balsamon in the interpretation of the 70th rule of Basil the Great, in Ralli and P. IV, 229 fin.. When the author of the story says that the Mohammedans told Vladimir that whoever is wretched in this world will also be there, then he contradicts what he himself said directly above: this is what the pagan Lithuanians accepted - Bestuzhev-Ryumin, I, 85, and probably the Russians themselves). Tatishchev History of Russia book. II, approx. 180, p. 406; Plato Brief. Church Ross. Ist., I, 24. Wanting to give meaning to the embassy, ​​they assume that it was sent not to observe rituals, but to test dogmas. But the dogmas were to be expounded by the visiting ambassadors, and what incentive could there be for examining them on the spot? The Orthodox reader, we believe, will not fail to say: in whom it is accomplished more harmoniously and orderly, more orderly and edifying. But only he, an Orthodox Christian, can say all this, having in his mind a ready-made idea of ​​the orderliness and edification of his worship and comparing the services of other faiths with it. And why on earth would it occur to a pagan to assume that the worship of one faith has more of these qualities, and the worship of another faith has less of these qualities? Is it possible to assume a priori, in itself, that there are faiths characterized by disorderliness and unedifying worship? Leave your faith, leave all Christian faiths, take pagan faiths: will you assume that the worship of some is more, and the worship of others is less decorous and edifying? Liturgical rites, as well as everyday ones, being external conventional actions, conventional and accepted customs, do not have any independent dignity. And we judge their dignity solely by the degree of our habit of them: our own rituals, to which we are accustomed, are good for us, those that are alien and unknown to us are strange and bad. Mohammedans perform external prayer in such a way that they spread their arms and then bow. In the opinion of the Russian (who can imagine anyone’s prayer only in his own form) this is strange. Meanwhile, this is an ancient Christian image of prayer, borrowed by the Mohammedans from Christians. When entering mosques, Mohammedans wash their faces and hands (at the pools and fountains arranged for this purpose in the courtyards of mosques). It’s strange for a Russian to look at these mass washings of those going to pray. Meanwhile, this is also an ancient Christian custom, borrowed by the Mohammedans also from Christians. We sit on chairs at the dinner table, while the Eastern ones sit on the floor with their legs crossed. The ancients did not sit down, but lay down on beds (beds, long sofas). It’s strange for us to see people sitting on the floor, but for them it’s the opposite; It would be strange for us to see them lying down, but for them it would also be the opposite. Everyone has heard that different nations have very different ways of greeting people they meet. Some bow to each other, taking off their hats, others shake hands, others press their hands to their hearts, others blow on each other, others rub their noses, others lie on their stomachs and crawl towards each other, etc. Everyone finds their own shape good, others strange and thin. External ritual and custom are what the proverb is attached to: What is the city, so is the norm. (Over time, rituals and customs change among the same people. If the present-day Russian man were to reproduce the ancient Russian man with his rituals and customs, then quite a lot would seem extremely strange to him. And, without knowing, he would probably pronounce such a strict judgment that, having learned the matter, he would be very confused). Our author of the story believes the dignity of faiths is not in the dignity of rituals (although, as we said, they do not have this dignity), but in the degree of splendor of churches (iconostases and icons), liturgical accessories (robes and vessels) and the divine service itself (many servants and singing. Among the Mohammedans, the Vladimirov ambassadors did not find “fun” in worship, among the Germans there was “beauty,” and among the Greeks they found such “beauty” that they were at a loss to say). For us, Russians, splendor is a necessary attribute of churches and worship, and for us to see churches and worship in which it is absent and simplicity prevails is extremely strange. But, on the contrary, for people who are accustomed to the simplicity of churches and worship (such as, for example, Mohammedans and Protestants) it is completely strange to see our splendor to the same extent. The Vladimirov ambassadors speak about the worship of the Mohammedans in the story: “looking at how they are worshiping in the church, reksha in the ropati, standing without a belt: having bowed, sit down and look at this and the ovamo as if mad, and there is no joy in them, but the sadness and stench are great.” Everyone, of course, understands by himself that there is no real stench in the worship of the Mohammedans. (They keep their mosques strictly clean and behave in them more neatly than we do in our temples - it is not customary for them to spit and cough on the floors of mosques, which are always covered with immaculately clean mats). By using the word “stench”, the author wants to express his disgust for the worship of the Mohammedans. When he says that in the worship of the Mohammedans there is no joy, but sadness, then from his point of view he is right: the worship of the Mohammedans is characterized by complete simplicity and does not have our splendor at all. Just like their mosques, they do not have any decorations at all (that’s why in the most magnificent mosques of Constantinople a Russian feels like in a barn, which we know from our own impressions). We don’t know or guess what the author wants to say with the words: “Semo and Ovamo looks like he’s mad,” but it’s likely that he’s repeating here one of the many ancient Greek jokes about the Mohammedans. The reproach: “standing without a belt” is explained to us by the Answers of Pope Nicholas ad consulta Bulgarorum (see about them in our book: A brief outline of the history of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian churches), in which, among other things, we read: Jam vero quod asseritis, Graecos vos prohibere communionem suscipere sine cingulis, quibus sacrae scripturae hoc prohibere jure probentur, nos penitus ignoramus, nisi forte... etc., in Min in Patrology t. 119, p.1000, n. LV; cfr of Metropolitan Cyprian in Acts of History, vol. I, p. 118. About the worship of the Latins, the author of the story through the mouth of the ambassadors responds: “I saw many services performed in the churches, but I saw no beauty.” Since the Latins’ worship is no less splendid than that of the Greeks, and on especially solemn occasions it significantly surpasses the latter, going into complete theatricality, to which the Greeks, thank God, did not reach, then the above words of the author should be understood in such a way that, resorting to some sophistry, he is not talking about their public worship in the proper sense, but, so to speak, about private-public - about the singing of dinners on the sidelines (of our current chapel) altars, of which there are very many in large Catholic churches and on which a very large number of dinners are served on holidays (of our early ones). - This contrast between Catholics and us in ancient times was even sharper than now, because in ancient times we did not have chapel altars, but there were chapel churches, so that each church had one altar (on which only one could be celebrated on one day mass), cfr below. If a Catholic decided to write a story similar to ours, then, having led the Vladimirov ambassadors not to the Germans, but to Rome, where, although there was no Sophia of Constantinople, there were such basilicas as St. Peter's Vatican (not the current Mikel-Anzhelovskaya, but the former Konstantinovskaya before the current one) and St. Paul Extra muros, then, having depicted the splendor of the church and the divine service (and, by the way, the singing, in taste regarding which we completely agree with the Westerners and so completely disagree with the Greeks...), I would have every right to say about the impression received by the ambassadors from the outside, no less than what the author of our story says. Since people who study history are for the most part not keen on somewhat abstract thinking, I was reproached that my above speeches about the impossibility of Vladimir’s choice of faiths were not entirely or even not at all clear; why did I promise in print, in the case of the 2nd edition of the book, to speak out more clearly. But now I find that it is impossible to make abstract things visually clear, so as to relieve the reader of any tension in the head. To what has been said I will add what I wrote in the 1st edition in additions: This is not about positive information, but about religious beliefs or convictions. With positive information, what the story of the baptism represents happened to Vladimir's religious beliefs or convictions can happen. Suppose I have information about some incident; Having talked with three or four people who assure me that my information is false and at the same time everyone talks about the incident in their own way, I can doubt my information and, in view of the inconsistency of other indicators, begin to search for the truth. But this cannot happen with religious beliefs and all kinds of beliefs. I have known religious beliefs. Three or four people successively come to me, having religious beliefs that are different from mine, and together each has their own special ones, and in turn they try to convince me of the falsity of my opinions and the truth of each of theirs. It cannot happen here that I, without being convinced by the speeches of any interlocutor, would waver in the truth of my beliefs and decide to undertake a search for the truth; But it will either happen that I, not convinced by anyone, will remain with my beliefs, or that, convinced by one person, I will accept his beliefs instead of my beliefs. Let us imagine a philosopher who has certain philosophical beliefs. He reads several books that offer other beliefs, each with his own: will it happen to him that by this fact of the existence of many other beliefs, he will be shaken in the truth of his own and begin to look for the true ones among the first? Of course not: he will either remain with his convictions or, without further investigation, change them to known others, which he finds more true. In general, when changing religious beliefs and any convictions, it is impossible to choose from many, but only a direct and immediate change from one to another is possible (although this change, of course, can occur several times in succession). There is no action without a reason; the only reason that can force a person to abandon beliefs, since he has them, is that he sees before him other well-known beliefs that he finds more true, and therefore it is not a choice from many, but only a change from one to another. (Human thinking is subject, by the way, to the law of sufficient reason - principium ratiōnis sufficientis: Just as no one will accept a new belief without sufficient reason, so no one will reject the old one without the same reason. But such a reason in the latter case can only be a new conviction that a person finds more true. Consequently, a change from belief to belief, etc.). Defenders of the story may object that Vladimir, as a pagan, had no convictions, that he was a pagan only because he was born one. But not only will they not help themselves, but will completely ruin the matter: someone who has no convictions and only formally and outwardly holds certain beliefs will not seek out which of the other beliefs are true, and if he finds it necessary to become an adept of others from a formal and outward adherent of some, he will do this for some outside consideration (and if from an outward and formal adept of some beliefs he becomes a sincere adept other beliefs, then again not by choice...).