In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2019 |
|---|---|
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
Інститут історії України НАН України
2019
|
| Назва видання: | Ruthenica |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191616 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective / A. Romensky // Ruthenica. — 2019. — Т. 15. — С. 66-74. — Бібліогр.: 44 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-191616 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1916162023-07-06T18:56:13Z In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective Romensky, A. 2019 Article In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective / A. Romensky // Ruthenica. — 2019. — Т. 15. — С. 66-74. — Бібліогр.: 44 назв. — англ. 1995-0276 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191616 en Ruthenica Інститут історії України НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Romensky, A. |
| spellingShingle |
Romensky, A. In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective Ruthenica |
| author_facet |
Romensky, A. |
| author_sort |
Romensky, A. |
| title |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective |
| title_short |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective |
| title_full |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective |
| title_fullStr |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective |
| title_full_unstemmed |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective |
| title_sort |
in search of the "korsun legend": looking back from the centennial perspective |
| publisher |
Інститут історії України НАН України |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/191616 |
| citation_txt |
In Search of the "Korsun Legend": Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective / A. Romensky // Ruthenica. — 2019. — Т. 15. — С. 66-74. — Бібліогр.: 44 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Ruthenica |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT romenskya insearchofthekorsunlegendlookingbackfromthecentennialperspective |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-16T15:58:40Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-16T15:58:40Z |
| _version_ |
1837819780999938048 |
| fulltext |
© Ruthenica XV (2019), 66–74
Alexandr Romensky
In Search of the “Korsun Legend”:
Looking Back from the Centennial Perspective1
Framing the Problem: the “Korsun Legend” in Historiography
Prince Volodymer Sviatoslavich’s legacy has been a point of contention between
different traditions of historical perception, and political discourses, not least
because the evidence is scarce and often conflicting. As Oleksiy Tolochko
metaphorically put it in a recent study, the times when the Baptist of Rus ruled
“represent a classic black box”2; his words resonate with Fedor I. Uspenskiy’s
remark from 1888: the times of St. Volodymer’s baptism “are sealed with mystery,
which does not yield to an historian”3. It is a venerable scholarly tradition to
believe that the way to unseal the black box lies through the ever more sophisticated
critical studies of the texts associated with St. Volodymer, which would reveal their
hidden inner core.
This centennial quest is now associated with the name of the great Russian
philologist Aleksei Shakhmatov. The study of texts related to St. Volodymer
occupies a special place in Shakhmatov’s oeuvre4. His views on how the story of
St. Volodymer’s baptism first emerged are firmly rooted in his general notions of
how the chronicle-writing must have evolved during the eleventh century.
Shakhmatov propagated the idea of numerous chronicles preceding the Primary
Chronicle of 1111–1118, and he attempted to reconstruct several of those: the
“Oldest Compilation” of 1039 followed by the compilation of 1070s, followed by
the “Initial Compilation” of 1090s, finally culminating in the Primary Chronicle
as we know it.
1 I am especially indebted to Constantine Zuckerman, Oleksiy Tolochko and Aleksei Gippius who revised
and enriched my study.
2 Aleksei Tolochko, Ocherki nachal’noy rusi (Kiev and Saint Petersburg), 2015, 299.
3 Fedor Uspenskiy, Rus’ i Vizantia v X veke (Odessa, 1888), 35.
4 Shakhmatov had prepared but failed to publish a special study on St. Volodymer’s Lives, recently issued
as: Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytia knyazia Vladimira, ed. by Nadezhda Milutenko (Saint Petersburg,
2014).
Rythenika_15.indd 66 16.12.2019 11:13:58
67I n Searc h of th e “ K orsun L eg end ” :
L ook ing B ac k f rom th e C entennial Persp ec tiv e
Shakhmatov believed to have discovered two versions of St. Volodymer’s
baptism in the preserved texts. The first, which he attributed to the “Oldest
Compilation”, told the story of the prince’s baptism in Kiev. The second told the
story of St. Volodymer’s conversion in Byzantine Cherson (slav. Korsun). It
supposedly emerged independently of the chronicle and was authored by a certain
“Chersonite”, identified by Shakhmatov as one of the “Korsun priests” who
arrived in Kiev in the entourage of Volodymer’s wife Anna. Later the two stories
were merged into a single account, the one we find in the Primary Chronicle.
However, the constituent parts can still be recovered since the editor worked with
little regard for either style or consistency and hence left some visible marks of his
editorial efforts5.
