Olga's journey to Constantinople essay. Online reading of the book secrets of Russia mysterious anepsia

In the Tale of Bygone Years, and in most studies of historians, it is said that the main purpose of Princess Olga's trip to Byzantium in 955 was her personal baptism. But it is worth remembering, for example, that in Kyiv already in 945 there was a cathedral church of St. Elijah. So Olga hardly needed to go so far ...

The construction of Christian churches in Kyiv, of course, could not be successfully carried out without the support of the supreme rulers of Kievan Rus. But such a construction could not have happened if the rulers were not Christians... And the marriage between Igor and Olga was concluded around 925-926.

political motive

There are many both domestic and foreign sources about Olga's trip to the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Basically, all one to one adhere to the legend that was set forth by Nestor the Chronicler in the Tale of Bygone Years, where the issue of baptism appears as an important state-political need of Russia. We will not focus on this and consider other interesting facts from the same chronicle, where Princess Olga is praised for her intelligence and ingenuity; her unspeakably charming beauty is also emphasized, allegedly enchanting even the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself: “The king marveled at her mind, talking with her, and said to her:“ You are worthy to reign with us in our capital. And then, as if Olga puts forward the demand for baptism, declaring: “I am a pagan; if you want to baptize me, then baptize me yourself, otherwise I will not be baptized.” “And the king and the patriarch baptized her,” the chronicler continues further.

Now let's look at some inconsistencies. First, the king cannot baptize; secondly, the Byzantine emperor already had a wife, Empress Elena, who personally received Olga; thirdly, Olga came to Constantinople with her priest Gregory, and it is strictly forbidden to be baptized twice according to Christian canons ... By the way, the author of the 16th century book "Olgino's Life" Dimitry of Rostov adheres to the same legend, adding that the Byzantine king became her godfather .

What did the emperor say?

Interesting information about the reception of Olga in the royal chambers was left by the Byzantine emperor himself. In particular, from his notes: “On Wednesday, September 9th, there was a reception similar in everything to the previous one [of one Saracen ambassador] about the arrival of Olga, the Russian princess.” Further, in the description of the ceremony, it is reported that she was given questions on behalf of the empress ... Then the empress, rising from the throne, went to her inner chambers, “the princess with her relatives and maids entered through the hall of Justinian ... into the kengurium and rested there . Then the emperor sat down with the empress and his porphyry-born children, and the princess was called from the hall ... "

There is no mention of any baptism of Olga by the emperor or the patriarch in these records. In the same way as about the courtship of the emperor himself to the princess, which in a period of strict observance of Christian traditions would be simply impossible.

We can assume that in the Tale of Bygone Years the chronicler set himself a slightly different task, which does not quite coincide with historical realities. Perhaps the author's goal was to exalt the Kievan princess, put her on the same level with the Byzantine emperor, and even more - to prove her superiority over him. To show that she "surpassed the mind" of the ruler of Byzantium in the intricacies of the Christian doctrine! This is exactly what we can observe when we read the chronicle, where the princess ridicules the emperor’s “proposal” for matchmaking, saying: “How do you want to take me when you yourself baptized me and called me daughter? But Christians do not allow this - you yourself know. We are talking about the prohibition of the marriage of the godfather with the goddaughter. Other Byzantine authors did not leave any news about Olga's baptism, which would have been an outstanding event if it had happened.

While in Constantinople, Princess Olga visited the most important Christian church - Hagia Sophia. We can assume that, having a large community of Christians behind her, Olga's visit to Byzantium pursued the goal of negotiating the organization of church affairs in Kyiv and relations with the universal center of Orthodoxy. And yet, the princess could not ignore the tragic relationship between the Bulgarian Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, when Christianity was used by the Byzantine Empire to destroy the Bulgarian state, church and culture of the country. Therefore, let us assume that Olga's negotiations with the Byzantine patriarch could be conducted from the position of establishing in the Kievan state only an autocephalous (independent) church organization.

It is clear that such a position of the Kievan princess could not get the approval of the ecumenical patriarchate, which everywhere "implanted" its own church administration and through it subordinated not only the church life of the country where the Greek hierarchs came, but also political.

Christian Slavic State

Based on the foregoing, the following act of Princess Olga becomes clear: she presented the church of Hagia Sophia with a golden dish adorned with precious stones, on which an embassy content of 500 milia-risii had previously been brought to her. It was a really valuable thing, and it was kept in the temple for several centuries. It should be said that this was a rather ordinary respect, all the actions of which are provided for by the traditional magnificent palace ceremonial. This is also explained by the fact that the Byzantine court exalted itself in the eyes of other states, seeking to psychologically overwhelm and subjugate itself.

In 1252, the pilgrim Dobrynya Yadreikovich, who eventually became Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod, reports in his notes that he saw a precious dish in the Hagia Sophia: in Olzhin's dish there is a precious stone, Christ is written on the same stone.

Perhaps, returning the jewel, Princess Olga thus showed the emperor and the patriarch her displeasure caused by their refusal of her main request, with which she arrived so far away.

Returning to Kyiv, Olga immediately establishes contacts with European states - the Hungarian principality and Germany. In addition, she appeals to the Duke of Saxony, King Otto I of Germany with a request to send a bishop and priests to Kyiv.

But some researchers attribute the success of the diplomacy of the Kievan princess in Constantinople to the fact that she achieved the honorary title of "archon" - the daughter of the emperor. If such a title was given to her, then it did not play a significant role for the princess - in her country she was already an all-powerful ruler. And such a title, rather, meant in the political language of the Byzantine emperors dependence, subordination to the empire, and not a certain degree of “prestige”.

The Byzantine emperor thus subordinated neighboring rulers to himself, and this is evidenced by the resolute answer of the princess to the ambassadors of the emperor, who, without giving her anything, wanted to receive from her state significant economic and military benefits, that is, to make the Kievan state a "donor" for imperial needs.

The ambassadors, according to the chronicler, spoke on behalf of the Byzantine emperor Constantine like this: “You told me: when I return to Russia, I will send you many gifts: servants, wax, and furs, and soldiers to help.” To which Olga replied: “If you stand with me in Pochaina as I do in the Court, then I will give it to you.” It was an open diplomatic break with Byzantium.

We can say with confidence that the success of the visit of Princess Olga to Constantinople took place! The Byzantine Empire failed to subdue the Dnieper state, its material and human resources. At that time, Princess Olga made the only correct decision: to abruptly break off such unequal relations with the Byzantine Empire and direct her gaze to Western Europe.

Alexandra Shepel

After the death of Grand Duke Igor Rurikovich in 945, a troubled time came for the Russian state. The heir to the throne was about five years old, and the Kyiv table for him had to be held by his mother Olga, who relied on the grand ducal squad, governor Sveneld, Asmud and others. However, Olga, despite her toughness in defending the throne for her son, was still a woman with a psyche more malleable for informational influence than that of a warrior.

The end of 945 and a significant part of 946 passed in the struggle with the Drevlyans, who wanted to restore independence, and their prince claimed the Kyiv throne. In the same 946, Olga, moving with her retinue and her son from city to city, from camp to camp, established "charters and lessons." As a result, the collection of taxes was streamlined, representatives of the grand duke's administration were imprisoned on the ground, and places for collecting polyudya - graveyards - were established. Arbitrary extortions have come to an end. Thus, an organized system of taxation was established on Russian soil.

Another problem for Kyiv was relations with the Byzantine Empire, which retained their duality. On the one hand, the Rus and the Romans were allies. The treaty of 944 continued to function properly. Russia was a military ally of the Romans in the fight against the Arab onslaught. Russian soldiers served as part of the imperial troops, who were sent to Crete; Russian garrisons were stationed in the fortresses bordering the Arab Caliphate, creating a powerful barrier against Arab pressure from the south. All this happened during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (945 - 959) and the regency of Olga.

However, there was no complete peace and harmony in the relations between the two powers. In Constantinople, they looked at Russia with suspicion and remembered the horror that the arrival of Russian troops under the walls of Constantinople caused among the local population. From Russia, the Romans were waiting for new attacks. At the same time, Byzantium was faced with the question of intensifying the struggle against the Arabs, and Basileus Constantine undertook energetic diplomatic and military efforts in search of allies in the West and East. Constantinople needed Russian squads to strike at the Transcaucasian vassals of the Caliphate and war with the Arabs.

The previous level of relations between the two powers did not satisfy Kyiv either. Almost a century has passed since the "diplomatic recognition" and many things no longer satisfied the Kiev government. Kiev did not like the exclusive political and religious position of Byzantium. According to the Byzantine concept of power, the emperor-basileus was the vicar of God on earth and the head of the entire Christian church. Therefore, none of the foreign rulers could stand on a par with the Byzantine emperor. Constantinople closely followed the titles, honorary epithets, and other signs of dignity that it bestowed on foreign rulers.

This order could be changed only by force, and Russia often succeeded in this matter, from decade to decade raising the level of its diplomatic relations with Byzantium, improving the system of Russian-Byzantine treaties, fighting for more and more honorary titles of Russian princes.

An important role in the relationship between Russia and Byzantium was occupied by the issue of Christianization. Constantinople was going to capitalize on this issue. The Byzantines viewed the Christianization of Russia as a tool for strengthening political influence. At the same time, some Russian prominent figures saw Christianization as an opportunity to raise the political status of Russia. This group was opposed by the pagan party, which had support in the Russian priesthood and people.

Therefore, the first attempt to accept Christianity at the state level and spread it from above on the Russian land in the 860s ended in failure. Many researchers believe that Askold and Dir (or one Askold) converted to Christianity and allowed Christian missionaries into their lands after the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 860s. This was the first attempt to baptize Russia. However, the traces of this process disappeared after Kyiv was captured by the squad of Oleg the Prophet in 882, and Askold and Dir died.

But Christianity continued to beckon a part of the Russian political and economic elite. This is a feature of a part of the Russian elite at all times - a foreign one seems better than one's own. Christianity beckoned with its brilliance and political possibilities. Christianity seemed to be a means of accession to political international heights. The lord of Bulgaria, having adopted Christianity, received the title of king. The Christianized Frankish state was called an empire in Byzantium. In addition, part of the already forming class of feudal lords understood the benefits of Christianity to strengthen their positions in the state. Christianity was more convenient for the Kiev elite than paganism, coming from the times of primitive "communism" (the mythological "golden age"). The "cosmopolitans" of that time - the Kiev rich, merchants - also saw the benefits in Christianization.

The Christian party gradually became a very powerful force in Russia. And the Byzantines tried more and more persistently to make Russia a part of the Christian world. It is no coincidence that in 911 the Russian ambassadors in Tsargrad-Constantinople were taken to Christian churches and tried to accustom them to Christian values. It is no coincidence that in the treaty of 944, Russian Christians are fully represented along with the pagans and the church of St. Ilya in Kyiv. And we are talking about the most influential part of Russian society - the "best boyars", princely "husbands", who, unlike Prince Igor, swore allegiance to the agreement on the cross.

Thus, the problems of foreign policy and the issue of baptism remained open and could not but worry both sides. The question stood squarely: either Russia would crush Constantinople in one of the campaigns, or Byzantium would be able to carry out the baptism of Russia and make it an obedient instrument in its politics, the Russians would become another barbarian people who could be manipulated by sophisticated Byzantine politicians.

It was this issue that was resolved during Olga's embassy in 955 (957) to Constantinople. It was an emergency in the Russian state: the Russian princess herself moved to the Byzantine capital to discuss issues important for Russia with Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. This was the first case in the history of Russia when the head of state went to Byzantium (although not full-fledged, she was regent under Svyatoslav). The Tale of Bygone Years says this simply: “Olga went to the Greeks and came to Constantinople. There was then Tsar Konstantin, the son of Leonov, and Olga came to him. Under the pen of an ancient chronicler, everything is easy and simple: she got ready, got into a boat and arrived in Constantinople. Although in real life there is no such simplicity in politics. It is clear that preliminary negotiations were held between Kiev and Constantinople regarding the arrival of the Russian princess in the Byzantine capital. Given that the path between the two capitals is not short, and the transport capabilities of that era were far from modern, the negotiations could not be short. We do not know who initiated these negotiations.