– The impossibility of presenting the matter in such a way that Vladimir, having listened to all the preachers and not being convinced by any of them, would, however, decide to leave paganism, the author of the story himself was aware of. Therefore, it seems to him that he was convinced of the falsity of paganism by a Greek preacher. (But if the Greek preacher convinced Vladimir of the falsity of paganism, then at the same time he had to convince him of the truth of Christianity, for he could convince of the first through the fact that he convinced of the second; and if so, then embassies are not needed...). According to the Nikon Chronicle, I, 62 beginnings, an embassy from the Greeks came to Vladimirov’s predecessor Yaropolk at the end of his reign. The author of the chronicle indicates the reason for the embassy was political. But since, following the Greeks, the pope sent his ambassadors to Yaropolk, - ibid., it is not incredible to assume that on the part of the Greeks, as the pope, the matter was to persuade him to accept Christianity. Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part II. 1844, p. 242 (Hilarion was also published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848 No. 7). Among our currently known original writers, the monk Jacob occupies the first place in terms of life time, and, consequently, in terms of authority, as a historical witness, after Metropolitan Hilarion. When exactly he wrote his praise of Vladimir is unknown, but another work (The Legend of the Murder of Boris and Gleb), older than the present one, was written before 1072; therefore, the approximate time of writing the Praise can be determined as we indicated above. Eustathius Placidas, a Roman martyr of the end of the 2nd century, called according to his life from paganism to Christianity, as indicated by the Monk Nestor, - September 20. “So for this Vladimer, God made a manifestation to him as a peasant.” Nestor's life of Boris and Gleb was published several times: Orthodox Interlocutor 1858. in part 1, by Bodyansky in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1859. in the book 1, Sreznevsky separately according to the so-called Silvestrovsky list, St. Petersburg, 1860. That is, we want to say that with the “Praise” written by Jacob, his writing of the “Life” would seem inappropriate and pointless. According to the Life, Vladimir was baptized in Korsun after its capture, and according to Jacob, he was baptized two years before the campaign against this city; According to the Life, Vladimir lived in Christianity after baptism for 33 years, and according to Jacob, 28 years. Both circumstances are discussed below. We publish the life of Volodymer and the corresponding extract from the chronicle against him in the appendix to this chapter, where we ask the reader to compare them with his own eyes. The collections read “The Tale of How Volodimer Was Baptized, Taking Korsun,” which is precisely an abbreviation of the story of Vladimir’s baptism, found in the chronicle, now done in the manner indicated by us - Rumyantsev Museum of Orientals No. 306, p. 434. For other reasons, we had a different custom, namely, to pass off our own and generally unknown authors’ works as the works of the holy fathers (the motive was to give the works authority and thus achieve greater benefit through them). Or another form to “I have mercy on you” or an erroneous amendment from this latter. The Life, after the preface about Vladimir, begins its narrative with the words: “his servants went to the Bulgarians and the Germans.” This “same” seems to let us know that this is not a real beginning. But if we accept the assumption that its author was a Greek, which is discussed below, then the inappropriate, apparently, in this case will be explained for us: it will then be the Greek δε, which is constantly used by the Greeks at the beginning of speech instead of δή or οῦν and corresponds in meaning to our “so” (so; a turn of speech: that’s how it was). Here is further proof that ambassadors did not come to Vladimir with an offer of faith. According to the Nikon Chronicle - I, 92, the pope sent his ambassadors to Vladimir either to Korsun when he was there, or to Kyiv immediately upon his return from Korsun (which is not entirely clear in the chronicle). One way or another, but the purpose of the embassy must assume the desire of the pope to call Vladimir back from the Greeks to himself. And if so, then it should follow from this that before Vladimir’s baptism the pope did not send ambassadors to him (for immediately after an unsuccessful attempt to convince the prince to accept his Roman Christianity, he would not have made an attempt to call him back to himself from the Greeks). For the original story, see the appendix. Vasily and Constantine, siblings, were the sons of Roman the Younger, grandchildren of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the famous writer, great-grandsons of Leo the Wise, great-great-grandchildren of Vasily the Macedonian. They ruled together from 975 to 1025, when the first died (and the second in 1028), however, in such a way that this first was the actual emperor (he is the famous conqueror of Bulgaria or the Bulgarian Slayer - Βουλγαροκτόνος). About Olaf, son of Tryggviev, king of Norway, who, having been baptized in Greece, later convinced Vladimir to accept Christianity. See it in the appendix to this chapter. After the capture of Korsun, Vladimir provided military assistance to the Greek emperors who were fighting with one rebel, and this assistance could have been provided no later than April 989, - Krug’s Chronologie der Byzantiner, 319. According to Jacob, Vladimir “after baptism in the fifth year laid Pereyaslavl”, and “in the ninth tithe the church of the Mother of God”. Having taken this testimony with the years of the chronicle, we get the year of baptism 987. In Jacob it is read that Vladimir was baptized in the tenth year after the murder of Yaropolk. But here we should see an error instead of the ninth, as it is read in the Nikon (I, 25) and Pskov (Collected Chronicles. IV, 175) chronicles. (The recently published Syrian historian of the early 11th century, Yahya of Antioch, says that the emperors, with the help of the troops of the Russian prince, defeated the rebel in the battle that took place on April 13, 989, see “Extracts from the Notes of Yahya of Antioch,” published, translated and explained by Baron Rosen, in the appendix to XLIV volume. Notes of the Academy of Sciences, page 25. When the publisher Yahya believes that Vladimir provided assistance to the emperors before the capture of Korsun, we do not understand this at all, i.e. We do not understand that Vladimir could provide assistance to the emperors while he was besieging their city and was at war with them, for the people with whom they are fighting are not provided with assistance at the same time). To convince those who would find it strange and incredible to present the matter in this way, we will refer to examples: firstly, not very long before Vladimir, the Polish king Mieczyslaw I was baptized, and secondly, very soon after him, the Hungarian king Stephen I was baptized. Both of these sovereigns were baptized, and for some time were Christians in exactly the modest way that we assume about Vladimir. Vasilev, currently Vasilkov, on the river. Stugna, 30 versts southwest of Kyiv. The Greek origin of the author is indicated, although not beyond doubt, by some particulars of the text. The ambassadors’ speech about the worship of the Bolgars reads: “look at how they worship (the Bolgars) in a ropata, standing without a belt”; ropata is the medieval Greek ῥ απατίον (Duc. Gloss. Graecit.). Instead of the priest, in one place (in the story about the baptism of Vladimir the people of Kiev) there is a pope, which is obviously the Greek παπ ᾶ ς (Form: “I have mercy on you” instead of “I have mercy on you”, can’t it be explained from Greek?). Finally, there is one more circumstance that strengthens the idea that the author of the life was a Greek. A story about the baptism of Vladimir was found in Greek, which, reproducing our Russian stories, adds to them the fact that the first teachers Constantine and Methodius (calling the latter Athanasius) forced them to invent the Slavic alphabet for us - Russians (the so-called Banduriev legend, see it in the appendix to this chapter). This Greek story, like our Life, does not talk about ambassadors to Vladimir, but directly about his ambassadors to the peoples. If we assume that the author of the Life was a Greek, that he wrote it in Slavic and Greek, and that the Life, existing in the latter language, served as a source (one of the sources) for the author of the Greek story, then we will understand why the latter does not have information about the ambassadors who came to Vladimir. Tale of the Passion about the murder of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb. With our explanation of the matter, we assume very great ignorance and frivolity in the author: but who does not know examples of even greater ignorance and frivolity? Among the examples of the Greeks’ distortion of our own history, let us recall the legend of Banduriev (and from Slavic history in general we would recall the so-called Theophylactic Life of Clement Belitsky, if only our critical analysis of it had been published). Moscow Assumption Cathedral, ed. Bodyansky. How the error occurred in the Slavic writing of numbers is quite clear: 6495 in Slavic; some scribes mistook the last digit for the letter e, meaning 90, and discarded it; after that it remained. Of the Greeks who can be guessed with some probability, we know only one so far, this is the monk Theodosius, who lived in Kyiv, probably as some kind of rank under the metropolitan, in the first half of the 12th century and translated from Greek into Slavic, at the request of the Chernigov prince Nikolai Svyatosha, who labored in the Pechersk Monastery (from 1106 to 1142 or 43, Chronicle and Patericon of Pechersk), message of Pope Leo the Great to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople about the heresy of Eutyches (Printed in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848, No. 7. Sinful Theodosius, who made an extract from the chronicle of the story of the baptism of Vladimir, read in the Rumyantsev manuscript No. 306, in Vostokov, p. 434, does not apply to us, because, firstly, his extract is not at all the same with our life, and secondly, see about him in the Readings on Language and Literature, II Branch of the Academy of Sciences, 1854–1855, the article by the Right Reverend Macarius: Note about Theodosius, copyist of the Life of Volodimerov). This speech, as a lesson to a Christian already convinced of the truth of Christianity, could be called very good. But, forcing the philosopher to carry it before the pagan Vladimir, the unknown author naively forgets that Vladimir is not yet a Christian and that most of what he convinces him with is not yet convincing for him at all. (In literary terms, our speech is not an independent work, but a compilation, but, as such, it should be considered very good and even positively good). The author of the Word on the Latins, which is assimilated by Theodosius of Pechersk, but which in fact should be assimilated by Theodosius the Greek, who lived in the middle of the 12th century, about which we have now spoken above (see below), says about the