The existence of a narration of the prince’s baptism outside the chronicles has
occasionally been suggested6, but the current academic trend focuses on Shakhma-
tov’s vision of stages of the eleventh-century chronicle-writing evolution. Scholars
who accept Shakhmatov’s project of recovering the lost chronicles as a feasible
enterprise share in his conclusions with some variations7. Those who dismiss the
so-called “Shakhmatov’s scheme”, as well as the very textological premises upon
which it has been built, also reject the conclusions stemming from those8.
Although dominant throughout the last century, Shakmatov’s views were
challenged. Several competing ideas about the emergence and the early stages of
history-writing have been suggested9. Some researchers tend to distinguish
5 Shakhmatov developed his ideas in a special study (Aleksei Shakhmatov, Korsunskaia legenda o
kreshchenii Vladimira (Saint-Petersburg, 1906) and later modified them in his famous book on the
origin of the chronicle-writing (Aleksei Shakhmatov, Razyskania o drevneishykh russkikh letopisnykh
svodakh (Saint-Petersburg, 1908), 134).
6 Nikolai Kostomarov, “Predaniia pervonachalnoy russkoy letopisi v soobrazheniakh s russkimi
narodnymi predaniyami v pesniakh, skazaniyakh i obychaiakh,” Sobraniie sochineniy N.I. Kostomarova,
vol. 13, 357–358; Nikolai Nikolskiy, “K voprosu ob istochnikakh letopisnogo skazania o Sviatom
Vladimire,” Christianskoie Chtenie 7 (1902), 106; Evgenii Golubinsky, Istoria Russkoi Tserkvi, vol. 1
(Moscow, 1901), 105.
7 Constantine Zuckerman believes that there existed a certain non-annalistic account termed by him the
“Ancient Tale” composed ca. 1017 by a contemporary and an eye-witness; it must have contained the
story of St. Volodymer’s baptism (Constantin Zuckerman, “Nabliudeniya nad slozheniem drevneishikh
istochnikov letopisi,” Boriso-glebsky sbornik. Collectanea Borisoglebica (Paris, 2009), 189–206).
Savva Mikheev and Aleksei Gippius, while allowing for a similar narrative, nevertheless place the
“Korsun legend” in the Compilation of 1070s or 1060s (Savva Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest vremennykh
let”? (Moscow, 2011), 57–59; Aleksei Gippius, “K rekonstruktsii drevneishikh etapov istorii russkogo
letopisania,” Drevnyaya Rus i srednevekovaya Evropa: vozniknovenie gosudarstv. Materialy konferentsii
(Moscow, 2012), 42–46).
8 See the consistent critique of Shakhmatov’s method in: Tatiana Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis i
Nachalny svod,” Palaeoslavica 11 (2003), 5-35; Tatiana Vilkul, “Povest vremennykh let i Khronograf,”
Palaeoslavica 15 (2007), 59–62; Tetiana Vilkul, Lіtopys і khronohraf. Studіi z domongolskoho kiivskogo
lіtopysannya (Kyiv, 2015), 38–47; Donald Ostrowski, “The Nachalnyj Svod Theory and the Povest
vremennyx let,” Russian Linguistics 31 (2007), 269–308; Aleksei Tolochko, Ocherki nachalnoi rusi, 20–34.
9 Cf.: Vasily Istrin, “Zamechania o nachale russkogo letopisaniya,” Izvestia otdelenia russkogo yazyka i
slovesnosti 26 1923 (1921), 45–102; 27 1924 (1922) 207–251; Sergei Bugoslavsky, “Povest
vremennykh let (redaktsii, spiski, pervonachalny tekst),” Starinnaia russkaia povest (Moscow and
Leningrad, 1941), 7-37. More recently, it has been suggested that history-writing first emerged as an
Rythenika_15.indd 67 16.12.2019 11:13:59
68 A l exa ndr R om ensky
between “two sources” of the emergence of ancient Rus chronicle writing —
a narrative one and an annalistic one10.
However, the idea of the “Korsun legend” (as well as its twin the “Kievan
legend”) seems to have taken deep roots in historiography. It is therefore advisable
to revisit the problem and to weight the arguments pro and contra anew.
We will work with the same evidence, as Shakhmatov had before: the Memory
and Eulogy to Prince Volodymer by Jacob the Monk, several versions of
St. Volodymer’s Vitae, and the text of the Primary Chronicle for 6494–6496
(986–988).