The very reception of the Russian princess and the negotiations are quite well described in the Tale of Bygone Years, and in the book “On Ceremonies”, which was written by Basileus Constantine VII himself. Instructing his son how to receive foreign ambassadors, the emperor described the receptions of the Russian princess on Wednesday 9 September and Sunday 18 October. Only 946 and 957 are suitable for these numbers on these days. But the year 946 was busy with important internal political events that excluded a visit to the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, the dating of 957, apparently, is more accurate than in the Russian chronicle - 955.

Usually Russian caravans appeared in the Byzantine capital with the beginning of navigation. However, it is doubtful that the princess's caravan arrived in Constantinople with the very beginning of navigation, in the spring, in unstable weather. Most likely, her ships entered the Court (Constantinople harbor) in late June - early July. Igor's embassy pales in comparison to his wife's mission. Only the composition of the embassy has more than a hundred people. This is known from the list according to which the Russians received support in Byzantium and which was included in the records of Constantine. The retinue of Princess Olga included 8 of her closest, most noble Kievan boyars, possibly relatives, 22 "apocrysiars", as the Greeks called the titular representatives from Russian princes and boyars, 44 merchants, people of Svyatoslav, priest Gregory, 6 people from the retinue of the nobility, 2 translators and approximate women of the princess. Perhaps Svyatoslav was also a member of the embassy, ​​at that time he was 15-17 years old, that is, he was already a fully capable young man (in Russia then at the age of 15 it was already possible to start a family, a separate household). The Byzantines in the list especially singled out the mysterious figure "anepsia", who was called a relative of the Russian princess. In the list of the embassy, ​​he comes in second place after Olga. There is a possibility that it was the son of the princess. According to Byzantine historians, together with Princess Olga, about 1 thousand people arrived in Constantinople, including guards, shipbuilders, servants, etc. As a result, an entire Russian flotilla arrived in Constantinople.

The Byzantines immediately “pointed to the place” for the Russians - forcing them to wait a rather long time for an appointment. So, the first reception at the emperor took place only on September 9, this was the time when Russian merchant guests were already going on their way back. Later, when she received the Byzantine embassy in Kyiv, which arrived in Russia with a request for military assistance, Olga threw an annoyed phrase to the ambassador: “If you are, Rtsi, just stay with me in Pochaina, as if I were in the Court, then I’ll give it to you” . The princess mockingly suggested that the Greeks, in order to receive help, stand in the Pochainovo harbor on the Dnieper, as she was waiting in the Court for a reception from the emperor. The princess waited for an appointment for about two and a half months. It was a serious insult.

The reception of foreign embassies in Constantinople took place according to a long-established ritual. Obviously, during the preliminary negotiations, the composition of the embassy, ​​the time of its arrival, at what level the reception would take place, etc., were determined. Constantine VII described in detail the reception ceremony on September 9th. The emperor, sitting on his throne in the Magnavre hall, exchanged ceremonial greetings with Olga through a special official (logofet). Near the emperor was the entire composition of the court. The atmosphere was extremely solemn. Then another event traditional for receiving distinguished guests took place - a dinner, where the best church choirs of Constantinople delighted the ears of the guests. At the same time, various stage performances took place. During lunch on September 9 (and October 18), Olga sat at the imperial table, along with the Empress and her children.

There were some important departures from the usual diplomatic ritual during the reception. So, at the beginning of the audience of a foreign representative, two eunuchs were usually led by the hands to the throne for praskines (prostration to the imperial feet). However, this order has been changed. Olga walked alone, unaccompanied, and remained standing and talking with the emperor while standing.

Then the Russian princess was received by the empress. Their conversation also passed through a special person. After a short break, she had a meeting with the imperial family, which had no precedent during the receptions of ordinary ambassadors. In a narrow circle of the imperial family, Olga and the emperor had a conversation on important topics. Not a single ordinary foreign embassy enjoyed such privileges in Constantinople.

Apparently, the high level of reception was associated with the need for military support from Russia. According to A. N. Sakharov and some other researchers, Olga wanted for this help to arrange a dynastic marriage of Svyatoslav with one of the daughters of Constantine VII. It was a symbol of the recognition of Russia equal to Byzantium. So, at one time the Khazars achieved this right, sending a cavalry army to help Constantinople to fight the Avars and Persians. As a result, the Khazar princess, having converted to Christianity, became the wife of the son of Leo IV, the future Emperor Constantine V. Later, the Bulgarian Tsar Peter married Princess Maria, the granddaughter of Roman I. In addition, the Byzantine court nurtured the idea of ​​a dynastic marriage with the Frankish empire.

However, the Byzantines politely but persistently rejected, in their opinion, exorbitant demands of the Russian embassy. Perhaps this was how one of the knots of contradictions between Svyatoslav and Byzantium was tied. The young prince did not forgive the arrogance and pride of the Byzantine court. In fact, he devoted most of his life to the fight against the "Second Rome". Although, of course, this insult cannot be considered the main reason for Svyatoslav's dislike for Byzantium. In his policy, he solved important tasks of a strategic nature.

The second important proposal of the princess, in exchange for confirmation of the articles of the military-allied nature of the Russian-Byzantine treaty, was the baptism of Olga. This is what the Tale of Bygone Years tells about. It was not just a baptism, but a political act that was supposed to help raise the political prestige of the Russian princess. There was no talk of the baptism of all Russia yet. Most of the squad with the young prince continued to praise the Russian gods and did not have any reverence for Christian shrines.

At the same time, Constantinople had the experience of the baptism of Bulgaria. In the early 950s, two Hungarian princes Gyula and Bulci were baptized. The remnants of pagan Europe fell into the net of Rome or Constantinople. Byzantium feverishly set up nets to catch not only the souls of new parishioners, but also to extract political benefits, since secular imperial power stood behind the back of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the emperor who dictated his political decisions to the church. The church was an instrument in the big game.

Olga tried to take an important step towards the Christianization of Russia. Constantine VII is silent on this issue in his notes. But the Russian chronicle colorfully conveyed the story of Olga's baptism. This story is highly symbolic. Olga, at baptism, set the condition that the Byzantine emperor himself be the godfather. This was exactly the case with Bulgaria, when Emperor Michael became the successor of the Bulgarian Tsar Boris, who gave him his Christian name. In addition, the Russian princess asked that she be given the Christian name of Elena. That was the name of the wife of Constantine VII and the mother of Constantine I, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. And finally, Olga asked the basileus to officially call her his daughter. In the early Middle Ages, such concepts as father, son, brother, daughter, in relations between the monarchs of different states had great political meaning. In particular, there are cases when foreign rulers, in order to increase their prestige, persistently tried to get the title of “son of the Byzantine emperor” for their children. The emperors addressed the Bulgarian tsar with the title "son". Therefore, Olga wanted to seriously raise the status of Russia in relations with Byzantium.

Judging by the Russian chronicle, all her demands were satisfied: “And the tsar and the patriarch baptized her. She was given the name in baptism Helen, like the ancient queen, the mother of the Great Constantine. In conclusion, it is said that the emperor released her “calling her his daughter” and giving her great gifts: gold, silver, and curtains. Thus, Olga received the title that the Bulgarian tsar and the Persian shah sought before her.

It seems that both sides were dissatisfied with each other. Olga and Svyatoslav were annoyed by the arrogance of the Byzantines, who did not want to see the "Russian barbarians" as equals. This was underlined by the humiliatingly long wait for the reception and the refusal of Constantine VII in a dynastic marriage. This fact is confirmed by the actions of Svyatoslav when he leads Russia and Olga's interest in Rome. In 959, the Russian princess Olga sent a request to the German king Otto I to send a bishop to Russia to preach Christianity (the so-called Adalbert mission). Yes, and Olga will not provide warriors to help Byzantium immediately, but only after the arrival of the Byzantine embassy in Kyiv.

The plans of Olga and Byzantium for the cautious Christianization of Russia ran into the iron will of Svyatoslav. When Olga began to carefully but persistently persuade Svyatoslav to accept Christianity, although he did not prevent others from accepting another faith (pagan Russia was tolerant), he himself did not want to be baptized and mocked Christians: eat". Svyatoslav also refused other persuasion of his mother, appealing to his squad: And the moa squad will start laughing at this. When the mother again raised this question: you are baptized, others are baptized too. Svyatoslav stood his ground.

Apparently, the issue of Christianity led to the appearance of a certain crack in the relationship between Olga and Svyatoslav. Two political parties will clearly take shape in Kyiv: a Christian party led by Olga, who stood for the baptism of Russia and orientation towards the West (Byzantium or Rome); pagan, headed by the mature Svyatoslav. This crack will clearly manifest itself when Bishop Adalbert arrives in Kyiv to preach the Western version of Christianity (and possibly for the second attempt to baptize Russia). Svyatoslav will lead the pagan party and forcefully stop this informational aggression.

Once Again About the Date of Princess Olga's Trip to Constantinople: Source Notes

"Ancient States of Eastern Europe". 1992-1993, pp. 154-168

Since our first address to the topic, its historiography has been supplemented by a number of significant works. All of them, however, are devoted mainly to the question of time and place. baptism Princess Olga of Kiev and relate to the dating of Olga's techniques described by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus in the treatise "On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court", only to the extent that the authors determine their position in relation to the revived G.G. Litavrin's hypothesis of I.M. Gesner - I. Tunmann, according to which these receptions took place in 946, and not in 957, as was commonly believed until quite recently. L. Muller, F. Tinnefeld, D. Obolensky accepted the dating of 946, V. Vodov is more inclined to recognize it, while S.A. Vysotsky, A. Poppe, V. Seibt spoke in favor of 957; as always, the point of view of O. Pritsak is extravagant, who believes that the two receptions of Olga, combined in the description of Konstantin, actually took place in different years: the first - in 946, and the second - in 957. So, the division of opinions on The question of interest to us remains, and it is still far from an unambiguous solution, although the source study level of the discussion has noticeably grown.

In the course of further work on the topic, we had to make sure that not all the resources of seemingly well-known texts were used to the proper extent. This also applies to ancient Russian monuments (where, first of all, the origin of the textbook annalistic date of Olga's travel to Tsargrad - 6463) is to be considered, and Byzantine ones. Some new observations specifically on Byzantine sources, in particular, in connection with the counter-arguments that were put forward by G.G. Litavrin in a remark to our article, and the present work is devoted to.

Let us briefly recall the essence of the problem. Discussing with varying degrees of detail the ceremonial side of Olga's two receptions in the imperial palace, Constantine VII does not give their full date, although he mentions that the first of the receptions took place on September 9 on Wednesday, and the second on October 18 on Sunday; this, however, is natural, since, as we have already noted, certain details of the palace ceremonial were determined precisely by the day within the church calendar, and the year did not play any role in this respect. However, the data provided by Constantine is sufficient to determine two alternative dates for Olga's receptions, since the indicated coincidences of the numbers and days of the week during the period of the independent reign of Constantine VII (945-959) took place only in 946 and 957. The first of these dates was at one time rejected in historiography on the main basis that during the dessert after the solemn clitoris (lunch) on September 9, Constantine, Roman (his son and co-ruler since the spring of 946) were named among those present, as well as " purple-born them(highlighted by us. - A.N.) children ”: in 946, seven-year-old Roman then, of course, could not have children. It was also pointed out that the dating of Olga's Constantinople journey in 946 was incompatible with the chronology of the Tale of Bygone Years, where the period from 945 to 947 was busy suppressing the Drevlyan uprising and the princess's trip to Novgorod land.