Latins that “our land has also been fulfilled with the evil faith of the people,” cfr deliberate speech below. Below we will also speak deliberately about the Jews in Russia. We really think that the second edition of the story also belongs to a Greek, and not a Russian. We are inclined to see decisive proof of this in the words that the author of our edition of the story puts into the mouth of Vladimir: “Rus' is joy and drink, we cannot exist without it.” For a Russian, through the mouth of Vladimir, to want to sanction Russian drunkenness, this seems completely incredible to us. These words are put into the mouth of Vladimir, obviously, in mockery of the Russians and want to say that the Russian does not forget about wine when he talks about faiths, and that when discussing the dignity of faiths, the first question for him is: does faith allow you to drink wine? - The fables about the Mohammedans, read in our edition of the story, as far as we know, are not found in the same form as they are in it, in the Slavic, books translated from Greek. This makes it clear that the author of our edition took them directly from Greek books, and, therefore, that he was a Greek. (There is one contradiction in our edition of the story, which is not entirely clear to us: the Greek philosopher tells Vladimir that the faith of the Latins is “a little corrupted among us,” and the Bishop of Korsun in his teaching to Vladimir tells him that it is much corrupted. Doesn’t this indicate three whole editions of the story, of which the second has not reached us?) – Regarding the time of the appearance of our edition. The story has one sign in it, but it is far from certain. Vladimir says in it to the pope’s ambassadors: “go back again, because our fathers did not accept the essence of this”; These words, which have no meaning in the mouth of Vladimir, mean that the editors appeared after more or less repeated sendings of their ambassadors to us by the popes. They also point to the words of the Jews to Vladimir: “our land was given over to the Christians,” and if we were to understand them about the own time of the author of our edition of the story, we would have to understand the times of the Crusaders’ domination in Palestine. But the words can also be understood about a long-past (pre-Muslim) time. (The edition of the story mentions the mythical Pope Peter Gugnivy. If our assumptions were accepted as fair that he appeared no earlier than the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century, see 2 halves of volume 1, pp. 693 and 789, then this would determine the time of the appearance of the edition of the story). Graetz 'a Geschichte der Juden. VI, 162. – The story of Yehuda Halevi, written by him in Arabic, was entitled by him (translated from Arabic into Russian through German): “The Book of Evidence and Arguments to Help the Despised Religion.” In the Hebrew translation, which was made shortly after the author’s death, it is called: Sefer gakkuzari (Sefer - Kozri) i.e. Book of Khazar or Khazar. The Hebrew translation was printed for the first time in 1506. and then print it many times. In 1660 it was published by Buxtorf's son in a Latin translation under the title Liber Cosri; Recently, part of it was published in German translation under the title: Das Buch Kusari. We did not have the story at hand in either Latin or German translations and conveyed its contents according to the book indicated above; Gractz 'a Geschichte der Juden, – VI. 146 sqq; for her bibliography see Fürst'a in Bibliotheca Judaica, -II, 36 fin. sqq. It is believed that the historical basis for the story was a letter from the Khazar Kagan Joseph, written in the middle of the 10th century (about 960) to the Spanish Jew Khazday or Hizday and conveying, at the request of this latter, the story of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. This letter would be even more suitable for us than the story of Yehuda Halevi, for it talks about the embassies sent to the Kagan with an offer of faith from the Christian and Mohammedan kings. But we are of the opinion that it is false and itself compiled on the basis of the story of Yehuda Halevi. What Joseph Khazday tells us about contemporary Khazaria is very suspicious. When it is said about the kagan who converted to Judaism that he, while still a pagan, destroyed all the idols in his land and put the idolaters to death, this seems to be an unsuccessful (outwitted) amendment against Halevi. Finally, the fact that the letter was discovered by Jews only in the second half of the 16th century after Halevi’s story had been published more than once (about the discovery in Gractz’a V, 367 and 370 notes), raises doubts (in the Russian translation, Joseph’s letter to Khazday was published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1847 No. 6, and an extract from Khazday’s petitionary letter to Joseph, which was opened simultaneously with the first and should also be considered forged, in the Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia, edition D.V., vol. I. M. 1845). Cfr article by I. I. Malyshevsky: Jews in southern Rus' and Kyiv in the X-XII centuries, published in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. By the way, we note here that the Jewish record allegedly found, i.e. composed, by the famous Firkovich about the arrival in 986. Vladimir’s ambassadors to the Khazar Kagan can be read in the now mentioned article by Mr. Malyshevsky, according to ed. separate brochure page 3 approx. (in Graetz'a about her V, 550. The zealous writer did not see in our story about baptism that according to it Vladimir did not consider it necessary to send his ambassadors to the Khazars, already from the very conversation with the ambassadors of the Khazar Jews he was convinced that Judaism is a faith rejected by God. Or maybe he wanted in this case to refute our story? Rosh Meshech, that should be understood as “Moscow Russians”, also not bad). Our story about the baptism of Vladimir (second edition), written with the aim of proving the superiority of our Orthodoxy over all other faiths, was turned in the 16th century by Russian-Lithuanian anti-Trinitarians to defend anti-Trinitarianism against Orthodoxy. They composed a letter to Vladimir allegedly from one of his ambassadors sent to inspect the faiths, namely from Ivan Smera Polovlyanin, dated from Alexandria (Nikon Chronicle under the year 1001 about embassies to Rome, Jerusalem, Egypt, accepted by Stryikovsky as embassies to inspect the faiths), in which the Greeks and their faith are strongly reproached and in which the prince is strongly convinced not to accept the latter. About the letter of Smera Karamzin I, approx. 447, Metropolitan Eugene in the Dictionary of Russian Secular Writers under the words. John Smera and especially the mentioned I.I. Malyshevsky in the article: Forged letter of the Polovtsian Ivan Smera to the Grand Duke Vladimir St., published in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy for 1876. (It is interesting to read in the letter how it responds to the words of the story that our ambassadors, having been in the Greek church, did not know where they were standing - on earth or in heaven: “I came from Jerusalem,” writes the imaginary Smera, “here to Alexandria; here I saw everywhere shrines built luxuriously, and people with morals similar to asps and basilisks (i.e., Greeks with luxurious shrines); but I saw There are also quite a few Christian prayer houses in which there are no idols, but only tables and benches”..., Malyshevsky has a separate brochure, p. 2). Under 980: “I didn’t stop beating my brothers, but he, being afraid of that, died.” According to the Nikon Chronicle, I, 65, Vladimir had not even 800, but 1100 concubines: 300 in Vyshgorod, 300 in Belgorod, 300 in Rodna and 200 in Berestovoy. See Bestuzhev-Ryumin in Russian History I, 81 (Karamzin I, note 90). About the birth of Svyatopolk by Vladimir from a captive Greek woman, who had previously been the wife of his elder brother Yaropolk, the chronicler says: “Volodimer married his brother Grekin, and was not idle, from whom Svyatopolk was born; From the sinful root of evil comes fruit: since his mother was a blueberry, and secondly, Vladimir was laid aside not by marriage, for he was an adulterer; In the same way, his father did not love him, because he was from two fathers - from Yaropolk and from Volodymer" (under 980). It is fair or unfair that Vladimir did not love Svyatopolk, as he was born of adultery, but this dislike, due to the specified reason, is adopted by the chronicler. It follows from this that the chronicler was far from considering Vladimir the greatest debauchee. And if so, then from this, in turn, it should follow that what is read in the chronicle about Vladimir’s debauchery should not be assimilated by him himself. Cfr Ibn-Dast according to Khvolson's edition, p. 35, §2. Ibn-Foszlan in Fren, S. 7; Olga promised to send the emperor as a gift: servants, wax and fast food, etc. Svyatoslav says about Pereyaslavets of the Danube that fast and wax, honey and servants come to it from Rus', in the story about one miracle of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, which happened in Constantinople during the reign of Emperor Constantine Monomakh (1042-1054), it is said that a certain boyar, wanting to buy a slave, “took a liter of gold and went on horseback to the market, where rustic merchants were selling their servants” (manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 90, l. 222, miracle 34). Ibn-Foszl. ibid. (It is very likely that this was the case for others involved in the slave trade; about the Caucasian Highlanders, cfr article: “At the foot of Elborus,” published in the Bulletin of Europe 1886, February, p. 563). We strongly suspect that from this trade in slaves arose the legend about Vladimirov’s numerous harem, i.e. that the corrupt slaves, of whom he always had many, were directly transformed into his concubines. Adam of Bremen, speaking of the Normans that they despise gold, silver and everything that is considered precious by others, in sola mulierum copula modum nesciunt, – quisque secundum facultatem suarum virium duas aut tres et amplius simul habet, divites et principes absque numero (Lib. IV, p. 21), makes it clear that the use slaves as concubines was very common among the Normans. Ibn Fotslan says that Prince Russov had 40 maids assigned to his bedside (vierzig Mädchen, in Frehn S. 21). Directly about Vladimir himself, Thietmar of Merseburg states that he was fornicator immensus et crudelis (Chronic., lib. VII, p. 52). Thus, it is quite possible to assume that before Christianity Vladimir was indeed inordinately devoted to the vice of voluptuousness, but nothing will follow from this, since he was betrayed together with all others, and not exclusively against others. But beyond that, there is reason to think that among our Russian or Kyiv Normans during the time of Vladimir, the former intemperance no longer prevailed, and that Vladimir himself was no longer, before the adoption of Christianity, the sensualist that his predecessors could have been. (And how, perhaps, Thietmar imagines him according to general rumors about these latter). Malusha or Malka, Vladimirov’s mother, because she allowed herself to have a relationship with Svyatoslav, Olga sent in anger to the village of Budutino (Nikon Chronicle I, 54). Metropolitan Hilarion, monk Jacob and Rev. Nestor, when they say that Vladimir was disposed to accept Christianity by the grace of the Holy Spirit, as if they eliminate the thought of him as a grave sinner in paganism (When the second says that Vladimir, having become a Christian, repented of his previous sins: “like a beast, you did a lot of evil in filthiness and lived like