Memory and Eulogy by Jacob the Monk
Since its introduction into academic discourse, the Memory and Eulogy to Prince
Volodymer has been considered as one of the oldest and most important sources
that shed light on the circumstances of the baptism of the Kievan ruler. Traditionally,
the text was dated to the eleventh century, while its author was identified as the
monk of the Caves monastery who had come “from the river of Alta” (“с Летьца”),
and whom St. Theodosius had unsuccessfully proposed as his successor11
(as described in the Primary Chronicle under 1074)12. Thus, in the nineteenth
century, this “historical” work was believed to predate the Primary Chronicle by
some fifty years. Therefore, it was tempting to see it as preserving an ancient and
independent tradition on St. Volodymer’s baptism, different to the chronicle.
Sharing these views, Shakhmatov believed that the Memory and Eulogy
amalgamated two different parts: the story of victories over the prince’s enemies
(the Radimichi, the Vyatichi, the Yatvaigs, the “Silver Bulgar”, the Khazars and
annalistic enterprise and only later evolved into a narrative-style chronicles (cf.: Oleksiy Tolochko,
“Kievan Rus’ around the Year 1000,” Europe around the Year 1000, ed. by Przemyslaw Urbanczyk
(Warsaw, 2001), 123–140; Oleksiy Tolochko, “Christian Chronology, Universal History and the Origin
of Chronicle Writing in Rus’,” Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery.
Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c.1070–1200), ed. by Ildar
Garipzanov (Brepols Publishers, 2011), 205–228) and it seems to be gaining ground.
10 Aleksandr Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty v rannem letopisanii i ikh znachenie dlia izucheniia
drevnerusskoy istoriografii,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy. 2013: Zarozhdenie
istoriopisaniia v obschestvah drevnosti i srednevekovya (Moscow, 2016), 593–603; Timofei Gimon,
“K probleme zarozhdenia istoriopisania v Drevney Rusi,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy.
2013, 772. Possibly, the first stage of history-writing was connected with “historical graffiti”.
Noteworthy that a very interesting group of records, dated by 1160th, has been recently found on the
fragments of plastering of St. George Cathedral (Yuriev monastery) in Novgorod. Cf.: Alexey Gippius,
Vladimir Sedov. “Nadpis’ — graffito 1198 goda iz Georgievskogo sobora Yurieva monastyrya”. Goroda
i vesi srednevekovoj Rusi. Archeologiya, istoriya, kul’tura. K 60-letiyu N.A. Makarova. (Moscow and
Vologda, 2015), 462.
11 Makariy, “Tri pamiatnika russkoi dukhovnoi literatury XI veka,” Khristianskoie Chtenie 2 (1849),
302–303; Cf.: Nikolai Serebriansky, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie zhytia (Saint Petersburg, 1915), 47–48.
On manuscript tradition of the text and its interpretations, see: Nikolai Nikolsky, Materialy dlia
povremennogo spiska russkikh pisatelei i ikh sochineniy (X–XI vv.) (Saint Petersburg, 1906), 229.
12 PSRL 1: 186—187; PSRL 2: 177; NPL: 200–201.
Rythenika_15.indd 68 16.12.2019 11:13:59
69I n Searc h of th e “ K orsun L eg end ” :
L ook ing B ac k f rom th e C entennial Persp ec tiv e
the capture of Korsun); as well as the “annalistic notes” at the end of the work.
Shakhmatov conjectured further that the texts had an older version, which only
included the “notes” (borrowed from or similar to the “Oldest Compilation”), and
a new version with additions taken from the “Korsun legend”13.
However, later Sergei Bugoslavsky has convincingly demonstrated that Jacob
the Monk as an eleventh-century author is but a myth. The Memory and Eulogy,
as it comes down in the manuscript tradition, can be dated between the middle of
twelfth and the end of the thirteenth century, although some of its constituent parts
may be of a somewhat older origin14. It would seem that the information of this
compilation is generally much later than the Primary Chronicle.
In order to gauge the possible date of the Memory and Eulogy it is important to
note the difference in its attitude towards Volodymer and his sons, Boris and Gleb.