But the issue is complicated by the fact that the supporters of 946 also have one weighty argument at their disposal, which they even tend to consider decisive. A description of Olga's receptions is given in chapter 15 of the second book of the treatise "On Ceremonies", which (chapter) is devoted to the rank of receptions that took place in the Great Triclinic of Magnavra, "when the basileus sit on the Solomon throne." In this chapter, in addition to the receptions of the Kievan princess, others are also described: the ambassadors of the Baghdad caliph and after the emir of Aleppo Sayf ad-dawla, and in the text they are also dated only by the days of the month and days of the week, but it is added in the title that they happened in the IV indict, those. in 946/947 September year. Since the dates of the reception of Olga and the Arab ambassadors coincide, then, if we rely on the information in the heading, it is logical to think that Olga's visit also fell on the fourth indict, i.e. for September-October 946. This traditional argument (which we have devoted enough space to discuss in our first article) G.G. Litavrin complements with one more. In the description of the clitoris on September 9, there is a phrase that can be understood as if Despina and her daughter-in-law, Roman's wife, sat on the same throne, namely the throne of Emperor Theophilus. It is in this sense that Litavrin interprets the text, concluding that such a neighborhood would be embarrassing in 957 for Theophano, the second wife of Roman, but quite acceptable in 946 for the first wife of the co-ruler, his girl of the same age Berta (died in 949 .).

The probative force of this argument still seems to us exaggerated. We repeat, recalling that the joint sitting of the Basilissa and the wife of the co-ruler on the same throne, in our opinion, is not consistent with the proverbial ceremoniality of Byzantine court customs. It would be natural in one case - if the throne of Theophilus was double. Litavrin rejects this possibility with reference to the miniatures to the Madrid Code of the Skylitzes Chronicle, in which Theophilus is more than once depicted sitting on a single throne. But even taking into account the last rather early dating of the Madrid manuscript by the middle of the 12th century. , which is accepted by experts, and on the assumption that its miniatures only copy illustrations in the original Skylitzes of the late 11th century. , it is difficult to be a priori sure that the images on the miniatures accurately reproduce the relevant realities. With regard to the throne of Theophilus, this is almost certainly not the case, since on all three miniatures depicting Theophilus, included in A. Bozhkov's edition, the famous iconoclast emperor is shown sitting on different thrones. In our opinion, the conventionality of the illustrations to the Madrid Code, at least in this respect, is also indicated by the fact that the throne of Leo VI, shown as a double throne on one of the miniatures (for Leo VI and his co-ruler Alexander), is presented on the other as a single seat. .

Let us assume, however, that the throne of Theophilus was still single. Our perplexity about the joint sitting of Despina and her daughter-in-law on the same throne (“there was no suitable chair in the palace ... high enough for the wife of the co-ruler Vasily to feel comfortable at the table”) Litavrin takes away by the following reasoning. The daughter-in-law "could not sit (according to etiquette) on any other seat convenient for the girl, except on that" royal(highlighted by G.G. Litavrin. - A.N.) "golden chair", i.e. on the throne ”, on which she sat at Olga’s reception until dinner. And this chair was lower than the throne of Theophilus, and not because of the age of the daughter-in-law, but in accordance with the rank of the one sitting on it. That is why, according to Litavrin, the wife of Roman II could not remain in this chair-throne and at the table: it was too low. However, such an explanation not only does not eliminate our perplexities, but gives rise to new ones. Even if the historian is right in believing that any a member of the imperial family (the fact that the wife of Roman II most likely had not yet been crowned then will be discussed below) with all circumstances would certainly have to sit on throne, but absolutely nothing will change in our argument if the word “chair” is replaced by the word “throne”, because there was no shortage of various thrones in the palace either. We are not talking about the fact that the low throne could also be made comfortable for sitting at the table - for example, with the help of pillows, which, by the way, were often depicted as an attribute of thrones in Byzantine iconography. And it is completely incomprehensible why the daughter-in-law of Elena Lacapina, who did not have the right to sit on the same level with the empress during the reception, could, according to Litavrin, sit on the same throne with her during the dinner that followed?

In view of what has been said, we still prefer to think that in the phrase being analyzed, “Despina and her daughter-in-law sat on the throne mentioned above (i.e., the throne of Theophilus. - A.N.) ...” άυτης) after the mention of the daughter-in-law, one should mean “in the armchair” (“έν τω σελλίω”), as was directly stated a little higher when describing the official reception preceding the clitoris: “Despina sat on the throne mentioned above, and her daughter-in-law - in the armchair” ("ή δέ δέσποινα έκαυέσυη έν τω προρρηυέντι υρόνω καΐ ή νύμφη αυτής έν τφ σελλίω").

Without rejecting such a possibility in principle, Litavrin nevertheless notes that “in the 15th chapter, wherever it is indicated on which throne the basileus (or despina) sat, necessarily(highlighted by the author. - A.N.) it is noted what the co-ruler - Roman II (or the daughter-in-law of the eldest royal couple) was sitting on. Such wording to the reader, not familiar with the text of the source, may give the impression that there are such cases in De cerim. II, 15 - a lot, at least enough to establish a similar pattern. Meanwhile, out of the 15 tricks described here (not counting the “Spanish” trick mentioned in passing), there are only 3 of them. This is the second trick of the Tarsites, when it is indicated that Roman II sat on the throne of Arcadius, and Constantine VII, obviously, on the throne of Constantine the Great (It is important that we have to guess about the latter, since the throne of Constantine VII, unlike the throne of the co-ruler, is not directly named!); the third reception of the Tarsites on August 30, when both basils were sitting in "golden chairs", and, finally, the official reception (not the clitoris!) of Olga by the Empress and her daughter-in-law, which is the subject of our trial. It is easy to see why exactly in these three cases the information is so detailed (although not always clearly presented). Chapter II, 15 is devoted to the ceremonial receptions that took place in the Great Triclinic of Magnavra, "when the basileus sit on the Solomon Throne," established there. All three of the above methods are exceptions in this respect: the first took place in Chrysotriclinum, and the second - in Justinian's triclinium, so that the emperor (empress) could not (could not) sit on the Solomon throne, so the name of the throne had to be specifically stipulated; in the course of the second of these receptions, although it took place in the Great Triklin, the emperor was again placed not on the Solomon throne, but for some reason in one of the “golden chairs” standing there.

Sometimes the reader has to guess where the emperor sat during this or that official reception - for example, at a very short description the first reception of Olga by Constantine VII on 9 September. From the fact that the reception took place in the Great Triklin (although this is not even mentioned directly in the text) and that “everything was in accordance with the reception described above”, one could conclude that the emperor was sitting on the Solomon throne, although this is no more than a likely guess. Indeed, given the presence of Roman II (due to the symmetry of the reception, the reception of the princess by the empress and daughter-in-law), it cannot be ruled out that the basileus were placed on golden chairs, as was the case with the third reception of the tarsites mentioned above.

When describing the clitoria, we, as a rule, generally remain in the dark on which thrones the reigning persons sat: for example, during the first dinner with the Tarsites, at a dinner with them in Justinian's Triklin on August 9, at a joint dinner with the Tarsites and Ambassador Abu -Hamdana (Saif ad-dauly) on August 30, at a conversation between the royal family and Olga on September 9 after the official receptions of the princess separately by the emperor and empress, at dessert after dinner on September 9, finally, at a dinner in honor of Olga in Chrysothriklin on October 18. Moreover, there are cases when the author does not even consider it necessary to mention which of the reigning persons participates in the reception. So, it is not clear whether Constantine Porphyrogenitus was alone or accompanied by Roman II at the clitoris with the Tarsites and the ambassador of Abu Hamdan, or at a dinner with the Russian ambassadors after Olga's first reception. In the latter case, as in the description of dinners with the Tarsites on August 9 and with the Russian ambassadors on October 18, the source speaks of Vasilev in the singular (referring to Constantine VII), although, based on the fact that the Empress and Olga were present at the dinner at the same time. wife of Roman II, one would think that Roman himself should have participated in the ceremony.

In conclusion, one more example that contradicts what we think is too categorical the thesis of our opponent. In the introductory part to the 15th chapter, which deals with the elements of the ceremonial, regardless of this or that specific method, “when the basileus sit on the Solomon throne”, it does not say one throne, i.e. the throne of Solomon (as one would expect if one sees here just a generalized description of the technique), but about thrones: the basileus "sit on the thrones" and "descend from the thrones". If the plural "basileus" could be explained by the fact that Constantine could de mean emperors at all(past, present and future), then in relation to the form of the “throne” such an explanation no longer works: the throne of Solomon is one for all. This is how the author of the title understood the matter when he wrote that “ basileus sit on Solomon's throne". This place led to the difficulty of the publisher and translator of the treatise "On Ceremonies" I. Raiske, who turned the Greek "υρόνοι" into the Latin "thronus" in the Latin translation.

Meanwhile, the text can be understood only in one sense: in addition to the Solomon throne, there was at least one more throne in the Great Triklin, obviously intended for Roman II. Indeed, Roman, as we have already noted, had to be present at Olga's first reception, and therefore, to sit on something when his father sat on the throne of Solomon. It would have been natural for the co-ruler to take part in the reception of the ambassador Sayf ad-dawla - otherwise, the unlikely assumption would have to be made that after the meeting with the Tarsites that preceded this reception (when Roman was named among those present), he was ordered to leave; but if so, then he, apparently, had to transfer somewhere from the golden chair, as Constantine moved from such to the throne of Solomon. As we can see, in a number of cases, directly indicating that the basileus sat on the throne of Solomon, the author, contrary to Litavrin, does not say anything about the throne of the co-ruler - moreover, he even forgets to mention his presence.

These constant ambiguities and reticences, suggesting that much for the reader (let us not forget that Roman II himself was the first and main of them) should have been obvious or understandable from the context, strengthens our opinion that from the analyzed turnover (especially taken paired with his “double”, where it is unambiguously said about the special chair of the daughter-in-law), one cannot draw a conclusion about the joint sitting of Vasilisa and her daughter-in-law on the same throne. Here we are dealing, most likely, not with a corrupted place, but with just one of these omissions, and in this sense, it, generally speaking, does not even require conjecture. This is the meaning we put into our words that Litavrin's interpretation is based on "an optional reading of the text." In any case, even if we consider the easily implied "έν τω σελλίω" or "έν τφ προρρηυέντι σελλίω" as a conjecture, in terms of transparency, this passage still cannot be compared with the passage about the children of Constantine and Roman, where radical conjectures are absolutely necessary, but with that are extremely difficult.

In fact, following Litavrin admittedly quite clear and grammatically perfect sentence «έκαυέσυη ό βασιλεύς καΐ ό Ρωμανός ό πορφυρογέννητος βασιλεύς καϊ τά πορφυρογέννητα τούτων τέκνα και ή νύμφη καϊ ή αρχοντίσσα» ( «villages basil, and Roman, porfirodny basil and porfirorodnye their children, and daughter-in-law, and the archontissa") spoiled. This means that supporters of such an interpretation should not only put forward a motive for such a suspicion, but also propose a fairly convenient correction of the text.

F. Tinnefeld in his brief note on this passage in De cerim. II, 15 supported one of the conjectures put forward by Litavrin, which suggests "τούτου" ("his"), i.e. one Constantine, instead of "τούτων" ("them"), i.e. Constantine and Roman. The German Byzantinist sees that the phrase still remains obscure and grammatically incorrect (the mention of Romanus separates Constantine and his children), but is satisfied with the following explanation: as soon as Roman II as co-ruler had to be named in second place, this created “semantic difficulties” for the author , which turned out to be insurmountable for him. In other words, according to Tinnefeld, the author, far from being illiterate, wishing to say one thing, not by mistake, but quite consciously, said something completely different. It is unlikely that such a proposal can be called conjecture. Yes and no special grammatical difficulties we are, quite frankly, we do not see: it was enough to write something like «ό βασιλεύς καί ό 'Ρωμανός ό πορφυρογέννητος βασιλεύς, ό υίός αυτού, καί τά λοιπά πορφυρογέννητα τούτου τέκνα» ( «basil, Roman, porfirorodny basil, his son, and his other children porfirorodnye ") or simply« ό βασιλεύς Κωνσταντίνος καί ό Ρωμανός ό Πορφυρογέννητος βασιλεύς καί τά πορφυρογέννητα τοΰ Κωνσταντίνου τέκνα »(« basil Constantine, Roman, porfirorodny basil and porfirorodnye children Constantine ").