cattle naked,” then, perhaps, hints at pagan voluptuousness, or perhaps it simply means the impurity of pagan life, as such). As for Vladimir bringing to himself other people's married wives and corrupting girls (implying the daughters of free people), Adam of Bremen says: Capitali pena mulctatur (among the Normans), si quis uxorem alterius congoverit aut vi oppresserit virginem, Lib IV c. 21. To explain the fact that Vladimir is accustomed to bringing other people’s wives and corrupting girls, perhaps one should take into account those news about the Normans that, when making their predatory raids on other peoples, uxores stuprabant, puellas devirginabant, - Dudo Viromandensis De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum libri Tres, Lib. I beginning, y Minya in Patrology t, 141 p. 622). That is, saying that Vladimir took Kyiv as a result of the betrayal of the governor Yaropolkov Blud, who was seduced by Vladimir’s promises, and at the same time directly adding that Blud himself wanted to kill Yaropolk, but did not dare to do it, fearing the citizens (“he himself thought of killing Yaropolk, the citizens could not have killed him”: and the imaginary Joachim chronicle: “People don’t like Yaropolk to eat; since I was a Christian, I gave you great freedom”). We then encounter single-person treason similar to Bludova in the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk (Novgorod 1st Chronicle, 1016). Chronicle from 945, about the swearing in of Igor by the Greek ambassadors. In 983 Vladimir went to the Yatvyags (a Lithuanian tribe that lived to the West of the Dregovichi, in the southern half of the current Grodno province), defeated them and took their land. When he returned to Kyiv and decided to offer thanksgiving sacrifices to the gods, the elders and boyars said: “We will cast lots for the boy (youth) and the maiden, and on whomever the lot falls, we will sacrifice them to the gods.” The lot of the youth fell on the son of one Varangian, who came from Constantinople and was a Christian. Those sent from the people's council demanded from Varyag his son; but this one responded to the demand with reproaches to the pagan gods. Then all the veche went to the house and, finding it locked, took it by force, and tore the boyar and his son to pieces (the names of the martyrs, not recorded by the chronicler, in later prologue legends - Theodore and John; regarding their burial, the chronicler says: “and no one knows where I laid it,” but at the present time the relics of the son are known, we don’t know why, under the name of the relics of the baby John, while from the chronicle clearly shows that he was not a baby - in the Kyiv Anthony Caves - Church memory of the martyrs - July 12). On human sacrifice among the Normans: Ibn-Dast, ed. Khvolson p. 38, §9, Dudo Viromandensis Lib. I beginning, – in Patrology, Minya t. 141 rub. 621 beginning; For more evidence, see studies, comments and lectures by Pogodin, vol. 3 p. 316; of the new historians, Weber, who is at our disposal, speaks of these human sacrifices among the Normans as a positive fact (Menschenopfer blieben lange Nationalsitte of the Normans, - in the original German edition 14, B. I, S. 574, §336). About these sacrifices we have before Vladimir - Lev Deacon Kaloisk., book. IX, ch. 6. (About them among the Western Slavs - Sreznevsky’s study on the pagan worship of the ancient Slavs, St. Petersburg, 1848, p. 76). Dombrovka or (according to the Latin translation of the name) Bona, daughter of the Czech sovereign Boleslav I. Women generally play a very important role in the spread of Christianity in Europe: the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis is attributed to his Burgundian wife Clotilde. Message from the Anglo-Saxon king Edilbert to his wife, the Frankish princess Bertha. The conversion of the contemporary Hungarian kings Geisa and Stefan (the first half, the second completely) is attributed to their spouses - the sister of the Polish king Adelheide and the sister of the emperor Gisla. The Czechs, Vladimir’s spouses, whoever they were, of course, knew about Dombrovka’s behavior and success in Poland, and therefore it was natural for them to imitate her. But, perhaps, one of these Czechs was even directly from the princely family and was a close relative of Dombrovka, for if the princess was given to the pagan Mechislav, then she could have been given to Vladimir. In this last case, it was natural for the younger princess to see her calling, as it were, in what the elder princess managed to do. Vladimir married not one Christian woman, but several, whereas, of course, he knew that it is customary for Christians to have one wife: this, apparently, does not show that he was moving towards Christianity. But to demand from a pagan that he completely become a Christian before converting to Christianity would be pretentious. (How the Christian fathers had the desire to marry their daughters to a polygamous man is not entirely clear. But this is not entirely clear is a fact, and it only follows from this that not everything in ancient customs is clear to us). However, even here, strictly speaking, Vladimir would have had complete choice. The Greek or Papa ambassador would have convinced him of the truth of Christianity. But since the Greeks and Latins then still constituted two halves of the same Orthodox Church, neither one nor the other ambassador, of course, would prove to him that the other side was heretical, with which salvation was impossible. (Although in the story of the baptism the Greeks are forced to do this in relation to the Latins). One or the other ambassador, of course, would have convinced Vladimir to accept Christianity on his side (for, as we have already noted, in addition to common Orthodoxy, there was also a power that divided people). But I would convince not with theological arguments, but with one or another extraneous considerations. And Vladimir himself was competent in these latter matters. (We note here by the way: whoever would like to insist on the reality of the arrival of ambassadors or missionaries to Vladimir in those forms that this arrival explains why Vladimir adopted Orthodoxy and not Latinism; from what has just been said, he can see that the arrival here serves no purpose). If another reader may recall that the Varangian faith was subsequently synonymous with the Latin faith, then we should tell him that the Latin faith became Varangian from the beginning of the 11th century, when Norway and Sweden, where the Varangians were from, converted from paganism to Latin Christianity. See above an excerpt from Fotiev’s District Message. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. In the half of the 14th century. The Sultan of Egypt titles the Emperor of Constantinople in his letter to him: rex Graecoram, rex Bulgarorum, Asaniorum, Blachorum, Rhossorum et Alanorum (Stritter, Memorr. popp. II, 1027). One should think that the sultan repeats the title that the emperor himself acquired for himself (A. S. Pavlov found decisive confirmation of our assumptions from one Greek writer of the 14th century, see in his publication: Monuments of Ancient Russian Canon Law, Part I, second count, p. 273 note). See Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, p. 13, where this is deliberately treated. When the German Emperor Otto I in 968. was looking for the hand of our elder sister Anna for his son, then even he was answered: Inaudita res est, ut porphygoreniti porphyrogenita, hoc est in purpura nati filia in purpura nata, gentibus misceatur, Liutprandi Legatio, c. 15. So that Vladimir’s supposed fear that the Greeks will not want to become the civilizers of Russia does not seem strange to the reader, let us remind him of the 15th-16th centuries of our history, when our western neighbors showed such reluctance. The time chosen by Vladimir for the campaign against Korsun reveals in him the prudence that we spoke about above: he undertook it when the emperors of Constantinople, on the occasion of the appearance of the rebels (Sclerus and then Bardas Phocas), were in a very embarrassed position. – For the chronicle’s account of Vladimir’s capture of Korsun, see the appendix to this chapter. Anna was born on March 13, 963 (Krug’s Chronologie d. Byzantier, SS. 318 and 328), therefore, in 989, when Vladimir took Korsun, she was 26 years old. Varda Phokas and his comrades. For the Greek chroniclers, see the appendix to this chapter. According to his life, Vladimir was baptized in Korsun, that is, he was married to Princess Anna, in the church of St. Jacob; according to the Laurentian list of the story - in the church of St. Vasily. We believe that instead of both, the testimony of the Ipatsky copy of the story should be considered correct, according to which he was baptized in the church of St. Sofia. There are reasons to believe (we will indicate them below) that the cathedral church of Korsun was the Church of St. Sofia; but Vladimir was married, of course, in the cathedral church for, not to mention anything else, the wedding was, of course, performed by the bishop himself. – Without making the above remarks about Vladimir’s pagan wives, let’s make it here. To the question about these wives, which is very unimportant in itself, but arouses the curiosity of others, we cannot answer absolutely anything positive, because we know absolutely nothing positive. If we accept that Vladimir was baptized secretly from the people, then one will have to think that until he declared himself to the people as a Christian, he did not let them go from him. But he just stopped having his real wives, starting to be content with a real wife as such - one of them. (As for whether or not she married this one in a Christian marriage, we cannot say anything). When he married a Greek princess, of course, he sent away all his wives, including the one mentioned above. As for how he arranged for them, then regarding those of them who wanted to get married, one can think that he married them off as boyars. And for those who did not want to get married, one must think that he provided them with a decent existence. The only one known by name of all the wives is Rogneda, the daughter of Rogvold of Polotsk, who belonged to the last, now indicated, category, which, according to the chronicler, in 980, Vladimir planted near Kyiv on Lybid, where the village of Predslavino was later located, and who died in 1000. (For the legend about her, how she wanted to kill Vladimir, who betrayed her in love, see Karamzin I, 126 beginning). And by Malfridya, who died in the same year, as recorded in the Laurentian chronicle, it seems more likely to mean a man, some noble boyar, Malfrid, as recorded in the Ipatskaya chronicle and after her in the later Nikonovskaya. In the latter, under 1002. it is already completely clear: “Malvred the strong has passed away” - that is, one of the heroes, the knights of Vladimirov). According to the testimony of the monk Jacob, Vladimir took Korsun two years on the third after his baptism, which took place in 987, and according to the Greek and Arab chroniclers, he provided military assistance to the emperors of Constantinople, which was after the capture of Korsun, or until April 989 or in this month (see above). The year 988 in the chronicle, if we take as fair news of Vladimirov’s life that he besieged Korsun for six months, will be the actual year of his departure on the campaign. Collection of chronicles. V, 121 and VII, 313. Archbishop - a later amendment instead of bishop; about Patriarch Photius, see below. Karamzin believes that the war of 985 was with the Kama Bulgarians. But this is completely unfounded. The chronicle says about the campaign: “Volodimer went to the Bolgars with Dobrynya with his boats, and