The author refers to Volodymer as “pious” or “beatific” (never “holy” or “saint”),
yet he has no doubts as to the sanctity of his sons15. While Boris and Gleb were
canonized no later than 107216, the beginnings of church veneration of their father
is a more complicated affair. According to an optimistic estimate, it could have
happened in mid-thirteenth century17, while a more cautious view maintains that the
13 Aleksei Shakhmatov, Razyskania, 19–21. It seems that the compiler of the “Chronicle Notes” inherited
the Byzantine tradition of calculation according to the years of ruler’s reign. He probably used the
source which contained only the date of Volodymer’s accession and death and had no accurate
information about the main events of the Prince’s life. The author connected chronologically the facts
of the Volodymer’s reign, operating with the number of 28 years of his life after the baptism (borrowed
from the Chronicle) and the approximate date of the christening (the “tenth year” after the murder of
Yaropolk). More arguments in: Aleksandr Romensky, Imperiya romeev i tavroskify. Ocherki russko-
vizantiyskikh otnosheniy posledney chetverti X veka (Kharkov, 2017), 130–134.
14 Sergei Bugoslavsky, “K literaturnoi istorii ‘Pamiati i pokhvaly kniazyu Vladimiru’,” Izvestia otdelenia
russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti 29 (1925), 105–137. Cf.: Iaroslav Shchapov, “‘Pamiat i pokhvala’ kniaziu
Vlaimiru Svyatoslavichu Iakova mnikha i Pokhvala knyagine Olge,” Pismennye pamiatniki istorii Drevnei
Rusi, ed. by Ya.N. Shchapov (Saint Petersburg, 2003), 181–183; Andrzej Poppe, “Vladimir Sviatoi. U is-
to kov tserkovnogo proslavlenia,” Fakty i znaki. Issledovania po semiotike istorii 1 (2008), 85. Anton Vve-
denskiy believes that the Memory and Eulogy was used in the Prologue, so it was compiled before 1160-ies.
However, Vadym Aristov proves the opposite view. Cf.: Anton Vvedenskiy, “Ob istochnike Prolozhnogo
zhytiya Knyagini Ol’gi”, Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovie (Moscow, 2016), 44–48; Vadym
Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia istorychnykh povidomlen ‘Pamyati ta pohvaly kniaziu Volodymyru’ Yakova
Mnikha,” Ruthenica XIII (2016), 50–82. Neither one nor the other opponent is completely persuasive.
15 Nadezhda Milutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostolny kniaz Vladimir i kreshchenie Rusi (Saint Petersburg,
2008), 474. It is remarkable that the Memory, Primary Chronicle as well as some versions of the
“Ordinary Life” consistently claim the absence of miracles after the death of Volodymer, which might
be interpreted as important evidence of sainthood in the Byzantine Church. Cf.: Aleksei Shakhmatov,
Zhytiya knyazya Vladimira, 275, 281 (the forth and fifth versions of the Ordinary Life), 345–346
(Memory and Eulogy); PSRL 1: 131. The same problem of canonization the person without any proof
of miracles appears at the same time in Scandinavia. See Galina Glazyrina, Saga ob Ingvare
Puteshestvennike (Moscow, 2002), 245–246 (original text), 270 (Russian translation).
16 For the dating, see: Ludolf Müller, “O vremeni kanonizatsii Svyatykh Borisa i Gleba,” Russia Medievalis
8 (1995), 1–20; Andrzej Poppe, “O zarozhdenii kulta sviatykh Borisa i Gleba,” Russia Medievalis 8
(1995), 21–68; Andrzej Poppe, “Zemnaia gibel i nebesnoe torzhestvo Borisa i Gleba,” Trudy Otdela
Drevnerusskoy Literatury 54 (2003), 325–332. Cf.: Aleksandr Uzhankov, “Sviatyie stastoterptsy Boris
i Gleb: k istorii kanonizatsii i napisania zhitiy,” Drevnyaya Rus: voprosy medievistiki 1 (2001), 37–38.
17 See most recently: Petr Tolochko, “O meste i vremeni krescheniya i kanonizatsii Vladimira
Sviatoslavicha,” Vizantiiskiy Vremennik 70 (2011), 100–104.
Rythenika_15.indd 69 16.12.2019 11:13:59
70 A l exa ndr R om ensky
process was rather lengthy and before being finally recognized as a saint, Volodymer
had been venerated as a matter of tradition and custom rather then an officially
sponsored cult18. In any case, there are no indisputable evidence for Volodymer’s
canonization before the turn of the thirteenth century. However, Andrzej Poppe
pointed out that the memory of person not yet recognized as a saint but venerated
for the merits before the church could be celebrated in the form of the annual funeral
service19. It would seem that the Memory and Eulogy reflects this very tradition.
Vitae of St. Volodymer and the “Korsun Legend”
Several hagiographic texts tell the story of Volodymer’s baptism in Korsun after
“trialling the faiths”.
One such texts is Life of the blessed Volodymer (often called the “Ordinary
Life”). One of its versions is accompanied in manuscripts by the Memory and Eulogy
by Jacob the Monk and includes some elements from the Tale of SS. Boris and
Gleb20. Scholars date this Life from the fourteenth or the fifteenth century21 and admit
that it derives from the Primary Chronicle, reporting essentially the same events and
using its information as a source22. Although a few minor details differ23, their
sources, if any, are but impossible to determine. It would seem that the Ordinary Life
emerged as part of the already established church veneration of St. Volodymer.
There is little doubt that the so-called Tale about baptism of Volodymer after
capturing Korsun (“Slovo o tom, kako krestisya Vladimer vozmya Korsun”),
which has survived in many copies from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries and
is attributed to a certain Theodosius, is secondary in its relation to the chronicle.
Shakhmatov believed that it drew on an unspecified additional source, but
admitted that the text is late, probably composed by Theodosius, the editor of the
Caves Paterikon of the early fifteenth century24.
18 Boris Uspensky, “Kogda byl kanonizirovan kniaz Vladimir Svyatoslavich?,” Palaeoslavica 10 (2002),
271–281.
19 Andrzej Poppe, “Vladimir Sviatoi. U istokov tserkovnogo proslavlenia,” Fakty i i znaki. Issledovania
po semiotike istorii 1 (2008), 103.
20 The fourth redaction in Shakhmatov’ classification, cf.: Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytia kniazia Vladimira,
261–276.
21 Nikolai Nikolskiy, Materialy, 242; Nikolai Serebriansky, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie zhitia, 49; Boris
Kloss, “Zhytie kniazia Vladimira,” Pismennyie pamiatniki istorii Drevney Rusi, 200.
22 Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytia kniazia Vladimira, 207–208.
23 The Life estimates the period of Volodymer ambassadors’ residence in Constantinople as “8 days”, the duration
of the siege of Cherson as “6 months”; instead of an eye disease the prince was affected by “ulcer”; the church
where the baptism took place is named after St. James, and the church built “in Korsun on the mountain” —
after St. Basil; among the plundered treasures instead of “copper horses” “icons and books” are mentioned;
the place of baptism of Kievan people is called the Pochayna river, and not the Dnieper (Aleksei Shakhmatov,
Zhytia kniazia Vladimira, 222–227, 232–234, 237–240, 254–257, 268–272, 277–280, 285–289).
24 Aleksei Shakhmatov, Korsunskaia legenda, 37–38. On the contrary, Nikolsky considered it to be a
source for the chronicle, yet on a rather meager evidence (Nikolai Nikolskiy, “K voprosu ob istochnikah
letopisnogo skazaniya o sviatom Vladimire,” Khristianskoie Chtenie 7 (1902), 97–98; Idem, “Materialy
dlia istorii drevnerusskoi dukhovnoi pismennosti, №№ I–XXIII,” Sbornik otdelenia russkogo iazyka
Rythenika_15.indd 70 16.12.2019 11:13:59
71I n Searc h of th e “ K orsun L eg end ” :
L ook ing B ac k f rom th e C entennial Persp ec tiv e
A version preserved in the collections of the Chudov Monastery and dating to
the second half of the sixteenth century can be considered as a variation of the
Ordinary Life25. It describes Anastasius of Cherson as bishop, mentions the healing
of the prince from “scales”, and contains an interesting topographical detail:
Volodymer “built the church on the mound Likothros” (“постави церковь Св. Ва-
силья на горе, рекомеи Ликофрос”) after his baptism26. Shakhmatov suggested,
rather boldly, that this information is traceable to certain “Tale of Volodymer’s
baptism”, but the overall late outlook of the source makes it very unlikely.
The Synaxarion (Prologue) Vitae, in their various versions, were traditionally
considered as reductions of the Ordinary Life. Their dating depends on the overall
dating of the Prologue, for which recently the second half or even the end of the
twelfth century have been suggested27. The oldest fragment of the Prologue with
the Life of St. Volodymer is dated to 122028.
In this bleak landscape, Shakhmatov was able to identify one hagiographical
work on St. Volodymer, dating from the fifteenth century, that apparently did preserve
an independent ancient, tradition on the princes’ conversion. The scholar dubbed it
the “Life of a Particular Composition”29. As early as 1888 Aleksei Sobolevsky
suggested that it taped on an “ancient, no doubt, and very important but lost source”
on the circumstances of the conversion30. Indeed, the text carries some unique data,
for instance on the boyar Zhibern and a military commander named Oleg. Yet it offers
for the rest a heavily “folklorised” version of the story31, and it takes textological
daring of a Shakhmatov’s caliber to proclaim it depen dable and ancient source32.
i slovesnosti 82 (1907), 4–6). According to Boris Kloss, this text, which is a compilation of late chronicle
accounts and Synaxarion (Prologue), was written in the first half of the fifteenth century (Boris Kloss,
“Zhytie kniazia Vladimira,” 201).
25 Mikhail Speransky, “Bibliograficheskie materialy A.N. Popova. XIX. Sobornik belorusskiy Chudova
monastyrya,” Chtenia v obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 3 (1889), 1–101 (5th pag.).
26 Mikhail Speransky, “Bibliograficheskie materialy A.N. Popova, 36–38.
27 Boris Kloss, “Zhytie kniazia Vladimira,” 200; Olga Loseva, Zhytia russkikh sviatykh v sostave
drevnerusskikh Prologov XII — pervoi treti XV vv. (Moscow, 2009), 135.
28 Olga Loseva, Zhytia russkikh sviatykh, 76, 122–123.
29 Aleksei Shakhmatov, Korsunskaia legenda, 58–59; Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytia kniazia Vladimira,
314–315.
30 Aleksei Sobolevsky, “Pamiatniki drevnerusskoi literatury, posviaschennye Vladimiru Sviatomu,”
Chtenia v Istoricheskom obshchestve Nestora Letopistsa 2 (1888), 11–12. The Life came down in a
miscellany from the Pligin collection. There is also a similar concise version, which Sobolevsky called
the “Extended Prologue Life”.
31 Essentially, it is a variation of a traditional folk tale of “acquiring of a bride”. Volodymer goes on a military
expedition against Korsun because of an unsuccessful courtship to the local ruler's daughter. After the
capture of the city the family of the “Korsun prince” follows the fate of the Princes of Polotsk: “[Volodymer]
seized the prince and princess of Korsun and took their daughter to his tent, where, having tied the prince
and princess to the pole of the tent, performs lawlessness with their daughter in front of them.” Three days
later, the “prince” and “princess” were put to death and their daughter was given to the new governor of
the city, boyar Izhbern (Zhd’bern). Later, the same Izhbern together with the military commander Oleg
were sent to Constantinople to woo the Princess Anna, and so on, and so forth. Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytiya
knyazya Vladimira, 316–317 (Pligin’s compilation), 318–319 (17th c. chronicle compilation).
32 In fact, the text is full of errors. Its author does not know the topography of Cherson and was confused
by historical details: he baptised the warriors of Volodymer in a river which does not exist on Heracleian
Rythenika_15.indd 71 16.12.2019 11:13:59
72 A l exa ndr R om ensky
Volodymer’s Conversion in the Primary Chronicle
The previous discussion of hagiographic texts was intended to demonstrate of their
late origin and how their offer inauspicious prospects for recovering an “ancient
tale” on Volodymer’s conversion, or any other subject for that matter.
It leaves us with the chronicle as a possible source of some earlier accounts on
the conversion. Let us turn to the structure of its narrative.
The story of Volodymer’s baptism in the chronicle begins with the religious
debate and the representatives of various confessions (the Bulgarians, the
Germans, the Khazar Jews and later the Byzantines represented by “Greek the
Phylosopher”) in Kiev. Dissatisfied with their missionary efforts Volodymer,
having consulted with the top of his retinue (the boyars and the “elders”33), decides
to send ten “good and reliable” men for extra testing of “how others serve God”.
Being affected by the beauty of worship in the Constantinople church of Sophia
the Rus’ ambassadors prefered the “law of the Greeks”. The advice of the boyars
and an example of prince’s grandmother Olga led to the selection of the Greek
religion. The question of the place of baptism arises but the Prince is advised to
accept it “where he prefers”. A year later, the ruler had already decided on the
place, but instead of the expected trip to the bishop and preparation for the
adoption of the sacraments he launches an attack on Korsun34. Thus, the salvation
of his own soul is made dependent on military luck. The victory is gained not
because by the military success but by God’s favor. According to the logic of the
text, it is God — through Anasthasius of Cherson — who showed a way to win.
After receiving his principal trophy in Porphyrogenita Anna, Volodymer, however,
puts off his pledge and procrastinates. For that he is punished with blindness
(or clods or “plague”, according to the Lives), of which he is cured only in the
baptismal font35. The miracle of conversion of Saul to Paul performed again.
Shakhmatov has detected the artificial connection between the three versions of
the baptism of the prince (in Kiev, after talks with “Greek the Philosopher”; also in
Kiev on the basis of a “testing the faiths”, and in Korsun, after a miraculous healing)
in this classic text36. This was the main argument for the existence of a separate “Tale
of Baptism”. A trained philologist can clearly see inconsistencies within the text.
However, the question is, would the same standard apply to the medieval author?
Peninsula; among the contemporaries of the prince he name the metropolitan “Larion” who held the
cathedra in times of Yaroslav the Wise. There are some other errors and distortions, such as 23 years
lived by Volodymer after the baptism (instead of 28) or the date of the siege, which is given as 6096.
33 These later are borrowed from the chronicle’s chronographycal sources, cf.: Tetiana Vilkul, “Startsi” ta
“stareishyny” v Povisti vremennyx lit i davnioslovyanskomu Vosmyknyzhzhi,” Ukrainskyi Istorychnyj
Zhurnal (5 2012), 165–176.
34 PSRL 1: 109; PSRL 2: 95.
35 PSRL 1: 109; Aleksei Shakhmatov, Zhytia kniazia Vladimira, 270.
36 Aleksei Shakhmatov, Korsunskaia legenda, 1–8.
Rythenika_15.indd 72 16.12.2019 11:13:59
73I n Searc h of th e “ K orsun L eg end ” :
L ook ing B ac k f rom th e C entennial Persp ec tiv e
What we have in the chronicle story is essentially the testing of the true faith
staged in three parts: first with the missionaries, then with one’s own folk, and finally
with the military luck. When all three point in the same direction, the decision is
made. It only helped that Christian God also had revealed himself by performing
one of his customary tricks: a miracle of instantaneous curing from an affliction.
The sources and models for the chronicle story have been established with
sufficient certainly37. In view of these findings, the chronicle story appears to be a
rather well-thought and coherent, well above the standards of a medieval narrative.
Some experts insist that the possible source of the narration about the “choice of
faith” is the story of the conversion of the Khazar Khagan to Judaism38; however,
the plot similarities could pass from one written tradition to another. Healing as a
result of baptism is also a wide-spread plot, going back to the evidence about the
healing of Constantine the Great in the Chronicle of George Hamartolos39.
On the contrary, the chronicle story of the siege of Korsun’ reveals great
familiarity with the topography of the city. The story is certainly written in hot
pursuit by an eyewitness who may have been personally involved in the
vicissitudes of the siege. The author notes the dislocation of the Rus’ fleet
indicating the exact distance from the city: “ѡб онъ полъ города в лимени . дали.
града ст[р]ѣлище єдино”40. Most likely, Rus’ placed their ships in the Streletskaya
Bay, while Volodymer resided in a camp located in 200–250m from the western
gates of the city of Cherson41. The author refers to the earthwork of the besiegers
37 Cf. among others: Petr Bitsylli, “Zapadnoe vlianie na Rusi i Nachalnaia letopis,” Petr M. Bitsylli,
Izbrannye trudy po srednevekovoi istorii: Rossia i Zapad (Moscow, 2006), 590; Vladimir Petrukhin,
“Vybor very: Letopisnyi siuzhet i istoricheskie realii,” Drevnerusskaia kultura v mirovom kontekste:
arheologia i mezhdistsyplinarnye issledovania (Moscow, 1999), 73–74; Allan Timberlake, “Point of
View and Conversion Narrative: Vita Constantini and Povest Vremennykh Let,” Miscellanea slavica.
Sbornik statei k 70-letiu B.A. Uspenskogo (Moscow, 2008), 256–272; Tatiana Vilkul, “O proishozhdenii
‘Rechi Filosofa’,” Palaeoslavica 20, 1 (2012), 6–14.
38 Vladimir Petrukhin, “Vybor very: Letopisnyi syuzhet i istoricheskie realii”, 73–74; Petrukhin V. Vybor
very v evraziyskoy istorii: Khazaria i Rus. Tatiana Kalinina, Valeriy Flyorov and Vladimir Petrukhin.
Khazaria v krosskul’turnom prostranstve (Moscow, 2014), 159–160. Noteworthy that the similar plot
on testing the faith and debates we can see in narrative tradition of Eurasian steppe empires, such as the
polemics in Uyghur Khaganate or later authentic story about a religious dispute in front of Möngke
Khagan. Cf.: Sergey Klyashtorny, Runicheskiye pamyatniki Uyghurskogo khaganata i istoriya
evraziyskikh stepey (St.-Petersburg, 2010), 265–275; Peter Golden, The Conversion of the Khazars to
Judaism. The World of the Khazars (Leiden, Boston, 2007), 128–129; Anastasius Van Den Wyngaert
(Ed.). Itinerarium Willelmi de Rubruck. Sinica Franciscana. Vol. 1. (Quaracchi-Firenze, 1929), 292–
297; Puteshestviya v vostochnye strany Plano Karpini i Rubruka (Moscow, 1957), 169–173; Peter
Jackson and David Morgan D. (eds). The Mission of Fryar William of Rubruck. His journey to the court
of the Great Khan Möngke (London, 1990), 230–235.
39 Vasiliy Istrin, Knigy Vremennya i obraznyya Georgiya Mnikha. Khronika Georgiya Amartola v drevnem
slavyanorusskom perevode. T. 1. (Petrograd, 1920), 331–332; Volodymyr Rychka, Vsya korolivska rat
(Vlada Kyivskoyi Rusi). (Kyiv, 2009), 147–148; Vladimir Petrukhin, Kreshchenie Rusi: ot yazychestva
k khristianstvu (Moscow, 2006), 134.
40 PSRL 1: 109; PSRL 2: 95.
41 Sergey Sorochan, Aleksandr Romensky. “Korsunskiy pokhod i Kherson XI v.: k zaversheniyu
nauchnogo proekta. Review: Sazanov A.V. Kherson i kreshchenie Vladimira. Kherson v X–XI vv.
Saarbrücken, 2013”. Vizantiyskiy vremennik. 72 (2013), 325.
Rythenika_15.indd 73 16.12.2019 11:13:59
74 A l exa ndr R om ensky
as well as countermeasures by the Chersonites that are in keeping with the
recommendations of Byzantine military treatises of the tenth century42. He knows
about the location of the sources of city’s aqueduct43, as well as the place of the
church of baptism and the chambers of Volodymer and his porphyrogenita bride.
It is noteworthy that the foundations of secular buildings (triclinium and emvola)
were noted in the plans of the Cherson agora made by the architects A.A. Avdeev
and K. Vyatkin in the middle of the nineteenth century. They were located 4,27 m
behind the altar of the cross-shaped temple N 27 and 8 m away from this temple,
between the basilica N 28 and cross-shaped temples N 29. That is, the chronicle
data found direct confirmation in the archaeological material. The plumbing
cistern which probably supplied water to the central part of the city and the
triclinium was found 10 meters from the “chambers”44. These facts confirm
additionally the authenticity of the evidence about the siege of Korsun’.
It would appear that the story of St. Volodymer’s conversion appears firstly
within the Rus’ chronicle writing. The earlier stages of its textual history still need
to be clarified, but the authentic report on the siege probably was in the core of the
narration. None of the surviving versions of the text is primary, both the annalistic
and the hagiographic one have been reduced and edited. Although Lives preserved
some reliable information, it seems that the chronicle story served in general as
the basis for subsequent hagiographical traditions and revisions of the original plot
as reflected in the various editions of the St. Volodymers Vitae.
The State Muzeum–Preserve
“Tauris Cherssonese”
42 See Denis F. Sullivan, “A Byzantine Instructional Manual on Siege Defense: The De obsidione
toleranda: Introduction, English Traslation and Annotations,” Byzantine Autors: Literary Activites and
Preoccupations. Text and Translations Dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides. Nesbitt J.
(Ed.). (Leiden, 2003), 140–141, 148, 185–187.
43 On the aqueduct of Cherson cf.: Vladimir Kadeev, Khersones Tavricheskiy. Byt i kultura (I–III vv. n. e.).
(Kharkov, 1996), 27. It is noteworthy that the information of the Ordinary Life in this passage seems to
be more correct, while the text of the Primary Chronicle contains some errors. The latter one proclaims
that the “sources” of water are situated “to the east” from the Rus’ian military camp (PSRL 1: 109), but
in reality they were located on the south. The Life rightly places “to the east” not the “sources”, but the
water catchment cistern, which was situated on the Cherson’s agora (Nadezhda Milutenko, Sviatoi
ravnoapostolny kniaz Vladimir, 457).Thus, both the Life and the Primary Chronicle differ from the
archetype of the text.
44 Sergey Sorochan, “Ob arkhitekturnom komplekse bolshoyagory vizanntiyskogo Khersona,” Vizantiyskiy
Vremennik, 63 (2009), 184–187.
Rythenika_15.indd 74 16.12.2019 11:13:59
|