In his remark to our article, Litavrin himself discusses only one, the other possibility. In his opinion, due to the same need to name the co-ruler Vasileus in second place, “there was no place to mention the despina”, i.e. "τόυτων" ("them") the historian relates them to Constantine and the implied despina. Thus, listing in detail all those present, the mention of Basilissa was sacrificed for the sake of the mention of her children.

The tension of such an explanation seems obvious to us. In addition, it is not very plausible for the following two reasons. First, it turns out to be of little help in the interpretation of "τόυτων" ("them") as Constantine and Helena. Indeed, we will pay attention to the design of a similar phrase in the description of the conversation of the imperial family with the Kiev princess between the techniques and the claters: "καυεσέίςέίς ό βασιλεύς μετά τςς ύύΓύΣτρΣ κίί των πορφυρογέννητων αυτού τέκνων" ["Vasilev's village with august and porphyry his(highlighted by us. - A.N.) children "]. It clearly shows that, despite the fact that the children were common, only their belonging to the autocrator is indicated: “his (and not “their”) children.” Therefore, even if the empress were to be conceived in the passage under consideration, the expression “their children” could still hardly refer to her and Constantine, but, by direct analogy with the just cited turnover, it would have to mean exactly Constantine and Sovasileus Roman. Secondly, it makes sense to ask a non-obvious question, was Konstantin's wife really present at the dessert on September 9?

Let's take a closer look at the structure of the events that took place that day and the composition of their participants. The whole program is divided into six episodes: 1) the official introduction of Olga to the emperor and, probably, to the co-ruler (although the latter, as mentioned above, is not directly mentioned); 2) a similar presentation of Olga to the spouses of the basileus; 3) an informal conversation, in which the emperor, empress and their children are named from the Byzantine side; 4) the clitoris of the emperor (and, presumably, the co-emperor, who is again not mentioned) with the Russian ambassadors; 5) a simultaneous clitoris for Olga in the presence of the empress and her daughter-in-law; 6) the final dessert, held in the third place (Aristyria), where the emperor, co-ruler, their children, daughter-in-law were. The usual two-part scheme (formal presentation, then the clitoris) became much more complicated. Due to the fact that they accepted a female archontissa, both stages of the reception, in turn, bifurcated, since they had to include the female half of the ruling family. Moreover, a special difference in Olga's reception was that she received the opportunity of an unofficial stay, as it were, in the domestic circle of the imperial family (episodes 3, 6). The symmetry of the overall composition is obvious. But if the composition of the Byzantine participants in episodes 1, 4, on the one hand, and 2, 5, on the other, are the same, then in the two events of the unofficial part they are different: the absence of a daughter-in-law and, possibly, her husband Roman II (unless he is implied in the anonymous group of children of Konstantin and Elena) in episode 3, the symmetrical default about despina (in the presence of Roman and his wife) in episode 6, shows, in our opinion, that the latter is hardly accidental and cannot be reduced either to the author's blunder or to the copyist's oversight . Before us, most likely, pre-designed symmetrical scheme. So, we have to state that the opponents of the interpretation of the fragment under discussion about the children of Constantine VII and Roman II in its direct, literal sense have not yet been able to put forward any convincing correction of the text. And this, in turn, can serve as an indirect argument in favor of such an interpretation.

There remains the last counter-argument expressed by Litavrin. The scientist believes that if by the time of Olga’s visit Roman II and his wife had offspring, which were present at the dessert on September 9, then, as the mother of a porphyrogenic child, she should have been mentioned not in the last place, but at least before her child, just as the wife of Constantine, wherever she is named with her children, is mentioned before them. Since the daughter-in-law is constantly named in the last place, then from this, according to Litavrin, "with certainty"(highlighted by us. - A.N.) it follows that Theophano did not yet have children in 957, or at least they were illegitimate (which, naturally, made their participation in court ceremonies problematic).

Let's start with the fact that we immediately reject the last possibility, because all the children present at the dessert on September 9 are directly called porphyrogenic in the source. Further, Litavrin for some reason ignores our objections to his analogous argumentation in previous works. Of course, the presence in the hands of historians of such sources as Philotheus' "Clitorology", Constantine's treatise "On Ceremonies" and some other similar monuments gives the right to believe (as our opponent rightly does) that the Byzantine court ceremonial is relatively well known. And yet, we repeat, he is not known to the extent to justify too categorical judgments on the basis of the order in which the members of the royal family are listed. Litavrin does not explain anywhere on the basis of what particular sources he believes that Theophano, if she was the mother of a porphyry-born child, would certainly have moved in the list from the last place. This would be natural to expect if, with the birth of her first child, she would certainly have turned into Augusta, but this is not at all the case. There is reason to believe (as we noted in a previous work) that in the early and Middle Byzantine era, the wife of the co-ruler basileus, strictly speaking, did not have the right to the title of augusta at all. Exceptions each time make a reservation specially . We think that is why in De cerim. II, 15 the wife of Roman II is invariably referred to as "daughter-in-law" ("ή νύμφη"), and not "Junior August" or the like. Thus, from this side, there are no obstacles to the conclusion (following from the debatable expression and “their children are porphyritic”) that the eighteen-year-old Roman II in 957 had at least one child. But who exactly?

It is indisputable that Roman II had at least three children: sons Basil and Constantine, as well as daughter Anna. Following the tradition widespread in historiography, Litavrin dates the birth of the eldest of them, the future Vasily II, to 958. The volume of the journal article did not allow us to discuss this established opinion in a previous work: we limited ourselves to demonstrating that Basil may not have been the firstborn at all and that Roman, as there is reason to think, had an eldest daughter, Elena, to whom the well-known courtship of the German emperor Otto I was sent in 967. Not seeing the need to abandon such a hypothesis for the time being, we nevertheless consider it necessary to note that the question of the date of birth of Basil II is a source study problem, which currently does not have an unambiguous solution. The data on this subject in the sources are contradictory and, as it seems to us, on the whole go back to two mutually exclusive traditions.

The first of them is represented by Simeon Logothetes, who reports that Basil II was born in the 14th year of the independent reign of his grandfather Constantine VII, who reigned for 15 years in total, and that at the time of the death of Constantine VII in November 959, his grandson Basil was one year old. The latest information is also contained in the Successor Theophan. Since the autocratic rule of Constantine Porphyrogenitus began after the removal of the Lakapinides in January 945, then, according to the first news, we will receive February 958 - January 959 as the time of Basil's birth (if we consider the full year from February 945 to January 946 as the first year of reign. ) or 957/958 September year (if we count for the first year of Constantine VII the period until August 945, i.e. until the end of 944/945 September year); according to the second news, Vasily II was supposed to be born no earlier than December 957, but no later than November 958. The same tradition should also include the message of Skylitsa, according to which Constantine VIII was born the next year after the events that fell on Indict II: the accession of his father Roman II (November 959) and the coronation of his brother Basil II (March 22, Easter, 960), i.e., obviously, in Indict IV (960/961 September year). Since Constantine VIII was younger than Basil II by two years (or three according to the Roman account), the birth of the latter would have to fall on the September year 958/959 or a little earlier (but not more than a full year). It is also necessary to recall the date given by the late Arab historian al-Aini (died in 1451), whose information A.A. Vasiliev considers it worthy of attention as ascending, perhaps, to earlier sources; al-Aini refers the birth of Basil II to 346 AH, i.e. by April 957 - March 958

If we take the listed dates as accurate, then by comparing them we get the date of birth of Vasily II - February - April 958.

The second tradition is reproduced by somewhat later monuments of the second half of the 11th century. Michael Psellos reports that Vasily II died at the age of 72, and Constantine VIII became sovereign at the age of 69. The date of birth of Basil (who died in December 1025), which follows from this - before December 954 - must be recognized as unreasonably early, even based on the data of Psellos himself. Indeed, the famous historiographer immediately stipulates that the named 72 years are made up of 20 years of joint rule and 52 years of autocracy; thus, this period has to be reduced by at least two and a half years, since between the death of John Tzimisces (January 976), i.e. the beginning of the independent reign of Basil II, and his death in December 1025, not 52, but incomplete 50 years passed, more precisely - 49 years and 10 months.

More regularly, this tradition was brought to us by Skylitzes, who writes that Vasily II died on December 15, 1025, a 70-year-old old man. The calculation given by Psellos (72 = 52 + 20) explains how Skylitsa got 70 years. On the one hand, he, like Psellus, believed that by the time of the death of John Tzimiskes, Basil was already 20 years old, and on the other hand, he really counted the full 50 years of the autocratic rule of Basil II, since for some reason he mistakenly attributed the death of Tzimisces not to January 976, and by December 975. Completing the similarity between the data of Psellos and Skylitzes is their common erroneous belief that Basil ruled all the time of his life, i.e. since birth .

Obviously, the chronological data of those small chronicles go back to the same root as Psellus and Skylitsa, which, in calculating the years of reign, give exactly 50 years to the independent reign of Basil II. So, according to this group of sources, Basil II was born between December 954 and November 955.

Which of the following traditions deserves preference? The advantage of the first of them is that it is contained in sources that are close in time to the events described. True, two things should be borne in mind. Firstly, the place of Theophanes' successor that interests us is hopelessly spoiled: as a reference date - the day of the death of Constantine VII - instead of November 9, 6468, in Indict III (i.e. 959), it is November 6, 6469, i.e. . 960, and even in Indict VI - two dates that disagree not only with the truth, but also with each other. Secondly, it is also important that, in essence, we are dealing not with two sources independent of each other, but with one, and not with two news confirming each other from Simeon, but, obviously, with one, since, knowing that Vasily was born in the penultimate year of the reign of Constantine VII, it was easy to conclude that at the time of his grandfather's death, the grandson was one year old (the dependence, of course, could be reversed).

The fact that in the person of Michael Psellos and Skylitzes we are dealing with the authors of the second half of the 11th century can hardly in itself diminish the weight of their data. It is known that it was the biographies of Basil II and Constantine VIII, unlike the rest of the text of the Chronography, that were created by Psellos not from the memoirs or testimonies of contemporaries, but on the basis of some earlier written sources; it is possible that one of these sources of Psellos was in common with Skylitzes, which is quite consistent with the above chronological data of both writers. Although the sources of Skylitsa for the middle and second half of the 10th c. unknown, in general, their authenticity is beyond doubt, which, in fact, determines the significance of his work for science.

In view of the foregoing, in our opinion, it would be premature to agree with the overly categorical dating of the birth of Vasily II in 958. As far as we know, this issue has not been subjected to detailed source study, and the alternative early date - 955 - has not yet been refuted by anyone. In this case, speaking of the children of Romanos II who were present, according to De cerim. II, 15, at the last, most chamber reception of Olga on September 9, 957, one should also take into account the candidacy of Vasily, who by that time could already be more than two years old. Thus, the argument that in 957 Roman II supposedly obviously there were no children, which is used to discredit the unequivocal evidence of the book "On Ceremonies", it turns out to be shaky.

Notes

Nazarenko A.V. When did Princess Olga go to Constantinople? // BB. M., 1989. T. 50. S. 66-83. The work on the text was completed in 1986 and later literature could not be fully taken into account by us.

Müller L. Die Taufe Russians: Die Friihgeschichte des russischen Christentums bis zum Jahre 988. Munchen, 1987. S. 78; Idem. Die Erzahlung der "Nestorchronik" iiber die Taufe Ol'gas im Jahre 954/955 // Zeitschrift fiir Slawistik. 1988. Bd. 33/6. S. 785-796; Tinnefeld F. Die russische Furstin Olga bei Konstantin VII. und das Problem der “purpurgeborenen Kinger” // Russia Mediaevalis. 1987. T. VI/1. S. 30-37; Obolensky D. Ol’ga’s Conversion: The Evidence Reconsidered // Harvard Ukrainian Studies (hereinafter: HUS). 1988/1989. Vol. XII / XIII: Proceedings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus’ – Ukraine. P. 145-158. In his immediately preceding works, D. Obolensky operated on traditional dating, since he was not yet familiar with the hypothesis of G.G. timpani.

Vodoff V. Naissance de la chrfetiente russe: La conversion du prince Vladimir de Kiev (988) et ses consequences (XIe-XIIIe siecles). [P], 1988. P. 53-54.

Vysotsky S.A. On the date of the trip of Olga's embassy to Constantinople // Ancient Slavs and Kievan Rus. Kyiv, 1989. S. 154-161; Porre A. Christianisierung und Kirchenorganisation der Ostslawen in der Zeit vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrmmdert // Osterreichische Osthefte. 1988, Jg. 30. S. 464, 493. Anm. 22 (the work of A. Poppe, specially devoted to the problem of Olga's baptism, in the last volume of the Dumbarton Oaks Papers, is not yet available to us); Seibt W. Der historische Hintergrund und die Chronologie der Taufe der Rus’ (989) // The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow: Proceedings of the Intern. Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity, Thessaloniki 26-28 November 1988 / Ed. A.-E. Tachios. Thessaloniki, 1992. P. 292. Not. 8.

Pritsak O. When and Where Was Ol'ga Baptized? // HUS. 1985 Vol. IX. P. 5-24.

Nazarenko A.V. Once again about the date of Princess Olga's trip to Constantinople // Formation of the Old Russian State: Controversial Issues: Readings in Memory of Corr. USSR Academy of Sciences V.T. Pashuto, Moscow April 13-15, 1992 M, 1992. S. 47-49.

Litavrin G.G. Reply to the article [Nazarenko A.V. When Princess Olga...] // VV. M., 1989. T. 50. S. 83-84.

Constantini Porphyrogeneti imperatoris de cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo / E rec. I.I Reiskii. Bonnae, 1829. T. 1 (hereinafter: De cerim.). P. 594.15-598.12.

In the Russian translation by G.G. Litavrin's description of Olga's receptions in this place erroneously indicates the date September 18: Litavrin G.G. Journey of the Russian Princess Olga to Constantinople: The Problem of Sources // VV. M., 1981. T. 42. S. 44.

For a condensed review of it, see: Nazarenko A.V. When did Princess Olga ... S. 66-67.

Since Romanus is already mentioned as a co-ruler in the narrative of Olga's receptions with Constantine, the date of his coronation may serve as a terminus post quem for Olga's trip. If the coronation of Roman II is attributed to 948, as it has been done since the time of Ducange [see, for example: Schlözer A.-L. Nestor: Russian chronicles in the Old Slavonic language / Per. with him. D. Languages. SPb., 1819. T. 3. S. 437.444; Macarius (Bulgakov). History of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir as an Introduction to the History of the Russian Church. 2nd ed. SPb., 1868. S. 253-254; Dolger F. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Ostromischen Reiches. Munchen; V., 1924. Bd. 1. S. 80; Grumel V. La chronologic P., 1958. P. 358 (Bibliotheque byzantine, : Traite d'etudes byzantines, 1); etc.], then the dating of the journey of the Kievan princess to the capital of Byzantium in 946 disappears by itself (the authenticity of the headings to De cerim. II, 15 would then have to be questioned). However, the only reason to date the wedding of Roman II in 948 is the relative chronology, reconstructed according to the Chronicle of Skylitsa, which, immediately after the announcement of the death in exile of Romanus Lecapinus in July of the 6th indiction, i.e. 948, writes that "at Easter the same index”(highlighted by us. - A.N.) Constantine VII crowned his son Roman with the hands of Patriarch Theophylact [ Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum / Rec. I. Thurn. IN.; N.Y., 1973 (hereinafter: Scyl.). P. 237. 5-8]. How reliable is this chronology? First of all, it is not at all clear to which of the previously described events the expression "in the same indict" refers. Generally speaking, it could be connected (the “loose” principle of presentation of the Skylitzes allows this) both with the news of the exile of the Lakapinids on January 27, 945 (Scyl. P. 235. 68-236.92), and with the message about the attempts of Constantine Lecapinus to escape , during one of which he was killed “two years after the deposition from the kingdom” (Scyl. P. 236. 94-2), and even with a repeated, accurately dated mention of the expulsion of Roman I to Prota on December 16, 944 (Scyl pp. 235, 64-65). Moreover, it is significant that in Skylitzes, and specifically in the story of the deposition of Roman I, there are examples of the ambiguous use of the expression "in the same indict." Thus, in the first report on the removal of Romanus Lecapenus from the palace by his sons and Constantine VII, Skylitsa does not indicate the exact date (it was given later), but only says that it happened “on the same indict” (Scyl. P. 232.83). The latter cannot refer to the nearest previous reference to the indict (Scyl. R. 231.58; indict II in the message about the matchmaking to Bertha), since it is known that Romanos I was deposed in December 944, i.e. in index III. Then with what to compare it? The next “in turn” dated event - the transfer of the Edessa mandylia (Scyl. P 231.66 - 232.72) to Constantinople - falls on August 944, i.e. anyway on the II indict. Messages about the appearance of Siamese twins in the reigning city and about the prediction of Roman I of his fate by the monk Sergius are not dated and cannot be dated. Thus, in this case, the words “in the same indict” in the text of the Skylitzes find no support at all. Obviously, there was a discrepancy due to an oversight in the work of the chronicler with his source. The stereotypical reference "to the same indict" got into the text of the Skylitzes from its source, while the place in the source that contained the corresponding explicit dating turned out to be omitted. Thus, the dating of the coronation of Roman II, which follows from the number of years of reign in a number of surviving acts (Easter 946) (Nazarenko A.V. When did Princess Olga ... P. 76. Note 68), has no reasonable alternative.

PSRL. L., 1928. T. 1. Stb. 58-60; SPb., 1908. T. 2. Stb. 44-9.

Nazarenko A.V. When did Princess Olga ... P. 71. So E. Muralt rightly assumed (Muralt E. Essai de chronographie byzantine pour servir a l'examen des annates du Bas-Empire et particulierement des chronographes slavons de 395 a 1054. SPb., 1855 P. 520). G.G. is hardly right. Litavrin (Journey of the Russian Princess Olga ... S. 46), believing that the ambassadors arrived from the Emir of Tarsus (obviously, the researcher proceeded from the constant naming of them in the source as "Tarsites").

According to De cerim. P. 593.4, the ambassador arrived from Abu Hamdan (Άποχαβδα), i.e. one of the two Hamdanids: either the ruler of Mosul, Nasr al-Dauly (929-969) (as E. Muralt thought, for example: Muralt E. Op. cit P. 521), or his brother, the emir of Aleppo, Emesa and Antioch Sayf ad-dauly (945-967), the most stubborn enemy of the Greeks in the east in the middle of the 10th century. (Bosworth K.E. Muslim Dynasties: A Handbook of Chronology and Genealogy. M., 1971. S. 82). Since the emir of Amida was the ambassador, and the Mesopotamian border region was part of the possession of Sayf ad-dauly, then his candidacy looks preferable. It is not clear why Litavrin believes that the embassy was from Emir Melitina (Litavrin G.G. The Journey of the Russian Princess Olga ... S. 48; He. To the question of the circumstances, place and time of the baptism of Princess Olga // DG, 1985 M. , 1986, p. 49).

Litavrin G.G. Journey of the Russian Princess Olga ... S. 45. Note. 92.

Wilson N.G. The Madrid Scylitzes // Scrittura e civilta. 1978. N 2. P. 209-219.

Fonkich B.L. Paleogeographic note on the Madrid Manuscript of the Skylitzes // VV. M., 1981. T. 42. S. 229-230.

Weitzmann, K. The Study of Byzantine Book Illumination; Past, Present and Future // The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art. Princeton, 1975. P. 45.

Bozhkov A. Miniatures from the Madrid manuscript by Yoan Skylitsa. Sofia, 1972. S. 41.43, 46. No 14.15 (top), 16.

There. S. 74.77. No 38.39.

Let us note, however, that this in no way follows from the usage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. On the contrary, the terms “throne” (υρόνος) and “(golden) chair” (χρυσόν σελλίον) are clearly separated by him not only when describing the reception of Olga by the female half of the imperial family. So, in the same Great Triklin, in addition to the throne of Solomon, “golden chairs” were installed (in the conch to the south of the throne of Solomon) (De cerim. P. 567, 10-11), sitting in which Constantine VII and Roman II received, for example, the Tarsites on August 30 before the reception of the ambassador Sayf ad-dawla (De cerim. P. 593.5-17). It is noteworthy that during the reception, these “golden chairs” were no longer in the conch, but “in the middle of the Great Triclin” (“μέσον τοΰ μεγάλου τρικλίνου”), i.e. were portable. From the description of Konstantin it is clear that the reception in the “golden chairs” was less formally solemn: there were no kuviculari, but “only kytonites (guards of the royal bedchamber. - A.N.) and eudomaria (palace servants of a rather low rank - A. N.)"; The basileus put on the “octagonal mantle and a large white crown” only before the reception of the ambassador Sayf ad-dawla, when he was transplanted to the Solomon throne (De cerim. P. 593.18-20). In the case of the Tarsites, this is understandable: this reception was already the third in a row for them, and they did not introduce themselves to the basileus, but only “said what they wanted” (the matter clearly concerned the upcoming negotiations with the ambassador of the Emir of Aleppo).

In addition to the thrones of Solomon, Theophilus, Arcadius and St. Constantine, "the rest of the royal thrones" ("οί λοιποί βασίλειοι ρόνοι"), which stood in Chrysothriklin (De cerim. P. 587.9), are briefly mentioned.

De cerim. P. 596.22-23.

De cerim. P. 595.20-21.

De cerim. P. 587.5-7.

De cerim. P. 593.6-7.

De cerim. P. 566.12-14.

That this was exactly the case, we conclude from some details; for example, from the mention that Olga left the reception hall “through the Anadendrarium (apparently, a kind of greenhouse. - A.N.) and Triklin candidates”, which was also stipulated at the first reception of tarsites, which took place in the Great Triklin (De cerim. P. 584.10- 11,595.6-7).

Although again it is not specified which of the "methods described above" is meant, there can hardly be any doubt that the first reception of the Tarsites, the ambassadors of the Baghdad Caliph, who served as a "model" for De cerim, II, 15 and in other cases (See: De cerim. P. 593.21, as if “deciphering” the ambiguous similar phrase used a little higher: R. 593.4-5).

Thus, Theophan's successor, reporting on the marriage of Stephen Lecapenus, the son of Roman I, with Anna, the daughter of a certain Havela, specifically mentions that "in addition to the marriage crown (τό της βασιλείας διάδημα), the royal crown was also assigned to her" (τω νυμφνκωα) . Such a clarification would be redundant if entry into the royal family was automatically accompanied by the assignment of the title of Queen Augusta.

See, for example: Muralt E. Op. cit. P. 529 (with reference only to Simeon and Theophan the Successor); Ostrogorsky G., Stein E. Die Kronungsordnungen des Zeremoniebuches // Byzantion. 1932. T. 7. Fasc. 1/2. S. 197. Anm. one; Oikonomides N. La cronologia dell'incoronazione dell'imperatore bizantino Costantino VIII (962) // Stadi Salentini. 1965 Fasc. 19. P. 178. Not. 4; Litavrin G.G. To the question of circumstances ... S. 50 and others.

However, it must be taken into account that the edition in the Bonn corpus rests on a manuscript of the 16th century, while its protograph of the 11th century. (cod. Vatic, gr. 167) has not yet been published (Lyubarsky Ya.N. Composition of Theophanes Continuer // Prod. Feof. P. 217).

scyl. P. 247.76.

6469 in this case is not a typo, as it was repeated by the chronicler in another place, although this time with the correct reference to indict II (Prod. Theoph. p. 193). Unlike the translation by M.Ya. Syuzyumova (The reign of Roman, son of Constantine Porphyrogenitus // Leo Deacon. History. M., 1988. P. 99), in a commentary on the translation by Ya.N. Lyubarsky, these errors remained unmarked.

This is evident from the complete identity of the testimonies of Simeon and the Continuer Theophanes, although it is believed that in the VI, final, book of the Continuer, the work of Simeon is used only in its first part (up to the 8th chapter of the section on Constantine VII) (J. Crumbacher K. Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur. MUnchen, 1897. 2. Aufl. S. 348-349; Lyubarsky Y. N. Composition ... S. 218-219).

Lyubarsky Ya.N. Michael Psellos: personality and creativity: On the history of Byzantine pre-humanism. M., 1977. S. 187.

Thurn I. Einleitung: Ioaness Scylitzes, Autor und Werk // Scyl. S. VIII. For the period of the reign of Vasily II, the use of the work of Theodore of Sebastia by Skylitzes, which has not come down to us, has been established.

To complete the picture, it is necessary to mention one more, but obviously anachronistic news of Skylitsa, that at the time of the accession of Tzimisces in December 969, Basil was in his seventh year, and Constantine was in his fifth (Scyl. P. 284. 95-1). It is only true here that Konstantin is two years younger than Vasily. One can, of course, guess that these data actually refer to the time of the accession of Nikephoros Phocas (August 963). To what extent, from the point of view of Greek paleography, confusion between ιε' (15) or ι β' (12) and ζ (7) is likely, we leave it to the experts to judge.

Brief reviews of sources, accompanied by a verdict in favor of 958, which are available in the above-cited works of G. Ostrogorsky, E. Stein and N. Iconomidis, of course, cannot be recognized as such.

On the ninth of September, on Wednesday, a reception was held, in everything similar to those described above, on the occasion of the arrival of the Russian Princess Olga. The princess entered with her relatives, the princesses, and her most chosen servants, and she walked ahead of all the other women, and they followed one after another in order; she stopped at the place where the logothete used to ask questions... When the king entered the palace in accordance with the usual order, the second reception took place as follows. In the triclinium of Justinian, an elevation was placed, covered with crimson silk fabrics, and on it was placed a large throne of King Theophilus and a royal golden chair on the side. Two silver organs of two parts (=dimov) were placed below behind two veils, wind instruments were placed outside the veils. The princess, invited from the Auguste, passed through the apse, the hippodrome and the inner passages of the same Auguste and, having entered, sat down in Skily. The empress sat on the aforementioned throne, and her daughter-in-law on a chair. The whole kuvukliy entered and the ranks were introduced by prepositors and ostiari... When the tsar sat down with Augusta and his purple-born children, the princess was invited from the kenurgy triklin and, sitting down at the invitation of the tsar, told him what she wanted.

On the same day, a dinner party was held in the same triclinic of Justinian. The empress and her daughter-in-law sat on the aforementioned throne, and the princess stood to the side ... At the dinner, there were singing churches of St. apostles and st. Sophia and sang royal praises. There were also all sorts of stage performances ... After the king got up from the table, dessert was served in the aristitary, where a small golden table was placed, standing (usually) in pectapyrgy, and dessert was placed on it on dishes decorated with enamel and expensive stones . And the king sat down, Tsar Roman Porphyrogenitus, their purple-born children, daughter-in-law and princess, and it was given to the princess on a golden platter with expensive stones 500 mils, to her six close women 20 mils each. and 18 servants 8 mil.

On October 18, on Sunday, a dinner party took place in the Golden Chamber, and the king sat down with the Russes, and again another dinner was given in the pentacuvuklia of St. Paul, and the empress sat down with her purple-born children, her daughter-in-law and the princess ...

RITUAL BREAKING

At first, the audience was held in the way that was usually customary for foreign rulers or ambassadors of large states. The emperor, seated on his throne in the luxurious hall of Magnavre, exchanged ceremonial greetings with Olga through the logothete. Next to the emperor was the entire composition of the court. The atmosphere was extremely solemn and pompous.

On the same day, another celebration, traditional for receiving distinguished guests, took place - lunch ... But along with this, there were deviations from accepted traditions, violations of the unshakable Byzantine diplomatic ritual were identified, which were absolutely incredible, especially under Constantine VII - their zealous guardian.

At the beginning of the audience, after the courtiers took their places, and the emperor sat on the "throne of Solomon", the curtain separating the Russian princess from the hall was pushed back, and Olga moved ahead of her retinue to the emperor. In these cases, usually a foreign representative was brought to the path by two eunuchs, who supported the one who came under the arm. Then the foreign lord or ambassador performed praskipesps - he fell prostrate at the imperial feet. During the reception of the Kievan princess, this order was changed. Olga alone, unaccompanied, approached the throne, did not prostrate before the emperor, as her retinue did, but remained standing and talking with Constantine VII while standing.

Then Olga was received separately by the Empress, whom the Russian princess greeted only with a slight tilt of her head.

"TALE OF TIME YEARS" ABOUT OLGA'S BAPTISM

Olga went to the Greek land and came to Constantinople. There was then Caesar Constantine, the son of Leo. And seeing that she was beautiful in face and very intelligent, the emperor marveled at her mind, talking with her, and said to her: “You are worthy to reign with us in this city.” She, on reflection, answered the Caesar: “I am a pagan; if you want to baptize me, then baptize me yourself, otherwise I will not be baptized.” And the emperor baptized her with the patriarch. [...] And she was given the name Elena in baptism, as well as the ancient queen - the mother of Constantine the Great. And the patriarch blessed her and let her go. After the baptism, the emperor called her and said to her: "I want to take you as a wife." She answered: “How do you want to take me when you yourself baptized me and called me daughter? But Christians do not allow this - you yourself know. And the emperor said to her: "You outwitted me, Olga." And he brought her numerous gifts - gold, and silver, and curtains, and various vessels, and let her go, calling her his daughter. She, having gathered home, came to the patriarch, and asked him to bless the house, and said to him: “My people and my son are pagans, may God save me from all evil.” And the patriarch said: “Faithful child! You were baptized into Christ, and you put on Christ, and Christ will save you ... he will save you from the wiles of the devil and from his nets. And the patriarch blessed her, and she went in peace to her land and came to Kyiv.

THE BAPTISM OF OLGA AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF RUSSIA

The hopes of Byzantium for the near baptism of Russia did not come true. The adoption of Christianity turned out to be a long and difficult matter for the Rus. Prince Igor soon died. His widow Olga decided to change her faith only many years after her husband's death. The author of The Tale of Bygone Years recorded the legend that Olga was baptized by Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Constantinople in 955. However, the chronicle story is permeated with folklore motifs. According to the chronicle, the elderly Olga made such a strong impression on the emperor that he offered to "give" her as a wife. The wise Olga answered: “How do you want me to be buried, having baptized me himself and called me a daughter?” Having refused the "groom", the Russian princess "switched" the tsar himself.

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus mentioned the reception of "Archontes Elga". But he did not know the Christian name of Elena-Elga, and therefore, the princess remained a pagan during a meeting with him in 957. The composition of the Russian retinue suggests that Olga paid a visit to the emperor as a private person. In her entourage there were no ambassadors from the heir of Svyatoslav, Igor's nephews and from King Sveneld. "Sly" from Olga's retinue received as much money as her translators, which accurately reflected their position on the hierarchical ladder.

A German certificate of Olga's baptism has been preserved - the so-called Continuation of the Chronicle of the Region. The chronicle was compiled in the middle of the 10th century. The author of the Continuation was, as is believed, the first Bishop of Kyiv, Adalbert. All this gives the monument an exceptional value. As the German chronicler wrote, in 959, “ambassadors of Helen, the queen of the rugs (Rus), who was baptized in Constantinople under the Roman Emperor of Constantinople, came to the court of the German emperor Otto I.” The ambassadors "requested that a bishop and priests be appointed to their people." So, Olga - Elena was baptized not under Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but under his son Roman, who ascended the throne after the death of his father in November 959. The chronology of the events described in the German chronicle is doubtful. Olga would not have had time to equip ambassadors to Germany within two incomplete months after her baptism. The delay of Otto I is inexplicable. Having listened to the ambassadors at the end of 959, the emperor granted their request and appointed a bishop to Kyiv only a year later, on Christmas Day 960. Apparently, the chronicler recorded the date of the arrival of the ambassadors inaccurately. German annals of the 11th century, a source of independent origin, preserved the following entry: “960. Ambassadors from the people of Russia came to King Otto. The above text confirms the assumption that the mission of the Rus came to Germany not in 959, but in 960, and by the end of the year Otto announced the appointment of a bishop.

The Russian princess acted in exactly the same way as the Bulgarian Tsar Boris had done before. Having received baptism from an Orthodox Greek patriarch, she immediately invited a Latin pastor. The German bishop, who was supposed to go to Kyiv, died suddenly on February 15, 961, and the rank of bishop of Russia was transferred to the monk Adalbert. He left for Kyiv in 961, and returned home a year later with nothing. An attempt to establish a bishopric in Kyiv failed due to the resistance of the pagan Norman nobility, who ruled the country after the death of Igor. This fact alone destroys the myth about Olga as the ruler of Russia. However, one should not think that the efforts of the princess to plant Christianity in Russia did not produce any results. Already during the first trip of the pagan Elga to Constantinople, “priest Gregory” was in her retinue. And this means that people from Olga's inner circle changed their faith before her. In 967, Pope John XII forbade the appointment to the newly established chair in Prague of persons belonging "to the rite or sect of the Bulgarian or Russian people, or the Slavic language." Probably the largest Christian community of the Rus was in Constantinople, and the Pope was afraid of sending a bishop from Byzantium to Bohemia. In Constantinople, the “baptized Rus” were engaged in various kinds of activities: they traded, served in the imperial palace guard, etc. Relations between Kievan and Constantinople Christians of Russian origin contributed to the Christianization of Kievan Rus.

Olga's influence on management affairs was, apparently, limited. In the year of Igor's death, Prince Svyatoslav turned no less than 8-10 years old. Taking revenge on the Drevlyans for his father, Svyatoslav began the battle by throwing a heavy spear at them. The spear fell at the feet of the horse on which the boy was sitting. By the time the bishop arrived in Kyiv, Svyatoslav was over 20 years old. He has reached adulthood. According to the chronicle, Olga-Elena repeatedly asked her son to change his faith, but he invariably refused her, referring to the opinion of the squad. The young prince could not renounce paganism while the squad and its leaders adhered to the old religion. Two decades later, according to the chronicle legend, Olga's grandson Vladimir ended the conversation about faith with the German ambassadors with a reminder of the grandmother's time: "Go again, as if our fathers did not accept the essence of this." Vladimir spoke on behalf of the entire squad. The expression "our fathers" had a very definite meaning in his mouth. Bishop Adalbert was expelled from Kyiv by the whole retinue. According to the Novgorod chronicle, the Kievan princess kept the “elder” in her house a secret from the people. The presbyter was probably Adalbert himself or one of the Latin priests who came with him.
Skrynnikov R.G. Old Russian state

FROM THE LIFE OF THE HOLY GRAND DUCHESS OLGA

... And therefore, after baptism, live for 15 years and please God, and with peace betray your holy and honest soul in the hands of Christ God in the summer of 6477, the month of July on the 11th day. And therefore, much time has passed since the repose of the saint, and her grandson, the blessed Prince Vladimir, I will remember the relics of my holy woman, and I will come to the place myself with the metropolitan and with all the sacred cathedral and with a chimney, and having dug up the earth, and having acquired the honest relics of the holy woman her princess Olga is whole and indestructible to abide. They glorified God, and took the relics, and laid in the church of the Holy Mother of God, in a small stone tomb; and at the top of the tomb of that honest window he created: and there to see the blessed body lying whole and not involved in decay, but shining like the sun. And whoever comes with faith to the tomb of the saint: and the window, even on the tomb of the saint, will open about itself, and they see an honest body and many accept healing without reservation ...

Ancient Russia at the dawn of its history was lucky to have smart and energetic rulers. Oleg showed it. This was also confirmed by Igor.

After the death of the great warrior Oleg, fragile Russia began to disintegrate: the Drevlyans rebelled, striving to secede from Kyiv, a new Turkic horde of the Pechenegs approached its borders. But Igor averted both dangers with decisive action. The Drevlyans were again conquered and taxed, so that Igor became their main enemy. The prince managed to negotiate with the Pechenegs. Gone are the days when the cavalry of the steppes freely roamed the Slavic villages. Now a strong Russian army came out to meet them, and the Pechenegs considered it good to make peace.

Under Igor, there was a further unification of the East Slavic tribes. The southwestern tribe of the streets became part of Russia. During the reign of Igor, the official name of Russia appeared - the Russian land. That is how the East Slavic state was called in the treaties of Russia with the Greeks. Now all Russian lands, except for the Vyatichi, paid tribute to Kiev.

By that time, Igor, already a mature man, was married to Olga, a “Varangian”, who belonged to a noble family. Some legends say that Igor saw her when he was hunting in the Pskov forests, very young, and was captivated by the beauty and intelligence of the girl. Then in Russia there was still no practice of concluding princely marriages with persons of only princely or royal blood, and Olga became the wife of the Grand Duke. Another thing is striking: with the practice of polygamy in Russia, there is no news that Igor had other wives besides Olga. This already speaks not only of his love and devotion to his only wife, but also of their exceptional human qualities.

The Tale of Bygone Years names the name of the future enlightener of Russia and her homeland for the first time in an article about Igor's marriage: "and they brought him a wife from Pskov, named Olga." The Joachim Chronicle specifies that she belonged to the family of the princes of Izborsk, one of the forgotten ancient Russian princely dynasties, of which there were at least twenty in Russia in the 10th-11th centuries, but all of them were eventually supplanted by the Rurikovichs or became related to them through marriages. Some of the dynasties were of local, Slavic origin, others were alien, Varangian. It is known that the Scandinavian kings, invited to reign in Russian cities, invariably adopted the Russian language, often Russian names, and quickly became real Russians both in their way of life, and in their worldview, and even in physical appearance.

So Igor's wife was called the Varangian name Helga, in the Russian rounded pronunciation - Olga, Volga. Woman's name Olga corresponds to the male Oleg, which means "saint". Although the pagan understanding of holiness is completely different from the Christian one, it also presupposes a special spiritual attitude in a person, chastity and sobriety, intelligence and insight. Revealing the spiritual meaning of the name, the people called Oleg the Prophetic, and Olga the Wise.

Immediately after the death of Prince Igor during the polyudye - the collection of tribute from the Drevlyans, his sworn enemies - the seemingly mighty state was on the verge of collapse. Igor's wife Olga (?–969) remained in Kyiv with a minor heir, Prince Svyatoslav (?–972). The Drevlyans separated from Kyiv and stopped paying tribute. However, the Russian elite rallied around Olga and not only recognized her rights to the throne, or rather the regency until her son came of age, but also unconditionally supported the princess in all her endeavors.

By that time, Olga was in the prime of her physical and spiritual strength. Legends told about her beauty and mind both in Russia and in neighboring countries, including Byzantium.

From the first steps of her reign, Olga showed herself as a resolute, imperious, far-sighted and stern ruler. First of all, she took revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband, Prince Igor.

The chronicle tells that the Drevlyans decided to marry the widowed princess for their prince Mal and sent an embassy to Kyiv. This sentence in the days of tribal law had its own meaning. The widow was offered compensation - a new husband, so that she would not avenge the murdered. And Olga pretended to receive matchmakers with honors. She invited them to appear the next day at the prince's court, sitting in the boats, which were solemnly supposed to be carried by the prince's combatants. She herself ordered in advance to dig a deep pit near her palace, and when the ambassadors boasting of honor were brought to the princely court, she ordered them to be thrown into this pit and buried alive.

Olga immediately demanded that a second embassy be sent. An equally terrible fate awaited him. In Russia, before starting negotiations, ambassadors were often offered to take a bath, which was both a sign of care - a break from a long journey, and a ritual cleansing before meeting with the ruler. As soon as the ambassadors began to bathe, the doors to the bathhouse were locked and it was on fire. The ambassadors were burned alive.

Finally, Olga herself moved to the Drevlyane land in order, as she assured the Drevlyans, to celebrate a pagan feast for her husband and cry at his grave. When the Drevlyansk boyars pretty much drank intoxicated honey, Olga ordered her warriors to hack them to death right here, at the foot of the mound where her husband was buried.

The pagan Olga took revenge on the pagan Drevlyans in a pagan, ritual way. This triple revenge reproduced East Slavic funeral rites. The burial in the boat has long been accepted by the Russians. Cremation - burning - at that time was practiced in all Russian lands. Also in ancient times, human sacrifices were accepted at the funeral feast for the leader or prince.

Only after that Olga moved her army to the main city of the Drevlyans Iskorosten. In open battle, the Drevlyans were defeated. The chronicle tells that little Svyatoslav started the battle, throwing his spear towards the enemy. The Drevlyans fled and locked themselves behind the walls of the city. For several months, the Kievites besieged Iskorosten, who was desperately resisting, and captured it only with the help of cunning. They asked the Drevlyans for a light tribute: three sparrows and three doves from each yard, promising to go home after that. As soon as the tribute was delivered, the people of Kiev tied smoldering tinder to the paws of the birds and released them into the wild, into their nests - under the roofs of houses, sheds, barns. Soon the city was on fire, and immediately the besiegers went on the attack.

The struggle for the unity of Russia, for subjugation to a single center - Kiev - torn by mutual hostility of tribes and principalities paved the way for the final victory of Christianity in the Russian land. Behind Olga, still a pagan, stood the church community and its heavenly patron, the prophet of God Elijah, who with fiery faith and prayer brought fire from heaven. And Olga's victory over the Drevlyans, despite the severity of the winner, was the victory of the new - Christian and creative forces in the Russian state over the pagan forces - dark and destructive.

Olga again imposed a heavy tribute on the defeated Drevlyans. The unity of the state was restored. The children of the executed Prince Mala - Dobrynya and Malusha - Olga took to her upbringing.

But Olga established her power in Russia not only with cruel punishments and force. As a smart and far-sighted ruler, she understood that the former polyudie with its violence, sometimes with unlimited requisitions, causes discontent in people, and this threatens the very existence of the young state. And the Grand Duchess went on reforms - she changed the system of collecting tribute, starting from the Drevlyane land. Now, firm norms of tribute were determined for subjects and special places were indicated - graveyards, where tribute was to be brought annually by the population itself. There she was received by representatives of the princely administration and sent to Kyiv. Then Olga moved with her retinue to other Russian lands and set new standards everywhere, they were called lessons in Russia, and established graveyards. This was the end of the polyudye and the beginning of an organized system of taxation. So, according to the annals, the conflict between the authorities and the subjects ended with the fact that the state took another step in its development.

Graveyards arranged by Olga, being financial, administrative and judicial centers, represented a strong support for local princely power. Being, first of all, by the very meaning of the word, centers of trade and exchange (“guest” - merchant), gathering and organizing the population around them, graveyards became the most important cell of the ethnic and cultural association of the Russian people.

Later, when Olga became a Christian, the first churches began to be erected around the churchyards. After the baptism of Russia under St. Vladimir, the churchyard and the temple (parish) became inseparable concepts. (It was only later that the term “graveyard” in the sense of “cemetery” appeared from the cemeteries that existed near the temples.)

Princess Olga put a lot of work to strengthen the defense power of the country. Cities were built up and fortified. Vyshgorods (or citadels, kroms) were overgrown with stone and oak walls (visors), bristling with ramparts and palisades. The princess herself, knowing how hostile many were to the idea of ​​strengthening the princely power and uniting Russia, lived constantly "on the mountain", above the Dnieper, behind the reliable visors of Kiev's Vyshgorod (Upper City), surrounded by a faithful retinue. Two-thirds of the tribute collected, according to the chronicle, she gave at the disposal of the Kiev Council, the third part went "to Olga, to Vyshgorod" - for the needs of the military structure.

Having established order in Russia, Olga turned to foreign policy. She had to show that the times of unrest did not shake the strength and international prestige of Russia. By the time of Olga, historians attribute the establishment of the first state borders of Russia in the west, with Poland. Bogatyr outposts in the south guarded the peaceful fields of Kiev from the peoples of the Wild Field. Foreigners hurried to Gardarika (“country of cities”), as they called Russia, with goods and handicrafts. The Swedes, Danes, Germans willingly joined the Russian army as mercenaries. Kyiv's foreign ties were expanding. This contributed to the development of stone construction in the city, which was initiated by Princess Olga. The new Russian government sought to confirm old treaties with its neighbors, to develop trade and political relations with other countries, and above all with the Byzantine Empire, one of the most powerful and authoritative states in the then world.

But not only the strengthening of statehood and the development of economic forms of folk life attracted the attention of the wise princess. Even more urgent was the radical transformation of the religious life of Russia, the spiritual transformation of the Russian people. Russia became a great power. Only two European states could compete with it in those years in importance and power: in the east of Europe - the ancient Byzantine Empire, in the west - the kingdom of the Saxons.

The experience of both countries, which owe their rise to the spirit of Christian teaching, the religious foundations of life, clearly showed that the path to the future greatness of Russia lies not so much through the military, but primarily and mainly through spiritual conquests and achievements.

Having entrusted Kyiv to her grown-up son Svyatoslav, Princess Olga in the summer of 954 set off with a large fleet to Constantinople. It was a peaceful “walk”, combining the tasks of a religious pilgrimage and a diplomatic mission, but political considerations demanded that it become at the same time a manifestation of the military power of Russia on the Black Sea, reminded the proud Romans of the victorious campaigns of both Askold and Oleg, who in 907 nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.

The result has been achieved. The appearance of the Russian fleet on the Bosphorus created the necessary prerequisites for the development of a friendly Russian-Byzantine dialogue. Olga was accepted at the highest rank. The famous Byzantine emperor, writer, major diplomat Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus gave a dinner in her honor. The reception of the princess and the empress took place. During the conversations, the emperor and Olga confirmed the validity of the previous agreement, concluded by Prince Igor, and the military alliance of the two states. This alliance was now directed against Khazaria and the Arab Caliphate, whose armies were advancing on Byzantium from the East.

In turn, the southern capital struck the harsh daughter of the North with a variety of colors, magnificence of architecture, a mixture of languages ​​and peoples of the world. But a special impression was made by the wealth of Christian churches and the shrines collected in them. Constantinople, the “reigning city” of the Byzantine Empire, even at the very foundation (more precisely, the renewal in 330) dedicated to the Most Holy Mother of God by Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great (this event was celebrated in the Church of Constantinople on May 11 and passed from there to the Russian calendars), strove in everything to be worthy of its heavenly patroness. The Russian princess was present at the service in the best churches of Constantinople - St. Sophia, Blachernae Church and others.

An important issue of Olga's negotiations in Constantinople was the baptism of the Russian princess.

By the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century, almost all the major states of Western Europe, as well as some of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and the Caucasus, adopted Christianity. Some did it under the pressure of papal Rome, others under the influence of the Byzantine Empire, who competed among themselves, among other things, for the right to baptize peoples, and therefore to spread their influence. Christianity attached states and peoples to a new civilization, enriched their spiritual culture, and raised the prestige of baptized statesmen to a higher level. It is no coincidence that the peoples of Western Europe, who adopted tillering 300–600 years earlier than the peoples of Eastern Europe, far outstripped them in their development. But everywhere this process was painful, as it meant the rejection of the pagan religion of the ancestors.

Olga, being a perspicacious ruler, understood that the further strengthening of the country was impossible without the adoption of Christianity, without the guidance of God. But at the same time she was aware of the power of paganism, the commitment of the people to it. Therefore, she chose a cautious path, deciding to be baptized herself and thereby set an example for others. This is exactly what the English, and later the Swedish and Norwegian kings did. However, she had someone to rely on. In large cities, among the merchants, townspeople, part of the boyars, there were already quite a few enlightened people who had abandoned paganism and became Christians.

In addition, for Olga, baptism was not only a matter of politics, but also the answer to many questions of conscience. She experienced a lot: the tragic death of her husband, the massacre of enemies, the burning of the capital of the Drevlyans - all this does not pass without a trace for the human soul. But Olga always strove for righteousness, tried to be fair, humane, tolerant of people.

The sacrament of baptism was performed in St. Sophia Cathedral - the main temple of Byzantium. The emperor himself became the godfather of Princess Olga, and Patriarch Theophylact of Constantinople baptized her. In baptism, she was given the name Elena in honor of the Equal-to-the-Apostles Elena, the mother of St. Constantine, who received the Holy Tree of the Cross of the Lord. The name Helena was also worn by the Byzantine empress - the wife of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

In the instructive word pronounced after the ceremony, Patriarch Theophylact said: “Blessed are you in the wives of Russians, for you have left the darkness and loved the light. Russian people will bless you in all future generations, from grandchildren and great-grandchildren to your most distant descendants. He instructed the newly enlightened princess in the truths of the faith, the church charter and prayer rule, explained the commandments about fasting, chastity and almsgiving. “She,” writes the Monk Nestor the Chronicler, “bowed her head and stood like a drunken lip, listening to the teaching, and, bowing to the patriarch, she said: “By your prayers, Vladyka, may I be saved from enemy networks.”

This is exactly how, with a slightly bowed head, St. Olga is depicted on one of the frescoes of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, as well as on a Byzantine miniature contemporary to her in the obverse manuscript of the Chronicle of John Skylitzes from the Madrid National Library. The Greek inscription accompanying the miniature calls Olga "the archontes (that is, the mistress) of the Russians", "the wife, Elga by name, who came to Tsar Constantine and was baptized." In the manuscript, the princess is depicted in a special headdress, "as a newly baptized Christian and an honorary deaconess of the Russian Church." Next to her in the same attire of the newly baptized is Malusha, later the mother of Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir.

It was not easy to force such a hater of the Russians as Emperor Konstantin Porphyrogenitus to become the godfather of the “Archontes of Russia”. In the Russian chronicle, stories have been preserved about how Olga spoke decisively and on an equal footing with the emperor and his entourage, surprising her interlocutors with spiritual maturity and statesmanship, showing that the Russian people are able to perceive and multiply the highest accomplishments of the Greek religious genius, the best fruits of Byzantine spirituality and culture. So St. Olga managed to "take Tsargrad" peacefully, which no commander could do before her. According to the chronicle, the emperor himself was forced to admit that Olga “switched” (outwitted) him, and the people’s memory, combining the legends about the Prophetic Oleg and the Wise Olga, captured this spiritual victory in the epic legend “On the capture of Constantinople by Princess Olga”.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his work "On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court", which has come down to us in a single list, left a detailed description of the ceremonies that accompanied the stay of St. Olga in Constantinople. He describes a solemn reception in the famous chamber of Magnavre to the singing of bronze birds and the roar of copper lions, where Olga appeared with a huge retinue of 108 people (not counting people from Svyatoslav's squad), and negotiations in a narrower circle in the chambers of the empress, and a ceremonial dinner in the hall Justinian, where, by coincidence, four “state ladies” met providentially: the grandmother and mother of Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir (Princess Olga and her companion Malusha) sat at the same table with the grandmother and mother of his future wife Anna (Empress Elena and her daughter-in-law Feofano).

During one of the receptions, says Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, a golden dish decorated with stones was brought to the Russian princess. Saint Olga donated it to the sacristy of St. Sophia Cathedral, where he was seen and described at the beginning of the 13th century by Russian diplomat Dobrynya Yadreykovich (later Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod): in the dish of Holguin there is a precious stone, Christ is written on the same stone.

As for the directly diplomatic outcome of the negotiations, St. Olga had reason to remain dissatisfied with them. Having achieved success in matters of Russian trade within the empire and the confirmation of the peace treaty with Byzantium, concluded by Igor in 944, she could not, however, persuade the emperor to two agreements important for Russia: on the dynastic marriage of Svyatoslav with the Byzantine princess and on the conditions for restoring the existing under Askold of the Orthodox Metropolis in Kyiv.

After returning to Kyiv, Olga tried to persuade Svyatoslav to Christianity, but his son grew up as an ardent pagan. He, like his entire squad, worshiped Perun and refused her. Alienation began between mother and son.

At the same time, despite the failure of efforts to establish a church hierarchy in Russia, Princess Olga, having become a Christian, zealously indulged in the exploits of Christian evangelism among the pagans and church building: “she crushed the temples of demons and began to live in Christ Jesus.” She erected temples in Kyiv, built the Church of the Annunciation Holy Mother of God in Vitebsk, and the Life-Giving Trinity - in Pskov, over the Velikaya River, at the place indicated to it, according to the chronicler, from above "by the ray of the Triradiant Deity." Pskov from that time began to be called in the annals the house of the Holy Trinity.

The Temple of Sophia - the Wisdom of God in Kyiv was founded shortly after Olga's return from Constantinople and consecrated on May 11, 960. This day was subsequently celebrated in the Russian Church as a special church holiday. The main shrine of the St. Sophia Church was the holy cross, brought by the new Equal-to-the-Apostles Elena from Constantinople. She was blessed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The cross, according to legend, was carved from a single piece of the Life-Giving Tree of the Lord. There was an inscription on the cross: “Renew the Russian land with the holy cross, Olga, the blessed princess, accepted it.”

Saint Olga did a lot to perpetuate the memory of the first Russian confessors of the name of Christ: over the grave of Askold she erected the Church of St. Nicholas, where she was later buried herself, over the grave of Dir - St. Sophia Cathedral, which, after standing for half a century, burned down in 1017. Her descendant Yaroslav the Wise built the church of St. Irina on this site later, in 1050, and transferred the shrines of St. Sophia's Olga Church to the stone church of the same name - the still standing St. Sophia of Kiev, founded in 1017 and consecrated around 1030. In the Prologue of the 13th century, it is said about Olga's cross: “Izhe now stands in Kyiv in Hagia Sophia in the altar on the right side.” The looting of the Kiev shrines, continued after the Tatar-Mongols by the Lithuanians, who inherited the city in 1341, did not spare him either. Under Jogaila, during the period of the Union of Lublin, which united Poland and Lithuania into one state in 1384, Holguin's cross was stolen from St. Sophia Cathedral and taken by Catholics to Lublin. His further fate is unknown.

Meanwhile, in Kyiv, among the boyars and combatants, there were many people who hated Princess Olga, who built churches. The zealots of pagan antiquity raised their heads more and more boldly, looking with hope at the growing Svyatoslav, who resolutely rejected his mother's persuasion to accept Christianity and even became angry with her for it. It was necessary to hurry with the conceived work of the baptism of Russia. The cunning of Byzantium, which was in no hurry to give Russia a proper Christian dispensation, played into the hands of the pagans. In search of a solution, Saint Olga turned her eyes to the West. There is no contradiction here. Olga still belonged to the undivided Church and did not have the opportunity to delve into the theological subtleties of the Greek and Latin doctrine. The confrontation between the West and the East seemed to her primarily as a political rivalry, secondary in comparison to the urgent task - the creation of the Russian Church, the Christian enlightenment of Russia.

Under the year 959, the German chronicler, referred to as the “continuer of Reginon,” writes: “The ambassadors of Helen, the queen of the Russians, who was baptized in Constantinople, came to the king and asked to consecrate a bishop and priests for this people.” King Otto, the future founder of the German Empire, readily responded to Olga's request, but took the matter slowly, with purely German thoroughness. Only on Christmas of the following year, 960, was appointed Bishop of Russia Libutius, from the brethren of the monastery of St. Alban in Mainz. But he soon died (in 961). Adalbert of Trier was consecrated in his place, whom Otto, “generously supplying with everything necessary,” finally sent to Russia. It is difficult to say what would have happened if the king had not delayed so long, but when Adalbert appeared in Kyiv in 962, he "did not succeed in anything that he was sent for, and saw his efforts in vain." Worse, on the way back, "some of his companions were killed, and the bishop himself did not escape mortal danger."

It turned out that over the past two years, as Olga had foreseen, a coup had taken place in Kyiv in favor of the supporters of paganism, and, having become neither Orthodox nor Catholic, Russia generally changed its mind about accepting Christianity. The pagans rallied around Svyatoslav, who by that time was already about 20 years old. The pagan group eliminated Olga from influencing the affairs of Russia. The young Svyatoslav took full power.

The pagan reaction manifested itself so strongly that not only the German missionaries suffered, but also some of the Kiev Christians who were baptized with Olga in Constantinople. By order of Svyatoslav, the nephew of Princess Olga Gleb was killed and some churches built by her were destroyed. This was not without secret Byzantine diplomacy: opposed to Olga and alarmed by the possibility of strengthening Russia through an alliance with Otto, the Greeks preferred to support the pagans. This happened in the same year 962. But the failure of Adalbert's mission had providential significance for the future of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had escaped papal captivity.

Saint Olga had to come to terms with what had happened and completely go into matters of personal piety, leaving the reins of government to the pagan Svyatoslav. She was still reckoned with, her statesmanship was invariably addressed in all difficult cases. When Svyatoslav left Kyiv, and he spent most of his time in campaigns and wars, the administration of the state was again entrusted to the princess-mother. But the question of the baptism of Russia was temporarily removed from the agenda, and this, of course, grieved Saint Olga, who considered the gospel of Christ to be the main work of her life.

She meekly endured sorrows and sorrows, tried to help her son in state and military concerns, in his heroic plans. The victories of the Russian army were a consolation for her, especially the defeat of the old enemy of the Russian state - the Khazar Khaganate. Twice, in 965 and in 969, Svyatoslav's troops passed through the lands of the "foolish Khazars", forever crushing the power of the Jewish rulers of the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and the Lower Volga region. The next powerful blow was inflicted on Muslim Volga Bulgaria, then the turn of Danube Bulgaria came. Eighty cities along the Danube were taken by the Kiev squads. One thing bothered Olga: as if, carried away by the war in the Balkans, Svyatoslav did not forget about Kyiv.

In the spring of 969, Kyiv was besieged by the Pechenegs, "and it was impossible to bring the horse to drink - the Pechenegs stood on Lybid." The Russian army was far away - on the Danube. Having sent messengers to her son, Saint Olga herself led the defense of the capital. Svyatoslav, having received the news, soon rode to Kyiv, "greeted his mother and children and lamented what happened to them from the Pechenegs." But, having defeated the nomads, the militant prince again began to say to his mother: “I don’t like to sit in Kyiv, I want to live in Pereyaslavets on the Danube - there is the middle of my land.” Svyatoslav dreamed of creating a huge Slavic state from the Danube to the Volga, which would unite Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, the Black Sea and the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and stretch its borders to Constantinople itself. The wise Olga understood that with all the courage and courage of the Russian squads, they could not cope with the ancient empire of the Romans - failure awaited Svyatoslav. But the son did not listen to his mother's warnings. Then Saint Olga said: “You see, I am sick. Where do you want to go from me? When you bury me, go wherever you want."

Her days were numbered, her labors and sorrows undermined her strength. On July 11, 969, Saint Olga died, "and her son, and grandchildren, and all the people wept for her with great weeping." In recent years, in the midst of the triumph of paganism, she, once an independent mistress who was baptized by the patriarch himself in the capital of Orthodoxy, had to secretly keep a priest with her so as not to cause a new outbreak of anti-Christian fanaticism. But before her death, she forbade performing pagan feasts over her and bequeathed to openly bury her according to the Orthodox rite. Presbyter Gregory, who was with her in 957 in Constantinople, exactly fulfilled her will.

Saint Olga lived, died and was buried as a Christian. God glorified the holy worker, “the head of the faith” in the Russian land with miracles and the incorruptibility of her relics. Jacob Mnich, 100 years after her death, wrote in his “Memory and praise to Vladimir”: “God glorified the body of His servant Olena, and her honest and indestructible body is in the tomb to this day. Blessed Princess Olga glorified God with her good deeds, and God glorified her.”

Under the holy Prince Vladimir, around 1007, the relics of St. Olga were transferred to the Church of the Tithes of the Mother of God and laid in a special sarcophagus, in which it was customary to lay the relics of saints in the Orthodox East.

So, after her death, Saint Olga preached eternal life and resurrection, filling the believers with joy and admonishing the unbelievers. She was, according to the Monk Nestor the Chronicler, “a forerunner of the Christian land, like a daylight before the sun, like a dawn before dawn. She was the first of the Russians to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Russian sons praise her - their initiator, for even after death she prays to God for Russia.