brought Torki along the shore on horses.” If Vladimir had gone to the Bolgar Kama, he would have sailed along the Volga, and brought Torkov along the bank of the same river; but to say simply “I’ll go in boats” and “I’ll bring you along the shore”, when it was so far from Kyiv to get to the Volga, would be extremely strange on the part of the chronicler. Then, in the 10th century, along the banks of the Volga, covered with impenetrable forest, it was completely impossible to conduct cavalry (the Nikon Chronicle, accurately designating the Bolgars with whom Vladimir fought in 985, calls them Nizovsky, which means precisely the Danube, for they were below Kyiv, like Kyiv below Novgorod and Smolensk - Ipatsky Chronicle 2nd edition pp. 87, 253 and 259, Supplement to the Acts of History vol. I, p. 4 col. 2). As for the acquaintance of the Russians with Danube Bulgaria during the time of Vladimir, regardless of the latter’s personal relations with it, their annual trade caravans departing from Kyiv to Constantinople usually made stops along the way in several coastal cities of Bulgaria (Konstantin Porphyrogenite De administr. imper., p. 9), and more or less extensive bargaining was conducted with it along the way. [Svyatoslav around 969: fast food and wax, honey and servants come to Pereyaslavets from Rus'. – In 985. part of the Bulgarian state, located between the Danube and the Balkans (present-day Bulgaria), was in the power of the Greeks, see our Brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, p. 8; but on this side of the Danube the Bulgarians have long belonged to one or another significant extent to Wallachia and Moldavia. When the Greeks conquered the part of the Bulgarian state that we have now indicated, the trans-Danubian (and in relation to us, the pre-Danubian) part of the possessions - these Wallachia with Moldavia - either remained with the Bulgarian sovereigns or declared itself independent. It was part of this part of the possessions, whether it then belonged to the Bulgarian sovereigns or was formerly independent, that Vladimir wanted, as one must think, to subordinate to his power in 985]. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The life and the story contradict themselves when they say that during the overthrow of Perun “the people wept for his unfaithfulness.” Tatishchev, as is his custom, presents this assumption as a positive fact (II, 75 beginning). According to the life of Volodymer of the unknown Greek author, about whom we spoke above, and according to another life of him - the prologue, the general baptism of the Kyivans was carried out in the Pochayna River; according to the story placed in the chronicle, in the Dnieper. The Prologue Life, more precisely defining the place of baptism in Pochayna, says: “and from there the place was called holy, where now there is a church of Petrov” (in one collection of the 16th century, in the article: “The Legend of the First Russian Princes: the Church of St. Apostle Peter”, Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 326, l. 47, p. 684; in the Book of Degrees, I, 141: the holy martyr Turov (Tudor, i.e. Theodore?) which is probably not entirely a mistake, but relates to the Turov (Tudor?) shrine, which is mentioned in the Hypatan Chronicle under 1146). The author of the Synopsis, no doubt, conveying the tradition that existed in his time, says that the baptism took place “on the Pochaina River, where, at Brez, there is now the church of the holy martyr Boris and Gleb” (8th edition of St. Petersburg, 1798, p. 71). Neither the churches of Petrova (about which cfr Nikon Chronicle under 1008) and Borisoglebskaya nor the goddess of Turova are currently known in the area. As for Khreshchatyk or Khreshchatyk. then, according to the author of the Synopsis, it received its name from the fact that the sons of Vladimir were baptized here (ibid.). But didn’t it get its name simply from the fact that people went here for water baptisms, that is, for the blessing of water? When Perun was brought to the Dnieper, then Vladimir "sent (bailiffs) of the rivers: if there is a place to land, you tear it away from the shore, until the rapids pass, then you will get rid of it. They are the commanded creation: like a wasteland and, having passed through the rapids, the eruption and the wind have passed through, and from there I have heard Perunya is old, as the saying goes to this day.” We cannot say what the rapids between Kiev and the Vydubitsky Monastery (Perunya Ren) located very close to it are. Instead of ren Karamzin (I, note 459) reads: rel, which, in his opinion, means a cape and that in the old (cf. in his own V, note 254) and in the present Novgorod dialect means a low-lying place, a flooded meadow, but this is hardly fundamental. Since to tear off meant and means to drag away (see above: tear off), then the ren, perhaps, means a pier (in the opposite sense of the place from which ferries serving for transportation are pulled away), which indeed was here, for there was transportation across the Dnieper (in the Little Russian language of Galicia, “ren” supposedly means sands). Regarding the shameful method of Vladimir’s crushing of idols cfr in Helmold (Lib. II p. 12), how the Danish king Valdemar crushed in 1168 the idol of Svyatovit from the Rugiyans he conquered (et fecit produci simulachrum illud antiquissimum Zvantevith, et jussit mitti funem in collo ejus et trahi per medium exercitum in oculis Sclavorum, et frustatim concisum in ignem mitti). – Most For the chronicle's story, see the appendix to this chapter. The mother of cities is the Greek μητρόπολις (as the Greeks called the main administrative cities of the regions - our provincial ones). When Otto of Bamberg, the baptist of the Baltic (Polish) Pomeranians, arrived with a sermon (in 1124) in the city of Yulina (Volyn), the residents answered him that he should go to the older city - Stetin. And that - as the older Stetinians do, so will the younger Julinians do (super hoc verbo se facturos, quidcumque facerent Stetinenses, hanc enim civitatem antiquissimam et nobilissimam dicebant in terra Pomeranorum matremque civitatum), Vita S. Ottonis in Acta SS. Bollavdistov, July t. 1 p.m. 400, Hilferding History of the Baltic Slavs, vol. I p. 12 (Cfr Hypatian Chronicle under 1286, 2nd edition p. 599 beginning, about the Krakowians). The Radimichi, who sat along the Sozha, occupied the eastern half of the Mogilev province. The Vyatichi, sitting to the west of them, in the upper reaches of the Oka, occupied the northern corner of the Chernigov province (Gomel on their western border), the eastern large half of the Oryol province and the southern half of the Kaluga province (their cities in the first: Bryansk, Mtsensk, Karachev, Sevsk, in the second: Vorotinsk between Kaluga and Przemysl, Kozelsk). Complete Chronicles, II, 259. In their own Russia, Vladimir was placed on appanages: in Novgorod - first Vysheslav, and then, after his death, Yaroslav, in Polotsk - Izyaslav, in Turov - Svyatopolk, in the land of Drevlyanskaya - Svyatoslav, in Vladimir Volynsky - Vsevolod. Of course, the passion of the Novgorodians for fist fights, about which cfr Acts of History I, 89. In the Novgorod III Chronicle Pidbdyanin, in the Sofia Vremennik Vidblyanin. Pitba or Pidba, Pidebskaya churchyard, with the church of St. Nicholas, was on the left side of the Volkhov, at the confluence of the Pitba or Pidba rivers, three, and on the other, four, old versts from Novgorod, see Karamzin III, approx. 327, V, approx. 254, and IX, note. 268, Novgorod Scribe Books, III, St. Petersburg, 1868, pp. 13 and 24, Nevolina about Pyatin, pp. 120 and 389. Collection of chronicles. V, 121 (Sofia Vremnik Stroev, I, 87) and VII, 313. The topography of Novgorod arouses bewilderment and seems to provide new data to the history of the baptism of its inhabitants. The Volkhov River divides Novgorod into two halves - Sophia, which received its name from the St. Sophia Cathedral located on it, and Torgovaya, which received its name from the shopping or living rows located on it. Since in ancient times the dwelling of the princes was not on the Sofia side, but on the Torgovaya (Yaroslav's Dvorishche), it seems to follow that the original Kremlin of the city was not on the first side, but on the last (around the dwelling of the princes). And that the Sophia Kremlin (which later remained the only Kremlin of Novgorod) appeared only together with the cathedral. If this is so, then we can assume, firstly, that the Novgorodians did not allow the bishop to settle with his cathedral in their Kremlin. Secondly, that the princes found it necessary to surround the bishops' house with the Kremlin or fortress for their safety from their flock. (The Sofia Kremlin is not particularly large at the present time, but it was expanded against the original by Mstislav, - Novgorod 1st Chronicle under 1116. Consequently, in its original form it really represented a fortress only near the house and the cathedral of the bishops). For we know about some of their attempts to expel Christianity, already introduced, from the chronicle under 1071; We will say in more detail below. The Tithe Church was consecrated: according to some records - May 11, according to others - 12 (see the Right Reverend Macarius, vol. I, edition 2, p. 52). We consider the first number to be the most likely, for we assume that Vladimir and Metropolitan Greek, who consecrated the church, wanted the annual holiday of its consecration (in ancient times, the days of the consecration of churches should have been great annual holidays for them, see below) to fall on the same day, which is May 11, with the great Constantinople holiday of the founding of the city. (“Renewal” of Constantinople in the calendar means foundation, establishment. Above we have given an entry read in some calendars of the early 14th century about the celebration of the May 11th consecration of St. Sophia, built in 952. Since from Thietmar of Merseburg we learn that the Church of the Tithes was originally, probably before the construction of Sofia Yaroslav, also called Sophia, see 2 halves of the volume p. 87, then it seems very likely to understand the mentioned entry specifically about the Tithe Church. – How to understand the tithe given to the church by Vladimir, see below). The chronicle makes it clear that the Church of the Tithes was erected on the hill on which Perun previously stood. The latter stood on a hill outside the courtyard of the country stone tower (Chronicle under 908 and 945, - Laurentian edition 2, pp. 53, 54 and 77, Ipatian edition 2, pp. 33, 35 and 52); but the Tithe Church was also placed in front of the tower courtyard (“the tower courtyard behind the Holy Mother of God” or otherwise: the Holy Mother of God in front of the tower courtyard, under 945, Lavrentievskaya p. 54, Ipatskaya p. 35). On this hill, according to the clear evidence of the chronicle, the church of St. Vasily: but we believe that it is not impossible for two churches to be erected on one hill. If the chronicle under the year 980 says: “on that hill now there is a church of St. Basil” and does not mention the Church of the Tithes, then this should probably be understood to mean that the church of St. Vasily, built earlier, was placed on the very site of the Perunov idol, and Desyatinnaya - more or less at a distance. (Actually on the site of the courtyard of the pagan Christian Varangians killed under Vladimir, chronicle under 980). The current Kiev tradition separates the Vasilyevskaya and Desyatinnaya churches by a very significant gap of space; but regarding this legend it must be said: firstly, it is not at all something positively and undoubtedly proven that the Church that has survived from ancient times and is recognized as the Vasilyevskaya Church (Trikhsvyatitelskaya) is really the Vasilievskaya Church; secondly, in Kyiv, after Vladimir, the churches of St. Vasily, several more were built; the current Vasilievskaya (Three Saints) Church, if it really is Vasilievskaya, can be mistaken, for example, for that church of St. Vasily, which in 1197 Grand Duke Rurik Rostislavich installed at the New Princely Court (Ipatskaya, 1197). If we are not mistaken, Eminence Macarius is of the same opinion with us regarding the location of the Tithe Church (Hist. vol. I, edition 2, p. 49). For the true chronicle news of Vladimir's death, see the appendix to this chapter. Later news determines one brew of honey into Berkovets malt (Karamzin I, note 476). That is, for the church holiday of the Church of the Tithes. See Hilarion now above. Another evidence is folk epics. Eminence Philaret in History, I, §30, and in Review §22; The Reverend Macarius in History, vol. I, edition 2 p. 103. Of course, it seems, the passage is from Chrysostom’s word De compunctione ad Demetrium, – Montfauc. edit. Parisina altera I, 167 fin... For the relationship between the chronicle and the Life in this place, see above. Who died in 1011 Our chronicle says that Vladimir was buried in the Church of the Tithes. That his coffin was placed precisely in the chapel (the chapel of the church, built in one of the side porches or porches) of St. Clement, next to the coffin of his wife Princess Anna, Thietmar of Merseburg speaks about this, - Chronic, lib. VII, sar. 52 (naming the Tithe Church itself by the name of the chapel. - Skylitsa, we don’t know - on what basis, says that Anna died after Vladimir, in 1023-26, - Memorr. popp. II, 1010, and like Skylitsa, our so-called Pereyaslavl chronicler also speaks about Anna’s death after Vladimir, - Temporary Book 9, p., 34). If Nestor in the Life of Boris and Gleb says that “blessed Boris took books and read, ... honoring the lives and torments of the saints,” then, we hope, the reader will not see in these words an objection to everything that we are saying about Yaroslav’s activities in introducing book learning in Russia. Vladimir, of course, already acquired some teaching books and had them for his own use (not to mention the fact that Nestor’s words are more a phrase than a positive testimony). Based on existing examples (the Ostromir Gospel), we know that it took six months to write an ordinary-sized manuscript, from which a very small book will be published. Since at that time the craft of writing, due to the extreme rarity of masters, was undoubtedly very expensive, for six months the scribe had to pay approximately no less than five hundred silver rubles in today’s money. Consequently, one ordinary manuscript cost five hundred silver rubles in writing only, not counting glassine, which must have been very expensive, since it was not made in Russia, but was transported from abroad. To make it more convincing, let us point out an example from a later time. Our Trinity Lavra compiled its library of manuscripts, if we consider the end of the compilation to be the end of the 17th century, over the course of three hundred and a half years. Not being quite as rich as the sovereign sovereign, she, nevertheless, as is known, had enormous means at her disposal. And, however, over the course of three hundred and a half years, she managed to compile a library of manuscripts that did not in any way exceed one and a half thousand books or NN (800 are still present; about two hundred, if not much less, were taken to the Moscow Theological Academy; the remaining five hundred we believe were taken at different times to Moscow to the Tsar and Patriarch and were lost during fires). See the chronicle under 1071; details will be below. What is reported in the chronicles under 1030? the news of the order to recruit 300 from the elders and priests' children in Novgorod does not go here, more on that below. Children could be recruited - either for teaching the sciences, in forms of simple education, or for learning to read and write with the special purpose of preparing to become priests. In the first case, the children of the deliberate children or the highest aristocracy, to which the elders did not belong at all, would have been recruited. In the second case, the boys had to be recruited simply from the lower classes, and there could be no reason why they would want to recruit them specifically from the children of the headmen. That the news of the chronicles must be understood exactly as we understand it, this is also shown by the way they are expressed. They do not say: elders and priests' children, but from elders and priests' children. Under 862, in the story about the occupation of Kiev by Askold and Dir. For detailed topography of Kiev, see below. What form the Golden Gate of Constantinople had during the time of Yaroslav remains unknown; and in its current form these gates are later, see Byzantium in Κωνσταντινούπολις 'e, I, 312-313, and Unger in Quellen d. Byzantinisch. Kunstgeschichte, I, S. 41, n. 87. Hypatian Chronicle under the years 1146, 1150 three times and 1154 (2nd edition pp. 229, 276, 279, 288, 326); Wed Laurentian Chronicle under 1151. Words of Metropolitan Hilarion. Expressed in such a way that we admit, as possible, the existence in the pre-Mongol period of other regional chronicles, except for the Novgorod chronicle. We mean the reference of Simon of Vladimir to the “old Rostov chronicle” (in the Patericon). But, strictly speaking, we find it absolutely incredible to admit that in the foreign, illiterate and princeless Rostov until the beginning of the 13th century, its own chronicle was kept, and we think that Simon calls the Rostov chronicle in an improper sense, or that, on the contrary, he calls something Rostov a chronicle in an improper sense. (It is most likely to mean a diptych or synodik, i.e., a memorial of the Rostov bishop's see, which synodics, quite possibly, were even directly called chronicles. For in ancient times the word chronicle was used in a rather broad sense: a record on a book is a chronicle, a signature on an icon, on a monument, on a building - a chronicle, etc. Since the first bishops of Rostov were from the monks of the Pechersk, it could become a custom in Rostov to write down in the memorial the names of all the bishops who were from the monks of the Pechersk, that is, who were in any departments, as Simon says. But why on earth would a real Rostov chronicle keep a detailed list of bishops appointed from the monks of the Pechersk?). May the reader remember the current Turkestan region with the episcopal see established in it. Rostov was the administrative center of a very vast region, and therefore there should have been a relatively large number of officials in it and its region. In the same way, one should think about the Russian colony that it was more numerous here than in other foreign cities: the fortress of Rostov to the Russian state from the most ancient times is visible from the fact that already under Oleg there was an important or first-class governor of the grand duke sitting there - a chronicle of 907. Under Vladimir, the appanage princes in Rostov were first Yaroslav and then Boris. News about bishops Theodore and Hilarion are found in the life (more precisely, in the legend of the discovery of the relics) of St. Leonty of Rostov. Of the many editions of this latter (Klyuchevsky, Ancient Russian Lives, as a historical source, M. 1871, p. 3 et seq.), the news of only the first of them or the oldest has some historical significance, while the news of all the rest, the later ones, are nothing more than the simple inventions of their authors based on nothing. The first edition was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, book. 1, pp. 301 et seq. That Theodore was a Greek, as we said, must be assumed because all the very first bishops, to whom he belonged, were Greeks. That Hilarion was also a Greek can probably be assumed, firstly, because in his time most of the bishops were still from the Greeks, that they had only just begun to be appointed from the Russians, and that if he belonged to the latter, then this, as a remarkable circumstance, would have been written down somewhere and somehow. Secondly, because according to the news, although not completely reliable, even Hilarion’s successor (St. Leontius) was still from the Greeks, and not from the Russians. - To think, together with the later Rostov literates and patriots, that the first Rostov bishops were appointed and sent by the patriarchs of Constantinople means to have a desire to believe complete absurdities. Patriarchs generally installed metropolitans, but did not install bishops in metropolitan areas, because they did not have the right to do so. To believe that the patriarchs knew about Rostov and took special care of it is the height of naivety, excusable in the old Rostov patriots, but in no one else. (For our assumptions about when and for what reasons what was said could have been fictitious, see below). Lives or legends about the discovery of relics, about which in the previous note and which (first edition) was written no earlier than a hundred years after the death of St. Leontia. Simon of Vladimir in a letter to Polycarp, who wrote even more than 60 years later. If, however, we accept that Simon classifies Leonty among the tonsures of Pechersk on the basis of the mark of the Rostov Cathedral Synodik, see note. above, then his testimony will need to be accepted as reliable. There are known, however unreliable, records that date his death to 1072–1073. (Klyuchevsky’s Life, p. 13, note 2). As for the baptism of the Chudsky end of the city by the Monk Abramius, which is narrated in his life, firstly, Abramius did not live at the beginning of the 11th century. under Vladimir and Boris, and much later, as we will say and prove below. And secondly, by baptism, in all likelihood, should not be understood as baptism in the proper sense, but as a turning away from the pagan superstition of people who have already been baptized. Leonty, according to his life, having performed the baptism of the inhabitants of Rostov, “departed in peace to the Lord.” On the contrary, Simon of Vladimir says that the pagans (who remained not baptized) after many torments put him to death, which is why he ranks him among the martyrs. Simon's news seems completely incredible: that the pagans could have a desire to kill the bishop, this is very possible, but how would the civil authorities allow them to do this, which Simon forgets about in his narrative? (If Simon, calling Leonty, who supposedly suffered martyrdom, “the third heavenly citizen of the Russian world from the name of Varyag,” wants to say that Leonty suffered earlier than Boris and Gleb, then this will be an extreme incongruity for him: the Pechersky Monastery, from which, according to Simon, Leonty was, appeared long after the martyrdom of Boris and Gleb). Information about him is in his life, which was written at the end of the 15th century, after 1474. (Klyuchevsky’s Life, p. 24). It was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1858, book. I, p. 434. So according to life, but one cannot at all vouch for the complete reliability of the chronology; cfr in the Patericon of Pechersk the story of Polycarp (whom, however, we also do not at all classify as a completely reliable narrator) about the recluse Nikita. Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl, who, due to special circumstances, bore the title of metropolitan, but was not at all the metropolitan of Russia or Kyiv, as is mistakenly believed, could only have a relationship with the diocese of Rostov that it was in the same appanage reign as his own. Bishop Ephraim of Rostov, like Isaiah, was one of the monks of Pechersk (in Simon's Patericon called Suzdal), and probably directly succeeded him in the department, built a stone church of St. in Suzdal together with Vladimir Monomakh. Mother of God (Laurentian Chronicle under 1222). We don’t know when this happened, but, in any case, no later than 1125, when Vladimir Monomakh died. And since stone churches were not built in the cities that had just been converted, the construction of such a church in Suzdal in any case indicates that he converted long before 1125. And as for the Church of St. Demetrius, then it seems just as likely to think that Isaiah built it in honor of that St. Demetrius, for whom he was abbot in Kyiv. About Monomakh’s journey to Rostov, see his spiritual letter. His love for Rostov and the Rostov region is evidenced by the fact that in the former he built a very good church, which was the subject of his special concerns. (In perfect likeness of the Kiev Pechersk Church, to which he sent icons from Kiev, Patericon of the Pechersk), and in the second he founded a new city in his name (Vladimir Klyazemsky). Monomakh was born in 1053, therefore, during the reign of Isaiah, 24–36 years of his life occurred. Monomakh, as we just said, visited the Rostov region many times, but it is not clear that he was its appanage prince; his son Mstislav was seated on the Rostov table (1095), but remained on it for a very short time. The youngest son of Monomakh, Yuri Dolgoruky, was sent by his father to Suzdal around 1105 (at a very young age - Simon in the Patericon in the story about the creation of the Pechersk Church, and he was married in 1107, chronicle). In 1175, the Rostovites housed Mstislav Rostislavich, Bogolyubsky’s nephew, but he stayed with them for a very short time, and the series of permanent princes of Rostov began precisely in 1207, with Konstantin Vsevolodovich. Referring through the author of the History of the Russian Hierarchy to the chronicler of Ustyug, the existence of the Trinity Monastery of Gledensky, located near Ustyug, dates back to the 11th century. But the chronicler of Ustyug in the author of the History of the Hierarchy (III, (694)) does not say this, but only the latter himself suggests it. We find it completely impossible to assume the same thing with him. Then, following the same author of the History of the Hierarchy, they date back to the same 11th century the foundation of the Chelmogorsky or Chelmensky monastery, located 43 versts northwest of Kargopol by the lake Chelmogorsky. But, not to mention the complete improbability of the matter in itself, in the life of St. Cyril, the founder of the monastery, it is directly stated that he came “to Chelma Mountain in the summer of 6824,” that is, in 1316 (Klyuchevsky, p. 321). Life of the Murom princes Konstantin and his children Mikhail and Theodore, about the time of writing and the editions of which see Klyuchevsky, p. 287; the life itself is printed in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, I, 229. In 1088, Murom was taken by the Bulgarians, but they did not take it to keep it for themselves, but only to rob it. Spas, Laurentian Chronicle, edition 2 p. 229. On the other hand, the fact that Yaroslav Svyatoslavich, during his long reign, did not build a church in Murom, which under him or after him would have become a cathedral, does not speak in favor of his special zeal for the establishment of Christianity in Murom. According to the legend, he was buried with his sons Mikhail the Martyr (according to the legend) and another Theodore in the Church of the Annunciation, built by him, on the site of which a monastery was erected, as the same legend assures, by order of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible (Karamzin, II, note 153, col. 70). We indicated their area above, namely, the former occupied the northern corner of the Chernigov province and the Oryol and Kaluga provinces, and the latter occupied the eastern half of the Mogilev province. (In addition to the current cities we indicated above, in the land of Vyatichi we are mentioned places and localities unknown to us: Bleve, Boldyzh, Vorobein, Vshchizh, Vyatichi, Domagoshch, Olov, Podesenye (along the Desna River), Yaryshev, - Ipat Chronicle, Index; Kordno - in the charter of Monomakh. In the land of Radimichi - the river (river) Pishchana or Peschana, flowing into the Sozh in Staro Bykhovsky district near the town of Propoisk [see Semyonov’s Dictionary under Peschan’s words], - chronicle from 984). There is a legend about the baptism of Mtsenyan, which states that until the middle of the 15th century “in the city of Mtsensk many (remained) not believing in Christ our God,” and that Christianity was finally established there in 1445 by Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich and Metropolitan Photius with the use of great military force, see Russian. Vivliof., ed. Polevoy, I, p. 361 (in 1445 the Grand Duke was Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark, and there was no metropolitan after Isidore; Vasily Dmitrievich 1389–1425, Metropolitan Photius 1408–1431). The Novgorodians therefore retained the common or popular name of the Slavs, instead of adopting some particular or tribal one, because there were Slavs who settled among non-Slavs. As for the question: where did they come from, we consider the most probable opinion to be the simplest and which, if we are not mistaken, is held by the majority, namely, that they came not very far away and were ἄποικοι (displaced people) of the Krivichs neighboring the Finns. If the Zavolochskaya Chud, which was hardly less numerous than the Karelians, disappeared without a trace, and the latter, despite Christianity, in quite a significant number still remain real Karelians, separate and different from the Russians and do not even know the Russian language, then what we have now said serves as an explanation for this. - On the south-eastern outskirts of the Novgorod possessions, in the current district city of the Tver province of Torzhok, a foundation is laid monastery in the first half of the 11th century, namely the Borisoglebsky Novotorzhsky monastery, founded, as is accepted, by the Monk Ephraim Ugrin, brother of George Ugrin, the beloved servant of St. Boris. But that the founder of the Novotorzhsky monastery was really the Monk Ephraim Ugrin, and that it was really founded in the first half of the 11th century, this is more than doubtful. See below in the chapter on monasteries. Likewise, we are very little disposed to believe that the founder of the former Trinity Kaisarov Monastery, the Monk Gerasim, came from Kyiv to the other outskirts of the Novgorod possessions, to the site of present-day Vologda, in 1149, see below in the same place. (Vologda, strictly speaking, is not the outskirts of the Novgorod possessions, but a Novgorod colony on the territory that belonged to Rostov - in the Rostov Belozerie). We will make a note below, in the chapter on governance, about the Vyatchans (Khlynovtsy), Novgorod colonists in the land of Votyaks, who did not spread Christianity among foreigners and, on the contrary, were very original Christians. If the activities of some of the Magi, about whom the chronicler speaks of 1024. and then under our 1071 (the Magi of Yaroslavl), took on such proportions that it came to the attention of the government, then this does not constitute an objection to what we have just said - in these cases, the Magi brought themselves to the attention of the government (by their activities) without their intention. The sorcerer appeared under the Prince of Novgorod Gleb Svyatoslavich. Gleb Svyatoslavich was placed in the reign of Novgorod after May 3, 1074. (the chronicle in the story of the death of Theodosius of Pechersk, at the moment of which Gleb was in Kyiv) and for one time or another until the end of 1076, when his father died (see the letter of Vladimir Monomakh in the Laurentian Chronicle under 1096, 2nd edition p. 239 beginning). He himself was killed in 1078. Chronicle under 1071, fin.. That Brun in monasticism was called Boniface, see the Quedlinburg chronicle under 1009, the Magdeburg chronicle under the same year and the Saxon annalist under 1009. and 1106 Some people make two from one Bruna-Boniface - Bruna and Boniface. See the Saxon annalist under the years indicated. Bishop according to Titmar Merzeb., Archbishop according to the chronicles of Kvedlinb. and Magdeb. and the annalist Sax.. The matter, we believe, should be understood in such a way that Brun was appointed autocephalous bishop (dependent on the pope himself), who (probably among the Latins, like the Greeks) were called archbishops. Which are not called by name. Of course, Adalbert or Vojtech, Bishop of Prague, suffered martyrdom in Prussia, where he came to preach, in 997. Vitae S. Romualdi sarr. XXVI et XXVII, in Minh in Patrology t. 144, p. 976 sqq. The author confuses our Brun with another bishop Brun, the brother of Emperor Henry II, Otto’s successor. Our Brun was never a bishop of Osburg or any other city. Of course St. Udalrik or Ulrich, Bishop of Augsburg, who died in 973 long before our Brun went to preach. Brun's activities in Ugria are partly fabled, partly he assimilates what belonged to Adalbert of Prague. According to the author, Adalbert suffered among the Pechenegs. Medietatem ipsius, i. e. Russiae. Ademari S. Cibardi monachi Historiarum libri tres, lib. III ad cap. 31, y Minya in Patrology. t. 141, col. 48, y Pertz in Monumenta VI, 129. Chronic, lib. VI c. 58. Thietmar further says that Brun died in 1009. in duodecimo conversionis ac inclitae conversationis suae anno. Conversio and conversatio should mean tonsure as a monk, cfr Ducange Gloss. Latinit. under the first word. And Peter Damiani himself says that Brun began missionary work after the death of Adalbert of Prague, therefore, after 997. The letter was published by the late Hilferding in Russian Conversation in 1856. book 1, dept. Sciences, pp. 1–34. Titmar Merzeb., - quote above. According to the chronicle of Quedlinburg, it is on the borders of Russia and Lithuania. There is a version of the story by Peter Damiani, belonging to a certain Vipert, who pretends to be a student of Brunov, which is completely doubtful, but who lived, however, no later than the 11th century. (in Pertz in Monumenta VI, 579). If it had been proven that Damiani had this Wipert in his hands (and that which one varies is very likely), then his intention would not be in doubt, for with Wipert the place of Brun's activity and death is not Russia, but Prussia. This news is also read in the Degree Book, I, 135 fin. (For the mutual relationship between the Nikon Chronicle and the Degree Book, see below). In all likelihood, he sent an embassy to Yaropolk. And the pope in the first years of Vladimir’s reign was Benedict VII, who occupied the throne from 975 to 984. Among the popes of that time, for the most part very unworthy, he was an exception (at least some), so that historians speak of his church zeal with special praise (Alzog). And why he did not send an embassy to Vladimir after the failed embassy to Yaropolk remains unknown. Benedict’s two successors, John XIV and Boniface VII, occupied the throne for less than a year each, therefore, they did not have time to take care of our Russia (and the second had no desire, for he was the famous “horrendum monstrum Bonifacius, cunctos mortales nequitia superans”). Pope John XV, who occupied the throne from 985 to 996, sent an embassy to Vladimir in Korsun. The words of the Nikon Chronicle that the pope's ambassadors brought the relics of saints to Vladimir in Korsun involuntarily lead us to suspicions about the relics of St. Clement of Rome, which Vladimir brought with him from Korsun to Kyiv. The relics of Clement, who died in Korsun, in exile from Trajan to the local quarries, it is unknown when after ancient times before the half of the 9th century. found themselves hidden in an unknown place. In the half of the 9th century. They were discovered by Konstantin the philosopher, our first Slavic teacher (who formerly lived in Korsun and lived for quite a long time on his way to the Khazars). The life of Constantine (Pannonian) says that he took the relics of Clement with him to Constantinople, from which then to Moravia, and that, walking from Moravia to Rome (in which he died), he brought them as a gift to the papal throne. One can understand the matter in such a way that Constantine did not take all the relics, but only part of them, and that Vladimir brought the remaining part from Korsun to Kyiv. But it is not impossible to understand it in such a way that the pope sent the relics of Clement to Vladimir - he sent it with the special purpose of showing that both the recipient of the Slavic charter and the first Slavic teacher recognized the power of him - the pope (about Constantine cfr below). As for the fact that Vladimir could take the relics from the pope, then, firstly, the pope was still Orthodox at that time (and those who competed between him and the Patriarch of Constantinople for power are a completely different matter). Secondly, a shrine does not cease to be a shrine even in the hands of infidels (let the reader remember the later receipt of the Robe of the Lord from the Shah of Persia). The manuscript is a collection, the second large half of which consists of articles on Russian history. Namely: l. 86, Life of Olga, the same as in Degree Book I, 5; l. 160 vol., Praise to Olga, the same as there p. 44; l. 188, Memory and praise to Volodymer of the monk Jacob, which we print below; l. 202, Sermon on Law and Grace (Metropolitan Hilarion); l. 232 vol., our life. We attribute the manuscript to the 17th century, but its half-written, cursive writing is somehow very vague, and it may very well be that it is even from the 16th century. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Of the five pages in the History of the Right Reverend Macarius, the first three are before his death on Berestovoy. So in Sakharovsky and Akademichesky, in Bolotovsky: The Trial of Blessed Prince Vladimir. If we accept this news as fair, then, as we noted above, it will follow that Vladimir, who took Korsun at the beginning of 989, actually went on a campaign against it in 988, which is recorded in the chronicle. Life needs to be understood: into a well or cistern, which is located in the city on the eastern side or in its eastern part, water is carried through pipes, meaning from the outside. The story, on the contrary, meaning by codes the pools outside the city from which water was brought into it, hardly makes the correct amendment: In relation to Vladimir’s ships in the pier, the city was east, and in relation to his siege camp on land (which Korsun had on the south side), the wells and pools were from the south (about them and about the water supply, see ibid. pp. 258 and 262). The Pole Bronevsky, who described the ruins of Korsun in the second half of the 16th century, agrees with life and says that the reservoirs for the spent water were near the eastern wall of the city (Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, vol. VI, p. 341). In Akademicheskiy: and greeting Queen Anna, sister... We draw the reader’s special attention to the story of the miracle in the life and in the story. Since subsequent storytellers never shorten the miracles, then, in our opinion, this is decisive proof that the author of the life in relation to the author of the story is previous, and not subsequent. Regarding the church in which Vladimir married the princess, as we said above, it is most likely to think that it was the Korsun Cathedral - St. Sophia, as it is in the Ipata Chronicle. As for the church that he built, then - in his life - St. Vasily. In the Laurentian Chronicle - without a name. And according to the Hypatian Chronicle - St. John the Baptist. The ruins of the Korsun churches remained until later times, and partly remain, it seems, even now (after the siege of Sevastopol). If such thorough excavations had been carried out as other people, not us, can do (and what we did with the ruins of Korsun, see Karamzin I, note 449), then perhaps something important would have been discovered. (Ancient church builders had the custom of cutting out records of their construction in them or making so-called their chronicles; If such a record of Vladimir about the church he built was found, it could be a discovery of the greatest importance). For the topography of Korsun, see Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, volume 2, department. 1 page 256 beginning sqq. It was located on a cape between two bays - the current Quarantine Bay on the eastern side and the current Round Bay on the western side (two miles west of Sevastopol). “Limen about half a hail,” that is, on the other side of the city in the direction from Kiev - a pier in the Round Bay. For the custom not only of the Russians, but also of the ancients in general, to take the walls of besieged cities by means of “spray,” see above footnote No. 104. In the Hypatan Chronicle: “Being baptized in the church of St. Sophia, and there are churches...” Bronevsky mentions some kind of royal palace (Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, vol. VI, p. 342). Shouldn't this be understood to mean that the house in which Vladimir lived received the name of a palace from the time of his stay and was known under this name until later times? Bronevsky locates his palace in the eastern part of the city. Academic: to the horse's tail. Academic: Perun city. Bolotovsky and Akademichesky: and with the Korsunskys to the Pochaina River and descended... In the Rumyantsev compilation No. 436, instead of: “teach children to read and write,” it is read in accordance with the chronicle: “children began to be taken from the deliberate and given for book learning.” There is no saint Thebes in the Greek calendar; our Thebes was probably a local Kherson saint. In the Hypatan Chronicle: “build the Church of St. John the Baptist in Korsun on the mountain”... “Churches” - statues, actually idols: two bronze statues and four bronze horses (Aren’t these statues and horses still lying in the ground in Kiev?) This is true for all three lists. In Academic: there is no “and”. “Part” is not in all three lists. So in the Laurentian list, in the Ipatsky: in the summer 6499 (991). In Academic: they bring their needs. In Academic: missed. In the Academic: and laid it down. In Academic: abounds. In Academic: crumbling. In Academic: there is no “not”. At the Academic: I would be in charge. That is, but may the Lord grant... may He fulfill... Should imply the missing: having? In the Academic: I am praying too. In Academic: praising Vayu. Let us slightly correct the Reverend Macarius on the Academic list. In Akademichesky as in Bolotovsky: from many virtues. In Bolotovsky: love V17;, in Akademichesky: beloved V17;. Matt. 6, 7, 8, Luke. 11, 9. 10. In Akademichesky From a woman, but it should be about a woman, as it is read in Bolotovskaya. We are making some adjustments to the Academic list. In Academic: and prophet. Ps. 93, 12. Bolotovsky. and Academic: lute. Academic: and the lamb is purer. We follow the reading of Bolotov's list. So Bolotovsky and Academichesky. Before the next section in Sakharovsky and Akademichesky there are inscriptions in cinnabar: “Praise to Princess Olga, how she was baptized and lived well according to the commandment of the Lord.” Academic: dormant. Correcting according to the Academic list. We believe that from the words: “You hear another miracle,” there is a later insertion, although made in the pre-Mongol period. With the words: “Blessed Prince Volodymer” begins the memory and praise in the Rumyantsev and Trinity lists. We think that “listen, beloved” was attributed while the Memory began to be read in churches on the day of the celebration of the death of Vladimir. One might think that it was only readable from here and that is why in some copies it was not written in its entirety, but only from what was from here. Correcting reading according to the Academic List. So it is in the Academic list. "and" from the Academic List. In Academic: Ivan Chrysostom. In the Academic: and byahu the holy apostles and byahu the blessed apostles, that there may be a mistake from the bliss. In Academic: slavity. In Akademicheskaya again: glory. So in Sakharovskaya, Bolotovskaya, Rumyantsevskaya and Troitskaya, but in Akademicheskaya: Serbians and Bulgarians. Tatishchev (II, 63 fin.) and Stryikovsky (under 985) also, it seems, had typos that read like in the Academic. In Academic: And in your days. Correcting according to Academic. In Akademicheskaya: give it to him, and then put it to good use.... Before what follows, in Sakharovskaya and Akademicheskaya it is inscribed in cinnabar: “Prayer of Prince Volodymer.” So it is in the Academic, in the Bolotovsky: Veda. Academic: God have mercy on me. Correcting according to the Academic list With “husband” from the Academic list In some later collections, the legend is inscribed: “Praise (the Word is commendable) to the blessed prince Vladimer, who was named Saint Basil in baptism”: Lavra Trinity Manuscript No. 792 f. 84 vol., Rumyantsevskaya No. 434 l. 487 vol., in Vostokov p. 677 fin. In the list of legends found in the Rumyantsev Triumphant of the late 15th century (by Vostokov No. 435, p. 687), a remarkable insertion is read here: “When he took Korsun city, he killed the prince and princess, and killed their daughter behind Zhdbern; without disbanding the regiments and ambassador Olga, his governor with Zhdbern went to Constantinople to the Tsar ask their sisters for themselves”... This note seems to be spoken by a contemporary, but where did the copyist of the manuscript take it from? If he did not find it somewhere as a random note, but took it from the whole work, then, of course, it is highly desirable that this latter be revealed. In the indicated list of the Rumyantsev Triumphant: “Build churches throughout the city and the village, and yourself”... which, however, is obviously an incorrect reading, although Vostokov accepts it as more correct. Karamzin, I, 129, erroneously says: “an ancient manuscript.” Before this, the legend of Banduriev is missing in the Paris list and is read in one Patmos list by Mr. Regel: from the next word - both lists. The implication is to send ambassadors to inspect the faith. T ὸ σέβας καὶ τὴν λατρείαν . That is, Vespers and Matins. The speech is somewhat meaningless, but we are not to blame for this. Understand - Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners. βάρβαρον πάντη καὶ σόλοικον. We hope that the reader himself notices the original wit of the author: Cyril and Athanasius wrote their thirty-five letters for the Russians because they saw it impossible to teach them twenty-four Greek. Ἐν τῆ ἀνθρωπίνη ἐπιδημία, i.e. Jesus Christ on earth. If Yahya, who wrote in Antioch, did not know that Vladimir entered into a marriage agreement with the emperors, having already been baptized, this is not surprising. He himself immediately shows that the matter was not known to him in detail, for he says that Vasily sent his sister to Vladimir subsequently with the metropolitan and bishops. But if, finally, the saga told a complete lie (although it is difficult to imagine that in Iceland they would begin to invent a complete lie about our Vladimir), then there would be absolutely no damage from this to us (for the saga, if it tells the truth, serves only to confirm our assumptions). You might be interested in: