Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200 9781139013864

Table of contents :
List of illustrations page viii
Acknowledgements x
A note on translations, transliterations and names xii
List of abbreviations xiv
General map of Rus in the late pre-Mongol period xvi
Introduction 1
1 h e pre-history of the military saints 13
2 h e formation of the martyr-warrior ideal 32
3 h e collective cult of the military saints 64
4 h e military saints in early Rus 94
5 Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus 132
6 Military saints under the house of Suzdal 167
Conclusion 201
Appendix 1: Feast days of the principal military saints 206
Appendix 2: Reigns of Roman and Byzantine emperors mentioned
in the text 207
Appendix 3: Simplii ed genealogy of the Riurikids 209
Appendix 4: Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to
patronal i gures 210
Appendix 5: Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to
non-patronal i gures 217
Bibliography 222
Index 241

Citation preview

M I L I TA RY S A I N TS I N BY Z A N T I U M A N D RUS , 9 0 0 –1 2 0 0

he rulers of the Byzantine Empire and its commonwealth were protected both by their own soldiers and by a heavenly army: the military saints. he transformation of Saints George, Demetrios, heodore and others into the patrons of imperial armies was one of the deining developments of religious life under the Macedonian emperors. his book provides a comprehensive study of military sainthood and its roots in late antiquity. he emergence of the cults is situated within a broader social context, in which mortal soldiers were equated with martyrs and martyrs of the early Church recruited to protect them on the battleield. Dr White then traces the fate of these saints in early Rus, drawing on unpublished manuscripts and other under-utilised sources to discuss their veneration within the princely clan and their inluence on the irst native saints of Rus, Boris and Gleb, who eventually joined the ranks of their ancient counterparts. mon ic a w h i t e is a lecturer in Slavonic Studies at the University of Nottingham, where she teaches Byzantine and Rus history, the history of the Orthodox Church and Orthodox sainthood.

M I L I TA RY S A I N TS I N BY Z A N T I U M A N D RUS, 90 0 –12 0 0 MON IC A W H I T E University of Nottingham

C A MBR IDGE U NI V ER SIT Y PR E SS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City Cambridge University Press he Edinburgh Building, Cambridge C B 2 8R U, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521195645 © Monica White 2013 h is publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2013 Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data White, Monica, 1976– Military saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200 / Monica White. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. I S B N 978-0-521-19564-5 1. Christian patron saints–Cult–Byzantine Empire. 2. Christian martyrs–Cult–Byzantine Empire. 3. Byzantine Empire–History, Military–1081–1453. 4. Byzantine Empire–Church history. 5. Byzantine Empire. Stratos. 6. War–Religious aspects–Christianity–History of doctrines–Middle Ages, 600–1500. I. Title. B X 4659.B9W55 2013 274.7′03–dc23 2012033991 I S B N 978-0-521-19564-5 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of U R L s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

моим учителям

Contents

List of illustrations Acknowledgements A note on translations, transliterations and names List of abbreviations General map of Rus in the late pre-Mongol period Introduction

page viii x xii xiv xvi 1

1

he pre-history of the military saints

13

2

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

32

3

he collective cult of the military saints

64

4

he military saints in early Rus

94

5 Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

132

6 Military saints under the house of Suzdal

167

Conclusion

201

Appendix 1: Feast days of the principal military saints Appendix 2: Reigns of Roman and Byzantine emperors mentioned in the text Appendix 3: Simpliied genealogy of the Riurikids Appendix 4: Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to patronal igures Appendix 5: Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to non-patronal igures Bibliography Index

206

vii

207 209 210 217 222 241

Illustrations

1 Ivory triptych from the Palazzo Venezia, Rome (Alinari Archives, Florence) page 79 2 Steatite icon of the Hetoimasia (Hétimasie et saints militaires © RMN-GP (Musée du Louvre)/Daniel Arnaudet) 83 3 Ivory icon of Demetrios (© 2012. Image copyright he Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence) 86 4 Frontispiece of the Psalter of Basil II (© 2012. Photo Scala, Florence) 92 5 Seal of Iaroslav Vladimirovich (© Valentin Yanin and Petr Gajdukov, photograph by Ken Walton) 112 6 Seal of Mstislav Iurevich (© Valentin Yanin and Petr Gajdukov) 116 7 Zmeevik featuring George and heodore (Photograph © he State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Yuri Molodkovets) 126 8 Carved relief from Kiev featuring George and heodore (© 2012. Andrea Jemolo/Scala, Florence) 129 9 Seal of Rostislav Mstislavich (© Valentin Yanin and Petr Gajdukov) 155 10 Byzantine enamel icon of Demetrios (© 2012. Photo Scala, Florence/BPK, Bildagentur für Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte, Berlin) 158 11 Rus enamel pendants with unidentiied martyrs (Photograph © he State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Yuri Molodkovets) 160 12 Metal icon from Riazan (© Riazan Historical-Architectural Museum-Reserve, photograph by Ken Walton) 164 13 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: George (© M. S. Gladkaya) 188

viii

List of illustrations 14 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: heodore (© M. S. Gladkaya) 15 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: Boris and Gleb on horseback (© M. S. Gladkaya) 16 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: Boris and Gleb holding crosses (© M. S. Gladkaya) 17 Cathedral of St George, Iurev-Polskoi: frontal portraits (© G. K. Vagner, photograph by Ken Walton) 18 Cathedral of St George, Iurev-Polskoi: Mother of God and military saints (© G. K. Vagner, photograph by Ken Walton) 19 Icon depicting Novgorod’s victory over Suzdal (detail) (© T. Tsarevskaya)

ix 189 189 191 195 195 202

Acknowledgements

he dedication of this volume is an expression of my gratitude to the mentors and friends who have guided me in my study of Byzantium, Rus and Russia. Simon Franklin, who supervised the original version of this study as a doctoral dissertation, deserves special thanks for his encouragement, patience, advice and generosity with books ever since receiving an unsolicited telephone call from Tver about the possibility of coming to Cambridge to study with him. A number of other teachers have also inspired and helped me in countless ways: Phil Pomper, Susanne Fusso, Bob Whitman, Priscilla Meyer, Duf y White, Irene Aleshkovsky, William McCarthy, Jonathan Shepard, Philip Pattenden, Predrag Matejic and M. A. Johnson. Anything of value in this study is largely the result of their dedication as teachers and scholars, although any mistakes are of course entirely my own. he logistical diiculties associated with producing this book could not have been surmounted without help from numerous quarters. A scholarship to enable me to attend the Medieval Slavic Summer Institute in 2001 furnished me with essential research skills, which were put to use during a trip to Russia funded by a Lightfoot Grant from the Faculty of History, University of Cambridge. he PhD was completed thanks to a Gunn Studentship from Peterhouse, University of Cambridge and work on the book continued during a Research Fellowship at Clare College, Cambridge, a Mellon Fellowship at Stanford University and a lectureship at the University of Nottingham. Further research trips were supported by the Dean’s Fund of the Faculty of Arts, University of Nottingham. his fund, along with research funds from the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies and the School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies, helped ofset the costs associated with the illustrations. Hospitality and general moral support during visits to libraries in Cambridge, London and Berkeley were kindly provided by Sophie Lunn-Rocklife, Piers Baker-Bates and the White, Gordon and Hill families. Alexei Gippius x

Acknowledgements

xi

went to extraordinary lengths to secure copyright permissions for illustrations of Rus materials. Tim Hill, Linda Gordon, Polly McMichael, Emily Finer, Mary Cunningham, Doug Lee and Liudmyla Sharipova helped immensely by reading and correcting the draft, providing translations and books and assisting with technical matters. My editor, Michael Sharp, has been a great source of encouragement and support, while managing not to express dismay at continuing delays. Finally, the comments of two anonymous reviewers did much to improve the book’s arguments and structure. Earlier versions of parts of Chapters 5 and 6 appeared in the following publications, respectively: ‘Byzantine Visual Propaganda and the Inverted Heart Motif’, Byzantion, 76 (2006), pp. 330–63 and ‘A Byzantine Tradition Transformed: Military Saints under the House of Suzdal’, he Russian Review, 63/3 (2004), pp. 493–513.

A note on translations, transliterations and names

Assimilating the texts, names and conventions of two pre-modern languages into a work of English prose presents a number of diiculties. Although every efort has been made to ensure consistency, grey areas remain. Quotations from Greek and Slavonic sources have been translated by the author unless otherwise indicated, with references to both the original texts and any published translations given in the notes. Titles of secondary sources and individual words in Greek and Slavonic languages have been transliterated using the modiied Library of Congress system. he only exception to this system is made for individual Slavonic words used in the body of the text, such as ‘Rus’, ‘Iaroslavl’, and so on, which are written without apostrophes denoting palatalisation. (Diferent systems used by other authors, however, have not been changed in quotations.) For pre-modern written works with generally accepted English, Latin or Greek titles, those have been used throughout (hence, Tactical Constitutions, he Primary Chronicle, De Obsidione Toleranda, Strategikon). Less widely known works are designated by the titles given by their irst publishers (hence, Mémorandum inédit sur la défense des places, ‘Two Military Orations of Constantine VII’). Works published only in the original language or with more than one generally accepted title have been given in an English translation by the author (hence, Tale and Passion and Enkomion of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb, ‘Martyrdom of the Holy and Honourable Great Martyr George’). If a Greek or Slavonic personal name has an English equivalent, it has been used (hence, Andrew rather than Andrei Bogoliubskii, Constantine VII rather than Konstantinos VII, Clement of Ohrid rather than Kliment of Ohrid). An exception has been made for the name Iurii, which, despite being a form of George, sounds signiicantly diferent. For names with no English equivalent, the Greek or Slavonic forms, rather than a Latin form, have been used (hence, Komnenos rather than Comnene, xii

A note on translations, transliterations and names

xiii

Demetrios rather than Demetrius). In the interest of consistency, saints are referred to by the Greek forms of their names even when discussing their Rus cults, although Rus people with the same names are referred to by the Slavonic forms. Finally, because of the frequency with which saints are mentioned, the title ‘St’ has been dropped, except when referring to church dedications.

Abbreviations

AASS AB ANRW BHG BMGS BZ CFHB CNRS DOP DOS DOT EO HLEUL HUS IAN IaRK JÖB MB MSON OC ODB PG PSRL PVL REB REG RGADA RNB

Acta Sanctorum Analecta Bollandiana Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Byzantinische Zeitschrift Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Centre National de la Recherche Scientiique Dumbarton Oaks Papers Dumbarton Oaks Studies Dumbarton Oaks Texts Echos d’Orient Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature Harvard Ukrainian Studies Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk Iazyki russkoi kul’tury Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik Menologium Basilianum Menaea Septembris Octobris Novembris. Ad Vetustissimorum Codicum Oriens Christianus he Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei Povest’ vremennykh let Revue des études byzantines Revue des études grecques Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka xiv

Fidem

List of abbreviations ROBMST SA SAI SEC SH SKK TM TMM TODRL TTH VV

xv

Rukopisnyi otdel biblioteki moskovskoi sinodal’noi tipograii Sovetskaia arkheologiia Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae Subsidia Hagiographica Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti drevnei Rusi, vol. I, X–pervaia polovina XIV v. Travaux et Mémoires he Medieval Mediterranean: Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500 Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Translated Texts for Historians Vizantiiskii vremennik

Atlantic Ocean

0

250

500

750 km

Lapps 100

0

200

White Sea

400

300

500 miles

Komi

Norway Sweden Dv

al Ur

a in

Finns Ladoga

Beloozero

e

a

nt a in s Mou

Ests

lt

ic

Pskov

Polotsk Vitebsk Smolensk

rp

O

Turov

hi

an

Belgorod

Pereslavl Dn iep

Dn

M

er

Mordvins

Do n

Don ets

s ie

ou

Magyars

Kiev

Galich

Vo

Kursk

Chernigov

Peremyshl

at

Volga Bulgars

Riazan lg a

ula Vist

Ca

Bolghar

ka

RUS

Pripyat

Liubech

Bohemia

Iaroslavl

Rostov Nizhnii Suzdal Iurev- Novgorod Polskoi Dmitrov Vladimir Murom Moscow

Ksniatin

Balts

Minsk Poland

Vo lg a

Ba

Ka m a

S

Novgorod

ter

nta

ins

Sarkel

Pechenegs

Itil Serbia Dan

Khazars

Tmutarakan

ube

Bulgaria B l a c k

Samandar

S e a

a

sp ia

n

Byzantine Empire

Se

Athens

C

Constantinople

Cauc as Georgia us

a

Map 1 General map of Rus in the late pre-Mongol period

Introduction

he cultivation of divine favour in battles is as ancient as warfare itself. Along with readying weapons, formulating strategy and securing supplies, military leaders from ancient times to the present day have striven to ensure the spiritual preparedness of their troops and the intercession of the god or gods they worship. Such rituals have, naturally, taken a variety of forms, reflecting the religious beliefs of the societies in question. Many modern armies employ chaplains from several religious traditions, even if the state they defend is officially secular. he work of these priests, rabbis and imams is seen as crucial to the maintenance of morale, and it has parallels in the earliest accounts of warfare. Homer, for example, describes the sacrifices and religious rites performed prior to battle by both Trojans and Achaeans, as well as the effectiveness of these rituals in securing the protection of various gods.1 Many members of the Greco-Roman pantheon had a keen interest in warfare and could be expected to intercede on behalf of favoured armies and individuals, ensuring that the practices of offering sacrifices and visiting temples before and after battles remained common throughout antiquity. Indeed, such was the importance of these rituals within the Roman army that those who refused to participate, such as Christians, might risk death. Although some accounts of the massacres of Christian soldiers were probably embellished by later scribes, there is no doubt that many followers of the new faith were persecuted for their non-conformist behaviour, particularly starting during the reign of Diocletian.2 A number of these hapless men went on to become, as military saints, the Christian answer to the gods they rejected. 1

2

Particularly interesting are Homer’s accounts of ineffective appeals to gods, such as Agamemnon’s sacrifice to Zeus following his deceptive dream and the unsuccessful plea of the Trojan noblewomen to Diana. Homer, he Iliad, trans. and ed. A. T. Murray, 2nd edn, rev. William F. Wyatt, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library 170 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), i, pp. 90, 92, 294, 296. Paris, on the other hand, was saved from Menelaus thanks to Aphrodite’s intervention (p. 156). For a general introduction to the Christian experience in the Roman army see John Helgeland, ‘Christians in the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine’, in ANRW, ed. Hildegard

1

2

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

he slaughter within the army’s own ranks ceased with the decree of religious toleration issued by Constantine I and Licinius in 313. he new privileged status of Christianity did not, however, mean an end to the cultivation of divine favour, but merely a different approach to the problem. Constantine encouraged the spread of Christianity within the army and gave Christian soldiers leave to attend Sunday services, while priests began to accompany them on campaigns during his reign. Some of the religious observances he instituted, such as the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy and the recitation of special prayers before battle, seem to have continued more or less unchanged for hundreds of years in the Byzantine army.3 Other practices evolved over time, reflecting the changing contours of eastern Christianity as a whole. In the wake of the renewed popularity of the cult of saints following Iconoclasm, for example, soldiers, officers and rulers began to direct prayers toward certain martyrs who were believed to have special powers to intercede in war. heir veneration became a distinguishing feature of middle and late Byzantine warfare, differing in style and focus from earlier devotional practices but expressing the same basic urge of soldiers to seek the protection of divine patrons. A testament to the strong appeal of these saints was their enthusiastic reception beyond the borders of the empire. Despite its evolution in the East Roman military, religious and cultural context, the middle Byzantine tradition of divine patronage in warfare took root quickly in foreign soil and provided a model for the development of new intercessors in war. In particular, the military saints became the favoured protectors of the princely clan of Kievan Rus following the official conversion of the principality to Christianity in the late tenth century. heir veneration is attested in some of the earliest sources from Rus, where their cults continued to develop in entirely new circumstances. Like their Byzantine counterparts, the princes of Rus directed prayers toward their patrons before battle and built churches in their honour in gratitude for victories. But they also introduced changes to the traditions they inherited, cultivating a distinctive form of veneration which included both ancient saints and members of their own family: the martyred brothers Boris and Gleb. Victims of fratricidal strife following the death of their father in 1015, these princes became the first native saints of Rus. hey gained a widespread following

3

Temporini et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972–), ii.23.1, Religion (vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Verhältnis zu römischem Staat und heidnischer Religion), ed. Wolfgang Haase (1979), pp. 724–834. he reigns of all emperors mentioned in this book are given in Appendix 2. George T. Dennis, ‘Religious Services in the Byzantine Army’, Studia Anselmiana , 110 (1993), 107–17.

Introduction

3

by the end of the eleventh century and were particularly venerated in princely circles. Although Slavonic and Scandinavian traditions can be detected in their early cult, it was also profoundly influenced by the military saints in the Byzantine mould, who had many of the same protective capabilities which the princes recognised in their kinsmen. he role of the ancient saints as models for Boris and Gleb shows the vitality of middle Byzantine ideas about divine patronage in warfare and their importance within the shared religious culture of the Commonwealth. he saints venerated in this manner, whether in Rus or Byzantium, are referred to variously: the terms ‘warrior saints’, ‘holy warriors’, ‘soldier saints’, ‘military martyrs’ and ‘military saints’ can all be found in studies of the subject. he preferred appellation in the present study is ‘military saints’ because it implies a connection between a saint and the army rather than combat in the abstract. However, this subject does not benefit from excessive hair-splitting, and it is recognised that the terms are nearly synonymous. More important than the modern terms for these saints is the recognition that none of them is a translation of a phrase found in Byzantine texts. Indeed, the Greek sources show none of the diversity of modern scholarship in their references to this group. Although the term martyroi hoi stratelatoi (martyr-generals) is known from middle Byzantine works, it appears only rarely and – crucially – only in the plural. Otherwise, the individual members are usually referred to simply as martyrs, even when depicted dressed in armour and carrying weapons. he Byzantine nomenclature illustrates two vital points which will be discussed in the following chapters: the importance of a group identity to the saints’ military cults and their continued and related veneration as martyrs. Although the term ‘military saint’ will be used throughout this work for the sake of convenience, it must also be remembered that this is a modern appellation which does not accurately reflect Byzantine usage. However one designates them, the veneration of military saints was one of many possible solutions to an eternal and universal problem. Like the employment of army chaplains in modern times and the offering of sacrifices in the ancient world, the invocation of saints in time of war sheds light on the way in which leaders have sought the cooperation of divine figures in their military undertakings. As such, their cults offer a unique source of insight into the relationship between warfare and religious belief in the societies in question – two subjects widely researched individually but relatively unexplored in their intersection. he phenomenon of military sainthood elucidates, moreover, some of the subtle but important differences between religious practices in Byzantium and Rus, showing

4

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

how these societies produced distinct traditions of divine patronage using similar raw materials. he present study seeks to explain the process by which three unrelated martyrs – George, Demetrios and heodore – were first established as a corps of heavenly protectors for the Macedonian emperors and the changes which their cults later underwent in Rus, culminating in the inclusion within their ranks of Boris and Gleb. In particular, analysis is devoted to the cults of the saints in late antiquity, the circumstances which led to their selection as a group of patrons in war in the tenth century and the combination of the ideals of martyr and warrior which characterised their joint imperial cults. he second half of the investigation concerns the fate in Rus of the martyr-warrior ideal which developed in middle Byzantium. In particular, it will be argued that the military saints provided a template for the nascent cult of Boris and Gleb beginning in the late eleventh century. his hitherto unacknowledged Byzantine influence explains a number of peculiarities in the brothers’ cult which have puzzled previous scholars. Military sainthood in general, and its varying forms in Byzantium and Rus in particular, are not widely researched topics. In 1908 Hippolyte Delehaye published a selection of Greek hagiographic texts about heodore Stratelates, heodore Teron, Demetrios, Prokopios, Merkourios and George, with accompanying analytical articles, in his book Les légendes grecques des saints militaires.4 Delehaye’s choice of subjects indicates a recognition of this small group of saints as the most popular within a somewhat larger corps which was venerated in imperial and military circles, and he designated this inner circle the état-major. As a study of hagiography, the book concentrates on the age of the individual texts, their manuscript traditions and their value as historical sources. Each saint and his vitae are treated individually, and little attention is given to the group’s development as a collective force or its role within the life of the Byzantine court and army. Questions of this nature are addressed in only slightly more detail in Christopher Walter’s 2003 book he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition.5 his study discusses a large number of saints in separate sections, which provide historical and art historical overviews of their cults. Walter devotes a large portion of the book to the état-major, analysing literary and artistic sources from Byzantium and the 4

5

Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fi ls, 1909). Christopher Walter, he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003).

Introduction

5

Balkans, spanning the period from late antiquity until the Ottoman conquests and beyond. Like Delehaye, his focus is on the individual saints, and he discusses their role as a group of comrades-in-arms only briefly. Although Walter recognises that the saints’ military cults were particularly prominent only from the tenth century onward, their continued importance as martyrs and the relationship between the two attributes receive little attention. He attempts, moreover, to account for every saint who is described as a soldier in an effort to develop a ‘characterisation’ of the warrior saints. his approach necessitates the inclusion of dozens of obscure figures who are described in only one or two sources and about whose cults almost nothing is known, meaning that little substantive analysis can be offered about them. he individual approach is also adopted by David Woods, whose website, ‘he Military Martyrs’ (www.ucc.ie/milmart/index.html), offers many resources on these saints and their cults, as well as Christianity in the Roman army in late antiquity. he site features a list of twenty-two saints and groups of saints with links to information about their hagiography, iconography and cults. Again, the saints are studied for the most part as individuals, and the problem of their dual status as martyrs and warriors receives no special attention. Most other book-length studies in the field discuss the cult of only one saint in the context of religious history and/or the publication of primary sources.6 he same is true of shorter studies, which also tend to concentrate on the literature or artwork related to a single military saint, usually within a single culture.7 his focus is justifiable, as each member of the état-major had a large individual following, and these works have made significant contributions to the understanding of their cults. On the other hand, in most studies the saints’ prominence as patrons in war overshadows their continued role as martyrs, a feature which remained crucial to their cults. Moreover, 6

7

Such works include, but are by no means limited to, Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS, 1979) and Karl Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung, Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologisch und historische Klasse 25, 3 (Munich, 1911), 1–332. See for example Robin Cormack, ‘he Making of a Patron Saint: he Powers of Art and Ritual in Byzantine hessaloniki’, in World Art: hemes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVIth International Congress of the History of Art, ed. Irving Lavin, 3 vols. (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1989), iii, pp. 547–54; Constantine Zuckerman, ‘he Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. heodore the Recruit (BHG 1764)’, REB, 46 (1988), 191–205. Only occasionally do scholars discuss the cults of the saints in more than one culture, such as Dimitri Obolensky, ‘he Cult of St. Demetrius of hessalonika in the History of Byzantine–Slav Relations’, in Byzantium and the Slavs (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), pp. 281–300.

6

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the relative abundance of sources related to each individual saint seems to have discouraged investigation into their joint veneration, and their mutual associations have for the most part been neglected. Although the present study will not be able to account for every aspect of each saint’s cult, it will attempt to shed light on areas which most earlier works have overlooked: their veneration in Byzantium as a joint force of martyr-warriors and their influence on the cult of Boris and Gleb. Rather than considering every saint who was a soldier, or even just the prominent victims of the persecutions in the Roman army, analysis will focus on a small group of saints, even more select than the état-major – George, Demetrios and heodore (later joined by Boris and Gleb) – whose military patronage was most coveted by the middle Byzantine emperors and Rus princes.8 Although these rulers certainly venerated other holy warriors, the relative abundance of sources related to this group of saints shows that they were by far the most popular. Hagiographic and historical works mention them more often than the other members of the état-major, and portraits of large groups of military saints, such as the ivory carvings studied in Chapter 3, almost always include them, whereas the identities of the other saints are much less predictable. Even if other saints often fought alongside this inner circle, its members formed a distinct corps of patrons which the Byzantine emperors and certain Rus princes seem to have recognised, unlike the broader designation of military martyr. Analysis of the cults of this select group in the context of courtly and military life thus sheds light on the changing concerns of their adherents about divine protection in warfare. One of these changes was the saints’ influence on, and association with, the Rus saints Boris and Gleb. As in the case of the military saints, the evidence related to the martyred brothers is relatively abundant and they are the subject of vast amounts of scholarship. Most of this work, however, does not discuss their military qualities, much less their connections with the holy warriors, despite the fact that many early sources acknowledge them as the protectors of the clan and make connections between the brothers and the older saints. With some notable exceptions, study of 8

here were two military saints by the name of heodore, one known as Teron (‘the Recruit’) and the other as Stratelates (‘the General’). As will be discussed in Chapter 3, the General’s cult seems to have been an outgrowth of that of the Recruit, and their cults were almost identical. When discussing them in general terms, they will therefore be treated as a single saint, following the example of Byzantine and Rus icons, which often label a portrait of a single bearded warrior simply ‘heodore’. he feast days of all members of the état-major and other military saints mentioned in the text are given in Appendix 1.

Introduction

7

Boris and Gleb’s cult has traditionally centred on close textual analysis of the three major hagiographic works devoted to them, with emphasis on establishing a chronology of the works (a problem which remains unsolved).9 On the other hand, some less scrutinised but equally informative sources, including the liturgical offices and readings for the brothers’ feast days, are only beginning to receive substantial scholarly attention. Also relatively unexplored is the brothers’ rich and varied iconography. he few studies which have appeared on this topic tend to restrict themselves to a single medium and/or argue that the brothers’ portraiture developed in strictly defined stages – an unconvincing proposal given the lack of dateable works. In conjunction with other evidence, however, iconography provides an important window on the veneration of Boris and Gleb and their similarities with the military saints. As in the case of the holy warriors, it would be beyond the scope of this study to comment on all the surviving evidence, literary and artistic, connected with Boris and Gleb’s cult. In particular, the thorny issue of the age of the sources will not be addressed. Instead, representative evidence in all media will be used to analyse the brothers’ place in the religious, political and military milieu of pre-Mongol Rus, and to argue that some of the most important aspects of their cult developed under the influence of the Byzantine military saints. he present work thus differs in scope and objectives from previous treatments of the military saints and Boris and Gleb, but it has benefited from their varied approaches, systematic investigations and publications of primary sources. he hagiographic tradition provides some of the most basic and essential information about the cult of any saint, and Delehaye’s study brings together important Greek sources about the most prominent holy warriors. Additional scholarship on individual and groups of texts has helped round out the picture, clarifying aspects of the manuscript tradition and placing them in historical context. Paul Lemerle’s study of the miracle stories of Demetrios, Karl Krumbacher’s edition of early texts about George and Constantine Zuckerman’s work on the miracles of heodore, among others, have addressed many questions about the origins and development of the saints’ Byzantine cults. Although the dating of most of the works remains imprecise at best, the general contours of their evolution are fairly clear: the fame of the holy warriors meant that literary sources about them were relatively varied and plentiful, and hence informative about changes over time in their veneration. he 9

Previous scholarship on Boris and Gleb will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

8

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

already substantial corpus of the military saints’ hagiography was extensively reworked in the tenth century, and they appear in most liturgical calendars as well as countless hymns, liturgical poems and miracle stories. Although not all of these works have been published, many of the major sources are accessible. he large number of texts and the repetitive nature of many of them mean, however, that they cannot all be studied individually. he focus will be, rather, on the changes over time in the emphasis of the works, especially those composed by and for members of the imperial court. Rus written sources about the military saints consisted, for the most part, of translations of Greek originals which seem to have circulated almost exclusively within the Church. As in Byzantium, accounts of the saints’ lives, deaths and posthumous exploits appeared in liturgical calendars and miracle stories, but the number of surviving works from Rus is smaller and less varied than the Greek corpus. Publication of these texts was, moreover, lamentably unenthusiastic during the twentieth century. Some of the more famous miracle stories received a fair amount of attention,10 but following the appearance of V. Jagič’s critical edition of a number of eleventh-century mineia texts in 1886, no other works of this type were published until 2010.11 Original manuscripts of Rus hagiographic and liturgical calendars were therefore consulted, although not all of the surviving manuscripts were accessible. Happily, the state of affairs is much different with the texts relating to Boris and Gleb. D. I. Abramovich’s authoritative edition of the relevant works brings together both hagiographic and liturgical texts, giving variants for each.12 Rus chronicles, likewise published in critical editions as part of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (PSRL), also provide a wealth of information (albeit often indirect) about the veneration of both the military saints and Boris and Gleb.

10

11

12

See, for example, D. S. Likhachev, ed., SKK (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), pp. 144–6, 260–5, 268–73 on the Rus versions of some of the hagiographic texts relating to George, Demetrios and the heodores. V. Jagič, ed., MSON (St Petersburg: Imp. Academiae scientiarum socius, 1886). he research for this study was completed too early to make use of the first volume of a critical edition of the prolog, a text which is discussed further in Chapter 4: Slaviano-russkii prolog po drevneishim spiskam: Sinaksar’ , ed. V. B. Krys’ko et al. (Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2010–), i (2010). D. I. Abramovich, ed., Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov Borisa i Gleba i sluzhby im, Pamiatniki drevne-russkoi literatury 2 (Petrograd: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1916), reprinted in: Ludolf Mü ller, ed., Die Altrussischen hagiographischen Erzählungen und liturgischen Dichtungen über die Heiligen Boris und Gleb, Slavische Propyläen 14 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1967).

Introduction

9

Sources related to the cults of the military saints are not limited, however, to hagiographic and liturgical texts. As Walter’s book demonstrates, study of the saints’ iconography is no less essential to understanding their cults. Depictions of the holy warriors are relatively plentiful thanks to their popularity. hese works were created in a wide range of media, including frescoes, enamels, seals, coins and various types of icons. Taken as a group, these objects fit rather uncomfortably under the label ‘artistic sources’. Aside from being figurative, most of them have little to do with art in the modern sense of the word. Icons, frescoes and pectoral crosses had a purely devotional purpose, while seals and coins had important social and economic functions. Only a small minority of the objects under study, such as the luxury enamels produced for members of the Rus and Byzantine courts, had more strictly decorative functions, although their depiction of saints still gave them religious connotations. For lack of a better term, however, these items will be described as artistic sources, although special attention will be devoted to the specific role of each type of item under study. However they are described, they are of great importance: even more so than literary works, these sources shed light on the types of veneration the saints enjoyed and by which sectors of the population. Careful analysis of the saints’ portraiture can reveal the nature of their mutual associations as well as tendencies, in different places and at different times, to depict them as martyrs or warriors. Because it survives in so many media, however, the iconographic evidence is widely scattered. Many works languish unpublished in archives, and those which have been published tend to appear with other items of the same medium, rather than other depictions of military saints. Assembling such works for study is therefore challenging, and there is often no way to ensure that samples of items in a given medium are representative. Moreover, the distinctive function of each medium within the society in question needs to be given adequate attention, meaning that different forms of interpretation must be applied. Finally, artistic works are often in worse states of disrepair than manuscripts. Damage to the objects themselves, as well as inadequate reproductions, can hinder attempts at analysis. But despite the difficulties associated with them, artistic sources provide vital clues about the cults of the military saints and constitute a large portion of the evidence for this work. Details such as the saints’ portrayal alone or in groups, the attributes they hold and the clothing they wear can reveal as much about their veneration as the written accounts of their lives and miracles.

10

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Another major body of evidence under consideration is non-hagiographic written sources about both the military saints and the role of religion in warfare. hese sources provide important information about the manner in which the military saints were believed to intercede in battle and the status of the Byzantine army itself as a sacred force. Historical writings and chronicles describe posthumous appearances by the military saints in Byzantium and Rus, giving hints about perceptions of their powers and the role they played in combat. Military treatises, meanwhile, shed light on attitudes within the upper echelons of the Byzantine army towards the role of religious faith in warfare. Although these writings mention the military saints only rarely, their descriptions of religious rituals and practices illustrate the prominence of the idea of warfare as a sacred undertaking. he vision of the Byzantine army as a holy force of martyrs fighting the enemies of God was, it will be argued, a contributing factor in the rise to prominence of the military saints – whose triumph of martyrdom made them fitting leaders of the sacred army. Unfortunately, military treatises do not seem to have been composed or copied in Rus, meaning that much less information is available about the theoretical aspects of warfare among the East Slavs. Although other types of sources offer scattered hints, questions about the role of religion in Rus armies must remain for the most part unanswered. he cults of the military saints were not expressed in literary and artistic sources alone. Evidence of their veneration can also be detected in the use of their names to found cities, dedicate churches and baptise children. he patterns which can be observed in such practices provide clues about the manner in which the saints were venerated and how their veneration differed in Byzantium and Rus. Onomastic evidence is sometimes necessary, moreover, fully to understand other types of sources. For example, the iconography of seals depicting the military saints was very similar in Byzantium and Rus, implying a close affinity between their imperial and princely cults. Yet investigation of the Rus seals shows that only princes who were named after the military saints featured them on their seals, while Byzantine courtiers used their images whether they shared a name or not. Such differences are not insignificant, and help to explain some of the changes which the saints’ cults experienced in Rus. he sources described above are undeniably rich and provide a wealth of information about the cults of the military saints and their reception in Rus, although the precise ages and provenances of many of them are difficult or impossible to pin down. Previous studies have made progress in this direction on individual or small groups of sources, but much remains

Introduction

11

to be done. he aim of the present study is not, however, to attempt to solve questions of dating. With the exception of Chapter 6, the arguments presented depend not on the chronology of the sources but on their function and meaning. Although every effort has been made to cite dates established in previous studies, the details of certain individual cases may be incorrect or unknown. It is because of these uncertainties that the largest possible number and variety of sources have been consulted; although much remains unclear about many individual items, when taken together they describe informative patterns. Despite these and other difficulties associated with the sources, enough material related to the military saints survives that a reconstruction of their cults can, with the necessary precautions, be undertaken. he scope of the present work necessitates, however, that some restrictions be imposed on this reconstruction. he military cults of other divine figures, such as the Mother of God and the Archangel Michael, cannot, for example, be explored in great detail, even though they had certain affinities with the holy warriors. Indeed, the Mother of God was venerated even more widely as an intercessor in battle: long before the military saints gained prominence as imperial protectors, her icons and relics were paraded around the walls of Constantinople to ward off various invaders, a ritual which was repeated on numerous occasions during sieges throughout Byzantine history.13 Even after the appearance of the military saints, emperors continued to invoke her and carry her icons into battle.14 he Archangel Michael also had a military role, as is clear from his attribute of the sword and the accounts, particularly in Rus chronicles, of his intercessions in battle. he inclusion of these figures would thus not be hard to justify, as in some respects their roles were very similar to that of the military saints. Indeed, Chapter 6 will discuss the ‘alliance’ between the saints and the Mother of God expressed in certain texts and icons. Despite their strong associations, however, it is also clear from the sources 13

14

For an introduction to the Mother of God’s military cult see, e.g., Norman H. Baynes, ‘he Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople’, AB, 67 (1949), 165–77; Averil Cameron, ‘he heotokos in Sixth-Century Byzantium: A City Finds Its Symbol’, in Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), pp. 96–102; Valeri P. Stepanenko, ‘Bogomater’ Nikopeia i sviatye voiny’, in Preslavska knizhovna shkola (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’, 1995–), vol. v, Izsledvaniia v chest na prof. d. ist. n. Totiu Totev, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Khristo Trendafi lov (2001), pp. 40–50. It has been argued that the Mother of God did not actually take on active military duties until the middle Byzantine period, in which case the emergence of this role may have been connected with that of the military saints. See Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power: he Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2006).

12

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

that the Mother of God and Michael did not actually fight alongside the military saints. Although the Mother of God was occasionally depicted or described as their commander, the distinctions in dress and role which are consistently maintained between her and the saints show that she was not a member of their force. he same is true of Michael, who is never included in group portraits of the military saints. Although further study of the military cults of these two figures would doubtless contribute to the general understanding of divine intercession in warfare, it is thus not unreasonable to exclude them from the present work. Another subject which falls outside the scope of this study is the historical reliability of the texts related to the military saints. he work of Walter and Delehaye on these questions has shown that, as in the cases of most other early saints, very little can be said with certainty about the earthly lives of the holy warriors. Although Christians by those names may well have suffered persecution under pagan emperors, there is also little reason to doubt that their stories were embellished enthusiastically in later centuries, probably changing the lives of the historical personages beyond recognition. Apart from such conjectures, however, the lack of early sources other than the hagiographic texts themselves makes further speculation pointless. Fortunately, for the purposes of the subject under study it makes no difference at all whether the military saints were historical figures. Lack of reliable evidence about them certainty did not affect their later popularity in any way. he Byzantines and Rus clearly believed in them and their intercessory powers and do not seem to have been troubled by the questions of historical accuracy which preoccupy modern scholars. his study will thus refrain from discussing the hypothetical earthly lives of the saints, but concentrate rather on the development of their military cults, proceeding from the assumption that their adherents believed fervently in them and their miracles. In the words of Norman Baynes, ‘there can be no doubt that the Byzantine lived in a world where miracle could happen and did happen, and that belief in miracle is itself a fact of history which the student ignores at his peril’.15 Some of the miraculous manifestations which contributed to the saints’ early veneration as warriors will be discussed in Chapter 1, which assesses the status and development of their martial qualities in the period before Iconoclasm. 15

Baynes, ‘he Supernatural Defenders’, p. 165.

ch apter 1

he pre-history of the military saints

Among the military saints who were venerated in the middle and late Byzantine court, three were particularly prominent, forming a recognisable corps. George, Demetrios and heodore appeared, both individually and together, in countless works of art, far outnumbering depictions of their fellow holy warriors and confirming their special status in the eyes of emperors and soldiers alike. But despite the similarity of their attributes and roles under the Macedonian dynasty and thereafter, these saints had not been mutually associated, nor even necessarily closely connected with warfare, from the inception of their cults. heir earthly lives differed in many important details: although all were victims of the pre-Constantinian persecutions of Christians, they hailed from different regions of the Roman Empire and had dissimilar careers. Demetrios was not even described as a soldier in his earliest passio, while heodore was originally known as a recruit and George was said to have attained a high rank thanks to his bravery. he cults of these saints were also unrelated, and until the tenth century the future comrades-in-arms seem to have existed more or less independently of one another. Demetrios, primarily a local saint, was associated almost exclusively with hessalonika. heodore also had strong connections with the city of Euchaita in Asia Minor, although he was popular in other centres as well. George, on the other hand, although usually described as having been born in Cappadocia and martyred in Lydda, was the object of enthusiastic devotion throughout the empire. It seems, indeed, that in the early centuries of their veneration the saints’ most important shared feature was martyrdom. Martyrdom was, of course, an attribute of countless other saints as well, many of whom had served in the Roman army. It would probably be impossible to determine precisely why the Macedonian emperors singled out George, Demetrios and heodore for particular veneration as military patrons. heir cults, although different from each other, had features in common with the less celebrated members of Delehaye’s état-major and 13

14

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

other saints, and there is no obvious reason why these saints did not enjoy the fame of the favoured three. Like Demetrios, for example, Prokopios was described as a member of the clergy rather than as a soldier in his earliest hagiography. Both saints later acquired military associations: Demetrios became the defender of hessalonika during the Avar-Slav invasions of the seventh century, while Prokopios was transformed by the eighth century into a soldier who won a stunning victory against the Arabs after having a vision of a cross flanked by icons of Christ and the archangels Michael and Gabriel.1 But despite his heroism, veneration of Prokopios never equalled that of Demetrios. Similarly, the stories of Eustathios and Merkourios have elements in common with those of heodore and George. he former were both officers who converted to Christianity and gained recognition for their victories from a pagan emperor, but were put to death when they refused to offer sacrifices.2 Merkourios was also known in later centuries for his posthumous killing of Julian the Apostate (discussed further in Chapter 5), while George and heodore acquired dragon-slaying miracles. Even so, Merkourios did not enjoy the fame of George and heodore in middle Byzantine culture, and Eustathios’ inclusion in group portraits of the military saints was sporadic, despite his fame in both the eastern and western Churches. he same is true of Nestor, who is said to have defeated a ferocious gladiator in single combat while Demetrios was imprisoned in the baths of hessalonika.3 Although Nestor’s victory would seem to have made him a more obvious candidate for a military patron, his cult was always overshadowed by that of his companion. George, Demetrios and heodore thus had no unique characteristics which caused them to become particularly popular. his chapter will not attempt to explain what might have been an entirely arbitrary phenomenon: the fact of their later fame is enough reason to devote special attention to their early cults. Analysis will focus instead on the features of their veneration prior to Iconoclasm in order to clarify the religious and cultural 1

2

3

Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes hagiographiques (Brussels: Bureaux de la Société des Bollandistes, 1906), pp. 142–56. Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fi ls, 1909), pp. 91–101, and ‘La légende de Saint Eustache’, in Mélanges d’ hagiographie grecque et latine, SH 42 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1966), pp. 212–39; Stéphane Binon, ‘Documents grecs inédits relatifs à S. Mercure de Césarée’, Université de Louvain Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des Conférences d’Histoire et de Philologie, series 2, 41 (1937), 7–174, and ‘Essai sur le cycle de Saint Mercure: martyr de Dèce et meurtrier de l’empereur Julien’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes: Sciences Religieuses, 52–4 (1936 –9), v–144 (pp. 11–42). Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, pp. 104–5.

he pre-history of the military saints

15

background of their transformation into a corps of imperial patrons in the tenth century. Particular attention will be paid to the emergence of military features in their cults, and to the interplay of the attributes of martyr and warrior in early literary and artistic works dedicated to them. Such an analysis is vital to understanding the middle Byzantine cults of the military saints, which placed new emphasis on the close relationship of these attributes. hese developments in the saints’ veneration were not, however, simply a continuation of their ancient cults, but had roots in Byzantine military thought and strategy as it developed from the seventh century onward. Although not at first directly connected with saints, the growth of religious concerns in the upper echelons of the late antique and Byzantine army was influential in shaping the joint cult of the holy warriors. In particular, the fascination of prominent Byzantine strategists with the relationship between soldiers and martyrs is essential to understanding the emergence of military sainthood, and this phenomenon will be explored in further detail in Chapter 2. hese parallel developments in religious and military life contributed to the eventual emergence of the holy warriors as a defined corps under the Macedonian emperors, which will be studied in Chapter 3. Demetrios, as mentioned above, was not well known outside of hessalonika in late antiquity, nor does his earliest hagiography describe him as a soldier. Yet he became one of the favoured patrons in war of the Macedonian and later emperors, who transplanted his cult to Constantinople and placed new emphasis on his military career. he rich corpus of early writings and works of art related to Demetrios’ cult allows this transformation to be followed relatively closely. he oldest work recounting his martyrdom, known as the Passio prima (BHG 496), says nothing about its hero’s career or social standing, other than that he preached the Gospel to the Christians of hessalonika during Maximian’s persecution. he saint was executed, according to the narrative, because his prayers gave Nestor, a fellow Christian, the power to defeat Lyaeus, Maximian’s favourite gladiator. Following Demetrios’ martyrdom, unspecified miracles occurred at the place of his execution, inspiring a certain Leontios, eparch of Illyricum, to build a church to him there.4 he Passio prima thus provides no clues regarding the saint’s later military associations. he date of its composition is, furthermore, unclear. Although the earliest manuscript dates from the ninth century,

4

Ibid., pp. 259–63.

16

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the text seems to have been used by John, a seventh-century archbishop of hessalonika, as a source for his own compositions about Demetrios.5 At some point between the composition of the Passio prima and that of Archbishop John’s work, in any case, a recognition of the saint’s protective abilities emerged. John’s collection of fifteen miracle stories about his city’s patron (BHG 499–516) makes a number of references to the saint participating in the defence of hessalonika during the attacks it endured in the late sixth and seventh centuries. In Miracle xii, for example, Demetrios’ role is indirect but vital: he inspired a man to disperse a crowd in the saint’s cathedral by warning of a barbarian attack, which then proved actually to be happening.6 During another attack described in Miracle xiii, the saint was involved in the fighting: ‘For he was seen not just in the imagination but before our very eyes, on the wall dressed as a hoplite, the first going up the ladder, already throwing his right foot down upon the wall, striking with his spear-head down the middle of the two battlements, and he shoved a corpse to the outside.’7 In Miracle xiv, Demetrios caused an apparition of a large army to appear and scare off the city’s besiegers. One of the barbarians later described the leader of this army as ‘a ruddy and radiant man seated on a white horse and wearing a white cape’, and the citizens realised that Demetrios had saved them once again.8 he saint was also known to intercede on behalf of his city and provide moral support to the citizens. Miracle xv tells the story of a man who took refuge in the saint’s cathedral during a siege. He had a vision in which two angels appeared to call Demetrios back to heaven, since the city would soon be destroyed. Demetrios refused to abandon his people and the man, overjoyed, ran along the walls shouting, ‘Take courage, brothers, the victorious one is with us.’9 hanks to the renewed encouragement which his words gave the defenders, the city was saved. Although all of Demetrios’ miracles benefited the city of hessalonika or individual citizens, there is some evidence that his military powers were recognised and coveted by outsiders as well. Miracle v describes the efforts of two emperors to obtain the saint’s relics. Maurice, it relates, wrote to Archbishop Eusebios with his request because he wanted the martyr as an ally in war. he archbishop refused, declaring that the hessalonians preferred to keep the martyr in their hearts rather than display his relics. He went on to relate that Justinian had also been unsuccessful in the 5

6 8

Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS, 1979), ii, pp. 198–9. Ibid., i, pp. 124–9. 7 Ibid., p. 135. 9 Ibid., p. 157. Ibid., p. 164.

he pre-history of the military saints

17

same endeavour. he emperor had sponsored an excavation beneath the cathedral to find the relics, but flames had blocked his progress and he had to be content with ‘dust’ from under the altar.10 hese stories may, to be sure, have been fabricated by Archbishop John or a contemporary to demonstrate the prestige, loyalty and military prowess of Demetrios: they show that even the request of an emperor for aid on the battlefield was not enough to dislodge the saint, and he remained devoted exclusively to the welfare of the hessalonians. Unlike his predecessors, it seems that Justinian II did manage to secure the saint’s military aid. In 688 he issued an edict claiming that Demetrios had been his ally in various battles against a common enemy – doubtless the same Slavs whom the saint had helped defeat a few decades earlier – and granting a saltpan to the cathedral in hessalonika in thanks.11 he saint’s intercession on behalf of a non-hessalonian was unusual, and there is no further evidence for emperors benefiting from his patronage until the late ninth century. It is noteworthy, however, that even Justinian did not attempt to relocate Demetrios’ cult. His victories had taken place in the vicinity of hessalonika, and it is perhaps not surprising that he believed he had been aided by the most celebrated saint of the area, who had recently defended his city from invaders. he emperor’s gift was, furthermore, intended to benefit the local cathedral rather than establish veneration of Demetrios in Constantinople. Despite the exceptional nature of the saint’s intercession on behalf of an emperor, there was no doubt that he remained, at this stage, firmly rooted in hessalonika. hese sources indicate that, by the early seventh century, intercession in war did not fall outside Demetrios’ normal range of activities.12 To be sure, the significance of his military role should not be exaggerated, as John mentions it in only a few of his miracle stories. Still, his detailed 10

11

12

Ibid., pp. 88–90. he whereabouts of Demetrios’ relics is a mystery which continues to be the subject of discussion. For a summary of the evidence related to this issue see Christopher Walter, ‘St Demetrios: he Myroblytos of hessalonika’, in Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London: Ashgate Variorum, 1977), pp. 157–78 (pp. 159–65). Justinian II, ‘Un édit de l’empereur Justinien II daté de Septembre 688’, ed. H. Grégoire, Byzantion, 17 (1944 –5), 119–24. Paul Speck has argued that Demetrios’ cult first arose only in the early seventh century. According to this theory, which has not gained widespread acceptance, early versions of only a few of the miracle stories date from the reign of Herakleios, another group appeared in the late seventh century and the collection took final form in the ninth century. For the purposes of the present study, this dating would mean that Demetrios’ military cult did not exist at all until the Macedonian emperors adopted him as a patron. Paul Speck, ‘De miraculis Sancti Demetrii, qui hessalonicam profugus venit’, Poikila Byzantina , 12 (1993), 255–542, and ‘Nochmals zu den miracula Sancti Demetrii’, Poikila Byzantina , 13 (1994), 317–429.

18

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

description of these incidents hints that the citizens of hessalonika had already begun to believe in the saint as their defender. Paul Lemerle plausibly speculates that it was the Avar-Slav invasions themselves which encouraged the initial growth of Demetrios’ military cult.13 Whatever the original reason for its appearance, another collection of miracle stories (BHG 516z–523), written by an unknown author some seventy years after John’s work, confirms Demetrios’ continued popularity as a patron in war. Indeed, four out of the five contemporary miracles of the anonymous collection concern the saint’s intervention in battles in one capacity or another, an indication that his military role had become even more important since Archbishop John’s time.14 In two of the miracles Demetrios’ participation is indirect, although still important. In Miracle ii he causes a projectile inscribed with ‘In the name of God and Saint Demetrios’ to collide with an enemy’s projectile, sending both into the besiegers’ camp to deadly effect, and in Miracle v he provides a favourable wind during a battle.15 Elsewhere he actually appears as a soldier: Miracle iv describes him coming to the relief of the besieged city ‘on foot, his chlamys thrown up, and carrying a rod in his hand’, and in Miracle i he is seen, once again in his white chlamys, marching along the walls and on the sea.16 Demetrios thus not only intercedes on behalf of the hessalonians, but is also dressed and behaves like a soldier. here can be little doubt that he was revered for many other qualities at the time of the composition of the anonymous collection, but Walter’s assertion that his military status is explicit only in the later Miracle vi is overstated.17 Demetrios the soldier emerges as a well-known and widely revered figure in both collections of miracle stories, even if he continued to have other roles and was reluctant to expand his protective powers beyond the walls of hessalonika. Neither John nor his continuator elaborated or enhanced Demetrios’ earthly career or social standing. Indeed, in his enkomion to Demetrios (BHG 547h) John declines to discuss the saint’s origins or homeland, focusing instead on his preaching and refutation of heresies.18 On the other hand, the Passio altera (BHG 497), a work which expands and develops 13 14

15 17

18

Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils, i, p. 41. Lemerle argues that the sixth miracle, in which Demetrios appears in military dress but is not involved in any fighting, is a later addition to the collection. Ibid., ii, pp. 163–9. Ibid., i, pp. 187, 231–2. 16 Ibid., pp. 216, 177. Christopher Walter, he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), p. 72. John of hessalonika, ‘L’enkômion de Saint Démétrius par Jean de hessalonique’, ed. Anna Philippidis-Braat, TM, 8 (1981), 397–414 (p. 407).

he pre-history of the military saints

19

the material of the Passio prima, shows that later authors began to take an interest in these questions. It claims that Demetrios was from a senatorial family and served in the army as exceptor before becoming proconsul (anthypatos) of Greece and consul (hypatos).19 he author of this work, possibly inspired by the active image of the saint conveyed in the seventh-century miracle stories, was clearly concerned to give him a more prestigious career than that described in the Passio prima. he titles indicate that Demetrios held both civilian and military positions: an exceptor was the head of a legal bureau, anthypatos was a title given to generals and hypatos was another functionary with judicial powers.20 Aside from the inclusion of such details, the Passio altera generally follows the plot of its source and does not mention whether the saint performed any posthumous miracles connected with military operations. Lemerle places its composition between that of the Passio prima and its reworking by Symeon Metaphrastes in the mid tenth century.21 he text’s use of titles provides further clues: according to Oikonomidès, anthypatos appeared during the reign of heophilos, while hypatos disappeared in the tenth century.22 he early writings about Demetrios thus show an increasing tendency to attribute military titles, exploits and the defence of hessalonika to him. From an anonymous Christian preacher he was transformed, by the seventh century, into a courageous and patriotic warrior. But in contrast to the literary works about the saint, his contemporary iconography makes no reference to his military career. Although it must be assumed that most depictions of Demetrios from this period have been lost, it is perhaps not a coincidence that none of the surviving early Byzantine artistic sources featuring him celebrates his role as a warrior. he mosaics decorating Demetrios’ cathedral, which seem to have been executed in two phases between the late fifth and late seventh centuries, included a number of portraits of the saint. He is shown in the company of lay people and other saints, praying, blessing and interceding on behalf of the faithful, but in none of them does he take part in combat.23 Walter 19

20

21 22 23

Cornelius Bye, ed., Passio altera , in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., October, iv (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1780), pp. 90–5 (p. 90). Nicolas Oikonomidès, trans. and ed., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris: CNRS, 1972), pp. 287, 294, 296, 322, 325. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils, ii, p. 202. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance, pp. 294, 325. Many of these mosaics were destroyed by fire in 1917, but not before being copied in watercolours. For an analysis and reconstruction of the entire decorative programme see Robin Cormack, ‘he Mosaic Decoration of S. Demetrios, hessaloniki: A Re-examination in the Light of the Drawings of W. S. George’, in he Byzantine Eye: Studies in Art and Patronage (London: Variorum Reprints, 1989), pp. 17–52.

20

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

mentions three other early portraits of Demetrios wearing martyr’s robes: a seal of Bishop Peter of hessalonika, a fresco in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome and a mosaic in Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna.24 hese items indicate that Demetrios was portrayed primarily, perhaps exclusively, as a civilian in the early Byzantine period. his convention is not surprising: despite the saint’s importance as a warrior in the miracle stories, the Passio prima describes him only as a martyr. In all likelihood, the earliest depictions of Demetrios were based on this or a similar text, and the generally conservative nature of iconography meant that this portrait type continued to circulate following his debut as a warrior. he miracle stories themselves provide few hints about the saint’s iconography. Although they do describe Demetrios as a soldier on several occasions, these personal appearances do not necessarily reflect contemporary depictions. Indeed, the passages in Archbishop John’s collection which mention the saint appearing in military garb do not mention related images, and the references to the saint’s icons are found only in stories in which he does not engage in combat. hese references are elusive: they concern visions of the saint, in two of which he looked ‘like his icons’ and in one of which he looked ‘like his ancient icons’.25 he author, obviously assuming his audience was familiar with the iconographic styles to which he was referring, gives no further details. Yet it is possible that John’s silence on this matter, as opposed to his more detailed descriptions of Demetrios as a soldier elsewhere, means that non-military depictions of the saint were the norm: everyone could be assumed to know his portrait as a martyr, whereas his appearance in armour – a new phenomenon – warranted more detailed description. his is, to be sure, only one possible interpretation of the texts. Lemerle argues that the saint’s appearance as a soldier in the stories must mean that icons of the same type existed.26 Yet it seems entirely possible, given the devotion of the hessalonians, that they could have recognised their patron in a new costume. Given the evidence from the surviving works and iconographic conventions, it is more likely that non-military portraits were the norm in the early centuries of Demetrios’ veneration. It is remarkable, in any case, that depictions of the saint as a soldier appeared, and steadily became more numerous, from the tenth century onward. his change was related to the cultivation of Demetrios as a patron in 24 25 26

Walter, he Warrior Saints, p. 78. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils, i, pp. 102, 115, 162. Paul Lemerle, ‘Note sur les plus anciennes représentations de saint Démétrius’, Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias, 10 (1981), 1–10 (pp. 6–7).

he pre-history of the military saints

21

war by the Macedonian emperors. Along with promoting the saint’s cult outside of its traditional centre, they seem to have encouraged the change in his iconography from martyr to warrior. he former style, well suited to his veneration in hessalonika, the place of his martyrdom, was less appropriate for his new role as an imperial patron in war. he early cult of George is even more obscure than that of Demetrios, despite his greater fame throughout medieval Christendom. Like his future companion, however, he was originally venerated for his martyrdom rather than any prowess in battle. Although he was certainly known as a soldier in late antiquity, early versions of his passio make only brief note of this fact before describing the spectacular torments he suffered at much greater length. he five Greek narratives published by Krumbacher (BHG 670a, b, f, g; 679), which he argues reflect the structure and content of a passio which existed by the sixth century, include no more than a few sentences about the saint’s service in the army.27 he Athens version, for example, remarks simply: ‘He was enlisted in a numerus and deservedly attained the rank of komes.’28 his and the other texts relate that George’s talents made him eligible for promotion to a higher rank. He duly appeared before the emperor to have the rank conferred, but was martyred after refusing to offer sacrifices to the gods. he various redactions of the passio contain only slight variations in their references to George’s military career. he Berroia and Paris versions add that George’s father Gerontios, a pagan, had also served in the army, and that his wife and son managed to convert him to Christianity shortly before his death.29 Even this addition, however, adds little to our knowledge of George’s activities prior to his martyrdom. hey are, in any case, entirely overshadowed by his subsequent torments, which are the obvious focus of the stories. he literary traditions surrounding George’s actual martyrdom are diverse. he earliest accounts of his passio, such as the Vienna and Athens versions, claim that he was subjected to a bewildering variety of torments for seven years by the otherwise unknown Persian Emperor Dadianos, during which time he was killed and brought back to life three times. Inspired by George, thousands of sympathisers converted to Christianity and were martyred in turn, including the Empress Alexandra.30 Eventually, less fabulous reworkings appeared in which Dadianos was transformed 27

28 30

Karl Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung, Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologisch und historische Klasse 25, 3 (Munich, 1911), pp. 121–3. 29 Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., pp. 18–19, 137. Ibid., pp. 1–3, 3–16.

22

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

into Diocletian, the miracles performed by the saint during his martyrdom were considerably abridged and he died only once. Even in these versions, however, the detail in which George’s torments are described leaves no doubt about the primary focus of the narratives. No further attention is given to George’s previous military career once he willingly gives himself over to his tormenters. It is not entirely implausible that the passiones are implying a contrast between the saint’s service in the army, as a purely secular undertaking, and the more impressive achievement of his martyrdom. In addition to the miracles which George performed during the course of his martyrdom, he was credited with many posthumous miracles as well. Unlike Demetrios’ miracles, these do not appear in collections, but are scattered among many manuscripts, making them difficult to date. Festugière has noted, however, that a number of the miracles take place in Palestine and argued that they originally formed a collection. Some of the stories reflect a time when the area was still under imperial control, while others discuss conflicts with Arabs, suggesting that the collection was formed over several centuries.31 In none of these miracles, in any case, does the saint engage in combat or intercede on behalf of a favoured army. His military career is, to be sure, acknowledged: in one miracle (BHG 691a) he appears in person in the guise of a soldier on horseback, and another miracle (BHG 690i) describes a mosaic of the saint dressed in armour and carrying a lance.32 his image repels a band of Arabs when they try to destroy it, demonstrating the saint’s ability to defend himself and his sanctuary. he punishment of would-be desecrators of a church is, however, a miracle performed by many saints, and is not necessarily related to combat in war. Like the stories of George’s martyrdom, these miracles do no more than note his identity as a soldier and do not describe any exploits on the battlefield. If these sources emphasise George’s endurance of torments and concern for fellow Christians rather than his military prowess, the inspiration behind other monuments to his cult is less obvious. It is clear from the number of churches dedicated to him that his cult spread rapidly around the empire: by the sixth century churches in his name had been built in major cities such as Jerusalem, Rome and Constantinople, as well as in Lydda in Palestine and Ezra in Syria, among others.33 Although these 31

32 33

A.-J. Festugière, trans. and ed., Sainte hècle, Saints Côme et Damien, Saints Cyr et Jean (Extraits), Saint Georges (Paris: Editions A. & J. Picard, 1971), pp. 264–5. Ibid., pp. 273–6. Walter, he Warrior Saints, pp. 112–14.

he pre-history of the military saints

23

structures testify to the widespread appeal of George’s cult, they reveal nothing about the reasons for this appeal: it would probably be impossible to determine whether the people who sponsored their construction were particularly devoted to George for his martyrdom, his military valour, his conversion of pagans to Christianity – or other qualities, or a combination thereof. he relatively numerous early inscriptions which invoke George are likewise informative about the rapid spread of his cult, but not about the reasons for which he was venerated. he specimens published by François Halkin, although fragmentary, seem to be general appeals for protection and intercession and do not refer to any specific attribute of the saint.34 Only the location of two of the inscriptions – on lintels from an army barracks constructed during the reign of Justin I – hints that George held a special appeal for soldiers. Most literary, architectural and epigraphic evidence from the pre-Iconoclastic period thus places little if any emphasis on George’s military associations, indicating that other aspects of his cult probably played a more prominent role in his veneration at that time. Scattered references show, however, that his status as a soldier was of interest to some authors. Arkadios, an archbishop of Cyprus in the early seventh century, mentions George’s role in both the earthly and heavenly armies in a homily (BHG 684). In a long list of the saint’s praiseworthy qualities, the work calls him ‘George, unconquerable shield of the soldiers of Christ; George, the ally of the emperor’, and elsewhere, ‘fortification of fighting men’.35 here are also references in late antique sources to George providing aid in battle, although these are found in the hagiography of other saints. According to the seventh-century Life of heodore of Sykeon (BHG 1748), Domnitziolos, a nephew of the Emperor Phokas, sought heodore’s blessing and advice prior to an especially difficult battle with the Persians. heodore told him that he would have to endure a great hardship, ‘but I commend you to God and to his holy martyr George to guard you from danger’. hereafter, Domnitziolos was assured of triumph. he predicted events came to pass, and the grateful Domnitziolos became a generous donor to heodore’s Church of St George.36 In one of the approximately 34

35

36

François Halkin, ‘Faux martyrs et inscriptions pseudo-hagiographiques. Les deux Phénicies et les deux Syries. La province d’Arabie’, pp. 87–108 (pp. 88, 95, 98, 100–1, 105, 108); ‘La Palestine’, pp. 67–76 (pp. 68, 72, 74); ‘L’Asie Mineure (suite). Supplément. Conclusion’, pp. 326–54 (p. 336), in Etudes d’ épigraphie grecque et d’ hagiographie byzantine (London: Variorum, 1973). Arkadios, ‘Die Homilie des Arkadios von Cypern’, in Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, pp. 78–81 (p. 79). A.-J. Festugière, trans. and ed., Vie de héodore de Sykéôn, SH 48 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1970), p. 97.

24

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

contemporary miracles of Anastasios the Persian (BHG 89g–90), an officer who had a deformity told some colleagues that he had been advised to rub the affected area with chrism from the saint. hey laughed at him, and ‘one said “there is no martyr stronger than Saint heodore,” and another “[there is none stronger than] Saint George,” and another “[there is none stronger than] Saint Merkourios,” and each of them according to his belief’.37 It is clear from these passages that George was beginning to be venerated as an intercessor in war by the seventh century, but the texts also indicate that this was not the most prominent aspect of his cult. Arkadios does not give special emphasis to George’s military qualities and lists them together with many others, including his protection of sailors, his healing of the sick, his aid of those facing persecution and his celebration within the Church. he homily does not refer to a specific incident such as Demetrios’ appearances, but rather to a general awareness of the saint having associations with warfare. It is also noteworthy that George’s intercession on behalf of Domnitziolos and his praise by the officer are related in the hagiography of other saints. Although heodore of Sykeon was under the special protection of George, the miracle is meant to demonstrate heodore’s powers as much as those of his patron. Similarly, the officer with the deformity was eventually healed by Anastasios, showing that he was the strongest of the saints. None of the miracle stories about George published by Festugière or Aufhauser includes these or similar incidents.38 Moreover, the stories do not show George to be actively involved in battle. Rather than fighting alongside the army, the saint was invoked by heodore of Sykeon, who ‘commended’ Domnitziolos to God and George. Although Domnitziolos clearly believed that George had aided him, his subsequent munificence was meant to benefit both George and heodore, indicating the importance of the latter as a go-between. he other miracle story portrays George as a general military intercessor, and, unusually for this period, names him in conjunction with other military saints. Although this may be evidence for their early joint veneration outside imperial circles, the text implies more strongly that each of them had an individual following among soldiers, which the author brought together in order to demonstrate the superior healing powers of Anastasios. 37

38

Bernard Flusin, trans. and ed., Saint Anastase le Perse et l’ histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1992), i, pp. 143, 145. J. Aufhauser, ed., Miracula S. Georgii (Leipzig: Typis B. G. Teubneri, 1913).

he pre-history of the military saints

25

Even taking into account these sources, it seems that George’s status as a soldier was only one of many qualities for which he was venerated in late antiquity. By contrast, almost all of the saint’s early iconography portrays him as a soldier. Walter lists eight portraits of George which can with reasonable certainty be dated to the beginning of the eighth century or earlier.39 In six of these, George wears armour and/or carries a military attribute such as a shield. One bust portrait shows the saint with no attributes, and in only one fresco does he wear courtly dress and hold a martyr’s cross but no item of weaponry.40 he military portraits survive in a variety of media – wall paintings, a processional cross and a terracotta tile – which have been found in the far-flung locales of Egypt, Cappadocia and the Balkans. his diversity is probably a good indication of the popularity of such depictions, although much more evidence has certainly been lost. Even so, the preponderance of military portraits of George hints that they were more popular than those of the saint in his martyr’s robes. he differing emphases of the various media is not as incongruous as it may appear. Indeed, the evidence corresponds to that related to Demetrios. Originally described only as a martyr, Demetrios continued to be depicted as such even after his military cult began to develop. Likewise George, whose early hagiography describes him, if only briefly, as a soldier, was usually portrayed in this manner even though that aspect of his cult was not prominent in the early centuries of his veneration. A saint’s iconography is meant to help identify him, and in the cases of both George and Demetrios the characteristics mentioned in their early hagiography were used to make recognisable portraits of them. In any case, the differences between the literary and artistic sources provide further evidence for the argument set out above: that the military roles of both saints, despite existing to a greater or lesser degree in their early cults, were not their defining attributes. Demetrios, known primarily as the guardian of hessalonika, came to the defence of his native city as part of his more general protective duties. George was probably portrayed as a soldier because he was described as such, but neither his early

39 40

Walter, he Warrior Saints, pp. 123–6. he identities of the two saints flanking the Mother of God in a sixth-century icon from Mount Sinai have been an ongoing subject of debate. Although they are not labelled, their features match those generally associated with heodore and George, meaning that the icon may be another example of an early non-military depiction of him. See Kurt Weitzmann, he Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai, 3 vols. (Princeton University Press, 1976), ii, p. 36, pl. B.13.

26

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

passiones nor his miracle stories describe his military career in any detail. his model of limited military associations in combination with other attributes seems to have remained current until the tenth century, when the saints took on a more overtly military role as patrons in war of the Macedonian emperors. he development of the cults of Demetrios and George differed somewhat from that of heodore, the third chief member of the phalanx of military saints which took shape during the middle Byzantine period. His early military associations had elements in common with those of the other saints, but were more prominent. Like those of Demetrios, a number of heodore’s miracle stories concern intercession in battle and the defence of his native city. And like George, he was commonly depicted in military dress and was venerated throughout the empire, although his attachment to his homeland remained strong. Accordingly, martial characteristics were prominent in both literary and iconographic sources related to heodore, and seem to have been more central to his veneration than they were to the cults of Demetrios or George. Moreover, heodore’s military characteristics developed more rapidly than those of the other saints, and were already being described in detail in the late fourth century. here is no evidence that heodore’s military cult influenced that of Demetrios or George prior to the tenth century, but it may well have provided a model for the emerging military cults of his comrades-in-arms once the idea of a corps of heavenly protectors began to attract the attention of the Macedonian emperors. Although the cults of the three saints probably originated at roughly the same time, only that of heodore had well developed military attributes in its earliest attested form. he oldest surviving text about him (BHG 1760) is an enkomion which Gregory of Nyssa delivered in about 380 at one of the saint’s churches, probably the one in Euchaita. heodore’s defence of the area from a recent incursion by ‘Scythians’ is one of the first praiseworthy deeds which Gregory mentions, declaring: ‘For he, as we believe, in the past year calmed the barbarian storm and stopped the horrible war of the wild Scythians.’41 he bulk of the narrative concerns heodore’s exemplary service in the army (the fact that he was a 41

Gregory of Nyssa, ‘De Sancto heodoro’, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera , ed. Werner Jaeger et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1960 –), x .i, Sermones, ed. Gunter Heil et al. (1990), pp. 61–71 (pp. 61–2). On the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the sermon and its historical context see Constantine Zuckerman, ‘Cappadocian Fathers and the Goths’, TM, 11 (1991), 473–86. Zuckerman argues that the Scythians in question were the Goths who staged an uprising in Asia Minor following the battle of Adrianople.

he pre-history of the military saints

27

recruit later gave rise to his epithet ‘Teron’), his refusal to sacrifice to the gods and his subsequent imprisonment and martyrdom. At the end of the work, Gregory once again mentions the Scythians, who seem to have continued to threaten the area, and pleads that heodore keep interceding on behalf of his fellow countrymen: ‘We suspect [there will be] afflictions, we expect danger, [for] the offending Scythians are not far and are plaguing us with war. As a soldier, fight for us.’42 Gregory’s enkomion seems to have served as a model for the first part of heodore’s earliest surviving passio (BHG 1761–2d), although the later work changes the order of certain events and adds a number of details. Several versions survive, in manuscripts from as early as the late ninth century, but Delehaye has argued that it was in circulation well before the eighth century based on its similarities with the Latin passio of heagenes.43 he work is chiefly concerned with heodore’s life and martyrdom and does not include any of the posthumous miracles, military or otherwise, mentioned by Gregory. It does, however, embellish the details about the saint’s military career, giving the names of his legion and its leaders and noting that it was stationed in Amasea, not far from Euchaita.44 he version of the passio published by Delehaye also includes the story of heodore’s victory over the dragon, a miracle with strong martial overtones. Although Delehaye argues that this episode is a later interpolation, it may be at least as old as the other parts of the text: two seals of Bishop Peter of Euchaita and one other, dated to between the mid sixth and early eighth century, feature a bearded dragon-slaying figure who is probably heodore.45 A short text known as the Life and Education of heodore Teron (BHG 1765), likewise notes the saint’s service in the army but none of his posthumous miracles.46 Although the date of its composition is unclear, parts of it were copied into a collection of miracle stories from the mid eighth century, which will be discussed below.47 Several other early works about heodore show that he was revered for a variety of qualities besides his military prowess. One of his most celebrated miracles, commemorated 42 43 44 45

46

47

Gregory of Nyssa, ‘De Sancto heodoro’, p. 70. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, pp. 19–25. Ibid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 23; G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols. (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1972), i.ii, pp. 792–3. Life and Education of heodore Teron, in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., November, iv (Brussels: Apud Socios Bollandianos, 1925), pp. 45–6. Constantine Zuckerman, ‘he Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. heodore the Recruit (BHG 1764)’, REB, 46 (1988), 191–205, p. 200.

28

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

on the first Saturday of Lent, was his provision of kollyba (boiled wheat cakes) to the citizens of Euchaita after the Emperor Julian the Apostate demanded that all food for sale in the market be offered to idols or sprinkled with the blood of sacrificial victims. his story is recounted in a homily (BHG 1768) attributed to Nektarios, archbishop of Constantinople in the late fourth century, and by several later authors.48 A collection of miracle stories attributed to the fifth-century priest Chrysippos of Jerusalem (BHG 1765c) likewise shows that heodore could be counted on to perform many types of miracles, such as enriching the poor, bringing thieves to justice and protecting travellers. Indeed, Chrysippos’ collection contains no reference to its hero engaging in battle. Nevertheless, the author was aware of heodore’s military identity, since the saint appears in military costume in the first miracle to rescue a boy sold into slavery.49 he rescue of prisoners does not necessarily have military connotations, and this miracle is unrelated to warfare: the boy was sold to the Muslims by a dishonest neighbour while on a journey. Of interest is the description of heodore, whose appearance as a soldier even when not engaged in combat shows that he was commonly identified as such. Two other miracles in the collection relate how heodore returned horses to soldiers who had lost them, possibly reflecting a particular veneration of the saint in military circles.50 If heodore’s identity as a soldier is apparent even in narratives which do not involve fighting, it becomes even more prominent in a collection of miracle stories from the mid eighth century, written during a period of Arab invasions. his work, known as he Life, Education and Miracles of St heodore Teron (BHG 1764), seems to have been composed by an anonymous native of Euchaita sometime after 754. Along with retelling the story of heodore’s martyrdom, it discusses several of the saint’s posthumous military exploits and describes his appearance in military dress. he date is obtained from the text, which states that a raid on the city began ‘in the fourteenth year of the … Emperor Constantine … at the beginning of the seventh indiction’.51 Although the most sensible interpretation of this formula would be 754, a number of scholars have refused to accept this date because it falls during the first period of Iconoclasm. 48

49

50 51

Nektarios, ‘De Festo S. heodori’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), xxxix, cols. 1821–40. On the debate surrounding the author of this work and the kollyba generally see L. Petit, ‘La grande controverse des colybes’, EO, 2 (1898 –9), 321–31. Chrysippos of Jerusalem, ‘Des Chrysippos von Jerusalem Enkomion auf den hl. heodoros Teron’, ed. Antonios Sigalas, Byzantinisches Archiv, 7 (1921), i–102 (pp. 59–62). Ibid., pp. 62–4, 72. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, p. 196.

he pre-history of the military saints

29

According to the traditional view, Iconoclasm officially proscribed icons and belief in the intercessory power of saints, both of which are discussed at length in the work. Zuckerman, however, has argued convincingly in favour of the date, noting that the policies of Iconoclasm were not uniformly enforced, especially outside of Constantinople, and that the cult of saints was never officially banned.52 In any case, it is noteworthy that the text devotes more attention to heodore’s military intercessions than the works composed in preceding centuries. All eight miracles take place during wars or raids and most involve heodore intervening in combat or dealing with the consequences of war. In the first miracle, as if to set the tone for the rest of the collection, heodore appears to an icon painter ‘like a soldier coming from a long journey’ so that his likeness can be painted.53 he subsequent stories confirm the appropriateness of this military image. Two are concerned with earlier Persian attacks on the city, and the remaining five relate to Arab raids which the author seems to have witnessed. heodore does not engage in battle in every miracle, although his valour is confirmed in Miracle iii, which notes that the Roman forces built a church in heodore’s name on the site of their victory over the Persians, ‘since he was responsible for their victory, as they swore, having found him fighting in the vanguard and joining in zealously’.54 Even the miracles in which the saint does not fight are related to the invasions. In Miracle vii, for example, heodore sends rain to cleanse the city of animal corpses and filth following its occupation by the Arabs, and in Miracle ix he gives a priest kidnapped by the Arabs the strength to fight off his captors and escape.55 heodore, it seems, was capable not only of repelling invaders, but of dealing with other consequences of war as well. he themes treated in the collection imply that his associations with warfare, already evident in his early cult, had become even more prominent by the mid eighth century. In addition to the posthumous miracles, the collection includes the story of heodore’s slaying of the dragon prior to his martyrdom. It seems that the episode is not, in this case, a later interpolation and may well be the oldest surviving literary account of the miracle. As a miracle which involves combat, the dragon-slaying episode fits the pattern developed in the posthumous miracles. On the other hand, it differs from heodore’s military exploits in that it took place during the saint’s lifetime and was not connected with a battle. he miracle thus represents a different 52 53 54

Zuckerman, ‘he Reign of Constantine V’. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, p. 194. 55 Ibid., pp. 198–9, 199–201. Ibid., p. 196.

30

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

tradition in the veneration of heodore (and, in later centuries, George): one which celebrated the saint’s personal victory in single combat over the forces of darkness, rather than his aid of the faithful at the head of an army. Analysis of this phenomenon falls outside the scope of the present study; suffice it to say that the overtones of the dragon-slaying miracle imply that it is closely related to other aspects of the saints’ military cults, even if it differed somewhat in emphasis.56 All of the surviving early Byzantine sources about heodore mention his military associations, and two describe his interventions in battle. Unlike George, whose career in the army was noted but not discussed in the early literary sources, the references to heodore defending his native city show that active participation in warfare was an important aspect of his cult from its earliest days. Unlike that of Demetrios, however, his veneration was not confined to the original centre of his cult. he fact that neither Gregory of Nyssa nor Chrysippos of Jerusalem lived near or had any other connection with Euchaita gives some indication of how widely revered heodore was. he churches which bear his name and the inscriptions invoking him tell a similar story. By the seventh century, in addition to the sanctuary at Euchaita, churches to heodore had been built in many major cities, including Venice (of which he was the patron saint until the arrival of the relics of Mark in 828), Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople.57 Inscriptions naming him were also scattered throughout the empire. Halkin mentions some seven of these, found in Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Greece. Interestingly, one of them invokes both heodore and Longinos, another martyr connected with warfare.58 Once again, it is difficult to determine which of the saint’s qualities inspired these invocations. His early iconography, however, reflects an integration of his attributes within his cult: Walter lists three items which depict him as a soldier and five in which he appears as a martyr.59 hese portrait styles 56

57

58

59

On the phenomenon of dragon-slaying in the cults of heodore and other saints see W. Hengstenberg, ‘Der Drachenkampf des heiligen heodor’, OC , n.s. 2 (1912), 78–106, 241– 80; Christopher Walter, ‘Saint heodore and the Dragon’, in hrough a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed. C. Entwistle (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003), pp. 95–106; Monica White, ‘he Rise of the Dragon in Middle Byzantine Hagiography’, BMGS , 32 (2008), 149–67. Christopher Walter, ‘heodore, Archetype of the Warrior Saint’, REB, 57 (1999), 163–210 (pp. 171–2). Halkin, ‘Faux martyrs’, pp. 99, 101–2; ‘La Palestine’, p. 72; ‘L’Egypte, Chypre, la Crète et les autres îles grecques. La Grèce continentale et les pays balkaniques. L’Italie et la Sicile’, pp. 116–37 (p. 122); ‘L’Asie Mineure’, pp. 338, 340, in Etudes d’ épigraphie. Walter, he Warrior Saints, pp. 50–6, 125. Walter also notes the existence of a number of frescoes in Cappadocia which feature heodore, some of which may be pre-Iconoclastic, although most are difficult to date.

he pre-history of the military saints

31

are distributed across a wide range of media, including seals, a terracotta tile, mosaic, fresco, textile and icons. It seems that heodore’s identities as soldier and martyr were celebrated together in both written and artistic form, seemingly from the very inception of his cult. he evidence surveyed above is in many senses unsatisfactory: the literary sources have been rewritten over the course of centuries and are often difficult to date, as are the sparse and fragmentary artistic works. As indicators of the broad outlines of the early cults of three saints they are, however, sufficient. Despite gaps in the record, the picture that emerges is one of three martyrs who were connected with warfare in different ways and to varying degrees. Demetrios, the protector of hessalonika, engaged in battle to defend his native city but was not, it seems, portrayed in the act of fighting. George, whose status as a soldier was only briefly noted, nevertheless was consistently depicted as such, while heodore’s attributes of martyr and warrior received approximately equal attention. But despite their shared valour, the saints did not have strong ties to the court or to one another: George’s rescue of Domnitziolos and Demetrios’ assistance of Justinian II did not set a precedent for patronage of the imperial family, and there is no other evidence from late antiquity for emperors invoking the saints in war. Although they were occasionally depicted or mentioned together, these pairings do not seem to have been any more consistent than those of other popular saints, and are not indicative of joint veneration of all three as a distinct corps of comrades-in-arms. heir cults seem, indeed, to have been largely independent of one another until the tenth century, when an increasing interest within the court in the sacred nature of warfare itself inspired a series of emperors to seek out appropriate heavenly patrons. he development within the Byzantine army of an interest in the role of religion in warfare, and in the relationship of soldiers to martyrs in particular, is essential to understanding the further development of military sainthood, and is the subject of the next chapter.

ch apter 2

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

Despite their long and independent traditions of veneration, the cults of George, Demetrios and heodore were destined to become closely intertwined. Over the course of the tenth century, they began to be associated more and more closely with one another and with the court. Although their ancient provincial ties did not disappear, their new roles as imperial patrons were emphasised in art and literature produced in the capital. As the saints’ collective identity became established, group portraits of them began to be produced and they were invoked with a new epithet: martyroi hoi stratelatoi. he transformation of their cults was spearheaded by successive members of the Macedonian dynasty, whose multifaceted innovations to military strategy included cultivating a new corps of divine patrons in war. he successes of these emperors, who presided over a period of consolidation and reconquest following the ravages of the Arab invasions, are well known. In the late ninth and early tenth centuries, Basil I and Leo VI reinforced the empire’s eastern frontiers, made some of the first raids into Arab territory and expanded Byzantine influence into Armenia through client princes who had previously been loyal to the Arabs. As the Byzantines gained strength and refined their tactics in the middle decades of the tenth century, they penetrated further east and south, taking first Melitene and its Armenian hinterland, then beginning to raid into Syria under Romanos Lekapenos. Under Constantine VII, Romanos II and the regents for Basil II, the empire’s borders were pushed further south to encompass Cyprus, Antioch and Beirut. Basil II went on to annex western Bulgaria and consolidate his predecessors’ gains in Armenia, leaving the empire as strong as it had been since the seventh century invasions by the time of his death in 1025. his period was not without its difficulties, such as the civil wars of the late tenth century, but in general it was a time of renewed confidence and power for the empire.1 1

A study of the political and military history of the entire period can be found in, e.g., Mark Whittow, he Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025 (London: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 310–90

32

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

33

he Byzantine resurgence was not achieved thanks to improved tactics and strategy alone. he emperors and generals who effected this impressive turnaround in the empire’s fortunes were aided, it seems, by a heavenly army, while their own troops were endowed with a holiness not unlike that of martyrs. From the late ninth century onward, a variety of sources reveal an increasing concern within the court to cultivate the favour of saintly patrons – chief among them George, Demetrios and heodore – for assistance in battle. he fame which Demetrios and heodore already enjoyed as defenders of their native cities and George’s status as a soldier doubtless made them attractive as patrons, and many of the new works written about them in the middle Byzantine period emphasise their prowess in battle more than earlier works. Yet the saints’ martyrdom remained crucial to their veneration as the protectors of imperial armies. heir deaths for the faith were models for mortal troops, who were expected to follow their example. In return, these soldiers might expect to achieve a status similar to that of their patrons: many of the military writings from this period emphasise the sacred aspects of warfare and the similarities between soldiers and martyrs. hey advance the idea that struggles against the enemies of the empire were to be equated with struggles against the enemies of God, and the empire’s soldiers, by extension, with fighters for Christ. hese related developments – the sanctification of common soldiers and warfare in general and the formation of a phalanx of military saints who fought alongside the army – are the subjects of the next two chapters. Matters of faith and divine intercession in warfare are discussed in many Byzantine sources of all periods intended for both military and civilian audiences.2 Although these phenomena tend to be approached differently in histories, military writings and liturgical works, study of all of these genres can provide a relatively comprehensive picture of the religious and cultural milieu in which the cults of the military saints took root. he idea that divine forces might intercede on behalf of a favoured army was not, to be sure, new to the middle Byzantine period. Indeed, clear precedents for the practices of the Macedonian emperors can be found in late antiquity, and in particular during the reign of Herakleios. he changes

2

and the relevant sections of Jonathan Shepard, ed., he Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492 (Cambridge University Press, 2008). Further bibliography for the reigns of individual emperors will be given in the discussions below. For an overview see George T. Dennis, ‘Religious Services in the Byzantine Army’, Studia Anselmiana , 110 (1993), 107–17; R. Vieillefond, ‘Les pratiques religieuses dans l’armée byzantine d’après les traités militaires’, Revue des études anciennes, 37 (1935), 322–30.

34

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

of the late ninth and tenth centuries are best understood in the context of these earlier traditions, which were influential in the formation of middle Byzantine beliefs about divine protection in warfare. he first half of the present chapter will, therefore, investigate beliefs about divine intervention in warfare expressed in late antique sources, focusing in particular on the prominence which Christian authors in different genres gave to such events and the extent to which they compared mortal soldiers with their heavenly protectors. his study will provide essential background to the analysis in the second half of the chapter of the religious climate in the middle Byzantine army, elucidating the Macedonians’ continuation of earlier traditions and the innovations they made to the cultivation of divine favour in warfare. Life in the pre-Christian Roman army was infused with religious ritual and observances, which were thought to ensure the favour of the gods and enforce discipline among the troops. he oath of allegiance, or sacramentum, had strong religious overtones for those swearing it, who risked divine retribution if they broke it. Camps, constructed according to a precise plan, always included a shrine which held the legion’s standards and images of the emperor and which served as a focal point for religious ceremonies. A calendar of such observances, the Feriale Duranum, called for regular sacrifices to be performed in honour of the gods, the imperial family and on public festivals. Only official observances seem to have been allowed in army camps. Imported cults, including Christianity and Mithraism, were usually tolerated, but only if their adherents worshipped outside the walls.3 But despite the vigour with which the ancestral cults were protected, religion was not a casus belli for the pagan Romans. Michael Whitby has concluded that it was not a motivating factor in battle, remarking that ‘authors with personal experience of fighting, for example Julius Caesar and Ammianus, do not give prominence to religious factors in their descriptions of campaigns or in attempts by commanders to motivate their troops’.4 Likewise A. D. Lee describes the importance and moral authority of the religious aspects of military life,

3

4

More on this subject can be found in, e.g., John Helgeland, ‘Roman Army Religion’, in ANRW, ed. Hildegard Temporini et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972–), ii.16.2, Religion (Heidentum: Römische Religion, Allgemeines), ed. Wolfgang Haase (1978), pp. 1470–505. He argues that, prior to Diocletian, Christians were not systematically persecuted, and were only harassed if they protested against or refused to participate in the army’s traditional observances. Michael Whitby, ‘Deus nobiscum: Christianity, Warfare, and Morale in Late Antiquity’, in Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoff rey Rickman, ed. Michel Austin et al. (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1988), pp. 191–208 (p. 193).

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

35

but argues that they contributed to a sense of group identity rather than serving as an inspiration for fighting.5 If these authors are correct, the situation must have begun to change significantly following the proclamation of religious toleration in 313 and the end of state-sponsored persecutions of Christians. Although Constantine’s personal revelation, whatever it may have been, did not result in the simultaneous conversion of the entire state or army, it began the process of a wholesale institutional and ideological reorientation.6 On the most basic level, it allowed Christian soldiers to serve without fear of persecution or the risk of compromising their faith by the requirement to participate in idolatrous rituals. But not content merely to extend toleration toward Christians, Constantine also began the process of establishing Christianity on an official footing within the army. he biographical work by Eusebius known as he Life of Constantine relates that Constantine pitched his personal tent for Christian worship well outside the army camp during the war with Licinius.7 John Helgeland argues that he chose this location in order not to alienate his non-Christian soldiers, who may have been offended by the encroachment of the new faith into the area traditionally reserved for veneration of the standards.8 Later, however, Constantine became bolder in his promotion of Christianity, ordering that a Christian symbol be inscribed on the army’s shields and giving Christian soldiers leave to attend Sunday services. Non-Christians were required to gather together and recite a monotheistic prayer.9 In Eusebius’ account, Christianity was present not only in the physical trappings, but also in the mentality and orientation of Constantine’s army. he portrayal of Constantine was meant to demonstrate his belief that his faith was at least partially responsible for his military victories. In this he did not differ substantially from his pagan predecessors, who likewise believed that the gods took a keen interest in the outcome of battles, and that their favour could be gained through the observance of 5

6

7

8 9

A. D. Lee, ‘Morale and the Roman Experience of Battle’, in Battle in Antiquity, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Duckworth, 1996), pp. 199–217 (pp. 207–8). he ‘sincerity’ of Constantine’s faith and the extent to which he regarded Christianity as a political tool continue to be debated and cannot be discussed in detail here. For a summary of the important evidence see Averil Cameron, ‘Constantine and the “Peace of the Church”’, in he Cambridge History of Christianity, 9 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 2006), vol i, Origins to Constantine, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, pp. 538–51. Eusebius, Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, ed. Friedhelm Winkelmann, in Eusebius Werke, i.i (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975), p. 53. English translation in Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans. and ed. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Helgeland, ‘Christians and the Roman Army’, p. 813. Eusebius, Über das Leben, p. 127.

36

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

rituals. he Life of Constantine also implies, however, that warfare had religious significance in itself; that wars might be fought in the name of a faith system, rather than merely under the protection of a particular deity. Eusebius describes Constantine’s battle with Licinius as one of Christianity against paganism. According to him, Constantine’s reason for going to war was Licinius’ ill-treatment of Christians, and during the victory celebrations the people praised God and Constantine as his defender. To the impious Licinius, on the other hand, a speech is attributed in which he accuses Constantine of forsaking his ancestral religion and taking up arms against the gods.10 he extent to which Constantine’s actual motives coincided with those ascribed to him is not clear, and he certainly had other reasons for fighting Licinius. Any evaluation of Eusebius’ account must make allowances for its flattering, highly religious, presentation of Constantine and denigration of his opponents.11 Yet a letter which Constantine issued following his victory features many of the same ideas, presenting the recent war as one perpetrated against Christians by their persecutors and the emperor as inspired by God to save them.12 Whatever other factors may have influenced Constantine’s initial decision to go to war, he seems to have been eager, after the fact, to portray the conflict as religiously motivated. his evidence of a new religious concern in the ruler’s justification of warfare is more significant, for the purposes of the present study, than his original motivations. Constantine’s reforms transformed Christianity from a persecuted minority faith into one with official institutional backing. His own practice of Christian worship set an example for his soldiers, whom he encouraged to be baptised. he new support for the religion gave it a strong momentum, and Constantine’s vision of the army as a force fighting for and under the protection of the Christian God became firmly rooted over the following centuries. As the vestiges of paganism disappeared, new rituals were instituted and new divine patrons identified to reflect the centrality of the faith to the army’s mission and its favoured status as the defender of God’s people. As was the case under Constantine, most of the empire’s wars of later centuries were not fought solely or even primarily 10 11

12

Ibid., pp. 47–50, 54–5. Cameron and others have pointed out that Licinius was originally responsible for the policy of toleration, but that Eusebius portrayed him as a persecutor because of his power struggle with Constantine. (Cameron, ‘Constantine’, p. 542). For an evaluation of Eusebius’ first-hand knowledge of Constantine and Constantine’s attitude toward his work see H. A. Drake, ‘What Eusebius Knew: he Genesis of the Vita Constantini ’, Classical Philology, 83 (1988), 20–38. Eusebius copied the letter into his narrative: Eusebius, Über das Leben, pp. 58–66.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

37

over religion.13 But whatever their cause, many late antique historians followed the precedent of Constantine and Eusebius by theorising and explaining conflicts in religious terms. References to religious motivation in warfare are found across all styles of historical writing, from chronicles to Church histories to classicising narratives.14 hese references are, to be sure, somewhat sporadic, and some histories include only one or two. On the other hand, the fact that there is no standard manner for describing such incidents indicates that the historians in question were not simply making use of a standard topos, but were relating actual perceptions of events. Not every battle, it seems, benefited from divine intervention. But those that did were noteworthy. In addition to recent battles, such as those recounted by Eusebius, late antique historians described those of the more distant past as being fought with religious inspiration and/or won with the help of divine aid. he Chronicle of Marcellinus, probably written by a retired civil official in the early years of Justinian’s reign, includes a story about the pagan count Gildo, who tried to take control of North Africa in 397 and killed the sons of his brother Mascezel. Mascezel, however, ‘put to flight the kin-slayer Gildo, aided in this by prayers and fasting, and, furthermore, by the advice of the Blessed Ambrose in a dream’. Later, Marcellinus attributes the liberation of North Africa in 534 to God’s will, and his continuator makes a similar comment about Belisarios’ entry into Rome in 536.15 he early seventh-century Chronicon Paschale, probably written by a cleric of Hagia Sophia, emphasises the importance of steadfast faith during the Persian siege of Nisibis in 350, declaring that ‘the Nisibenes by their prayers defeated the enemies, having the favour of God’. he chronicle goes on to relate that a thunderbolt from heaven helped repel the attackers, and that the Persian emperor Shapur II had a vision of the Emperor Constantius II fighting on the walls of the city, even though he was not actually there. Heavenly signs in battle are mentioned again two 13

14

15

John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 (London: UCL Press, 1999), pp. 18–19. h is is not to imply that there are not significant differences in style and approach between the various historical genres, rather that all of them acknowledged, in one way or another, the action of divine forces in warfare. On the types of historical writing in late antiquity see Michael Whitby, ‘Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality’, in he Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East (Princeton: Darwin, 1992), vol. i, Problems in the Literary Source Material , Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1, ed. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad, pp. 25–80. Marcellinus, he Chronicle of Marcellinus, trans. and ed. Brian Croke, Byzantina Australiensia 7 (Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1995), pp. 7, 44–6.

38

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

years later, when a vision of the cross in the sky above Jerusalem heralded the victory of Constantius over the usurper Magnentios.16 he sixth-century Church history of Evagrios also describes miraculous events in battles, such as an icon of Christ causing Persian siege towers to be ignited from below during the siege of Edessa in 544.17 Michael Whitby has pointed out how Evagrios paraphrased the account of this incident and several others by the sixth-century historian Prokopios of Caesarea to give them a Christian gloss, in several cases attributing victories to divine intercession despite the lack of such an explanation in his source.18 Even Prokopios, however, did not entirely ignore the religious aspect of warfare. Despite his general reticence about matters of faith, he discusses the miraculous deliverance of Apamea at some length and relates the vision of a bishop that God would help Justinian in his conquest of North Africa.19 Other classicising historians were also willing to give a nod to the importance of religion in warfare. Prokopios’ continuator Agathias, who wrote a history of the years 552–9, declares at the beginning of his work that men, rather than God, are the cause of wars. But even while blaming people for violence, Agathias believed that God would support the just cause in war. A speech attributed to the general Narses prior to an engagement with the Goths promises the troops that God will be on the side of the Romans, since they are defending what is rightfully theirs. Later, Agathias describes the retribution visited upon Alamanni, who looted churches in Italy.20 16

17

18 19

20

L. Dindorf, ed., Chronicon Paschale, 2 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1832), i, pp. 537–40. English translation in Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, trans. and ed. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby, TTH 7 (Liverpool University Press, 1989). Several versions of the story of the siege of Nisibis are known to have circulated, reflecting different attitudes toward the Arian Constantius II (ibid., pp. 28–9). Likewise the story of Gildo and Mascezel was adapted from the Historia contra paganos of Orosius (Marcellinus, he Chronicle, p. 65). Of interest is not the originality of the episodes, but the fact that they were felt to be sufficiently important to be included in the respective histories. Evagrios, he Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964), pp. 174–6. English translation in Evagrios, he Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans. and ed. Michael Whitby, TTH 33 (Liverpool University Press, 2000). Whitby, ‘Deus nobiscum’, p. 199; Whitby, ‘Greek Historical Writing’, pp. 56–7. Prokopios, History of the Wars, trans. H. B. Dewing, 5 vols. (London: William Heinemann, 1914; repr. 1961), i, pp. 354–8; ii, pp. 97–8. Prokopios’ much-debated personal religious convictions are irrelevant to the present discussion. Whether or not he believed in the Christian God, his references to divine intercession fall within certain historiographic traditions. See Anthony Kaldellis, Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), pp. 165–221. Agathias, he Histories, trans. and ed. Joseph D. Frendo, CFHB 2A (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), pp. 9, 25, 32–3.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

39

Agathias’ history was continued by Menander, who took the narrative up to 582. He also seems to have believed that God would intervene on the side of the righteous, and notes the prediction of the Emperor Tiberios Constantine that a treacherous Avar khagan would suffer divine retribution. Menander also championed the cause of Christian unity against other faiths. When the Emperor Maurice lay siege to a city in Persian territory populated by Nestorian Christians, Menander reports that the governor tried to buy off the emperor with precious church vessels, which Maurice refused. ‘For, he said, he had not come to plunder holy objects nor to wage war on Christ, but with Christ to fight and indeed deliver those of the same faith from the Persians, who do not hold the right beliefs.’21 Menander’s continuator, heophylaktos Simokattes, writing in the early seventh century, stressed that the religious differences between Romans and Persians were an integral aspect of their military conflict. A speech attributed to the general Justinian prior to a battle in 576 heaps scorn on Zoroastrian practices and promises the assembled troops that angels are waiting to give the fallen a heavenly reward. his sentiment is found again in the speech of Bishop Domitianos, who led the defence of Martyropolis during the siege of 590. Following the liberation of the city, he declared that ‘the right hand of the Lord has acted powerfully by condemning the pride of the Chaldaeans’ and, apparently with reference to Zoroastrian fire temples, ‘even now the fire of the Chaldaeans has been made inefficacious to consume the city of the martyrs’.22 he methods of invoking divine assistance for the Christian army, and that assistance itself, could take a variety of forms. he Mother of God was particularly sought-after as an ally. Evagrios claims that the general Narses was so pious that she ‘openly gave orders about the opportune moment when they ought to fight, and not to start conquering before receiving the signal from her’.23 Justin II and his successors made a particular effort to cultivate Mary’s favour, as Averil Cameron has shown, and she became well established as the patroness of Constantinople during the late sixth century.24 Even the Persian emperor Xusro II, according to 21

22

23 24

Menander, he History of Menander the Guardsman, trans. and ed. R. C. Blockley, Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 17 (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985), pp. 226, 204. See also pp. 56, 168, 200, 214, 242 for more references to divine intervention in warfare. heophylaktos Simokattes, he History of heophylact Simocatta , trans. and ed. Michael and Mary Whitby (Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 93–4, 128, 130. Greek text in heophylaktos Simokattes, heophylacti Simocattae Historiae, ed. C. de Boor and Peter Wirth (Leipzig: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1887; repr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972). Evagrios, he Ecclesiastical History, p. 171. Averil Cameron, ‘he heotokos in Sixth-Century Byzantium: A City Finds Its Symbol’, in Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), pp. 96–102.

40

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

heophylaktos, had a vision in which she appeared to him and promised him the victories of Alexander the Great.25 Other holy figures might also be invoked or make appearances in battles: heophylaktos relates that an icon of Christ was paraded in front of troops before the battle of Solachon in 586, and that during the battle a divine voice gave them instructions which allowed them to triumph.26 he inhabitants of Sergiopolis were saved by divine intervention, according to Evagrios, when the city’s patron saint caused an apparition of a large army to appear on the walls during a siege in 542.27 he diversity of the evidence surveyed above suggests that belief in divine intervention and the Christian motivation in warfare was widespread within the late Roman educated elite, and quite possibly the population at large. None of these sources, however, is concerned exclusively or even primarily with warfare, and none was written for a military audience. Although Constantine was an experienced commander, the purpose of his letter was to rehabilitate the victims of Licinius’ persecution, and it describes his recent military operations in only the vaguest terms. he letter was meant, moreover, to be distributed widely, and not just to the army: Eusebius notes that a copy was sent to every region, and the version he included in his work was addressed ‘to the provincials of Palestine’.28 he other authors had, like most late antique historians, studied to be lawyers or clerics. Prokopios was familiar with the army’s operations because he served as the personal secretary to the general Belisarios, but it is unlikely that he had any military training. Civilians are, of course, perfectly capable of writing about military affairs, and the occupations of these authors are no reason to doubt the presence of strong religious sentiments in the army. It is nevertheless intriguing that works from this period written by and for high-ranking members of the army – manuals of military tactics and strategy – show little or no trace of the religious fervour found in the histories. Late antique and Byzantine military handbooks are an informative supplement to historical writings and provide another perspective on the ideology and preoccupations of the army. hese are, by and large, practical works which were meant to convey information to officers in the field or advice to emperors. heir subject matter was diverse, and ranged 25 26 27 28

heophylaktos, he History, p. 154. Ibid., p. 48. Evagrios, he Ecclesiastical History, pp. 176–7. Eusebius, Über das Leben, p. 58.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

41

from specific instructions on topics such as siege warfare or surveying techniques to general maxims. he handbooks continued a tradition of writing about warfare which had its roots in the ancient world, and Byzantine tacticians made liberal use of the work of their predecessors. Yet most of them also strove to give accurate description of the practices and equipment of their day. Indeed, in the case of handbooks which were written for use by generals on campaign, the outcome of battles could depend on the transmission of accurate information and sound advice.29 As such, these works are a valuable source on the Byzantine army, and a great deal of scholarship has been devoted to identifying the continuities and changes between the weapons and strategies discussed in classical and Byzantine handbooks.30 But in addition to their descriptions of operations, the handbooks also convey a sense of their authors’ priorities, both practical and ideological. he beliefs expressed in these works provide important clues about the religious concerns of the late Roman and Byzantine military elite. he purpose of the following survey is not to offer a comprehensive study of every surviving handbook, many of which are highly repetitive. An overview of the more influential works, however, reveals changes over time in the attitudes of strategists toward the role of religion in warfare. As a general rule, the earlier a handbook was written, the less it tends to say about religious observances and expectations of divine protection. Even the strategists of late antiquity who were certainly Christians pay little attention to these subjects, whereas their successors of the late ninth, tenth and early eleventh centuries discuss them at length.31 Vegetius, for example, was commissioned by an unknown emperor to compose a book of advice and instruction on military matters at some point between the late fourth and mid fifth century. He was not a soldier himself, but seems to have conducted extensive research into the works of earlier Roman strategists and compiled his work based on theirs.32 To his pagan sources 29

30

31 32

A number of treatises were written by ‘armchair tacticians’ who were more interested in theory than in practice. For a discussion of the various types of military literature see Eric McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century, DOS 33 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995), p. 192. For a catalogue of the texts and their influences, as well as stemmata and secondary literature, see Alphonse Dain, ‘Les stratégistes byzantins’, TM, 2 (1967), 317–92. Discussion is ongoing, however, about the interrelations among many of the treatises. Vieillefond, ‘Les pratiques religieuses’, p. 324. Vegetius, Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science, trans. N. P. Milner, 2nd edn, TTH 16 (Liverpool University Press, 1996), pp. xxxi–xxxvii. Original text in Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, ed. M. D. Reeve (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004).

42

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

he added only a few references to Christianity: he mentions the use of the phrase Deus nobiscum as a password and describes the oath of military service in its Christian form, in which soldiers swore ‘by God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, and by the Majesty of the Emperor’. here is no reference, however, to divine forces fighting alongside the troops, nor any discussion of the army’s Christian mission or practices: the section on preparations for battle, for example, does not mention the recitation of prayers prior to an engagement.33 Even less discussion of religion is found in technical manuals, such as the late fourth-century De rebus bellicis and the late fifth- or early sixth-century Epitedeuma of Urbikios. Both of these works were addressed to emperors and suggest various improvements to military technology in the context of the growing external threats to the empire’s security, but say nothing about the need to cultivate divine protection as well.34 Urbikios was also the author of a more general Taktikon dedicated to the Emperor Anastasios I. It consists of eleven short chapters which describe topics such as horses, communications, troop formations and movements. he work is, however, essentially a summary of the first part of the early first-century Taktikon of Arrianos, and does not add any remarks about religious observances to its model.35 he paucity of references to religion in these works does not mean that Christian worship did not take place in the late Roman army, nor that the historians studied above had no basis for their remarks about its perceived religious mission. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the practices initiated by Constantine were continued and expanded in later centuries, and George Dennis reasonably surmises that observances were fully established by the late sixth or early seventh century.36 he authors of late Roman military handbooks simply do not seem to have regarded this subject as particularly relevant to the practical concerns which they were trying to address. he purpose of the works was to convey vital information and advice which would affect the course of a campaign or improve the empire’s defences. Religious ideology and observances belonged, it seems, to a separate category. Although the authors of these handbooks 33 34

35

36

Vegetius, Epitome, pp. 39, 73, 84–94. Anonymi auctoris libellus de rebus bellicis, trans. and ed. Robert Ireland, in De rebus bellicis, ed. M. W. C. Hassall and Robert Ireland, BAR International Series 63 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1979), pp. 3–36; Urbikios, ‘Urbicius’ Epitedeuma: An Edition, Translation and Commentary’, trans. and ed. Geoff rey Greatrex, Hugh Elton and Richard Burgess, BZ , 98 (2005), 35–74; Dain, ‘Les stratégistes’, p. 341. Richard Förster, ‘Studien zu den griechischen Taktikern’, Hermes, 11 (1876), 426–71 (pp. 449–71); Dain, ‘Les stratégistes’, p. 341. Dennis, ‘Religious Services’, p. 113.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

43

may well have believed in the sort of divine intervention described by the historians, they apparently did not regard the topic as directly relevant to the development and implementation of military strategy. Even the late sixth- or early seventh-century Strategikon, which has more to say about religion than the other late antique handbooks, is cursory in its remarks on this subject. he work is usually attributed to the Emperor Maurice and contains general advice about many aspects of warfare, including training, formations, sieges and the tactics of various barbarian nations. he prologue calls upon the Trinity, the Mother of God and the saints and exhorts generals to make the love of God and justice their first concern, arguing that no battle can be won without divine favour.37 Unlike the earlier handbooks, it contains several references to Christian worship, but these are brief. he daily procedure is summarised in one sentence: ‘[T]he “Trisagion” must be sung, and the other customary practices observed, early in the morning before any other duty and again in the evening after supper and the dismissal.’ Prior to a battle, prayers are to be led by the priests (about whom, however, nothing else is said), and the flags are to be blessed.38 Although the author seems to believe that the outcome of a battle ultimately depends on God’s will, his focus is clearly on the human factor, not the divine one. His references to divine aid are invariably parenthetical, acknowledging its importance only in conjunction with human effort. Typical of his remarks is: ‘For it is not true, as some inexperienced people believe, that wars are decided by courage and numbers of troops, but, along with God’s favor, by tactics and generalship’ and elsewhere, ‘after the judgment of God, battle is decided by the leadership of the general and the morale of the troops’.39 he Strategikon thus pays some attention to the role of God’s favour and religious observances on campaigns, but not to the same degree as the historical works considered above. In contrast to the religious fervour found in the speeches attributed to the general Justinian and Bishop Domitianos, for example, the Strategikon recommends only that pre-battle speeches to the troops ‘[recall] their former victories, [promise] rewards from the emperor, and recompense for their loyal service to the 37

38

39

Maurice, Strategikon, trans. George T. Dennis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), pp. 8–10. he author’s identity is discussed on pp. xvi–xvii. Greek text in Maurice, Das Strategikon des Maurikios, trans. Ernst Gamillscheg, ed. George T. Dennis, CFHB 17 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981). Maurice, Strategikon, pp. 77, 33, 65. he singing of the Trisagion in the evening is mentioned again on p. 159. Ibid., pp. 64, 75. Similar remarks are found on pp. 23, 74, 82, 83, 126.

44

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

state’.40 And although heophylaktos relates that Maurice marched off to war preceded by fragments of the True Cross raised on a golden pole, nothing of the sort is described in the Strategikon.41 he case of Maurice is particularly revealing, since it is possible to compare accounts of the emperor’s campaigns with his own writings (or at least those of a close associate). Despite his brief references to religion, Maurice, like his predecessors, was reluctant to make it a major subject of his work. here is little reason to doubt that he believed in the army’s Christian mission and participated in ceremonies such as that described by heophylaktos, but he apparently did not regard them as relevant to the practical concerns addressed in the Strategikon. Maurice’s successor Herakleios, by contrast, theorised warfare rather differently, and made matters of faith foremost among his practical concerns. he sources for his campaigns show an unprecedented concern for their religious significance and the status of his soldiers in the eyes of God. Herakleios came to power in extraordinarily difficult circumstances for the empire. Maurice was overthrown and killed by the officer Phokas in 602. he Persian emperor Xusro II, whom Maurice had supported, started raiding Byzantine territory in 603 on the pretence of restoring his benefactor’s son to the throne. His rapid conquest of the empire’s eastern territories, combined with Phokas’ paranoia and incompetence, caused widespread discontent, and Herakleios had considerable support when he seized power in 610. An initial campaign against the Persians in 612–13 was unsuccessful, however, and thereafter even more territory was lost. But in 622 Herakleios embarked on another campaign, this time striking into Persian territory with a small but highly trained crack force, and started making gains against the enemy. He returned to Constantinople six years later, having defeated Xusro and concluded an advantageous peace with his son, Kavadh II.42 he war with Persia brought the empire to the brink of collapse, and part of Herakleios’ strategy involved making extensive and often innovative use of religious propaganda to raise the morale of his army and discredit the enemy. he sources reveal a number of these techniques: Herakleios invoked divine aid on his coins, for example, when he issued a

40 42

41 heophylaktos, he History, p. 156. Ibid., p. 66. For a detailed reconstruction of the campaign see James Howard-Johnston, ‘Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire, 622–630’, War in History, 6:1 (1999), 1–44. On Herakleios’ reign see Walter E. Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

45

new hexagram in 615 with the legend ‘God help the Romans’.43 He reached out to non-Chalcedonian Christians in the Caucasus and recruited them as allies, stressing the threat which they both faced from the Zoroastrian foe.44 He was probably also the commissioner of a series of silver plates depicting scenes from the life of King David which are thought to represent episodes from his own career. he largest of the plates features the combat with Goliath, an obvious reference to Herakleios’ victory.45 In a similar manner, the histories of Herakleios’ reign, like those discussed above covering earlier periods, do not shy away from describing the religious significance of the struggle with Persia and the Byzantine army’s favour in the eyes of God. he Chronicon Paschale says almost nothing about the Persians’ rapid advance through Byzantine territory until 614, when they captured Jerusalem. he author’s description of this event focuses exclusively on the fate of the Church: he bewails the deaths of monks and nuns, the destruction of churches, the plunder of relics – especially the fragments of the True Cross – and the fate of the patriarch, who was taken into captivity. his passage, which is the chronicle’s first significant description of the invasion, presents it as a war against Christianity.46 Later, considerable attention is devoted to the siege of Constantinople in 626, a joint effort by Avars and Persians to complete the conquest of the empire by taking the capital. he author states at the beginning of the account that God and Mary saved the city from its enemies, and notes on several other occasions how they supported the defenders during the battle. Most impressive is the reported claim of the Avar khagan that, in the heat of battle, he had seen ‘a stately dressed woman running around on the wall alone’.47 his vision of the Mother of God rallied the populace and confirmed her support for them as well as her status as the city’s steadfast defender.48 43

44 45

46

47 48

Kaegi, Heraclius, p. 90; Panayotis Yannopoulos, L’ hexagramme: un monnayage byzantin en argent du VIIIe siècle, Numismatica Lovaniensia 3 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, 1978). Howard-Johnston, ‘Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns’, pp. 36–9. For an insightful analysis of these plates which discusses earlier work on the subject see Marlia Mundell Mango, ‘Imperial Art in the Seventh Century’, in New Constantines: he Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries, ed. Paul Magdalino, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 2 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), pp. 109–38. Chronicon Paschale, pp. 704–5. he chronicle mentions that the Persians captured Edessa in its entry for 609 (p. 699), but says nothing further about this event. Ibid., pp. 716–25. he events of 626 are also recounted in a homily by heodore Synkellos, a poem by George of Pisidia and the Short History of the patriarch Nikephoros (discussed below), all of which mention the divine intervention. For a comparative study of the accounts, see F. Barišić, ‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626’, Byzantion, 24 (1954), 371–95.

46

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

he Short History of the patriarch Nikephoros was compiled at some point between the 780s and 820s on the basis of an earlier Constantinopolitan chronicle. It covers the period from the death of Maurice until the reign of Constantine V and seems to be independent of the Chronicon Paschale.49 Although this source has less to say about the Christian cause in warfare, it concurs that God came to the Byzantines’ aid during the siege of 626, claiming that ‘a divine force’ destroyed the Avar siege engines. he Short History also emphasises the folly of Zoroastrianism and the sacrilege of Xusro, contrasting them with the piety of Herakleios. It relates that after the emperor entered Persian territory, he discovered a fire temple in which Xusro had had himself depicted on the ceiling surrounded by the sun, moon, stars and angels, thereby attempting to make himself into a god. In outrage Herakleios ‘threw down [this abomination] and ground it to dust’. he history also reproduces a letter which Herakleios wrote to Kavadh following the defeat and murder of Xusro. he emperor claims that he would have restored Xusro to his throne, ‘But God, knowing his purpose, has wreaked upon him a just punishment.’50 he Chronicon Paschale and the Short History follow an established tradition of historical writing which acknowledged divine inspiration and intercession in warfare. Non-historical writing, particularly the poetry of the court panegyrist George of Pisidia, confirms the popularity and vitality of these ideas during Herakleios’ reign. George’s oeuvre includes a poem celebrating the emperor’s entire reign (Heraclias), as well as works dealing with his seizure of power (In Heraclium ex Africa redeuntem), his first Persian expedition (Expeditio persica), the siege of 626 (Bellum avaricum and In bonum patricium) and the restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem (In restitutionem S. Crucis).51 As Mary Whitby has shown in her study of George’s work, all his poems about Herakleios emphasise the emperor’s piety, his concern in his campaigns to defend Christendom and the divine favour which he enjoyed in warfare. Like the histories, these are works written by a civilian which stress, in various ways, the centrality of religion as a motivating force in Herakleios’ campaigns.52

49

50 51

52

Nikephoros, Short History, trans. and ed. Cyril Mango, CFHB 13 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990), pp. 8–14. Ibid., pp. 58, 56, 62. George of Pisidia, Giorgio di Pisidia: Poemi, trans. and ed. Agostino Pertusi, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag, 1959). Mary Whitby, ‘Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and His Deputies’, in he Propaganda of Power: he Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Mary Whitby (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 247–73, and Mary Whitby, ‘A New Image for a New Age. George of

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

47

More surprising than the presence of such sentiments in works of history and panegyric is the fact that Herakleios himself expressed similar ideas in dispatches from the field which were sent back to Constantinople and read out to the populace to keep them abreast of his progress. Unlike Constantine’s letter, these documents were of considerable strategic importance, summarising the current state of affairs, the enemy’s movements and the emperor’s plans in some detail. Although they did not constitute a handbook such as that of Maurice, they fulfilled some of the same functions by conveying urgent information about military operations and the state of the army. Indeed, it is likely that the dispatches were assembled from the same type of material that tacticians used in their research: field reports, commands, strategy documents and the like.53 he exact quantity of the dispatches is not clear, since they are not preserved as independent works. It seems, however, that a series of them was written: the Chronicon Paschale reproduces most of one dispatch which refers to an earlier one, and the early ninth-century Chronicle of heophanes also refers to a communiqué of this sort.54 James Howard-Johnston has argued persuasively on the basis of stylistic analysis that the sections of this chronicle which give detailed descriptions of the Persian campaign were copied from a compilation of Herakleios’ dispatches.55 he dispatch preserved in the Chronicon Paschale was sent shortly after the defeat of Xusro and describes the Byzantine army’s movements and Herakleios’ negotiations with Kavadh. In a departure from earlier writings on military affairs, the emperor takes a strongly religious approach to his subject matter. Strikingly, the preamble to the dispatch says nothing about the recent victory, but instructs its recipients to praise God, paraphrasing Psalms 95 (96) and 99 (100): ‘[God] made us and not we ourselves. And we are his people and sheep of his pasture … Let the heavens rejoice and the earth exult and the sea make merry, and everything that is in them.’ Such usage of biblical language is unknown in earlier types of military writing, and contrasts markedly with the parenthetical references to God in the Strategikon of Maurice. In the following paragraphs,

53

54

55

Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius’, in he Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, ed. E. Dąbrowa (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1994), pp. 197–225. James Howard-Johnston, ‘he Official History of Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns’, in he Roman and Byzantine Army, ed. Dąbrowa, pp. 57–87 (pp. 69–70). Chronicon Paschale, pp. 727–35; heophanes, heophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963), i, p. 312–13. English translation in heophanes, he Chronicle of heophanes Confessor, trans. and ed. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). Howard-Johnston, ‘he Official History’.

48

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Herakleios describes the recent war as one of religion: Xusro is called an opponent of God throughout and, instead of decrying his destruction of Byzantine lands and cities, the dispatch accuses him of ‘[speaking] injustice in arrogance and setting at naught our Lord Jesus Christ the true God and his undefiled Mother’. Describing Xusro’s death, Herakleios declares that Kavadh killed him ‘so that he might know that Jesus … against whom he blasphemed, is God almighty’. At several other points, Herakleios refers to the divine aid which his army received during the later stages of the campaign.56 hus Herakleios, unlike earlier strategists, understood and described developments in the field in unequivocally religious terms. he Chronicle of heophanes confirms this perspective, providing even more evidence for Herakleios’ beliefs about the army’s Christian mission. Disentangling the sources of this account of the Persian campaign is not straightforward: interspersed among its borrowings from the dispatches are many fragments of the poetry of George of Pisidia. Leo Sternbach, who edited the poet’s extant works and was an authority on his style, was the first to identify these fragments, and believed that heophanes had taken them from a lost poem narrating the events of the Persian campaign.57 On the basis of his own analysis of heophanes’ editorial methods, Howard-Johnston has argued instead that all of the chronicle’s information about the campaign came from one source: a lost ‘official history’ of the Persian campaign which George wrote in prose, based largely on the dispatches but supplemented with poems to describe particularly important episodes.58 Whether or not one accepts this reconstruction of George’s literary output, it is safe to assume that his poetry about the Persian campaign (and, indeed, all of his other writings about Herakleios’ activities) received official approval. he verse fragments reflect, at the very least, a version of events which Herakleios was happy to promote, if not necessarily a faithful rendering of the history of the campaign. he account of the Persian campaign in the Chronicle of heophanes was thus, in all likelihood, assembled from some combination of Herakleios’ own dispatches and poems about the campaign which he approved for public distribution. he resulting narrative reinforces the impression of Herakleios as intensely concerned about the religious significance of the war with Persia. When deciding where to spend the winter of 624–5, for 56 57

58

Chronicon Paschale, pp. 727–35. L. Sternbach, ‘De Georgii Pisidae apud heophanem aliosque historicos reliquiis’, Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział Filologiczny, 2:15 (1900), 1–107. Howard-Johnston, ‘he Official History’, pp. 69–85.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

49

example, the emperor is reported to have ordered the army to purify itself for three days before seeking guidance in the Gospels. he intercession of God and Mary is mentioned at several points, and, after his return to Constantinople, Herakleios’ six years of campaigning are compared with the six days in which God created the world.59 Most striking are the speeches which Herakleios is reported to have made to rally his soldiers. Like the leaders quoted in the historical works studied above, Herakleios emphasised the army’s favour in the eyes of God and promised that it would benefit from divine intercession. He went even further, however, by describing the heavenly reward awaiting the soldiers. In the first speech, the emperor asserted that the dangers of war would lead to eternal life. In the second, at a critical juncture when the army’s Caucasian allies had deserted, he was even more explicit: ‘herefore let us sacrifice ourselves to God for the sake of the salvation of our brothers. May we win the crown of the martyrs, so that we may both be praised in future time and receive rewards from God.’60 his exhortation to the troops to achieve martyrdom in battle is unprecedented in military as well as historical writing. Although earlier emperors and strategists apparently believed, to varying degrees, in the possibility that divine figures might intercede in warfare, Herakleios seems to have been the first to state that the rank and file might attain a degree of holiness themselves by fighting the infidel. Even the general Justinian, who was quoted by heophylaktos as saying that his soldiers would receive a heavenly reward, did not go so far. his approach to motivating soldiers nevertheless had a profound influence on the development of Byzantine strategy. Although Herakleios’ victories over Persia were soon reversed by the Arab invasions, his methods and rhetoric set a precedent for the Byzantine army. Later emperors and officers continued to make use of this type of religious propaganda, and to develop it further. he degree to which the writings of Herakleios directly influenced those of later tacticians is unclear, but there can be little doubt that he was a major contributor to a reorientation of military thinking along religious lines. Discussions of faith, which were almost unknown in previous centuries, became an area of innovation among later strategists. he military writings of the middle Byzantine period show that religious matters in general, and martyrdom in particular, continued to be prominent concerns in the upper echelons of the army. Indeed, the fascination with martyrdom inspired not only 59 60

heophanes, heophanis Chronographia, pp. 307–28. Ibid., pp. 310–11.

50

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

comparisons between soldiers and martyrs, but also the transformation of actual martyrs – the military saints – into soldiers. he parallel development of these two approaches to integrating military and religious life will be examined in the rest of the present chapter and the next. While there is relatively plentiful evidence for the promotion of the links between martyrs and soldiers by the Macedonian emperors, the sources for the period between the death of Herakleios in 641 and the accession of Leo VI in 886 are sparse, and shed little light on the continuation of the innovations of the early seventh century. Iconoclasm was, of course, the most significant religious development during this period, and the doctrine may have been used to rally the army. he fact that a group of palace soldiers disbanded the Church council at which the Empress Irene made her first attempt to overturn Iconoclasm in 786 shows that at least some elements in the army were loyal to the memory and policies of Constantine V and his son Leo IV.61 Recent scholarship has, however, emphasised that there is little evidence for strong feelings about Iconoclasm within the army, arguing that revolts tended to stem from dynastic rivalries and everyday concerns rather than the doctrine itself.62 Furthermore, most relevant sources from the time were written or rewritten by Iconophiles, meaning that they are not likely to acknowledge any success the Iconoclast emperors had in promoting solidarity in the army by invoking the doctrine or by other means. A few hints survive in a brief treatise entitled What Should Be Observed When the Emperor Intends to Go on an Expedition. John Haldon has argued persuasively that it originally described the preparations for war of two Iconoclast emperors, including religious rituals and prayers. A later editor, reluctant to portray the heretics in a positive light, changed their names to Constantine the Great and Julius Caesar, with the result that ‘Julius Caesar’ is implausibly described as participating in Christian ceremonies and making the sign of the cross over Constantinople as his ship sails away.63 Constantine VII used this treatise as the basis for his own 61

62

63

Ibid., p. 635. Although it has been noted that bishops seem to have been more active than the soldiers in causing the disturbance, there is no doubt that soldiers were involved. Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 269–70. Walter Emil Kaegi, ‘he Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm’, in Army, Society and Religion in Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1982), pp. 48–70, and Byzantine Military Unrest 471–843: An Interpretation (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1981), pp. 209–69; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era , pp. 648–50. What Should Be Observed When the Emperor Intends to Go on an Expedition, in hree Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, trans. and ed., John F. Haldon CFHB 28 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990), pp. 82–93 (pp. 86, 88).

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

51

work on campaigning, in which he remarks that instructions about military expeditions had come down to Michael III from earlier emperors. Constantine continues: ‘By “earlier” I mean those Isaurians who fell into the gravest error with regard to the Orthodox faith … his very procedure was again put into practice during the reign of Basil [I] the most courageous and most pious emperor, my grandfather.’64 Constantine was thus aware that he and his predecessors had inherited military protocols which were in circulation during Iconoclasm. Moreover, the treatise, with its relatively detailed discussion of religious rituals to be performed prior to a campaign, suggests that the seventh-century trend for strategists to use increasingly religious vocabulary in their writing continued during the following centuries. It seems unlikely, however, that the Iconoclast emperors developed Herakleios’ ideas about the similarities between soldiers and martyrs. Recent research has cast doubt on the assumption that the Iconoclasts were hostile toward the cult of saints, but their theology strongly emphasised the Church and the clergy as the only legitimate sources of spiritual authority.65 hey would thus not have wanted to blur the boundaries between the human and the divine by encouraging their troops to see themselves as similar to martyrs. he idea of the possibility of attaining martyrdom on the battlefield did, however, survive the upheavals of the seventh and eighth centuries. As noted above, heophanes, a staunch defender of Orthodoxy writing in the early ninth century, saw fit to include Herakleios’ exhortation to soldiers to win the crown of martyrdom in his account of the Persian war.66 Although few other sources shed light on the currency of these ideas until the late ninth century, they reappeared with new force in writings associated with the Macedonian emperors. It is noteworthy, in particular, that the reticence of military handbooks about religion disappeared in many of the works composed from the late ninth century onward. Like the dispatches of Herakleios, the later works are liberally sprinkled with exhortations to fight for the faith. hese handbooks, despite drawing extensively on classical and Hellenistic models, include detailed discussions of the conduct of religious ceremonies on campaign and the divine protection 64

65 66

Constantine VII, What Should Be Observed When the Great and High Emperor of the Romans Goes on Campaign, in hree Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, trans. and ed., Haldon, pp. 94–151 (p. 96). Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era , pp. 192–6. Paul Stephenson, ‘Imperial Christianity and Sacred War in Byzantium’, in Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and Violence across Time and Tradition, ed. James K. Wellman, Jr (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), pp. 81–93 (p. 85).

52

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

which the Christian army could expect to enjoy. Unlike their predecessors, many middle Byzantine strategists seem to have considered religion to be central to the practical concerns addressed in their works. To be sure, all middle Byzantine military handbooks do not devote equal attention to religious matters. he authors of technical works usually restrict themselves to relatively narrow discussions of their subjects, steering clear of abstract problems such as the motivation of troops or the larger significance of battles.67 Some of the more broadly focused handbooks do not say a great deal about religious matters either, particularly if they are essentially paraphrases of ancient authors. Much of the material in an early eleventh-century handbook known as Parekbolai is taken from the second-century strategist Poluainos and discusses the techniques of ancient generals. It does, however, contain a brief note advising generals to purify the troops with holy rites before battle and to declare that victory has been foretold by prophets, holy men and the Bible.68 Even more original works, such as the late tenth-century treatise on Balkan warfare known as De re militari (published most recently under the title Campaign Organization and Tactics), does not address the topic of religion in much detail, although it contains many comments which betray the author’s belief in divine intercession, such as ‘With God assisting us, [the enemy’s] flight will come to pass.’69 he mid-eleventh-century writings on warfare by Kekaumenos include similar comments, again without detailed discussion. Interestingly, however, he notes the value of religious compositions to military campaigns: ‘read books, both histories and church books. And don’t ask, “What use is there to a soldier from dogmatics and church books?” For you will certainly be helped [by them] … For almost all of the Old [Testament] is strategy, as well as maxims.’70 hus all but the most technical writings contain at least some reference to divine aid in battle or Christian teachings. But those which discuss 67

68

69

70

See, e.g., Heron of Byzantium, Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by ‘Heron of Byzantium’ , trans. and ed. Denis F. Sullivan, DOS 36 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000); Denis F. Sullivan, trans., and Hilda van den Berg, ed., ‘A Byzantine Instructional Manual on Siege Defense: he De Obsidione Toleranda’, in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, TMM 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 139–266. Parekbolai, ed. J.-A. de Foucault, in Strategemata, ed. de Foucault (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1949), pp. 69–120 (p. 114). Campaign Organization and Tactics, in hree Byzantine Military Treatises, trans. and ed. George T. Dennis, CFHB 25, DOT 9 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985), pp. 246–327 (p. 300). See also pp. 272, 284, 302, 304, 310, 312, 314, 316. Kekaumenos, Sovety i rasskazy: pouchenie vizantiiskogo polkovodtsa XI veka , trans. and ed. G. G. Litavrin, 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2003), p. 170. See also pp. 152, 156–8, 164, 166, 172, 178, 180, 184, 204.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

53

the role of religion in more detail reveal that the subject had lost none of its fascination since Herakleios’ day, and that the relationship between soldiers and martyrs continued to be of particular interest to many strategists. he transition to a more religiously orientated approach to strategy can be seen in the writings of Syrianos Magistros. Like Vegetius, he was not a professional soldier, but attempted to benefit the empire by setting out principles of strategy and making suggestions for improvements. It is now generally accepted that his work originally comprised three sections: De re strategica (published most recently under the title he Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy), Rhetorica militaris and Naumachiae (published under the title Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg), which became separated early and circulated independently. Although only Naumachiae continued to be associated with the name of Syrianos, a number of scholars have noticed the stylistic similarities among the three treatises and argued that they must be the work of the same author.71 he date of these writings has also been a source of confusion. he most recent edition and translation of De re strategica places its composition in the mid sixth century, following the dating of its first modern editor.72 Two later articles published independently, however, questioned this date and pointed out many of the same weaknesses in the evidence for it.73 Both studies argue that the work was written several centuries later, but do not propose a more precise date. Two further treatments of the problem make use of all previous work on the subject and a number of new insights to make a case for a date of composition in the ninth century.74 If it was indeed written in the early post-Iconoclastic period, the work of Syrianos provides evidence for the integration of religious concerns into the mainstream of military writing.

71

72

73

74

he history of the study of these texts, along with arguments for their common origin, can be found in Constantine Zuckerman, ‘he Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister’, JÖB, 40 (1990), 209–24. Syrianos Magistros (?), he Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy, in hree Byzantine Military Treatises, trans. and ed. Dennis, pp. 1–136. B. Baldwin, ‘On the Date of the Anonymous ΠΕΡΙ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΙΚΗΣ’, BZ , 81 (1988), 290–3; Douglas Lee and Jonathan Shepard, ‘A Double Life: Placing the Peri Presbeon’, Byzantinoslavica, 52 (1991), 15–39. he evidence in favour of a later date includes the references to elephants and chariots as obsolete and the use of the term Arabes rather than Sarakenoi. Moreover, the author refers to these people in the present tense, but to Persians only in the past. Salvatore Cosentino, ‘he Syrianos’s “Strategikon”: A 9th-Century Source?’, Bizantinistica, 2 (2000), 243–80; Philip Rance, ‘he Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (Formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus)’, BZ , 100 (2007), 701–37. Cosentino argues specifically for the mid to late ninth century, while Rance leaves his conclusions more open, stating that a ninth-century date is a ‘likely proposition’ (p. 719).

54

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Matters of faith are not discussed throughout Syrianos’ writings: De re strategica and Naumachiae make only passing references to God and the need for piety among officers.75 Rhetorica militaris, however, explores the subject in some depth. As the title suggests, this work discusses how best to address soldiers and makes recommendations about what to say in various situations. Christianity is by no means the author’s only inspiration; he also draws extensively on pagan authors, in particular the rhetorician Hermogenes.76 Yet he evidently believed that appeals to shared faith were vital when rallying troops. Unlike Maurice’s strictly secular suggestions regarding pre-battle speeches, those of Syrianos call for religious solidarity and cite Christ’s example to soldiers. In a section entitled On the Zeal for Faith, for example, he argues that barbarians are hostile to the Byzantines because of their religious differences, and goes on to urge his audience to imitate Christ: ‘Christ was wounded in the side for our sake, and will we not endure blows for him? he Lord has died for us, and will we not die for the Lord? Yes indeed, we will do even this with much good cheer. For how could we not?’ In later sections he recommends reading from the Gospels to reinforce feelings of Christian unity and looking to the Old Testament for examples of victories. He also instructs generals that after a victory they should give thanks to God, who provided ‘strength for the battle and victorious crowns’. By using the latter phrase, which is often associated with martyrs, together with his exhortation to die for the Lord, Syrianos may be hinting that the struggles of soldiers are similar to those of martyrs.77 Syrianos was apparently reluctant to integrate religious concerns into every topic he addressed. Indeed, he seems to have made a conscious effort to segregate the subject. His own discussions of Christianity are confined to Rhetorica militaris, and it is unlikely to be a coincidence that his references to and quotations from the Bible are found only in this section.78 For Syrianos, religious concerns were relevant to problems such as motivation and morale, but not to tactics and logistics. On the other hand, the emphasis on matters of faith in Rhetorica militaris goes far beyond anything found in military writings prior to Herakleios. Even if 75

76 77

78

Syrianos Magistros (?), he Anonymous Byzantine Treatise, pp. 28–9; Syrianos Magistros (?), Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg, ed. K. K . Mü ller (Würzburg: A. Stubner’s Buch- und Kunsthandlung, 1882), p. 11. Zuckerman, ‘he Military Compendium’, pp. 219–23. Syrianos Magistros (?), Rhetorica militaris, ed. H. Köchly, in Index lectionum in Literarum Universitate Turicensi (Zurich: University of Zurich, 1855–6), pp. x, xxxvi, lv. Cosentino, ‘he Syrianos’s “Strategikon”’, pp. 259–60.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

55

Syrianos did not include them in his discussions of strategy, he seems to have recognised their importance to a successful campaign. Many later strategists, however, felt no need to restrict this topic to any particular section of their works. he development of this approach can be observed in the compositions of Leo VI from the late ninth and early tenth centuries. he Problemata, probably composed early in his reign, is in essence a reworking of Maurice’s Strategikon.79 Given its close reliance on this source, the silence of the Problemata on matters of faith is not surprising. Leo even quotes the Strategikon’s assertion that battles are won ‘under God, by strategy and skill’80 but, like Maurice, does not elaborate on the implications of this statement. By contrast, Leo’s later work, the Tactical Constitutions, despite continuing to borrow from the Strategikon and other military handbooks, includes detailed discussions of divine favour, the role of faith in battle and the conduct of religious ceremonies.81 Like many of his predecessors, Leo divided his work into chapters (‘constitutions’), each devoted to a topic such as arms, camps and preparations for battle. here is no chapter dealing specifically with religious practices, and Leo does not confine his comments on the subject to one section in the manner of Syrianos. Instead, references to faith are found throughout the work, as part of the advice and instructions in most of the twenty chapters, as well as in an extended section of the epilogue.82 he emperor’s writings move seamlessly from discussions of formations and strategy to faith and divine favour, showing that all aspects of military life, from procuring weapons to studying the tactics of the enemy, had religious significance. he fact that Leo elaborates on a number of the cursory references to religion in the Strategikon shows that the subject was more central to his military thought than it was to that of Maurice and his associates. In contrast to the Strategikon’s brief reference to priests leading prayers and blessing flags, for example, Leo mentions these activities four times, followed by a detailed description of the priests’ duties and desirable character traits, making clear their important role in battle: ‘Because of [their prayers] the Divinity takes pity and by their faith in salvation the souls of the

79

80 81 82

Dain, ‘Les stratégistes’, p. 354. Greek text in Leo VI, Leonis VI Sapientis Problemata , ed. Alphonse Dain (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1935). Leo VI, Leonis VI Sapientis, p. 17. Dain, ‘Les stratégistes’, pp. 354–57. Leo VI, he Taktika of Leo VI, trans. and ed. George Dennis (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010), pp. 620, 622, 624.

56

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

soldiers are prepared more strongly for the dangers.’83 he chapter about the military practices of foreign peoples, unlike the equivalent section in the Strategikon, has a strong religious focus. Leo declares that generals and soldiers defend not only their country but also ‘the correct faith of Christians’ and fight against ‘those who blaspheme the emperor of all, Christ our God’.84 He also recounts an occasion when ‘divine Providence’ helped the Byzantines by sending the ‘Turks’ (i.e. Hungarians) to attack the Bulgarians after the latter had broken a peace treaty.85 Leo seems to have believed that shared religious convictions and identity were the best motivation for soldiers. In the chapter on preparations for battle, he recommends that heralds tell the soldiers that ‘the struggle is on behalf of God and the love for him and on behalf of the whole people … we have God as a friend, who has authority over the turning-point of the war, but those [enemies] have the opposite because of their lack of faith in him’.86 Later, in a rousing call to arms, he declares: If, with the help of God’s alliance with us, we are well armed and drawn up in formation, and charge against them well and courageously on behalf of the salvation of our souls and carry on the struggle on behalf of God himself and our kinsmen and our brothers the other Christians, we place our hopes in God. We shall not fail, but shall succeed by all means in winning victory over them.87

he emperor’s reiteration of God’s support for the Byzantines and hostility toward their enemies implies that any battle in which the Byzantines fight, regardless of its purpose, is also a religious undertaking. Nor is it only the act of fighting which has religious significance: Leo alludes several times to the holy status of soldiers, discussing this subject more openly than Syrianos. He recommends, for example, that pre-battle speeches mention the prospect of eternal memory for those who have died fighting the enemies of God. Elsewhere he declares that ‘he bodies of soldiers who die in war are sacred, and in particular those who have distinguished themselves in the fight on behalf of Christians. And it is necessary by all means to honour them devoutly and dignify them with burial and eternal memory.’88 he reference to sacred remains hints that the bodies of fallen soldiers had relic-like qualities, a further indication of the growing associations between soldiers and saints, in particular those who suffered violent deaths. Leo thus seems to have regarded matters of 83 84 86 88

Ibid., p. 638. See also pp. 278, 290, 512, 596, 640. Ibid., pp. 442, 482, 444. 85 Ibid., p. 452. 87 Ibid., pp. 248, 250. Ibid., p. 484. Ibid., pp. 250, 560.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

57

faith as fully integrated into the day-to-day functioning of the army, and the army itself as a sacred force. A similar approach is found in the Sylloge tacticorum, a work once attributed to Leo but now thought to have been compiled during the reign of his son Constantine VII.89 It gives broadly similar instructions as the Tactical Constitutions regarding the religious rituals to be performed prior to a battle, and adds a detailed discussion of the prayers to be recited after a victory.90 he works securely attributed to Constantine go even further than those of his father in their sanctification of battles and the soldiers who fight them. His treatise on military campaigns is, as discussed above, an expanded version of an earlier work, to which he added a number of references to religious observances.91 He lists ‘the liturgy of the Church’ among the books to be taken with an army and transcribes a prayer for the protection of the capital city which a departing emperor should recite. He also suggests using sacred names as passwords, among them ‘the Saviour’, ‘the Mother of God ’, ‘the Arch-General’ [i.e. the Archangel Michael] and ‘one of the martyr-generals’ [martyroi hoi stratelatoi].92 he latter is one of the earliest collective references to the military saints, in whom Constantine took a keen interest. heir appearance here, and the term used to describe them, indicate both their growing fame at the time, a subject which will be discussed further in the next chapter, and the importance of their martyrdom in a military context. Part of Constantine’s strategy to sanctify the army, it seems, involved invoking these ‘martyr-generals’ to fight on the side of the Byzantines. Yet Constantine also associated martyrdom with mortal soldiers, as shown by his recommended greeting to the tagmata and themata: ‘Strive, soldiers of Christ and my children, so that in time of need you will show your nobility of spirit and your bravery, as well as your true devotion and love for God and our majesty.’93 he use of the formula ‘soldiers of Christ’, an epithet commonly applied to martyrs, is unlikely to have been accidental and calls attention to the features shared by these groups. he statement implies that, just as Byzantium’s wars were fought for the Christian faith,

89

90

91

92 93

On the date of the compilation see Alexander P. Kazhdan et al., eds., ODB (Oxford University Press, 1991), iii, p. 1980. Alphonse Dain, ed., Sylloge tacticorum (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1938), pp. 68–9, 98. See also pp. 20, 70–1. On the textual history of this work see hree Byzantine Military Treatises, trans. and ed. Dennis, pp. 40–4, 54–61. Constantine VII, What Should be Observed , pp. 106, 114, 120. Ibid., p. 124.

58

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

so the men who fought them gained some degree of holiness through their undertakings. his idea is developed further in two of Constantine’s military orations, speeches which were delivered on his behalf to armies disbanding following a successful campaign (in the case of the first oration) or preparing to go into battle (in the case of the second).94 In the first speech Constantine stresses the army’s sacred purpose and affiliations, exhorting the soldiers: ‘Be the avengers and champions not only of Christians but of Christ Himself … will Christ not stretch forth His hand to those girded for battle against His foes? He is our ally, men.’95 In the second, perhaps due to the greater urgency of the situation, the emperor’s efforts to stir up religious fervour are even more explicit. He announces that he has sent petitions to churches and monasteries asking the holy men who inhabit them to pray for the success of the campaign. Myron, furthermore, has been collected from the most prized relics of Constantinople and dispatched to sprinkle on the army.96 Most strikingly, Constantine promises the soldiers that, when they return in triumph, ‘We will kiss your bodies wounded for the sake of Christ in veneration as the limbs of martyrs, we will pride ourselves in the defilement of blood.’97 his direct reference to martyrs goes beyond the hints of earlier military writings, and shows Constantine’s concern to sanctify warfare by linking the act of fighting with martyrdom. he tendency to describe warfare in religious terms remained strong in subsequent works, in particular Praecepta militaria and De velitatione bellica (published most recently under the title Skirmishing), two treatises associated with Nikephoros II Phokas.98 Praecepta militaria recommends that the army recite the following prayer just before an engagement: ‘Come to the aid of us Christians, making us worthy to rise up and fight 94

95 96 97 98

Constantine VII, ‘Two Military Orations of Constantine VII’, trans. Eric McGeer, in Byzantine Authors, ed. Nesbitt, pp. 111–35. Greek texts in Constantine VII, ‘Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète’, ed. Hélène Ahrweiler, TM, 2 (1967), 393–404, and ‘Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’, ed. R. Vá ri, BZ , 17 (1908), 75–85. Constantine VII, ‘Two Military Orations’, p. 118. Constantine VII, ‘Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke’, pp. 80, 83. Constantine VII, ‘Two Military Orations’, p. 132. he authorship of these treatises remains uncertain, but both are products of Nikephoros’ inner circle. Dennis argues that De velitatione bellica was written for Nikephoros by a high-ranking contemporary (hree Byzantine Military Treatises, p. 139), while McGeer believes that he wrote the Praecepta militaria himself. (Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, p. 174.) In any case, both texts seem to have been, to at least some extent, collaborative efforts, and are probably representative of sentiments within the upper echelons of the late tenth-century army rather than just those of Nikephoros.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

59

to the death for our faith and our brethren by fortifying and strengthening our souls, our hearts, and our whole body, the mighty Lord of battles.’99 he work also includes a number of references to divine intercession and the need to cultivate the favour of God and the Mother of God.100 Furthermore, unlike the Strategikon’s cursory reference to prayers in army camps, it includes detailed instructions for services, specifying that, following Matins and Vespers, the army should cry ‘Lord, have mercy’ ‘up to one hundred times with devotion and fear toward God, even with tears’. Stricter rules apply before battle, when the entire company must purify itself by fasting for three days, eating only a small meal in the evening. Finally, after everyone has repented of his sins and taken communion: ‘then, confidently and courageously with conviction and faith in God, they are to go forth against the foe’.101 Praecepta militaria was evidently influential, as large sections of it, including this prayer and the instructions for the conduct of services, are closely paraphrased in the early eleventh-century Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, a distinguished official under Basil II who served as governor of Antioch.102 Like its model, Ouranos’ work is also sprinkled with references to God’s aid and the need for faith in battle.103 Although De velitatione bellica has somewhat less to say about religious matters, the opening paragraph declares that ‘Christ, our true God, has greatly blunted the power and strength of the descendants of Ismael against us and has upset their attacks.’104 God is present not only in stunning victories, but in more mundane operations as well: the author instructs his readers to rely on God in a variety of situations, and to attribute victories to him.105 he handbook also hints that soldiers themselves have a holy status, calling them ‘the defenders and, after God, saviours of Christians, and they die on behalf of the holy emperors each day, so to speak’.106 his 99

100 101 102

103

104 105 106

Nikephoros Phokas, Praecepta militaria , in McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, pp. 12–59 (p. 44). Ibid., pp. 24, 28, 46, 48, 50. Ibid., pp. 56, 58. Nikephoros Ouranos, Taktika , in McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, pp. 88–163 (pp. 126, 140). h is edition consists of chapters 56–62 of the 178 chapters of the work. For a list of other published sections see Dain, ‘Les stratégistes’, p. 371, and J.-A. de Foucault, ‘Douze chapitres inédits de la Tactique de Nicéphore Ouranos’, TM, 5 (1973), 281–312. Ouranos, Taktika , pp. 102, 104, 128, 130, 132, 142, 148, 150, 152, 154, 160. On Ouranos’ career see Catherine Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025) (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 349–52, 383–8. Skirmishing, in hree Byzantine Military Treatises, trans. and ed. Dennis, pp. 144–239 (p. 146). Ibid., pp. 180–2, 236, 202, 224, 230, 238. Ibid., p. 216.

60

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

statement is in keeping with sentiments expressed by previous emperors, as discussed above. Unlike his predecessors, however, Nikephoros did not confine his thoughts on the matter to writings intended for fellow strategists, but took the unprecedented step of petitioning Patriarch Polyeuktos to recognise those who died fighting the Arabs as martyrs.107 he patriarch’s refusal is, for the purposes of the present study, less significant than the fact that the emperor made the request. His efforts indicate that his references to the sanctity of soldiers were not empty rhetoric, but reflected strongly held beliefs within the tenth-century military elite, whether or not they had the official support of the Church. Most soldiers were, after all, unlikely to know the patriarch’s position and unlikely to question an officer who promised them a heavenly reward if they died on the battlefield. Although the patriarch did not grant Nikephoros’ request, the ideas in question were not unknown in the Church, and are echoed in a few liturgical texts. One of these, from a tenth-century codex of the triodion (a hymnbook containing variable parts of the services for the Lenten and Easter cycles), is entitled: ‘For All Souls’ Day, for those who have gone to sleep forever, and also for the generals, commanders and soldiers who have died in wars and captivity’. According to the publishers of the work, the anonymous author was attempting to introduce into the established service for All Souls’ Day a new office celebrating the sacrifices of those who had died fighting for the empire.108 Like the military treatises, the hymn describes the duty of soldiers to fight for their faith, the sacred nature of warfare itself and the affinity between soldiers and martyrs, for example: ‘Your armies, O Lord, who risked their lives for their faith in you and your name, align them in the tents of your first-born to call themselves equal to the martyrs.’109 Another liturgical work, an akolouthia (a variable part of the office of a day or feast) apparently composed in the late ninth or early tenth century, calls on divine forces to come to the aid of the army, as is clear from the title: ‘An akolouthia sung for the success of the army and its alliance with our Lord Jesus Christ, the all-holy Mother of God, the incorporeal ones, the Apostles and the martyrs’.110 107

108

109 110

John Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Ioannes hurn, CFHB 5 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), pp. 274–5. h. Détorakis and J. Mossay, eds., ‘Un office byzantin inédit pour ceux qui sont morts à la guerre, dans le Cod. Sin. Gr. 734–735 ’, Le Muséon, 101 (1988), 183–211 (p. 183); ODB, iii, pp. 2118–19. ‘Un office byzantin’, p. 196. Agostino Pertusi, ed., ‘Una acolouthia militare inedita del X secolo’, Aevum, 22 (1948), 145–68 (p. 146); ODB, i, pp. 46–7.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

61

he provenance of this work in a manuscript which also contains a collection of military laws and extracts from military handbooks indicates that such prayers were seen as a central aspect of strategic preparations which needed to be given as much attention as legal or tactical questions. Liturgical works with military overtones were written in honour of individuals as well as the army as a whole: an akolouthia commemorating Nikephoros Phokas, for example, describes the divine assistance he received in physical and spiritual combat.111 he Synaxarion of Constantinople, a collection of short versions of saints’ lives probably compiled during the reign of Constantine VII, includes in its entry for 26 July a commemoration of the soldiers who were massacred in Bulgaria during the ill-fated invasion under Nikephoros I in 811. he Bulgarians, it relates, tortured their captives in an effort to make them deny Christ, but the soldiers remained steadfast and gained the martyr’s crown.112 Interestingly, the account of this incident in the Chronicle of heophanes does not state that the soldiers were martyrs, despite the author’s willingness to include Herakleios’ exhortation to his troops to achieve martyrdom, as discussed above.113 heophanes, although sympathetic to the soldiers, may have been hesitant to call them martyrs because of his hostility toward Nikephoros. Over a century later, however, these qualms had been forgotten and the soldiers were commemorated in an official Church calendar. he compilers of the Synaxarion seem to have been somewhat concerned that the soldiers did not resemble ancient martyrs, and made a perfunctory effort to rectify this situation by including the (almost certainly fabricated) details about their unwillingness to deny their faith. Nevertheless, the fact that the commemoration appears in the Synaxarion provides further evidence for a tendency, even within the Church, to equate soldiers with martyrs. Belief in the divine protection of the army and the sacred status of soldiers can thus be detected not only in the musings of generals, but in scattered ecclesiastical works as well. his type of evidence, as well as scholarly interest in comparing Byzantium with its Roman Catholic and Muslim neighbours, has fuelled an ongoing debate about whether the Byzantines had a concept of holy war similar to that of crusade or jihad. It has been noted that the writings of Leo VI and others show a certain 111 112

113

Louis Petit, ed., ‘Office inédit en l’honneur de Nicéphore Phocas’, BZ , 13 (1904), 398–420. Hippolyte Delehaye, ed., SEC , in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1902), cols. 846–8. heophanes, heophanis Chronographia, p. 491.

62

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

admiration for the doctrine of jihad and the discipline it inspired.114 Athena Kolia-Dermitzake has argued that Byzantium had its own tradition of holy war and proposed a list of its defining features.115 Many subsequent scholars have, however, taken a more nuanced view, pointing out that terms which are generally applied to western Christianity or Islam do not accurately reflect the situation in Byzantium. Tia Kolbaba has advanced this discussion by acknowledging that no definition of holy war will ever be acceptable to everyone and that it is inaccurate to speak of a single Orthodox position on the issue. In her view, it is better to ask ‘in what ways Byzantine wars were perceived by their participants as divinely ordained, aided, and rewarded’.116 Likewise Paul Stephenson, in his analysis of the spiritual rewards promised to soldiers in the seventh and tenth centuries, concludes that in some circumstances warfare became sacralised under the influence of powerful warrior-emperors.117 He and others stress, however, that the religious trappings of Byzantine military operations did not mean that the conflicts themselves were officially regarded as holy, and the refusal of the Orthodox Church to declare or sanction war is universally acknowledged.118 In general, the Byzantines regarded war at best as a necessary evil. If a war was just they might count on God’s support but, as Warren Treadgold has concluded, ‘[a]mong the Byzantines no wars were holy, not even those against Muslims, pagans, or heretics’.119 114

115

116

117 118

119

Gilbert Dagron, ‘Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle: à propos des Constitutions Tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI’, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (April–June 1983), 219–42; Gilbert Dagron and Haralambie Mihăescu, Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969) (Paris: CNRS, 1986), pp. 284–6. Athena Kolia-Dermitzake, Ho Vyzantinos ‘ hieros polemos’: he ennoia kai e provole tou threskeutikou polemou sto Vyzantio, Historikes monographies 10 (Athens: Historikes Ekdoseis St. D. Vasilopoulos, 1991). Tia M. Kolbaba, ‘Fighting for Christianity: Holy War in the Byzantine Empire’, Byzantion, 68 (1998), 194–221. Stephenson, ‘Imperial Christianity’, pp. 90–91. In the early thirteenth century, Patriarch Michael Autoreianos granted remission of sins to those who died defending the empire. Michael Autoreianos, ‘Cinq actes inédits du Patriarche Michel Autôreianos’, ed. N. Oikonomidès, REB, 25 (1967), 113–45 (p. 119). Paul Stephenson suggests that this may have been at least partially the result of western influence. Stephenson, ‘Imperial Christianity’, p. 84. Warren Treadgold, ‘Byzantium, the Reluctant Warrior’, in Noble Ideals and Bloody Realities: Warfare in the Middle Ages, ed. Niall Christie and Maya Yazigi, History of Warfare 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2006) pp. 209–33 (p. 212). See also George T. Dennis, ‘Defenders of the Christian People: Holy War in Byzantium’, in he Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World , ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001), pp. 31–9; Nicolas Oikonomidès, ‘he Concept of “Holy War” and Two Tenth-Century Byzantine Ivories’, in Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., ed.

he formation of the martyr-warrior ideal

63

he evidence studied above suggests that many Byzantine military leaders encouraged each other and their subordinates to view conflicts as divinely protected and, potentially, rewarded. he similarities between soldiers and martyrs held a particular fascination for these men and were a cornerstone of the religious propaganda which became increasingly prominent in military writings from the late ninth century. Whether or not agreement is ever reached about a definition of holy war, there can be no doubt that Byzantium had holy warriors, in the form of both mortal soldiers and military saints. Independently of the Church authorities, officers made a concerted effort to emphasise the sacred mission of their troops and the divine protection which they enjoyed. While the sanctification of soldiers allowed warfare to be endowed with an aura of holiness, the militarisation of saints represented the outcome of this process; the fulfilment of the need for heavenly patrons of the sanctified army. he sufferings and steadfast faith of these martyrs made them ideal both as protectors in war and as models for soldiers, who, as is explicitly stated in some military treatises, were expected to defend their faith as much as their homeland. Following this survey of the emergence of a religious ideology in Byzantine military writings, the next chapter will examine the parallel and related development of the holy warriors and the court’s appropriation of them as patrons in war. Timothy S. Miller and John Nesbitt (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 62–86; Angeliki E. Laiou, ‘On Just War in Byzantium’, in To Hellenikon: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., ed. Milton V. Anastos (New Rochelle, NY: Artistide D. Caratzas, 1993), pp. 153–77; Haldon, Warfare, State and Society, pp. 17–33.

ch apter 3

he collective cult of the military saints

he last chapter attempted to demonstrate that, unlike contemporary strategists, late antique historians did not shy away from describing Christian military propaganda and divine intervention in battle. heir works give some indication, moreover, of the figures who were venerated as intercessors in battle. he number of references to Christ and the Mother of God show that they were invoked most frequently, but soldiers clearly placed their hopes in saints as well. As discussed above, he Chronicle of Marcellinus describes the intervention of Ambrose in an internecine dispute, and the ecclesiastical historian Evagrios claims that the patron saint of Sergiopolis came to the aid of his city during a siege. In each case, the saint who interceded had a connection with the place or person in need of aid. Whether the saints were assisting their native cities or an individual who had made a direct appeal, all of these incidents have a local or personal character: there was a pre-existing relationship between the saints and their beneficiaries. Faith in personal and local patron saints, especially in times of war, did not end in late antiquity, and Demetrios, heodore and many others continued to be invoked by their namesakes and the inhabitants of their native cities throughout the Middle Ages. But in addition to the continued popularity of local patrons, the middle Byzantine period also witnessed the emergence of another form of divine protection in warfare which provided a new focus for religious devotion. Rather than relying solely on individual saints with whom they had a pre-existing connection, emperors, officers and officials began to recruit a defined group of saints – primarily George, Demetrios and heodore – to serve as a permanent corps of patrons. he present chapter will consider evidence in a variety of media which relates to the period of transition in the cults of these saints, spanning the late ninth century until the death of Basil II in 1025. he efforts of the Macedonian emperors and their associates to establish the saints as a new corps of protectors 64

he collective cult of the military saints

65

included composing new hymns and vitae in their honour, dedicating churches to them and commissioning works of art in which they figured prominently. Many of these works place new emphasis on the military prowess of the saints and describe or request their intercession in battle. Yet the saints’ role as imperial protectors did not replace their ancient identity as martyrs so much as add a new dimension to it. he already prominent place of martyrdom in the Byzantine military imagination ensured that this attribute continued to be a vital aspect of the mature cults of the military saints. he emperors who made these saints their patrons were attempting, like Herakleios, to hold up the ideal of death for the faith as an inspiration on the battlefield. heir innovation was that, in addition to exhorting soldiers to win the martyr’s crown, they recruited a corps of actual martyrs to lead by example. In addition to acting as models for soldiers, the military saints served as a standing force which could be called upon to fight alongside the troops. Over the course of a few generations, the emperors succeeded in transplanting the saints from the traditional centres of their cults and giving them a new identity as imperial comrades-in-arms. he process of moulding a disparate group of martyrs into a unified phalanx of imperial patrons seems to have begun under Leo VI. here is no evidence for Basil I taking a particular interest in saints with military associations or attempting to recruit saints to act specifically as his protectors in battle. hat is not to say that he was not associated with any saints or holy figures: a hymn to the emperor by the patriarch Photios and an anonymous laudatory poem compare him with David, Solomon and Constantine the Great.1 Such comparisons are, however, a commonplace of literature about Byzantine emperors, and cannot be taken as evidence that Basil considered himself to be under their active protection. On the other hand, he does seem to have felt a stronger personal connection with Elijah and Diomedes, neither of whom had military associations. A number of sources include the story of Elijah’s appearance to Basil’s mother in a dream, urging her to allow her son to go and seek his fortune in Constantinople and assuring her that he would become emperor. Upon reaching the city, Basil settled down to spend the night by the gates of the monastery of St Diomedes. During the night, the saint appeared to the hegumen in a dream and commanded him to invite the stranger in and 1

Photios, ‘Hymnos ek prosopou tes Ekklesias eis Basileion ton philochriston basilea’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cii, cols. 576–84 (cols. 583–4); Athanasios Markopoulos, ed., ‘An Anonymous Laudatory Poem in Honor of Basil I’, DOP, 46 (1992), 225–32. he author argues that Photios wrote the poem as well.

66

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

give him everything he required, since he would one day be emperor.2 After ascending the throne, Basil remembered his benefactors, founding and rebuilding churches in their honour.3 In addition to these foundations, Basil built and restored many other ecclesiastical buildings in the capital, including a Church of St Demetrios.4 his is probably not indicative of any particular devotion to the saint, however. he name of the church appears without further comment in a long list, and no other sources mention that Basil thought of Demetrios as a personal patron. Demetrios took on a new role in the imperial court in the next generation. Like his father, Leo VI seems to have cultivated the patronage of a number of divine figures. He continued the family tradition of devotion to Elijah, and his homilies honour a number of saints whom he admired for various reasons. he appearance of Kosmas and Damian on an enigmatic ivory carving associated with Leo indicates that he felt an attachment to these doctor saints.5 He also showed a keen interest in Demetrios, despite the saint’s exclusive association with hessalonika until Leo’s time. he emperor’s attraction to this saint may well have been related to his ideas about the divine protection of the Byzantine army and the similarities between soldiers and martyrs. Leo, as discussed above, was one of the first strategists to discuss these matters in his general writings about warfare. Given these interests, it is perhaps not surprising that he cultivated the patronage of a martyr with military associations who might act as a model for his troops. Although Demetrios was still primarily a provincial saint during the early part of Leo’s reign, the existence of a church in his honour in Constantinople shows that his fame had spread beyond hessalonika, and the stories of his defence of his native city must have been known in the capital. His success repelling invaders and his original status as a martyr would have made him an obvious choice as a protector of the imperial army, whose members Leo exhorted to imitate the zeal of 2

3 4 5

Constantine VII (?), Vita Basili, in heophanes Continuatus, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1838), pp. 211–353 (pp. 221–5). For a discussion of these incidents and the sources in which they appear see Gyula Moravcsik, ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I.’, DOP, 15 (1961), 61–126. Ibid., 90–4. Vita Basili, p. 324. On Elijah and the saints see Paul Magdalino, ‘Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah’, JÖB, 38 (1988), 193–6; heodora Antonopoulou, he Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI, TMM 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 44–8. On the ivory carving and its possible original function see, among others, Kathleen Corrigan, ‘he Ivory Scepter of Leo VI: A Statement of Post-Iconoclastic Imperial Ideology’, Art Bulletin, 60 (1978), 407–16, and Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom, eds., he Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D . 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), pp. 201–2.

he collective cult of the military saints

67

martyrs in their defence of the empire. Accordingly, Leo used a variety of means to recruit Demetrios for this role. he emperor’s interest in the saint spanned his entire career. he Life of heophano (BHG 1794), Leo’s first wife, relates that during the couple’s imprisonment by Basil I they had a vision in which ‘a youth, clothed in the garb of a soldier, holding in his right hand a spear and in his left a shield’ appeared to them and assured them of their release and future reign. Although the saint is not named, he can probably be identified as Demetrios since he is reported to have said, ‘I have not come here of my own will, but you have made me come from hessalonika.’6 he author of the Life seems to have been a younger contemporary of Leo from a prominent family with connections at court. he work’s favourable presentation of Leo and its silence about the difficulties of his marriage to heophano have been taken to indicate that it was a work of flattery designed to advance the career of the author.7 If this was the case, the author probably took care to give an accurate description of Leo’s concerns and preoccupations, and it is unlikely that Demetrios was chosen at random to appear as the future emperor’s protector. In addition to the choice of saint, the description of his clothing is intriguing and probably indicative of Leo’s interests. As discussed in Chapter 1, Demetrios’ early iconography never depicts him wearing armour, and his hagiography does not describe him as doing so unless he was actually engaged in combat. His appearance in the Life is thus a significant break with precedent, and suggests that Leo envisioned the saint as a soldier, rather than the preacher of the Passio prima. He also understood the saint’s military qualities to be fixed, rather than appearing only during times of crisis. he Life is, moreover, one of the earliest examples of Demetrios offering his protection to a person who was not connected with hessalonika. Indeed, the saint’s words suggest that Leo was trying to draw him away from his native city, and later evidence from Leo’s reign confirms his efforts to transfer Demetrios’ patronage to the capital. Leo’s campaign to win the saint’s protection included, for example, sponsoring the construction of a palace church in his honour, probably only the second in Constantinople to be dedicated to the saint.8 6

7

8

E. Kurtz, ed., ‘Zwei griechische Texte über die Hl. heophano, die Gemahlin Leos VI.’, Zapiski IAN, 8:3/2 (1898), 1–80 (p. 10). Ibid., pp. iii–iv; Alexander Alexakis, ‘Leo VI, heophano, a Magistros Called Slokakas, and the Vita heophano (BHG 1794)’, Byzantinische Forschungen, 21 (1995), 45–56. R. Janin, ‘Les églises byzantines des saints militaires (Constantinople et banlieue)’, EO, 33 (1934), 331–9. As discussed above, Basil I renovated an earlier church of St Demetrios which

68

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Paul Magdalino has even argued that Leo’s ill-fated attempt to transfer the market for Bulgarian merchants to hessalonika in 893 was also part of the emperor’s efforts to show his gratitude to Demetrios for the saint’s intercession on his behalf.9 Further evidence for Leo’s devotion to Demetrios is found in the three homilies he wrote about the saint (BHG 536–8). Significantly, Leo was probably the first Greek author who was not a citizen of hessalonika to write a work of this nature in Demetrios’ honour.10 he earliest of these (Homily 17) was an enkomion based on the Passio altera. Although it generally follows the plot of its source, it includes several embellishments, including a description of Demetrios’ military career prior to his martyrdom. Instead of repeating the Passio altera’s references to the saint’s ranks and promotions, Leo notes that he ‘put to flight the whole battle array of the enemies’ and that he was reckoned first in his enrolment.11 Given Leo’s previous vision of the saint, his editorial liberties are unsurprising. Since the emperor seems to have understood Demetrios as a saint with permanent military qualities, it made sense for his patron to have had experience in the army during his lifetime. Leo’s changes are all the more noteworthy since, in addition to the Passio altera, he may also have had access to the Passio prima, which describes Demetrios only as a preacher of the Gospel. he inclusion of the Passio prima in the Bibliotheca of the patriarch Photios means that it was probably known in the capital during Leo’s reign, yet this image of the saint evidently did not appeal to the emperor.12 he attention given to Demetrios’ military qualities does not mean, however, that the emperor neglected the saint’s martyrdom. his episode receives far more attention than the saint’s career in the army, and is clearly the main focus of the homily. Leo’s concentration on this subject is in keeping with all previous writings about Demetrios; of interest is the fact that, in his writings about saints and warfare alike, he placed new emphasis on the links between martyrdom and the military vocation. Leo’s other homilies on Demetrios (18 and 19) do not mention the saint’s

9 10

11

12

had probably existed since at least the early eighth century, but there do not seem to have been any others dedicated to him in Constantinople. In any case, a palace church was unprecedented. Paul Magdalino, ‘Saint Demetrios and Leo VI’, Byzantinoslavica, 51 (1990), 198–201. For a list of surviving works about Demetrios and their authors, see Franjo Barišić, Čuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvori, Posebna Izdanja 219 (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka, 1953), pp. 17–28. Leo VI, Leontos tou sophou panugerikoi logoi, ed. Hieromonk Akakios (Athens: Ek ton piesterion Nikolaou Rousopoulou, 1868), pp. 125–6. Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fi ls, 1909), pp. 103–4.

he collective cult of the military saints

69

military career: the first is an after-dinner speech in which the emperor expresses his joy in the martyr, and the second was delivered at the dedication of his church.13 In addition to these works, Leo composed at least one hymn to Demetrios which was incorporated into the church service for his feast day, as described in the Book of Ceremonies: ‘One must know that when the procession goes out of the Church of St Peter the singers sing the troparion of the martyr [Demetrios] to the rhythm of “unknown you were born”, which the most wise and good emperor Leo composed.’14 Although the identity of this text is not certain, heodora Antonopoulou notes that a troparion from a musical manuscript which is attributed to Leo discusses Demetrios’ reception in heaven, one of the major themes of Homily 17. Interestingly, this troparion also includes military imagery, declaring that Demetrios ‘attends as guard the body of soldiers of the mortal regiments [tagmata]’.15 Although Leo’s efforts to bring economic benefits to hessalonika indicate that he acknowledged the city as the centre of Demetrios’ cult, other evidence shows that the city was no longer unrivalled in this regard. In the wake of the sack of hessalonika by Arabs in 904, the patriarch Nicholas Mystikos delivered a sermon which explained why Demetrios failed to come to the aid of his native city, as he had done so many times in the past. According to the patriarch, the saint was distracted by Christ’s anguish at the sins of people in general (not specifically the hessalonians), and was so preoccupied attending to him that he failed to notice the plight of the city.16 he message of the sermon is that everyone suffers the consequences of sin. he hessalonians should not expect special favours from their patron saint; their residence in his city will not compensate for their errant ways. But conversely, if virtue is the most important quality in the eyes of Demetrios, he might reasonably be expected to extend his protection to righteous non-hessalonians. he perspective of the patriarch has been contrasted with that of John Kaminiates, an eyewitness to the events. He speculates that Demetrios did attempt to intercede on behalf 13 14

15

16

Leontos tou sophou, pp. 135–9; Antonopoulou, he Homilies, p. 132. Constantine VII, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. I. I. Reiskii, 3 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1829 –40), ii, p. 89. Antonopoulou, he Homilies, p. 46; Leo VI (?), ‘Anekdotos ekklesiastike poiesis ek tou Laureotikou mousikou kodikos l 164’, ed. Spyriodon Lavriotes, Gregorios ho Palamas, 6 (1922), 577–84 (p. 579). Nicholas I, ‘Sermon of Nicholas the Patriarch, on the Capture of hessalonica, Pronounced from the Pulpit of the Great Church after the Entrance’, in Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. and ed. L. G. Westerink, DOT 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1981) pp. 8–17.

70

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

of the city, but that his prayers were refused.17 As a native hessalonian, it is not surprising that Kaminiates imagines the saint praying for the city as he did in previous centuries. he outsider Nicholas, on the other hand, envisions a saint more generally concerned with problems of sin and righteousness. hrough his efforts and those of his associates to transfer a portion of Demetrios’ protective powers to Constantinople, Leo succeeded where previous emperors had failed. Demetrios’ cult had traditionally been jealously guarded by the hessalonians, who had refused on at least two occasions to surrender his relics to interested emperors, as discussed in Chapter 1. Rather than attempt to obtain relics, Leo cultivated the saint’s patronage through his writings and church-building projects, promoting the saint as a military protector and integrating him into the religious life of the court. It was probably thanks in large part to Leo’s efforts that Demetrios gained a significant following outside of hessalonika and that his protective qualities ceased to be associated exclusively with that city. Leo’s devotion to one saint with military associations does not, however, seem to have caused him to take a special interest in any others. None of his numerous other homilies is dedicated to soldier saints,18 nor, it seems, did he dedicate churches to any besides Demetrios.19 Leo and his circle seem to have been satisfied with Demetrios alone as a new military patron, and they did not envision him as part of a group of holy warriors. But even as Leo was refashioning the cult of Demetrios, similar changes were happening to the cults of heodore and George. Literary and artistic sources from the late ninth century onward place a new emphasis on the military prowess of these saints, showing them to be not only the protectors of certain cities and individuals, but the patrons in war of emperors and the empire as a whole. At the same time, martyrdom remained a vital component of their cults, and references to this aspect of their sanctity were combined with military imagery in new and sometimes startling ways. Unlike earlier writings about the saints, many of the new compositions were the work of Constantinopolitan officials and intellectuals rather than provincial devotees, and they reflect the concerns of this new clientele. hese writings shed light on the evolution of each saint’s individual 17

18 19

John Kaminiates, De Expugnatione hessalonicae, ed. Gertrud Böhlig, CFHB 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), p. 22. For a comparison of the two accounts and arguments in favour of the authenticity of Kaminiates’ work see Joseph Frendo, ‘he Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of hessaloniki’, Byzantinoslavica, 58 (1997), 205–24. Antonopoulou, he Homilies, pp. 116–61. Janin, ‘Les églises byzantines’, EO, 33 (1934), 163–80; 34 (1935), 56–70.

he collective cult of the military saints

71

cult and are a testament to the widespread interest within the elite in the cultivation of new military patrons. Leo’s enkomion to Demetrios seems, for example, to have influenced several other versions of the saint’s hagiography written by citizens of the capital in the following century.20 Gregory the deacon and referendarios (a liaison officer between the patriarch and the court), who was active in the mid tenth century, wrote another enkomion (BHG 544) incorporating some of the changes to the plot of the Passio altera which Leo introduced. Gregory mentions Demetrios’ protection of his native city and his destruction of ‘Scythian bows’, doubtless an allusion to his intervention during the Slavs’ attacks on hessalonika in the seventh century. He also describes the saint’s veneration by emperors and heaps praises on the imperial church dedicated to him. At the end of the work he invites people of all races and ages to praise Demetrios, starting with ‘emperors themselves and those affiliated with the palace’.21 his combination of references to events in hessalonika and veneration in the capital is consistent with Leo’s efforts to promote Demetrios as an imperial saint while not neglecting his native city. Symeon Metaphrastes, who wrote his version of Demetrios’ passio (BHG 498) perhaps slightly later, adds a new military element to the comments in the Passio altera about the saint’s career, declaring that he ‘perfected the arts of war through study’. his, along with his personal perfection, led to promotion by the emperor.22 Demetrios’ inclusion in the prestigious Metaphrastic Menologion, or collection of full-length saints’ lives, was both a confirmation of his growing popularity in the capital and a guarantee that his cult would continue to spread beyond his native city. Two other contemporary reworkings of Demetrios’ hagiography for a broader audience can be found in his entries in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (BHG 498i) and the closely related Menologion of Basil II (BHG 496e), both of which give brief summaries of his martyrdom.23 Although neither entry describes the saint’s military career, his association with warfare is reinforced by one of the four posthumous miracles included in the Synaxarion entry. It describes how Demetrios alerted the citizens of hessalonika to an incursion by Slavs, enabling them to ‘pursue the hostile race immediately 20 21

22

23

Antonopoulou, he Homilies, pp. 133–6. Gregory the Deacon, Enkomion on the Saint and Great Martyr Demetrios, in Mnemeia Hagiologica , ed. heophilos Joannou (Venice: Typois Phoinikos, 1884; repr. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1973), pp. 64–6. Symeon Metaphrastes, Passio Tertia S. Demetrii M., in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxvi, cols. 1185–201 (col. 1185). Confusingly, the Menologion of Basil II is actually a synaxarion, i.e. a collection of short versions of saints’ lives.

72

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

and slaughter them’. he choice of this military miracle rather than another of the saint’s many non-military miracles indicates that this aspect of his cult was appealing to his new adherents. he entry for Demetrios concludes, like many in the Synaxarion, by mentioning where his feast was celebrated (in this case, the church which Basil I refurbished), testifying to his full integration into the religious life of the capital.24 he cult of Demetrios experienced more radical changes in the late ninth and tenth centuries than did those of heodore or George, and it is more richly documented. he evidence related to the other major warrior saints nevertheless indicates that they also gained new military associations and became an increasing focus of interest for the court and army during this time. Particularly fascinating is the emergence of heodore Stratelates. Most of this saint’s attributes were copied from those of heodore Teron, with the notable exception of his higher rank of general (stratelates) rather than recruit. he origins of heodore Stratelates are unclear: two versions of his passio (BHG 1750, 1751) can only be dated to before the late ninth century.25 hese works rely heavily on material from the hagiography of heodore Teron, claiming that their hero distinguished himself in battle, slew a dragon in the vicinity of Euchaita and was brutally tortured after desecrating a pagan temple. he first text mentions that his relics were taken back to Euchaita, while the second claims they went to Euchaneia, a nearby town. Given their similarity to the story of heodore Teron, it is tempting to speculate that the works are actually describing him and simply giving him a more exalted honorific. Middle Byzantine authors, however, recognised the existence of two separate saints heodore. An enkomion to the General (BHG 1753) by Niketas the Paphlagonian, a scholar and contemporary of Leo VI, mentions the Recruit and briefly summarises the events of his martyrdom. ‘But’, he continues, ‘it is not my aim now to touch on him, for he is probably sufficiently glorified by our priests … today the General is to be put forward for praise.’ Nevertheless, Niketas continued the tradition of drawing on material related to the Recruit when describing the life and martyrdom of the General. he enkomion includes the dragon-slaying miracle, and adds that the two heodores were relatives and neighbours.26 24

25

26

Hippolyte Delehaye, ed., SEC , in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1902), cols. 163–6; MB, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxvii, cols. 19–614, col. 128. ‘Acta Graeca S. heodori Ducis Martyris’, AB, 2 (1883), 359–67; Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, pp. 151–67. Niketas the Paphlagonian, ‘Laudatio S. heodori Ducis’, in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., November, iv (Brussels: Apud Socios Bollandianos, 1925), pp. 83–9 (p. 83). Niketas was

he collective cult of the military saints

73

Although Niketas does not specify his subject’s homeland, this comment probably refers to the town of Euchaneia mentioned in the second passio.27 Another hagiographic composition about heodore Stratelates, written by Euthemios Protasecretis (BHG 1753b) in the early tenth century, also discusses the similarities of the saints’ lives and virtues but refers to their homeland simply as ‘the Black Sea’. It describes the dragon-slaying miracle but says little about the military career of its subject, other than that ‘he was entrusted with the military leadership by the emperor’.28 Despite the acknowledged similarities between the two saints, Niketas and Euthemios were clearly making an effort to distinguish between them. he passage quoted above from the enkomion indicates, furthermore, that Niketas wanted to elevate the position of the General, who had not received as much attention as his namesake. his promotion of a saint who was almost identical to an existing one except for his higher rank suggests a concern with prestige in a military patron. Just as Demetrios was given a more exalted career by the late ninth century, so a serious interest in heodore Teron’s higher-ranking ‘twin’ seems to have emerged at the same time. Niketas’ composition provides additional evidence for a new focus on the worldly renown of military martyrs. he inclusion of heodore Stratelates in the major hagiographic compilations of the tenth century confirms his growing popularity, although he could still be confused with his ‘twin’. Symeon Metaphrastes, for example, seems to have written separate works about the two saints (BHG 1752, 1763), but Delehaye observes that at least two manuscripts of his Menologion ‘recount, a few pages apart, literally the same story of one and the other saint heodore’.29 Clearly, even if a hagiographer distinguished between the saints, later editors might not be so careful. But despite his derivation from and enduring connections with another saint, the General quickly became popular in his own right and seems to have been even more coveted than his namesake as a military protector. He was of particular interest to the compilers of the Synaxarion of Constantinople, which includes two lengthy entries about him (BHG 1752c–d), whereas

27

28

29

also the author of enkomia to Prokopios (BHG 1580), Eustathios (BHG 643) and Eustratios (BHG 646c). he existence of two towns with such similar names and their association with nearly identical saints has caused confusion for Byzantines and modern scholars alike. For a summary of the problem see Nicolas Oikonomidès, ‘Le dédoublement de saint héodore et les villes d’Eucha ïta et d’Euchaneia’, AB, 104 (1986), 327–35. Euthemios Protasecretis, ‘L’éloge de saint héodore le Stratélate par Euthyme Protasecretis’, ed. François Halkin, AB, 99 (1981), 221–37 (pp. 221, 224, 228). Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, p. 32.

74

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the life of the Recruit is described only in a single brief entry. Both of the entries about the General are concerned primarily with his martyrdom rather than his military career, as is the much briefer account in the Menologion of Basil II (BHG 1752 a–b).30 Yet the miniature which accompanies the entry in the Menologion confirms that heodore Stratelates was also venerated for his prowess in war: it shows him standing, wearing armour, supporting a shield with his left hand and a lance with his right.31 his type of portrait is unique in the surviving volume of the Menologion. Although about three-quarters of the entries are dedicated to martyrs, including Demetrios and heodore Teron, all but heodore Stratelates are depicted being executed.32 he fact that this rule of portraiture was broken for the General confirms that he was particularly famous as a patron in war, and it is difficult to imagine that the attention lavished on him was unrelated to his rank. Although there was little else to distinguish him from heodore Teron, the idea of being protected by a prestigious officer rather than a humble recruit must have appealed to the Byzantine elite and ensured that it was the General who came to the rescue of the imperial army on several occasions, as will be discussed below. heodore Teron was, however, not forgotten as hagiographic texts were compiled and rewritten from the late ninth century onward. Despite his seeming eclipse by his higher-ranking namesake, he continued to attract interest, and was included in all of the major collections along with heodore Stratelates. Indeed, the Recruit’s entries in the Metaphrastic collection, the Synaxarion of Constantinople and the Menologion of Basil II (BHG 1763 a–b) say more about his military career than do those concerning heodore Stratelates: all of them mention his recruitment and service in the army, and the Menologia also include his dragon-slaying miracle.33 he continuing interest in heodore Teron in imperial and military circles is confirmed by the fact that Nikephoros Ouranos, the author of the Taktika disussed in the previous chapter, composed a new version of his hagiography (BHG 1762m).34 Interestingly, Ouranos was a friend of Symeon Metaphrastes and is known to have corresponded with the Metropolitan of Euchaita, suggesting that he was well informed 30 31 32

33 34

SEC , cols. 451–2, 735–8; MB, cols. 301, 304. Il Menologio di Basilio II (Cod. Vaticano Greco 1613), 2 vols. (Turin: n. p., 1907), pl. 139. Ibid., pll. 383, 407. Since only one volume of the Menologion has survived, it is impossible to compare the illustrations of other military saints. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, pp. 136–50; SEC , col. 469; MB, col. 317. Nikephoros Ouranos, ‘Un opuscule inconnu du Magistre Ouranos’, ed. François Halkin, AB, 80 (1962), 308–24.

he collective cult of the military saints

75

about his subject.35 Ouranos’ work focuses primarily on heodore’s deeds prior to his martyrdom, paying particular attention to the princess who warns him about the dragon in the vicinity of Euchaita and the saint’s eventual slaying of it. heodore’s service in the army is also discussed, and Ouranos includes the miracle in which heodore appears posthumously as a soldier to have his portrait painted for an icon. Although Ouranos seems to have modelled all of the episodes in his work on earlier material, Halkin notes that it concentrates to an unprecedented extent on the saint’s deeds during his lifetime rather than his posthumous miracles.36 he middle Byzantine revisions to the hagiography of George contributed few new details about his military career, in contrast to the works about Demetrios and the heodores. Minor additions hint that his status and deeds as a soldier were a subject of interest, but no author from this period attempted to reconstruct George’s hagiography to make these details a focal point. For example, a version attributed to heodore Daphnopates (BHG 674), an older contemporary of Symeon Metaphrastes, uses the anachronistic term ton scholon to qualify George’s rank of komes – a possible indication of the author’s desire to emphasise the saint’s military career and make it more comprehensible to a tenth-century audience.37 he entry for George in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (BHG 680e), on the other hand, repeats only that he distinguished himself and was promoted to that rank.38 George’s hagiography was also of interest to Niketas the Paphlagonian and Symeon Metaphrastes, although it is difficult to distinguish their respective works. Krumbacher suggests that Niketas compiled a text which Krumbacher designates Diokletianos (BHG 676). Metaphrastes then expanded this work into a text which Krumbacher designates Arti (BHG 677).39 Although Diokletianos does not include any new references to George’s exploits as a soldier, Arti, unlike all previous

35

36 37

38 39

Ibid., p. 308; Jean Darrouzès, ed., Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantins, 1960), pp. 238–9. Halkin, ‘Un opuscule inconnu’, pp. 309–10. Karl Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung, Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologisch und historische Klasse 25, 3 (Munich, 1911), p. 61. SEC , cols. 623–6 (col. 623). Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, pp. 194–95; Niketas the Paphlagonian (?), ‘Martyrdom of the Holy and Honourable Great Martyr George’, in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., April, iii (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1675), pp. ix–xv; and Symeon Metaphrastes (?), ‘Martyrdom of the Holy and Honourable Great Martyr and Victory-Bearer George’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxv, cols. 141–61.

76

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

versions of his hagiography, adds some detail about his deeds, noting that he distinguished himself in battle against the Persians.40 Accounts of George’s miracles from the middle Byzantine period likewise do not discuss his earthly career, although they provide some evidence for an increasing interest in his military associations. As discussed in Chapter 1, there are no standardised collections of George’s miracles, and those which have been published are difficult to date. Festugière notes, however, that several miracle stories are connected with the region of Paphlagonia, and argues that they originally formed a collection which took shape in the ninth and tenth centuries.41 In several of these stories George rescues captives, miracles which Festugière and Walter assume are connected with his military status.42 It is unclear, however, why this should be the case. he rescue of captives, even if they were prisoners of war, is not necessarily related to fighting in the war itself, and the miracles do not describe George engaging in combat. Like many of his other miracles, the rescue of captives shows concern for the fate of individuals. Rather than an aspect of his warrior cult, this miracle seems to be another example of George’s general concern for the fate of the faithful. One of these miracles (BHG 691m) concerns a young soldier who was protected in battle by George, along with God and the prayers of his parents. Although he was taken prisoner after the battle, the saint later came to rescue him in the guise of an officer on horseback.43 Of interest in this case is not the rescue itself, but the fact that George was protecting a soldier in battle and was himself dressed as an officer. hese details indicate that he was venerated in the army and was perceived to have the power to intervene in battle, although in this case he did not join in the actual fighting. Although the other four miracles of the Paphlagonian collection do not concern warfare, the appearance of one story in which George intercedes in battle is significant, given the lack of such episodes in earlier works about the saint. Similarly, the significance of the minor additions to George’s hagiography should not be exaggerated, but are noteworthy compared to the almost total silence of earlier sources. But even if George’s military deeds did not receive as much attention as those of 40 41

42

43

Ibid., col. 144. A.-J. Festugière, trans. and ed., Sainte hècle, Saints Côme et Damien, Saints Cyr et Jean (Extraits), Saint Georges (Paris: Editions A. & J. Picard, 1971), pp. 265–7. Ibid., pp. 276–8, 278–87; Christopher Walter, he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), p. 120. Sainte hècle, pp. 278–87.

he collective cult of the military saints

77

Demetrios and the heodores, this did not prevent him from taking his place alongside them as one of the most celebrated heavenly protectors of the empire. he shortage of references to his exploits on the battlefield did not exclude him from this group: indeed, it seems that George’s cult simply did not need to be militarised or reorientated in Constantinople. As discussed in Chapter 1, his iconography shows that, unlike Demetrios, he was widely accepted and invoked as a soldier even in the earliest centuries of his veneration. And although Lydda was an important centre of George’s cult, it quickly spread more widely than that of Demetrios or even heodore, meaning that his provincial ties were not a threat to his status as an imperial patron. George’s spectacular martyrdom was, moreover, a feature which would have been highly valued by those who were trying to emphasise the links between soldiers and martyrs. he brief references to his rank and intercessory abilities were enough to establish his identity, but the extended passages describing his torments were probably also of interest to the military elite. he continued focus on martyrdom in the rewritten versions of George’s hagiography is thus not surprising, but an intriguing clue in the Synaxarion of Constantinople provides further evidence for his military role by association. he entry for 21 July notes that ‘the memory of the holy martyrs George and heodore’ was celebrated on that day.44 Although there is no further description of the feast day or specification of which heodore was commemorated, the reference shows that the affiliation of these soldier saints was firmly established by the time the Synaxarion was compiled. he date, furthermore, does not correspond to any of the established feast days for George or either heodore and suggests that a new commemoration had been created for them, presumably because of the similarities of their cults and military associations. he Synaxarion entry, despite its brevity, thus shows that Churchmen recognised the connections between two of the military saints by the tenth century. More plentiful evidence for the development of a close association among the entire group can be found in artistic media: from about the time of Constantine VII the holy warriors began to be grouped together in works of art which emphasised the interconnected nature of their attributes. his martyr-warrior ideal fused earlier traditions in the saints’ veneration and transformed them into appropriate patrons of the sanctified imperial army. Just as Constantine VII idealised his mortal troops as ‘soldiers of 44

SEC , col. 834. h ree other manuscripts of the Synaxarion place the feast day on 20 July (col. 832).

78

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Christ’ in his writings, so an army of martyrs was now invoked to protect the undertakings of this force and its leaders. Dating the artefacts in question is often difficult, and many can only be placed to within half a century or more. On the other hand, a relatively large number of works featuring a group of martyr-warriors form a cluster in the mid tenth to early eleventh centuries, suggesting that this mode of depiction became particularly favoured at that time. Constantine VII, as is clear from his military writings, developed an interest akin to that of Leo VI in the role of religious observances in warfare and the military patronage of martyrs. His father may well have encouraged Constantine’s devotion to Demetrios, which is clear from the Book of Ceremonies. Although this work describes the rituals to be performed on many feast days, it mentions the commemorations of only three holy figures: Elijah, Demetrios and Basil.45 Elijah and Basil were family patrons established by Basil I, to whose ranks Leo added Demetrios. Constantine clearly continued the family tradition of devotion to this group, but took the additional step of cultivating an entire corps of saintly military protectors with a joint role similar to that which Leo envisioned for Demetrios. As discussed in the previous chapter, Constantine’s treatise on military campaigns contains one of the earliest surviving references to such a group of patrons in war when it recommends using the names of the ‘martyr-generals’ as passwords. Further evidence for Constantine’s fascination with these saints can be gleaned from an ivory triptych in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome (Illustration 1). Oikonomidès has argued persuasively that the emperor himself commissioned this carving, which features one of the earliest, if not the earliest, depictions of a group of more than two military saints.46 he ivory’s images and inscriptions are consistent with Constantine’s military treatises, combining the ideals of martyrdom and victory in battle. he triptych features four saints on the inside of each of the wings: heodore Teron and Eustathios (top left), Prokopios and Arethas (bottom left), George and heodore Stratelates (top right) and Demetrios and Eustratios (bottom right).47 he five members of the état-major had 45 46

47

Constantine VII, De cerimoniis, i, pp. 114–18, 121–4, 136–9. Nicolas Oikonomidès, ‘he Concept of “Holy War” and Two Tenth-Century Byzantine Ivories’, in Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., ed. Timothy S. Miller and John Nesbitt (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 75–7. he inscription accompanying the saint identified as Eustathios is obscured. However, his identity can be confirmed by analogy with two other triptychs, discussed below, which feature the same eight saints and have intact inscriptions for all of them.

he collective cult of the military saints

79

Illustration 1 Ivory triptych from the Palazzo Venezia, Rome

well-established military associations by the mid tenth century, and Eustathios and Eustratios were known as officers who suffered martyrdom after converting to Christianity.48 Arethas fits less well with the others, and his inclusion may reflect the personal preference of Constantine. he saint’s hagiography describes him as the chief of the city of Najran in Arabia, who was executed for refusing to convert to Judaism at the command of the local king. Although Arethas led the defence of his city against the king’s army, the text also specifies that he was eighty-five years old at the time – hardly a young warrior like the other saints in the triptych.49 In any case, all of the saints are depicted similarly: dressed in formal court regalia and holding crosses in their right hands.50 In addition, Eustathios and heodore Stratelates carry swords. Although this iconography seems to divide the saints into two groups, the accompanying 48

49

50

See articles in Alexander P. Kazhdan et al., eds., ODB (Oxford University Press, 1991), ii, pp. 753, 789. Ibid., i, p. 163; François Halkin, trans. and ed., Six inédits d’ hagiologie byzantine, SH 74 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1987), pp. 133–78. I am grateful to Timothy Dawson for his helpful remarks about the costumes.

80

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

inscription emphasises features which they share: ‘An emperor had the four martyrs sculpted;/With them he puts to flight the enemies by storm’ (left side) and ‘Here is the foursome of the martyrs,/who decorate the crown with the four virtues’ (right side).51 Each verse refers to a group of four martyrs, one of whom carries a sword and three of whom do not. he text thus implies that the emperor puts the enemies to flight with the help of all four saints on the left, not just the sword-carrying Eustathios, and that all four on the right decorate the crown with virtues. Military triumph is thus shown to be accomplished thanks to the combined features of martyr and warrior. Although the iconography of the saints is not uniform in its emphasis on military features, the inscription reveals that they all assist in defeating the enemy. Many of the masterpieces of Byzantine ivory carving date from the decades after the Rome work was produced, and its influence can be detected in several other surviving triptychs. he later pieces continue to emphasise the links between warriors and martyrs, although each one does so in a slightly different way. he triptych in the Museo Sacro della Biblioteca Apostolica in Vatican City was probably modelled on the Rome triptych in the late tenth or early eleventh century, and the Harbaville Triptych in the Louvre seems, in turn, to have been modelled on the Vatican work.52 he Vatican and Harbaville triptychs feature the same eight saints on the inside of the wings as the Rome work. Although the saints’ placement within their rows has been rearranged, the same saints remain in the upper and lower rows. In both of the later works, the saints in the lower rows wear courtly robes and hold crosses, while those in the upper rows are dressed as soldiers. In the Vatican triptych, the two heodores hold lances and shields while George and Eustathios hold lances and swords; the latter combination is applied to all four saints in the Harbaville Triptych. he features of martyr and warrior are thus presented differently from the Rome triptych, but the placement of the two groups adjacent to each other, as well as the continuities with the Rome work, still point toward the perceived closeness of these roles. Further variation is found in a triptych in the Hermitage, which Goldschmidt and Weitzmann date to the tenth century. Despite the fact that their inscriptions have been partially obscured, seven of the eight 51 52

Oikonomidès, ‘he Concept of “Holy War”’, p. 73. Evans and Wixom, he Glory of Byzantium, pp. 131–4, ill. 79, 80. Previous scholarship has dated both triptychs to the mid tenth century: Adolf Goldschmidt and Kurt Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.–XIII. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1934), ii, pp. 34–5.

he collective cult of the military saints

81

saints in the wings seem to correspond to those in the previous three works, although Arethas has been replaced with Merkourios.53 On the Hermitage triptych, however, all eight saints are clad in military costumes except Eustratios, who carries a cross and wears a distinctive chlamys with three clasps. Whereas in the Rome ivory two saints represented the military prowess of martyrs, here one serves as a reminder of the shared martyrdom of a group of warriors. he central panel of this triptych probably also has military significance; it depicts the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia. hese saints, at least some of whom were believed to have been soldiers during their lifetimes, were venerated as military patrons.54 he mid-tenth-century Church of Nikephoros Phokas in Cappadocia, for example, depicts ten of them wearing armour and standing in formation behind John Tzimiskes and the general Melias.55 he ivory, however, depicts their death in an icy lake, thus adding another element of martyrdom to the composition. Finally, the Borradaile Triptych in the British Museum, dated to the mid tenth century, may be related to the previous four works, although it has a different shape and depicts a number of saints who do not appear in the other works.56 he triptych’s wings are semi-arches instead of rectangular and feature five saints each instead of four. Four of these ten saints – George, heodore Stratelates, Eustathios and Prokopios – are known from the other triptychs, while the other six – the martyrs Cyrus, John, Menas, Stephen and Kyrion and the bishop Clement of Alexandria – are not. Significantly, however, the depiction of the four saints with military associations follows the same pattern seen in the previous works by combining the features of martyr and warrior. George, heodore Stratelates and Eustathios, all in the middle row, are dressed as soldiers, whereas Prokopios, on the bottom row, appears as a martyr. Whether or not the Borradaile Triptych is directly related to the others, its iconography betrays similar priorities: the depiction together of several saints with military associations and the distribution among them of the features of martyr and warrior. he iconography of the ivory carvings confirms the veneration of the military saints as a group, as well as the perceived interdependence of the 53 54 55

56

Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, p. 27, pl. iii/9. Walter, he Warrior Saints, pp. 170–80. Catherine Jolivet-Lévy and Ahmet Ertuğ , Sacred Art of Cappadocia: Byzantine Murals from the 6th to 13th Centuries (Istanbul: Ertuğ & Kocabıy ı k, 2006), pl. 66. David Buckton, ed., Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections (London: British Museum Press, 1994), pp. 142–3, ill. 153.

82

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

features of martyr and warrior. Works in other media, such as a steatite icon of the Hetoimasia (the empty prepared throne of Christ) dated to the late tenth or eleventh century, provide further examples of this development (Illustration 2). Beneath the prepared throne stand Demetrios, heodore, George and Prokopios, dressed as martyrs and holding crosses. he inscription, however, refers to them as both soldiers and martyrs, thus mixing designations and costumes rather than two types of costume: ‘he stratelatai, having appeared from the four ends [of the world] as witnesses [i.e. martyrs] to the divine pronouncements, are most ready to be awarded a place [in heaven].’57 All of the saints in this icon also appeared in the Rome triptych, which referred to them as martyrs. Here, despite their costumes, they are identified as warriors, confirming the fluidity of the two roles. Certain middle Byzantine enkolpia (small pendants or other objects decorated with religious imagery or containing relics) also use innovative iconography to express the relationship between the attributes of the military saints. On one such item Demetrios appears on the obverse in military dress, but a tiny relief figure in an interior compartment shows him reposing in his sarcophagus.58 Another enkolpion has a similar interior portrait of Demetrios and a portrait of George in military dress on the reverse. Although the obverse is missing, it probably featured Demetrios, along with the first half of the inscription which continues on the reverse: ‘he supplicates you to be his fervent guardian in battles’.59 Most or all of the texts and luxury works of art discussed above were probably produced in Constantinople, but the new developments in the cults of the military saints which they represent spread quickly into the provinces. he mosaic cycle of the monastery of Hosios Lukas, completed in about the 1020s, is the earliest surviving depiction of a group of military saints in this medium. In full-length portraits, Merkourios, Prokopios, heodore Teron, heodore Stratelates, Demetrios and George appear as soldiers, as does Nestor in a bust portrait. However, another bust portrait of heodore Teron shows him as a martyr.60 A number of Cappadocian churches from this period are also decorated with images of military saints, some of them in groups. he Cistern Church has a 57

58 59 60

Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, 2 vols., Byzantina Vindobonensia 15, 1 and II (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1985), i, p. 96, no. 3; translation in Evans and Wixom, he Glory of Byzantium, p. 156. Ibid., p. 168, no. 117. Ibid., p. 167, no. 116. Ernst Diez and Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), p. 119, ill. 34, 36, 37, pll. 7, 8.

he collective cult of the military saints

83

Illustration 2 Steatite icon of the Hetoimasia

fresco of George on horseback, while the Church of Nikephoros Phokas features, in addition to ten of the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia, another unnamed military saint on another wall and a local martyr, Hieron, dressed as a warrior. he Church of the Mother of God in Göreme and the Church of St Barbara in Soğanlı both have portraits of George and heodore in military costume, as well as Eustratios and his companions in the former and Eustathios and his family in the latter.61 he late ninthor early tenth-century Church of the Cross features three military saints with mixed iconography: Prokopios dressed as a soldier but holding a cross, George holding a cross and heodore slaying a dragon. heodore 61

Jolivet-Lévy and Ertuğ , Sacred Art of Cappadocia , pl. 78 (Cistern); pll. 65, 62 (Nikephoros Phokas); pl. 68 (Mother of God); pl. 81 (St Barbara). he generally poor state of preservation of the Cappadocian frescoes means it is often impossible to tell if fresco cycles originally included other military saints.

84

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

appears again in the same pose in Church No. 3 of Zelve, accompanied by unidentified martyrs who are probably Demetrios and George, based on the description of their distinctive hair.62 he depiction of pairs and groups of military saints in such diverse media provides important clues about their emergence as a recognised corps of patrons in war. Additional evidence for their new role can be found in a group of sources from the mid tenth century and later which point toward a perceived association between one or more of them and the Mother of God. Although not numerous, these sources are significant because they connect the holy warriors with an established military patroness. As discussed in the previous chapter, Mary had been the unrivalled guardian of Constantinople since the sixth century, and was credited with saving the city from destruction on many occasions. Given her fame in this capacity, her association with the military saints must have confirmed and lent support to their own duties as imperial protectors. Artistic sources express this association in various ways: a middle Byzantine panel icon, for example, depicts the two heodores receiving crowns from the Mother of God, while a tenth-century ivory icon features heodore and George flanking her.63 Certain historical sources, which will be discussed below, provide even more detail, describing her sending them out into battle. Of course, individual portraits of the military saints, whether as martyrs or as warriors, continued to be produced during the middle Byzantine period. A particularly magnificent example is the late tenth-century ivory icon of Demetrios as a warrior (Illustration 3).64 here are, however, numerous other such works in all media. Not all portraits of the saints in pairs or groups, meanwhile, give equal attention to the attributes of martyr and warrior. A triptych from the early eleventh century in Tbilisi, 62

63

64

Nicole h ierry, Haut Moyen- Âge en Cappadoce: les églises de la region de Çavuşin, 2 vols., Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 102 (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1983), ii, pp. 249, 345–7. he proposed dating of the second set of frescoes to the seventh or eighth century seems rather early, although the lack of reproductions means that it is difficult to comment. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons, i, p. 65; Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, p. 65, pl. li/144. Evans and Wixom, he Glory of Byzantium, p. 135, no. 81. Anthony Cutler remarks about this icon: ‘It would be too much to say that the patron of hessalonike is here shown ready for action. His almost drunken stance contrasts markedly with the timid but upright figure on the Harbaville.’ (Anthony Cutler, ‘Inscriptions and Iconography on Some Middle Byzantine Ivories: he Monuments and heir Dating’, in Late Antique and Byzantine Ivory Carving (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1998), pp. 630–57 (p. 650).) Although Demetrios’ stance may be slightly off-centre, his military costume and weapons are the best possible indication that he is indeed being portrayed as a warrior ‘ready for action’.

he collective cult of the military saints

85

for example, features two military saints on the bottom row of each wing, all of them dressed as soldiers.65 Most middle Byzantine steatite icons, in which George, Demetrios and heodore are ‘numerically predominant’ as subjects, also depict them in military dress.66 Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner lists three works depicting all three saints (in two of which they are dressed as soldiers), three with George and heodore (in all of which they are dressed as soldiers), eight with individuals (in all but one of which they are dressed as soldiers) and nine fragments in which the number of saints and/or their costumes are unclear.67 Various enkolpia also feature pairs of military saints dressed similarly.68 he works which integrated the saints’ attributes thus did not displace other forms of representation. Nevertheless, the relatively large number of examples of the former type which began to appear in the tenth century was a significant break with previous tradition and is indicative of corresponding changes in their veneration. In addition to hagiography and iconography, the changing role of the military saints was also expressed in poetry and historical writing. Such works confirm that the holy warriors were not only invoked in words and images, but could also be expected to intercede personally on behalf of Byzantine armies. he poet John Geometros, the younger son of a court functionary who was active in Constantinople in the mid to late tenth century, wrote three epigrams to Demetrios and two poems to heodore (only one of which specifies that it is dedicated to the Recruit). Although few details about John’s life are known, he served in the army under Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil the Parakoimomenos, and seems to have been dismissed by Basil II.69 His writings about the military saints, which skilfully combine references to martyrdom and warfare, indicate that the new currents in the saints’ veneration pioneered 65 66 67

68

69

Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, p. 73, pl. lxiv/195. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons, i, p. 63. Ibid., ii, nos. 4, 21, 27 (George, Demetrios and heodore); 5, 28, 100 (George and heodore); 6, 48, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 99 (individuals); 7, 9, 22, 23, 24a, 25, 26, 29, 93 (fragments). See, e.g., Evans and Wixom, he Glory of Byzantium, pp. 161–2, no. 108 (Demetrios and Nestor as martyrs); p. 164, no. 111 (George and heodore as soldiers); G. F. Korzukhina and A. A. Peskova, Drevnerusskie enkolpiony: nagrudnye kresty-relikvarii X–XIII vv., Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury, trudy 8 (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2003). he final item, known as the Cross of Marko the Gravedigger, was discovered in Kiev and has on occasion been classified as a Rus work. Given its iconography and Greek inscriptions, however, the arguments of Korzukhina and Peskova for its Byzantine origin are persuasive. See also V. G. Putsko, ‘Krest Marka Peshchernika’, SA, 51 (1987), 217–30. Jean Géomètre, Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques élégiaques, trans. and ed. Emilie Marlène van Opstall, TMM 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 3, 4, 8–11.

86

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 3 Ivory icon of Demetrios

by emperors were also embraced by officers. John’s epigram number 62 to Demetrios, for example, addresses him as ‘the foremost man of hessalonika in arms, who achieves victory unarmed’.70 Epigram number 63 includes a similar sentiment: ‘by conquering without arms you become the foremost man of wisdom, martyr’.71 Poem number 67 to heodore, written in the first person, describes facing a jeering crowd in an arena and asking the martyr to guide the author’s hand to the prize.72 he celebrated appearances of heodore Stratelates in battles against the Rus are discussed in various historical writings. he saint’s first appearance, in 941 under Romanos Lekapenos, is recounted in the Life of Basil the Younger (BHG 263–4f). Although this is a work of hagiography, it includes detailed descriptions of a number of historical events 70

Ibid., p. 218.

71

Ibid., p. 222.

72

Ibid., pp. 242, 244.

he collective cult of the military saints

87

from the early to mid tenth century and seems to have been written by a contemporary.73 It relates Basil’s prediction that the Rus would attack the capital and that the defensive operation would be led by a number of high-ranking officers as well as ‘heodore the most holy general who has the surname Spongarios’. hey would be aided by ‘the Mother of God of the heavenly forces and all the saints’ to defeat the enemy. Everything came to pass as Basil had predicted, and the Life describes the rout of the Rus in considerable detail.74 heodore’s epithet has generated a certain amount of controversy: some scholars have interpreted it as a personal name, meaning that the hero in question would have been a member of the mortal army rather than the heavenly one. It is more likely, however, that it is a corruption of ‘Sphorakios’, the designation of heodore’s oldest church in Constantinople.75 Although this church was built in the fifth century and hence originally dedicated to heodore Teron, the confusion surrounding the identities of the saints and their sanctuaries makes it entirely plausible that it could have come to be associated with heodore Stratelates as well. heodore Stratelates had the support of the Mother of God again in 971, during John Tzimiskes’ campaign against the Rus in Bulgaria. he historian Leo the Deacon, writing soon after the event and using a source which is now lost, reports that a storm arose in the heat of battle, and it is said that a man on a white horse appeared, riding ahead of the Romans and exhorting them to advance against the Scythians … From this the indisputable assumption emerged that it was the great martyr heodore, to whom the emperor used to pray to stand by him as an ally during the battles to rescue and save him together with the whole army.

On the evening before the battle, Leo continues, a nun in Constantinople had a vision of the Mother of God calling for heodore, who is described as wearing armour when he appeared before her. Mary told heodore to go help Tzimiskes, to whom she referred as ‘your John’.76 To show his gratitude for the saint’s intercession, Tzimiskes renamed the city of Dorostolon 73

74

75

76

Lennart Rydén, ‘he Life of St. Basil the Younger and the Date of the Life of St. Andreas Salos’, HUS , 7 (1983), 568–86. A. N. Veselovskii, ed., ‘Khozhdenie Feodory po mytarstvam i neskol’ko epizodov iz zhitiia Vasiliia novogo’, Sbornik otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti IAN, 46 (1890), app. i, 3–82 (pp. 65–7). Henri Grégoire, ‘Saint héodore le Stratélate et les Russes d’Igor’, Byzantion, 13 (1938), 291–300, and Walter, he Warrior Saints, pp. 61–2. Leo the Deacon, Leonis Diaconi Caloënsis historiae libri decem, ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1828), pp. 153–4.

88

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

heodoropolis ‘for the general and martyr heodore Stratelates’ on his way home from the campaign. During his victory parade, furthermore, he insisted on walking and placing an icon of the Mother of God in his chariot.77 his passage reveals that Tzimiskes counted on heodore as a protector on the battlefield and prayed to him regularly in this capacity. Mary’s reference to the close connection between the saint and the emperor is a further indication of Tzimiskes’ devotion. his event must have been considered noteworthy, as three subsequent Byzantine historians included similar stories in their accounts of Tzimiskes’ reign. John Skylitzes, writing about one hundred years later and using the same source as Leo, left this account broadly intact but changed or added a number of details.78 Interestingly, he describes Tzimiskes giving thanks to George following an earlier stage of the confrontation which took place on the saint’s feast day, calling him ‘victorious martyr’.79 Skylitzes also mentions that the battle in which heodore appeared took place on his feast day, but does not specify the date. Leo’s account states that the battle was fought on Friday, 24 July, although it has been pointed out that in 971 that day was a Monday.80 It is not impossible, given the authors’ interest in feast days and George’s appearance in Skylitzes’ account, that Leo or his source was trying to refer to the saints’ joint feast day on 21 July discussed above. he mistake may have arisen because the feast day was new or not known to everyone. In any case, Skylitzes goes on to describe how Tzimiskes sponsored the construction of a new and sumptuous church in the saint’s honour following the battle. He claims, however, that Tzimiskes renamed Euchaneia, rather than Dorostolon, after heodore.81 Skylitzes may have changed this detail in order to emphasise that the saintly intercessor was the high-ranking heodore, rather than his counterpart the Recruit. Neither city seems to have used the name, but this fact did not discourage still more historians from writing about the battle. he version found in the twelfth-century Synopsis historion of George Kedrenos is similar to that of Skylitzes, 77 78

79

80

81

Ibid., p. 158. For a comparison of the accounts of Leo and Skylitzes see Stamatina McGrath, ‘he Battles of Dorostolon (971): Rhetoric and Reality’, in Peace and War in Byzantium, ed. Miller and Nesbitt, pp. 152–64. John Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. Hans hurn, CFHB 5 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), p. 300. English translation in John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History 811–1057, trans. John Wortley (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Leo the Deacon, he History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, trans. and ed. Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan, DOS 41 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005), p. 196. Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae, pp. 308–9.

he collective cult of the military saints

89

including the renaming of Euchaneia.82 Another twelfth-century historian, John Zonaras, seems, however, to have been uncertain regarding the identity of the city in question, noting that the grateful Tzimiskes built a church to heodore ‘in Euchaneia or Euchaita’ and renamed it.83 Despite the confusion surrounding the city honoured by Tzimiskes, the tenacity of the story indicates the perceived importance of the event. As in late antiquity, divine intercessions seem to have been rare occurrences in middle Byzantine historical writing and therefore worthy of some attention. Skylitzes, for example, mentions a few other occasions on which Christ or the Mother of God provided aid on a campaign, but none in which they made personal appearances.84 he battles with the Rus are all the more extraordinary because they mark a new stage in the actions of heodore. Whereas in previous centuries he had been known to help with the defence of his native city, the tenth-century battles appear to have been the first occasions on which he came to the aid of an operation led by an emperor far from the saint’s homeland. Lekapenos, Tzimiskes and their contemporaries seem to have set their hopes on the tangible participation of heodore, George and perhaps other military saints in all aspects of warfare. Like the real soldiers who were often compared to them, martyrs were now fully fledged comrades-in-arms of emperors. Basil II, who was formally emperor at the time of the battle of 971 but not yet ruling for himself, seems to have been aware of and influenced by the growing importance of the military saints. Like many of his predecessors he relied on the aid of the Mother of God in battle, and faced the rebel Bardas Phokas holding her icon in one hand and a sword in the other.85 Yet Basil also cultivated the patronage of Demetrios: Skylitzes reports that, following the surrender of the rebel Bardas Skleros, Basil made a special stop in hessalonika to venerate the saint and give thanks for his 82

83

84 85

George Kedrenos, Synopsis historion, ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1838 –39), ii, pp. 410–11. John Zonaras, Epitomae historiarum, ed. M. Pinderi, 3 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1841– 97), iii, pp. 533–4. As Oikonomidès no doubt correctly points out, both cities were already under Turkish rule by Zonaras’ time and Euchaneia may well have been abandoned, making his confusion understandable. (Oikonomidès, ‘Le dédoublement’, p. 330.) For a possible solution to the problem of which city was renamed see Irmgard Hutter, ‘heodorupolis’, in ΑΕΤΟΣ: Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango, ed. Ihor Ševč enko and Irmgard Hutter (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1998), pp. 181–90. See, for example, Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae, pp. 143–4, 219. Michael Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), trans. and ed. Emile Renauld, 2 vols. (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1926), i, p. 10. On Psellos’ presentation of Basil’s reign see Catherine Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025) (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 29–35.

90

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

successes.86 An enkomion to Photios of hessalonika (BHG 1545), Basil’s spiritual adviser, notes that the emperor also visited the tombs of George, heodore Stratelates and heodore Teron to ask for protection in battle, indicating that, like his predecessors, Basil recognised and venerated the military saints as a defined corps.87 Although no writings about military saints by Basil himself survive, he was a friend of Nikephoros Ouranos, the author of the reworked Life of heodore Teron discussed above. his contact and others, described by Barbara Crostini as a ‘tight-knit group of intellectuals … revolving around Basil’s court’88 testify to an interest in hagiography, and in the military saints in particular, among Basil’s associates. In addition to his pilgrimages, Basil expressed his faith in the protection of the military saints in works of art which he commissioned. His famous Menologion and Psalter confirm his cultivation of the military patronage of martyrs. While the dates of these works and their relationship, if any, to Basil’s various campaigns are disputed, both call attention to the emperor’s faith in saints to protect him in his undertakings.89 he opening poem of the Menologion asks for the aid of the saints described therein: ‘his book contains beautiful images like stars … wise prophets, martyrs, and apostles, of all the righteous, of angels and archangels … In all those whom he has portrayed in colors, may he find active helpers, sustainers of the State, allies in battles, deliverers from sufferings, healers in sickness.’90 Although the poem appeals to all saints, martyrs, as discussed above, make up about three-quarters of the book’s subjects. Of these, only heodore Stratelates is depicted as a soldier, while Demetrios and heodore Teron are shown being executed. heodore Stratelates may well have been chosen to appear in military costume because of his famous appearances in the battles against the Rus. It is clear, however, that

86

87

88 89

90

Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae, p. 339. he story is repeated in Kedrenos, Synopsis historion, ii, p. 447 and Zonaras, Epitomae historiarum, iii, p. 557. Barbara Crostini, ‘he Emperor Basil II’s Cultural Life’, Byzantion, 66 (1996), 55–80 (p. 78). he enkomion, apparently published only in a nineteenth-century Russian pamphlet, was unavailable for consultation. See BHG and discussion in Holmes, Basil II, p. 56. he text was not included in the Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database because it is ‘an extremely rhetorical work with no concrete information’. Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database, ed. Alexander Kazhdan et al., www.doaks.org/document/hagiointro.pdf, accessed 21 July 2011, p. 7. Crostini, ‘he Emperor’, p. 70. he traditional view that the prostrate figures beneath Basil’s feet in the frontispiece of the Psalter represent vanquished Bulgars has been disputed by, among others, Paul Stephenson, he Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 51–62. On the political context of the Psalter see Holmes, Basil II, pp. 471–2. SEC , col. 26; translation in Ihor Ševč enko, ‘he Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II’, DOP, 16 (1962), 243–76 (p. 273).

he collective cult of the military saints

91

heodore was not the only martyr to whom Basil looked for protection. Indeed, heodore’s appearance in the Menologion wearing armour among so many scenes of martyrdom is analogous to his previous appearance in the Rome triptych. Here, as in the triptych, a saint with military attributes is depicted among a group of martyrs. he poem exhorts ‘martyrs’ as a general category to aid the emperor in battle, not singling out heodore. As in the case of the triptych, a military role is assigned on the basis of a general text to a number of martyrs. Not all of them are shown with military attributes, but those who do appear as soldiers are not mentioned separately: the military role thus applies equally to all. he frontispiece of Basil’s Psalter also demonstrates that he thought of a number of martyrs, and not just heodore, as his patrons in war (Illustration 4). Basil is shown in parade armour surrounded by medallion portraits of similarly clad saints who hold shields and lances. Although two of the inscriptions are obscured, the identities of the saints can be reconstructed as follows: heodore Stratelates, Demetrios, heodore Teron (?) (left column); George, Prokopios, Merkourios (?) (right column). he group portrait follows an opening poem which reads in part: ‘he martyrs are his allies, for he is their friend. hey smite [those] who are lying at his feet.’91 In this case, the presence of the emperor in armour necessitates that his ‘friends’ also be depicted that way. While the fact of their martyrdom is emphasised in the text, the subject of the scene – Basil’s triumph – demands their representation as warriors. Such a reading resolves the inconsistency which bothered Ihor Ševčenko with regard to the relationship of the poem to the illustration: ‘we dismiss some inexactitudes … “martyrs” is too vague for military saints’.92 In this case, as in that of the Rome triptych, martyrs are in fact identical to military saints. Basil II and other emperors chose them as patrons precisely because of their martyrdom, which provided a fitting basis on which to construct their identity as military protectors. he transformation of a handful of martyrs into imperial military patrons was a process which reflected some of the important changes of the late ninth and tenth centuries. his period, marked by both military triumphs and consolidation within the Church following Iconoclasm, witnessed an unprecedented fusion of military and religious rhetoric and 91

92

Translation in Ševč enko, ‘he Illuminators’, p. 272. Ševč enko’s translation supplies the word ‘enemies’ for the people lying at Basil’s feet, although this is not found in the Greek. See discussion in Stephenson, he Legend , p. 53. Ševč enko, ‘he Illuminators’, p. 272.

92

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 4 Frontispiece of the Psalter of Basil II

imagery. While the military treatises of the time declare in no uncertain terms the Byzantine army’s favour in the eyes of God, the spirit of the day is perhaps most strikingly expressed by the images of martyrs, newly outfitted as warriors, whose patronage was cultivated by successive emperors and officers. Perhaps not surprisingly, these martyrs, defenders of both the faith and the empire, did not lose their popularity even after the victories of the Macedonian period had been reversed. Later emperors, inspired by their heroic deeds, continued to place their hopes in them as the empire’s steadfast protectors. Indeed, sources from the eleventh and twelfth centuries indicate that, if anything, the military saints became even more popular and well established under the Komnenoi emperors. Nor was the appeal of the saints confined to Byzantium: missionary activities allowed the cults of the holy warriors to take root in Rus as well. here, the role of the saints continued to be elaborated by members of the princely clan

he collective cult of the military saints

93

and they exerted a profound influence on the emerging cult of Boris and Gleb, the first native saints of Rus. he continuing development of military sainthood in Rus and Byzantium shows the vitality of the tradition and its adaptation to new historical circumstances; it is the subject of the next three chapters.

ch apter 4

he military saints in early Rus

he cults of the military saints took shape and became increasingly prominent in the Byzantine court and army beginning in the late ninth century. he Macedonian elite did more than encourage veneration of the saints; they also reshaped their cults into a distinct phalanx of comrades-inarms. he Macedonians were the first, but not the last, group of rulers to harness the veneration of these saints to suit their own military, religious and political purposes. his process continued with new vigour in the East Slavonic principality of Rus, which adopted Christianity as its official religion during the reign of Basil II. As was the case with many of the empire’s northern neighbours, Rus’ relationship with Byzantium was by turns tempestuous and culturally fruitful. he complex interactions of the states shaped the reception and continued development of the military saints in Rus, where they became prized as the heavenly protectors of princes – despite the saints’ defence, in earlier centuries, of Byzantium’s armies against the ancestors of those rulers. he roots of the medieval state known as Rus, which eventually grew to encompass parts of present-day Ukraine, Belarus and European Russia, developed in the long-distance trade routes linking north-eastern Europe with the Middle East, the eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus.1 Scandinavians (called Varangians in Byzantine and Rus sources) seem to have been venturing into what is now Finland and north-western Russia as early as the sixth or seventh century in pursuit of fur-bearing animals. heir modest settlements among the local populations of Finno-Ugric and Baltic peoples facilitated a lucrative, if small-scale, fur trade with Byzantium and Sasanian Persia. his trade intensified following the Arab conquests, when the Abbasid caliphs began to mint silver dirhams in 1

here are few aspects of the early history of Rus which are not extremely controversial, and this brief overview can highlight only some of the more prominent events and debates. A thorough study of the subject can be found in Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, he Emergence of Rus: 750–1200 (London: Longman, 1996).

94

he military saints in early Rus

95

their new capital, Baghdad, in the mid eighth century. he high value attached to these coins in the north and the demand for products from the northern forests in both the Arab world and Byzantium encouraged increasing numbers of local people and Varangian adventurers to try their luck with the long-distance trade.2 Among the variety of peoples involved in this network, a group of Scandinavians known as Rus (Greek: Rhos) distinguished themselves by establishing a political structure to facilitate their trade interests. By the early ninth century there is evidence for a ruler of the Rus, probably based in Gorodishche near the later site of Novgorod, who had the means to send an embassy to the Byzantine emperor heophilos.3 Although the identity of this ruler is unclear, the Rus presence in the region continued to grow during the ninth century as their trade networks expanded, and they eventually gave their name to the region they ruled. A shift in the centre of Rus power from Gorodishche to the mid-Dnieper occurred in the late ninth or early tenth century. A decrease in dirham production, instability in the Khazar Empire in the northern Caucasus and southern steppe and the growing power of the Bulgars on the upper Volga combined to make trade along eastern routes to the Arab world less attractive.4 Instead, many Rus began to focus their energies on the north–south trade with Byzantium, for which Kiev became the main entrepôt. Among the various groups who were active in this area, one family eventually beat out its rivals to become the dominant political force. his dynasty later became known as the Riurikids, after its legendary Varangian progenitor Riurik, who, according to a later chronicle tradition, was invited in 862 by fractious tribes around Novgorod to rule over them and establish order.5 Whether or not Riurik actually existed, the first undoubtedly historical member of the family that bore his name, Igor, had taken control of Kiev by the 930s.6

2 5

6

Ibid., pp. 6–13. 3 Ibid., pp. 31–41. 4 Ibid., pp. 86–91. h is story was almost certainly invented by a later chronicler to explain the Varangian infi ltration into eastern Europe, although the date of its composition and relationship to actual events remain controversial. he text is found in a chronicle known as the Povest’ vremennykh let, usually referred to in English as the Primary Chronicle, which includes dated entries spanning the mid ninth to early twelfth centuries. he original text of the Primary Chronicle does not survive, but has been reconstructed from a number of later manuscripts. See Donald Ostrowski, ed., PVL: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, HLEUL 10, 1–3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), i, lines 19,14–20,12, pp. 101–7; xvii–lxv. Franklin and Shepard, he Emergence of Rus, p. 112. A simplified genealogy of the principal Riurikids mentioned in this study is given in Appendix 3.

96

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Over the course of the tenth century, Igor, his widow Olga and their son Sviatoslav expanded the family’s territories at home and mercantile interests abroad. Like their predecessors in eastern Europe, the early Riurikids negotiated trade treaties with Byzantium and launched occasional attacks on Constantinople.7 Although these attacks never succeeded in breaching the city walls, their purpose was probably to make an impression and win trade concessions rather than outright conquest. In any case, the growing north–south traffic brought wealth to Rus and increased its cultural contacts with Byzantium. he Primary Chronicle ’s first reference to one of the military saints occurs, for example, in its account of the attack on Constantinople by the Varangian leader Oleg in 907. After describing Oleg’s devastation of the area, the chronicle relates that ‘he Greeks were afraid. And they said, “his is not Oleg but St Demetrios sent against us from God.”’8 his remark, probably written down in its surviving form about 200 years after the events it describes, is one of many sources which illustrate the early appreciation in Rus of the military prowess of the saint and his companions. Particularly successful in securing and expanding the territory of Rus was Sviatoslav’s son Vladimir, who founded a number of new settlements around Kiev. Because his vast and thinly populated realm could not be controlled effectively by a single person, Vladimir assigned his sons to rule far-flung towns in his name. Even as their realm became more unified, the Riurikids remained averse to primogeniture and practised a system known as ‘collateral succession’, whereby each brother in a generation had a chance to rule a city or cities before power passed to their sons. he Rus thus had no equivalent of a king or emperor; rather, every member of the Riurikid clan held the rank of kniaz (feminine: kniagina), usually translated as ‘prince’, or sometimes ‘duke’. All princes were, in theory, equal, although hierarchies emerged as the clan proliferated and competition for the larger cities increased.9 Kiev remained the most prestigious and senior princely seat until the twelfth century, when some of the regions, and in 7

8 9

For the texts of the treaties (probably somewhat altered from their original form), see PVL , entries for 907 (i, lines 30,25–32,7, pp. 174–83); 911 (i, lines 32,27–37,28, pp. 187–216); and 945 (i, lines 46,18–53,19/20, pp. 270–320). Attacks on the city are recorded in the entries for 866 (i, lines 21,10–22,2/3, pp. 113–17), 907 (i, lines 29,19–30,20, pp. 165–73) and 941 (i, lines 44,4–45,1, pp. 251–8). No Byzantine sources corroborate the events of 907, and they may have been inserted to explain the treaty of that year. See Franklin and Shepard, he Emergence of Rus, p. 106. PVL , i, lines 30,18–30,20, pp. 172–3. he political system of Rus falls outside the scope of the present investigation, but a detailed study can be found in Franklin and Shepard, he Emergence of Rus, ch. 7. For a discussion of collateral succession see Nancy Kollmann, ‘Collateral Succession in Kievan Rus’’, HUS , 14 (1990), 377–87.

he military saints in early Rus

97

particular the north-east, became serious rivals for power, a process which will be discussed in Chapter 6. Of all his contributions to the political, economic and cultural life of Rus, Vladimir is best known for overseeing the official conversion to Christianity. It is not known when Christianity first reached the area, but the tenth-century treaties with Byzantium provide evidence that some members of the Rus trading parties were Christians, and the regent Olga became the first Christian ruler following her baptism in Constantinople in the 950s.10 Although her son Sviatoslav remained resolutely pagan and Vladimir himself seems to have led a pagan reaction in the early 980s, he was eventually baptised in the Byzantine rite in about 988 and decreed that his subjects should do likewise.11 His actions strengthened Rus’ cultural and religious ties with Byzantium, and the influx of monks, priests, architects and craftsmen following the conversion ensured that many trappings of Byzantine Christianity, including veneration of the military saints, became firmly established in Rus. As in Byzantium, the holy warriors enjoyed the devotion of a wide cross-section of the population of Rus, but had an especially strong influence on the ruling house and the development within it of concepts of heavenly patronage. Slavonic translations of Greek religious texts about the saints and the spread of Byzantine iconographic traditions ensured that their cults retained many of the features which characterised their veneration in the empire. Yet it would be a great oversimplification to claim that the holy warriors played the same role in both cultures, or that their cults were identical in Byzantium and Rus. Indeed, the surviving evidence points toward distinct (although not, it should be stressed, opposed) understandings of the military saints, and in particular their relationship to rulers as the protectors of the army and realm. he development in Rus of innovative practices in the veneration of the military saints and the application of that model of sainthood to new candidates 10

11

Christian Varangians are mentioned in PVL , i, lines 54,4–54,8, pp. 323–4. Olga’s baptism is recounted in the chronicle’s entry for 955/6: ibid., lines 61,1–61,17, pp. 388–93. Her visit to Constantinople is also discussed in the Book of Ceremonies of Constantine VII, although the year is not noted: Constantine VII, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. I. I. Reiskii, 3 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1829 –40), i, pp. 594–8. An argument for dating this event to 957 can be found in A. V. Nazarenko, ‘“Moydreishi vsekh chelovek”: kreshenie kniagini Ol’gi kak fakt mezhdunarodnoi politiki’, in Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh: mezhdistsiplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh sviazei IX–XII vekov (Moscow: IaRK, 2001), pp. 219–310. he details of the events leading up to and immediately following the baptism are widely disputed. For an analysis see Franklin and Shepard, he Emergence of Rus, pp. 160–4. For the Primary Chronicle ’s description see PVL , ii, lines 111,11–111,20, pp. 856–9.

98

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

are the subjects of the next two chapters, which will focus on evidence from the late tenth to early thirteenth centuries from all regions other than the north-eastern principalities. Reconstructing the place of the holy warriors in early Rus involves few certainties. Many of the liturgical texts which were used to commemorate them survive, but for the most part in later copies. Although Greek originals for these texts can often be found, the date and place of their translation into Slavonic are open to speculation. hus, while certain Rus manuscripts can be dated to as early as the late eleventh century, it is difficult to determine how much earlier the texts in question were known in Rus and how widely they circulated. Depictions of the military saints in artistic media are often even more difficult to date, especially in the case of artefacts with no certain archaeological provenance. he following analysis will not, therefore, propose a precise chronology of the translations of texts or the creation of artistic works. Rather, it will attempt to reconstruct the broad outlines of the veneration of the military saints in early Rus based on the texts and images that were most likely to have been available. Written sources, namely liturgical and hagiographic texts, will be considered first, followed by evidence from seals, coins, church dedications and the minor arts. he chronological and geographic parameters described above are intentionally vague. In fact, few of the texts and artefacts which will be studied in this chapter can be dated to within less than a century, and some of those with precise dates fall outside this period. Later sources can, however, often be useful when attempting to identify earlier trends. Indeed, in most areas of Rus, veneration of the military saints seems to have continued largely unchanged through the pre-Mongol period. he gradual shift of the centre of princely power to the north-east, which began in the mid twelfth century, did coincide with important changes in their veneration by the up-and-coming branch of the clan, and the innovations of the house of Suzdal will be discussed in Chapter 6. his process does not, however, seem to have caused older traditions to die out in other branches of the clan and the population at large, and a great deal of evidence points toward continuity in areas outside the ascendant princely seats in Vladimir, Suzdal and neighbouring cities. As a general rule, younger evidence from other areas will, with due precaution, be taken to be generally informative of the older patterns of veneration found in most areas of Rus, while the changes ushered in by the princes of the north-east will be treated separately.

he military saints in early Rus

99

Another reason for caution is the paucity of previous attempts to reconstruct the veneration of the military saints in its wider cultural context in early Rus. Although the saints themselves have received considerable attention, scholarship has traditionally focused on aspects of their individual cults as expressed in one medium or related media.12 Studies of artistic media, on the other hand, tend to analyse broad iconographic trends and rarely focus on the evolution of portraits of individual saints. Such work has resulted in the publication of important materials and has contributed to the understanding of their origins, but often focuses narrowly on questions pertaining to dates and places of composition or manufacture.13 he emphasis on problems of provenance and chronology tends to discourage discussion of the larger picture and comparisons across genres. For the most part, questions such as who venerated the military saints, for what reasons, and the forms which this veneration took have not been investigated in any depth. Yet such questions are justified: the popularity of the saints is clear based on the sheer number of surviving sources related to them, but analysis of a wider cross-section of these sources could reveal differences in their veneration by various sectors of the populace. Within the princely clan in particular, study of their cults may shed light on differences between the Riurikids’ cultivation of heavenly patrons and that of the Byzantine emperors. he socio-cultural aspects of the cults of the military saints in Rus are thus deserving of attention, and this new direction in the study of their veneration will benefit from earlier research on the relevant sources. While it may be impossible to determine the precise circumstances of the first appearance of the holy warriors in Rus, it is clear that they were already known in the Slavonic world by the time of the baptism of Vladimir in the late tenth century, thanks in large part to the missionary work of Cyril and Methodios. Demetrios seems to have been of particular importance to the Apostles to the Slavs, who, as natives of 12

13

See, for example, V. N. Lazarev, ‘Novyi pamiatnik stankovoi zhivopisi XII v. i obraz Georgiia-voina v vizantiiskom i drevnerusskom iskusstve’, VV, 6 (1953), 186–222; M. V. Alpatov, ‘Obraz Georgiia-voina v iskusstve Vizantii i drevnei Rusi’, TODRL , 12 (1956), 292–310; and Iu. K. Begunov, ‘Greko-slavianskaia traditsiia pochitaniia Dimitriia Solunskogo i russkii dukhovnyi stikh o nem’, Byzantinoslavica, 36 (1975), 149–72. Particularly useful and wide-ranging works include G. F. Korzukhina and A. A. Peskova, Drevnerusskie enkolpiony: nagrudnye kresty-relikvarii X–XIII vv., Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury, trudy 7 (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2003); T. V. Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika iz kamnia XI–XV vv., Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-60 (Moscow: Nauka, 1983); and M. V. Sedova, Iuvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X–XV vv.) (Moscow: Nauka, 1981).

100

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

hessalonika, must have been well acquainted with his cult. A number of scholars have concluded that a Slavonic kanon to Demetrios was composed by Methodios himself, who may well have believed that he was under the special protection of the patron of his native city.14 If the text can in fact be ascribed to Methodios (or perhaps to one of his disciples), commemoration of Demetrios in Slavonic must have been established by the time of Methodios’ death in 885 or soon thereafter – a process which coincided with Leo VI’s promotion of the saint in Constantinople and drew on many of the same traditions. Equally importantly, the existence of the kanon testifies to the efforts of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission to create Slavonic versions of important liturgical texts, whether by translating them or, as in this case, composing a new office according to the established rules of Byzantine hymnography. he kanon follows the contemporary norms for works of this kind, containing odai numbered i to ix (omitting number ii), each of which consists of a heirmos and two or more troparia. he kanon had become established in this form by about the end of the seventh century. It was originally used only during Lent, but later began to be used in the services for major feast days and eventually for every day of the year, completely displacing the older liturgical form known as the kontakion.15 Although many surviving kanones seem to have been composed for personal devotion and were never incorporated into the liturgy, the largest collections are found in ecclesiastical books known in Greek as menaia (singular: menaion; Slavonic: mineia, minei). hese works contain the set readings (lections, hagiographical notices and hymns) for each day of the year and survive in manuscripts dating from the eleventh century onward.16 It is unclear whether Methodios’ kanon was intended for inclusion in such a collection or was simply written as a hymn for private use. Whatever its original function, the hymn’s incorporation into a late eleventh-century 14

15

16

On the dating and authorship of the kanon see, among others, Dimitri Obolensky, ‘he Cult of St. Demetrius of hessalonika in the History of Byzantine–Slav Relations’, in Byzantium and the Slavs (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), pp. 288–90, and Roman Jakobson, ‘Methodius’ Canon to Demetrius of hessalonica and the Old Church Slavonic Hirmoi’, Sbornik praci filosoficke fakulty Brnenske University, F9 14 (1965), 115–21. For a detailed discussion of the form and evolution of the kanon see Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), pp. 168–215. Confusingly, the term kontakion was also used to describe one of the parts of the kanon. Alexander P. Kazhdan et al., eds., ODB (Oxford University Press, 1991), ii, p. 1338. Despite the lack of early manuscripts, V. Jagič argues that menaia for the entire year were assembled much earlier, noting that the Byzantine hymnographers Joseph and heophanes, who are credited with composing most of the kanones contained in menaia , lived in the ninth century. V. Jagič, ed., MSON (St Petersburg: Imp. Academiae scientiarum socius, 1886) p. li.

he military saints in early Rus

101

mineia from Rus attests to its popularity beyond the confines of its author’s missionary activities. he content of Methodios’ kanon reflects the aspects of Demetrios’ cult which intrigued the hessalonians, Leo VI and later emperors alike, showing the characteristics of martyrdom and bravery as a warrior to be as vital to his cult as they were interdependent. Demetrios is described as suffering a martyr’s death: ‘Pierced by the sword, you, Demetrios, cried out in the joy of Christ.’17 It is through this death, however, that he triumphs as the protector of hessalonika: ‘Appear on high as a commander, O brave one … you revealed more mighty miracles from on high and saved your fatherland.’18 Interestingly, the author compares his own struggles with those of a warrior, drawing a connection between his work – that is, the propagation of Christianity among the Slavs – and Demetrios’ patronage: ‘Why, O wise [Demetrios], have we, thy poor slaves, been deprived of thy aura of splendour when, compelled by the love of the Creator, we wander over strange lands and cities as warriors, battling, O blessed [Demetrios] for the humiliation of the cruel trilinguals and heretics?’19 he kanon is thus fully in keeping with the contemporary Byzantine model of the martyr triumphing in battle as a warrior, despite the fact that it was composed for an audience which was presumably not well acquainted with standard practices for the commemoration of military saints. he early vitality of the cult of Demetrios among the Slavs is further confirmed by the compositions of Clement of Ohrid, a disciple of Methodios who was active in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. His works include an enkomion and two lessons in honour of the saint, as well as a lesson dedicated to George.20 In general Clement employs less military imagery than Methodios, for the most part holding up his subjects as examples to his flock rather than detailing their exploits in war. Even so, he seems to have been as aware as Methodios of Demetrios’ powers as a patriotic protector of his native city. In his enkomion, Clement praises the saint as ‘the firm foundation of your fatherland’ and quotes the passage in the seventh-century miracle stories of Archbishop John of hessalonika in which Demetrios refuses to abandon his besieged city, declaring: ‘either 17 19

20

18 Ibid., p. 187. Ibid., p. 186. Ibid., p. 190. Translation in Jakobson, ‘Methodius’ Canon’, p. 115. he reference to the ‘trilinguals’ is one of the clues which has been used to connect this text with Methodios. he term refers to the opponents of Slavonic writing, who believed that Hebrew, Greek and Latin were the only suitable languages for scripture. Clement of Ohrid, Kliment Ohridski s’ brani s’chineniia , ed. B. St. Angelov et al., 2 vols. (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na b’lgarskata akademiia na naukite, 1970), i, pp. 86–7, 234–7; ii, pp. 793–4, 804–6.

102

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

they will be saved and I will be saved, or they will perish and I will perish with them’.21 he compositions of Methodios and his disciple provide valuable evidence for both the contemporary Byzantine cult of Demetrios and its dissemination in the early Slavonic Church. he texts do not seem to have been translated from Greek originals, yet they follow the convention of emphasising in turn their subject’s martyrdom and his prowess in battle. Methodios, as a native of hessalonika, must have been well aware of Demetrios’ dual status as a martyr and warrior – aspects of his cult which were only beginning to gain popularity in Constantinople at the time of his death. In establishing veneration of Demetrios among the Slavs, Methodios unsurprisingly sought to emphasise the most important aspects of his cult: his love of his native city, his ability to work miracles and his combination of a martyr’s death with a warrior’s protective powers. hese qualities, which were echoed in Clement’s work, established a lasting model for Demetrios’ veneration by introducing him to the Slavs in the form in which he was known in the contemporary Byzantine world. he use of this formula in texts composed for a newly established church gives some indication both of its ubiquity and of its perceived universality across languages and cultures. he appeal of the martyr-warrior ideal among the Slavs seems to have been strong indeed, and the reception of Demetrios’ cult was not limited to the Moravian audience for which Methodios’ work was presumably intended.22 Indeed, Demetrios must have become known in this form in Rus within the first century following the baptism of Vladimir, as the oldest version of the kanon is preserved in the entry for 26 October in a Rus mineia dated to 1096.23 As noted above, this type of manuscript is only attested from the eleventh century onward in Byzantium, and it must have been brought to Rus soon after its initial appearance. Early minei from Rus, which are composed almost entirely of translated Greek texts, shed light on the development of liturgical poetry about the military saints in both cultures.24 Although the content of the Greek and Slavonic versions of the menaion was not completely standardised during the early centuries of its existence, surviving copies from the fourteenth century 21 22

23

24

Ibid., i, p. 235. Although the place of the composition of the kanon is not stated explicitly, Jakobson argues for Moravia on the basis of other textual evidence. Jakobson, ‘Methodius’ Canon’, pp. 115–17. On the dating of this manuscript see MSON, pp. ix–x. It is currently held in RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 89. On the Greek sources of the Rus minei see MSON, pp. xlix–xcvi.

he military saints in early Rus

103

and earlier provide some idea of how the veneration of the military saints developed in both Byzantium and Rus in the period after the formation of their collective cult. Menaia are thus valuable not only because they bring together services for a large number of the military saints, but also because the diversity among the texts and translations allows a variety of writings about the holy warriors within the same genre to be compared. he surviving Rus minei show that Demetrios was not the only military saint whose martyr-warrior cult made a successful transition to Rus. he late eleventh-century minei for September, October and November published by Jagič also contain offices for Nestor, Merkourios and George, confirming that the holy warriors were well represented in this type of compilation. Original compositions such as that ascribed to Methodios are unknown for the other military saints, whose commemorations were translated from Greek originals. Like many other middle Byzantine literary and artistic works about the saints, these texts exhibit a mingling of images of martyrdom and military triumph. Nestor’s defeat of the gladiator Lyaeus, for example, is described in both physical and spiritual terms, and his subsequent martyrdom becomes a victory: ‘Nestor, wondrous martyr, you have perceptibly armed yourself with all the weapons of Christ, set yourself before Lyaeus and killed him … for this your head was crowned with a victorious crown.’25 Merkourios’ exploits are described in similar terms: ‘Brave warrior, you armed yourself with the shield of piety … and defeated the evil one, having suffered bravely’ and the epithets applied to George include ‘interlocutor of the heavenly army’ and ‘the all-glorious commander of Christ’.26 Unfortunately, the late eleventh-century minei published by Jagič cover only the first three months of the ecclesiastical year, making it impossible to compare the offices for all of the military saints within that set of texts. Other manuscripts serve to round out the picture, however, while also shedding light on a wider sample of the translated liturgical offices to the military saints which were available in Rus. Despite their varied origins and the textual differences among them, the minei texts alternate predictably between praising their subjects as martyrs and warriors. An eleventh-century mineia for June, for example, includes a kanon on the translation of the relics of heodore Stratelates which is entirely in keeping with the patterns studied above. heodore is praised as: ‘brave passion-bearer, invincible warrior. You appeared by the Holy Spirit,

25

Ibid., pp. 190–1.

26

Ibid., pp. 461, 473–4.

104

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

having laid low the fighter.’27 Likewise a kanon to George for his feast day on 23 April from a twelfth-century manuscript gracefully combines the imagery of warfare and martyrdom through the symbolism of the martyr’s cross and the warrior’s lance: ‘You armed yourself with the helmet of grace and the spear of the cross. You have not been defeated by the enemies, George.’28 Although not every surviving mineia manuscript from the fourteenth century or earlier was available for study, all of those that were accessible showed the same interplay of features in the offices dedicated to the military saints.29 Given the variation among mineia texts, the persistence of this imagery is probably not coincidental and indicates its importance within the cults of these saints in Rus. Although Byzantine in origin, the martyr-warrior imagery was faithfully preserved by Rus bookmen in their copyings and rewritings of mineia texts. Other types of ecclesiastical literature which commemorate the military saints, such as the Slavonic prolog (plural prologi), present variations on the formula found in mineia texts. his collection of short versions of saints’ lives, arranged according to the ecclesiastical calendar, is a modified version of the Byzantine synaxarion, the title being the apparent result of a misinterpretation of the Greek prologos, designating a foreword in the original. hree versions of the prolog circulated among the Slavs at various times. he earliest, known as the Slavonic Synaxarion, is a translation of the Menologion of Basil II. Several manuscripts, dated to between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, have been discovered in Serbia and Bulgaria. A single Rus manuscript from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, Sofiia 1324, also seems to include the original translation, along with an appendix, probably added later, of short edificatory articles for each day of the year taken from the desert fathers, John Chrysostom and other sources.30 Later versions of the prolog, known as the First Redaction and the Second Redaction, are found much more frequently in Rus manuscripts. he First Redaction survives in about fifty parchment copies from 27 28 29

30

RNB, no. F.π.i.36, f. 3v. RNB, no. соф. 199, ff. 27 v. Manuscripts of these minei include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 110, ff. 79r–84 r (George); no. 116, ff. 33r–38r (translation of the relics of heodore Stratelates); no. 122, ff. 36r–39v (Merkourios); RNB, no. соф. 188, ff. 91v–94v (Eustathios), ff. 229v–233v (Demetrios), ff. 234 r–236r (Nestor); no. соф. 206, ff. 23v–27r (translation of the relics of heodore Stratelates). E. A. Fet, ‘O Sofiiskom Prologe kontsa XII–nachala XIII v.’, in Istochnikovedenie i arkheografiia Sibirii, ed. N. N. Pokrovskii and E. K. Romodanovskaia (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977), pp. 78–92 (p. 79). he question of where, when and by whom the original translation was made continues to be debated. See Francis J. homson, ‘“Made in Russia”. A Survey of the Translations Allegedly Made in Kievan Russia’, in he Reception of Byzantine Culture in Mediaeval Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), pp. 319–20.

he military saints in early Rus

105

the late twelfth to the fourteenth centuries, and fewer later paper copies. his version contains hagiographical texts which are broadly similar to those found in the Slavonic Synaxarion, although many of them have been lightly edited and reorganised. Instead of having a separate section with edificatory articles, in the manner of Sofiia 1324, each entry is followed by its own supplementary text. he Second Redaction follows the same format, but contains completely reworked versions of both the vitae and the edificatory articles. It also includes a large number of vitae not found in the First Redaction, although a small number of First Redaction articles are not found in the Second Redaction. Parchment copies of the Second Redaction are rare, although the earliest date from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, while paper copies number in the hundreds.31 Because they circulated widely and were copied frequently, prologi provide important clues about the form in which the military saints were introduced to Rus and the image of them which ecclesiastical literature constructed. Since they ultimately derive from Greek sources, the various versions of the prolog, much like the mineia, to a certain extent reflect contemporary Byzantine conceptions of the military saints. Yet the greater freedom of form available to the copiers and compilers of the prose texts of the prolog, as opposed to the poetic texts of the mineia, seems to have encouraged the addition of new details to the stories of the lives and miracles of the saints they commemorate. Prolog texts thus provide a counterweight to those found in the mineia: the stricter adherence to poetic structure required by the latter often means that these texts praise saints in more abstract terms. he narrative form of the prolog, by contrast, complements and enriches the descriptions found in the minei, which are often limited to epithets or brief references to their deeds. Most of the entries in the First Redaction are not, as discussed above, exact translations from Greek synaxaria but were edited and paraphrased during the process of compilation. he texts concerning the military saints tend, however, to follow their models in the differing emphasis they place on martyrdom and military heroism. Like the middle Byzantine synaxaria texts discussed in the last chapter, prologi from Rus tend to highlight the martyrdom of the holy warriors, although not to the exclusion of 31

See D. S. Likhachev, ed., SKK (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), pp. 376–80; N. D. Bubnov, ‘Slaviano-russkie prologi’, in Metodicheskoe posobie po opisaniiu slaviano-russkikh rukopisei dlia svodnogo kataloga rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR , ed. Arkheograficheskaia komissiia pri otdelenii istorii AN SSSR et al. (Moscow: n.p., 1973), pp. 274–96, and Archbishop Sergii (Spasskii), ed., Polnyi mesiatseslov vostoka , 2nd edn, 3 vols. (Vladimir: Tipo-Litografiia V. A. Parkova, 1901; repr. Moscow: Palomnik, 1997).

106

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

their other characteristics. he entries for the feast day of Demetrios, for example, describe his imprisonment and execution but are silent on the subject of his rank in the army. he miracle story of the saint’s intercession on behalf of hessalonika during the seventh-century invasions does appear in most copies of the First Redaction, although the text attributes the victory to the saint’s prayers rather than his personal intervention.32 he entries for the feast day of heodore Teron contain somewhat more military imagery: the saint is described as a soldier and, unlike the version in the Synaxarion of Constantinople, his dragon-slaying exploits are recounted. Following the text of the Menologion of Basil II, this episode is preceded by a passage relating his longing for martyrdom: ‘Having heard that many had been martyred for Christ, he became filled with zeal and wanted to be martyred for Christ himself.’ When heodore then encountered the dragon he is described as thinking, ‘If I kill the dragon I will defeat the devil.’ hereafter he announced that he was a Christian, set fire to a pagan temple and was martyred.33 he saint’s triumph over the dragon is thus treated as a preliminary step towards his own self-sacrifice. Although slaying the dragon helps him conquer the devil, this act of redemption is not enough, as he is still determined to achieve the greater victory of martyrdom. His heroic feats complement his desire for and achievement of martyrdom, thus maintaining the familiar balance between these two characteristics. he entries for the main feast day of heodore Stratelates, by contrast, make no reference to his celebrated feats of bravery, instead telling the story of his refusal to sacrifice to idols at the invitation of the emperor and subsequent martyrdom.34 he texts commemorating the translation of his relics do, however, note that he was a high-ranking officer from a distinguished family: ‘He was born to noble parents and was brought up in Euchaita by them. And he fought bravely and was made a commander.’35

32

33

34

35

Hippolyte Delehaye, ed., SEC , in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1902), col. 165. Manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for Demetrios include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 154, ff. 76r–77r; no. 155, ff. 45 v–46v; no. 158, ff. 60v–61v. RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 157, f. 139v. Another manuscript of the First Redaction containing an entry for heodore Teron is RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 158, f. 169v. Manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for heodore Stratelates include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 154, ff. 198v–199r; 155, ff. 173v–174 r; 157, ff. 129v–130r; 158, f. 161v. RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 168, f. 74 r. Evidently confusion about Euchaita and Euchaneia was common in Rus as well. Other manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for the translation of the relics of heodore Stratelates include RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 169, f. 116v; 170, f. 102v; 171, ff. 53v–54 r.

he military saints in early Rus

107

he First Redaction’s entries for the feast day of George on 23 April are similar: while it is noted that the saint was ‘from a famous Cappadocian family and had the rank of komes’, his dragon-slaying exploits and posthumous status as an imperial military patron receive no mention. he entry focuses rather on his gruesome torture by Diocletian, his prolonged resistance and his conversion of onlookers who were inspired by his steadfast faith.36 Interestingly, the entries for George’s other main feast day on 26 November (known in Rus as George’s Day or Iur’ev Den’ ) have an entirely different focus. Rather than his military deeds or martyrdom, they describe the construction of a church in Kiev dedicated to the saint by Prince Iaroslav Vladimirovich.37 his is a significant departure from the entry for the same day in the Synaxarion of Constantinople, which commemorates the renovation of a certain Constantinopolitan ‘Church in the Cypress Grove’ dedicated to George.38 Although Francis Butler has shown that the commemoration of the Kievan church is not as widespread in other types of East Slavonic manuscripts as previous scholarship has suggested, the fact that the entry is found in the First Redaction means that it may have been composed as early as the late twelfth century.39 Even if the new feast day was chosen to coincide with an older one honouring a church in Constantinople, its acquisition of local significance is a strong indication of George’s importance in the Rus Church. He seems to have been the first of the military saints to acquire a local feast day and this, together with other evidence discussed below, point toward his especial veneration within the group. Among the vitae of the military saints in the First Redaction, only two – those of Merkourios and Prokopios – discuss their subjects’ exploits on the battlefield in some detail. Merkourios, with the help of an angel, distinguished himself in battle against the Saracens and was rewarded, but like heodore Stratelates was martyred after refusing to offer sacrifices with the emperor.40 Prokopios was encouraged by a vision of the cross flanked 36

37

38 39

40

RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 168, f. 25v. Other manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for George include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 169, f. 63v; 170, ff. 56r–v; 171, ff. 20r–v; RNB, no. F.π.i.47, ff. 19v–20r. Versions of this entry are found in, among others, RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 153, 154, 155, 157. he entries tend to be short but diverse, with some mentioning the establishment of the new feast day by Metropolitan Ilarion and others emphasising Iaroslav’s connection with his father Vladimir. SEC , p. 260. he Menologion of Basil II has no entry about George for that day. Francis Butler, ‘he Autumn Saint George’s Day (Iur’ev Den’ ), the Date of the Codex Assemanianus, and the Dedication of Iaroslav’s Kievan Church of Saint George in the East Slavic Tradition’, Palaeoslavica , 13 (2005), 37–47; Bubnov, ‘Slaviano-russkie prologi’, pp. 278, 295. Manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for Merkourios include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 154, f. 119v; 155, f. 81r; 157, ff. 60v–61r; 158, f. 92r.

108

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

by icons of Christ and the archangels Michael and Gabriel. hereafter, ‘Having kissed the cross and the icons, he returned to Jerusalem and achieved a victory over the Saracens.’ His heroism, however, did not temper the emperor’s wrath when he refused to sacrifice to the gods, and he suffered the same fate.41 he focus on combat distinguishes these entries from those about the other military saints. It is especially curious in the case of Prokopios, who, as discussed in Chapter 1, was similar to Demetrios in having had no associations with warfare in the early centuries of his cult. Yet his bravery is central to Prokopios’ prolog entry, whereas Demetrios is described as influencing the outcome of a battle through prayers alone. Although the reason for this discrepancy is unclear, the entries for Merkourios and Prokopios still devote considerable attention to their deaths, and thus do not diminish the relative prominence of martyrdom in the prolog texts. As mentioned above, it is difficult to date the appearances of the various versions of the prolog. he Slavonic Synaxarion and the First Redaction must have circulated in the pre-Mongol period, since they survive in early parchment copies, although almost nothing is known about the process of their translation and the addition of supplementary articles to the First Redaction. he origin of the Second Redaction is even less clear, since its earliest manuscript copy dates from not earlier than the late thirteenth century. While it is not inconceivable that it was copied in pre-Mongol times, E. A. Fet’s hypothesis that it predates the First Redaction and was originally composed in the late twelfth century by Cyril of Turov seems unlikely.42 hese problems cannot be resolved in the present study, but it is noteworthy that the Second Redaction, despite its substantial reorganisation and expansion of the content of the First Redaction, retains the tendency to give particular prominence to the martyrdom of the holy warriors. he entry for Demetrios, for example, even implies that its subject’s prowess in war could be a threat to believers. In a miracle story which does not appear in the First Redaction, two girls are captured by ‘heathens’ in a raid on hessalonika. Demetrios intervenes to prevent the city from being destroyed, but in an ironic twist which seems to parody his fame as a protector of Orthodox armies, the leader of the heathens demands 41

42

RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 169, ff. 144 r–v. Other manuscripts of the First Redaction containing entries for Prokopios include: RNB, no. F.π.i.47, ff. 72v–73r; RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 170, f. 128v; 171, ff. 76v–77r. SKK, pp. 378–9.

he military saints in early Rus

109

that the girls embroider an icon of the saint for his troops to carry into battle: ‘I hear that your god Demetrios is great in your land, and brings about great miracles. And you sew with your hands an image of your god Demetrios on a piece of linen. And I will bow down to it and, carrying it ahead of the army, will defeat the enemies.’43 Demetrios does not, of course, allow this to happen, and transforms the girls’ needlework into a magic carpet which brings them safely home. Assisted escape is thus shown to be preferable to another battle in which the saint’s powers could be invoked against the faithful. Although it is unlikely that there was any question of the saint actually switching sides, the method of the girls’ rescue exemplifies the lack of emphasis given to miracles involving military intervention in prolog texts. he works studied above can give only a partial idea of the representation of the military saints in the ecclesiastical literature of early Rus. he surviving texts probably account for only a fraction of the material that was originally available, and a number of them are fragmentary and difficult to date. Yet these sources still provide important clues about the continuity between Byzantine and Rus veneration of the saints. he mineia entries praise them as both martyrs and warriors, indicating that the tradition of presenting these traits as interdependent was preserved in the translation and composition of these texts. he prolog, on the other hand, in its concise retellings of the vitae of the saints, concentrates more closely on their passions as their paths to sanctity. Military exploits are not prominent features of the stories, although hints about (and in some cases direct references to) these aspects of their cults can still be found. he mineia and prolog thus retain, despite a certain amount of reworking of the original Greek texts, the dual identity of martyr and warrior which was crucial to the Byzantine cults of the military saints. Both features do not always receive equal amounts of attention, especially in the case of the prolog. It is perhaps not surprising that a text which retells the passions of the saints, rather than offering them more abstract praises, places a stronger emphasis on their martyrdom than their military heroism. But the latter feature, even if understated, is never entirely absent. Yet this nuanced presentation of the holy warriors was not characteristic of all aspects of their cults in Rus. Whereas the ecclesiastical literature studied above preserves the dual nature of the saints’ Byzantine cults, their veneration among the members of the princely clan differed from the 43

RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 164, f. 79r. h is miracle story is also found in RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 153, ff. 85 v–86r.

110

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

practices of the imperial court in Constantinople. Although the Riurikids were not as prolific as their monastic contemporaries in composing and transcribing liturgical texts in honour of the saints, the relatively plentiful surviving images associated with the clan allow for comparison, as far as possible, of the depictions of the military saints that were widespread in princely circles with the descriptions found in the ecclesiastical literature of the time. Such a comparison not only sheds light on differences among the various sectors of Rus society in their veneration of these saints, but also illustrates some of the factors which contributed to the later veneration of Boris and Gleb as military patrons within both the Church and the princely clan. Images of the military saints from Rus constitute a relatively rich source of evidence about their cults within the princely clan and society generally. Depictions of and references to the saints survive in a wide range of media, including seals and coins, church dedications and decoration, panel icons and a variety of minor arts. But despite this diversity of form, the saints are almost always shown as warriors clad in armour and carrying a spear or sword and shield, making no reference to their martyrs’ deaths. Although classifying and dating these depictions is difficult at best, it seems that the martial characteristics of the saints are particularly dominant in images which can be associated with the princely clan. hus, the seals and coins of the Riurikids depict the military saints almost exclusively as warriors. Pectoral crosses, reliquaries and stone icons, which could have been owned by a wider cross-section of the population, feature them in their martyr’s robes only slightly more often. he dependence of church decoration and ritual objects on the tastes of princes or other individuals is, on the other hand, less clear. he Riurikids certainly commissioned such items, but because they were intended for public display and edification rather than devotion or identification, they are less likely than personal emblems to convey a strong impression of an individual’s preferences. It is particularly difficult in the case of these works to disentangle the influence of the princely clan and other individuals from that of pre-existing iconographic traditions, and they will therefore be considered separately. here is, to be sure, ample evidence for continuity between the Rus princely and Byzantine imperial veneration of the military saints. Indeed, the Riurikids’ interest in the holy warriors was just one aspect of their desire to imitate their Byzantine counterparts in cultural and religious matters generally. he coins and seals of many princes employed Byzantine iconography of the military saints, sometimes in combination

he military saints in early Rus

111

with Greek inscriptions, and they founded churches in honour of their protectors in war which were decorated with mosaics and frescoes reminiscent of those found throughout the empire. Vladimir’s son Iaroslav seems, for example, to have been well aware of Byzantine traditions connected with the military saints. In an act reminiscent of imperial practice, he founded a city in honour of his patron saint George in 1030 following a victorious battle: ‘Iaroslav went against the Chud and defeated them, and founded the city of Iurev.’44 Like Tzimiskes’ renaming of Dorostolon after heodore following his defeat of Iaroslav’s ancestor, the prince’s display of gratitude may well indicate his conviction that George had played a direct role in the victory. Iaroslav’s seal and coins are also indicative of the Byzantine inspiration of his devotion to George as a military patron. His one known seal features on the obverse a bust of George clad in armour, holding a spear in his right hand and a shield in his left, and his coins depict the saint in a similar manner (Illustration 5).45 hese portraits are nearly identical to those featured on a number of contemporary Byzantine seals. For instance, John Komnenos, the father of Alexios I and at various times kuropalates and domestic of the scholae, had a very similar seal, the only difference being that on his seal George’s spear points toward the upper right instead of the upper left, as on Iaroslav’s seal.46 On the other hand, a number of other middle Byzantine seals with similar busts of George which belonged to court dignitaries of various ranks feature spears pointing toward the upper left.47 On the reverse of Iaroslav’s seal is a portrait of the prince himself with a partially obscured Slavonic inscription, while his coins display his princely emblem.48 Although the use of the emblem was certainly a departure from Byzantine practice, self-portraiture was common on imperial seals, as seen on those of Iaroslav’s contemporaries Romanos III, Michael IV and Constantine IX.49 Iaroslav was not unique in his imitation of Byzantine traditions related to the military saints, and 44 45

46

47 48

49

PVL , ii, lines 149,26–149,27, pp. 1185–6. V. L. Ianin and P. G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., 3 vols. (Moscow: Nauka and Intrada, 1970, 1998), vol. iii, Pechati, zaregistrirovannye v 1970–1996 gg. (1998), p. 259, no. 2a; M. P. Sotnikova and I. G. Spasskii, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii: svodnyi katalog russkikh monet X–XI vekov (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1983), pp. 96–105, 196–201; nos. 222–7. G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols. (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1972), i.iii, pp. 1454–6, types 2681, 2681 bis. See, e.g., ibid., ii, pp. 208, 209, 211; types 355, 357, 362. Ianin and Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati, iii, p. 14; Sotnikova and Spasskii, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii, types 222–7. Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, i.i, pp. 70–3, types 77–80.

112

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 5 Seal of Iaroslav Vladimirovich

this type of iconography can be found on seals and other objects associated with many princes. Yet these similarities belie important differences in the practices of the two groups. he princes’ application of the saints’ images, as opposed to their choice of iconography, reveals the emergence of new forms of veneration focused on personal and family patrons instead of a defined group of holy warriors. As objects which featured depictions of many saints and which can with assurance be connected with the princely clan – often even with individual members of it – seals are an excellent source of information about the images of the military saints which the Riurikids chose for themselves. Princes were not the only people in Rus who used seals, as the discovery of numerous specimens belonging to high-ranking clergy and mayors ( posadniki) of the city of Novgorod, among others, attests. Happily, however, princely seals usually have characteristic inscriptions or iconography which distinguish them from those of other social groups. V. L. Ianin has identified three categories of princely seals, all of which bear images of saints, and suggested the periods during which they circulated: seals of the archaic tradition (tenth to third quarter of the eleventh centuries), seals with Greek inscriptions (mid eleventh to early twelfth centuries) and seals with images of two saints (eleventh to thirteenth centuries).50 hese date ranges indicate that there was probably no precise time when a given type of seal came into or went out of use, and it seems most likely that a 50

Ianin and Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati, i, pp. 33, 41, 87. Although other types of seals may also have belonged to princes and a number of seals have not been categorised, these groups seem to have been the largest and are therefore probably the most representative.

he military saints in early Rus

113

mix of types was in circulation in any one period. Given this uncertainty, and because a wider sample of seals is more representative of preferences within the clan, the entire corpus of princely seals published by Ianin will be examined, even though some of them fall outside the chronological confines of the present chapter. he conventions of princely seals reflect the complex naming system practised by the Riurikids, a brief explanation of which will facilitate the following discussion.51 In the pre-Mongol period, most princes had two given names: a pagan or clan name of Scandinavian or Slavonic origin and a baptismal name in honour of a saint or figure from the Bible. Most also had two patronymic names ending in -vich (feminine: -ovna) based on the clan and baptismal names of their fathers. he clan names tended to be more widely used in written sources such as chronicles, meaning that the baptismal names and patronymics of many princes are not known. It was also possible for princes to have only a baptismal name and/or patronymic. A small number of such individuals is known as early as the mid eleventh century, and their numbers gradually increased until, by the fifteenth century, the clan-baptismal system of naming had all but disappeared.52 One of the factors which accelerated this process was the veneration of princes themselves as saints. Once a prince’s sanctity was generally acknowledged, either of his first names could combine the functions of baptismal and clan names, and his namesakes in future generations needed only one name to fulfil both functions.53 In no case, however, was a clan or baptismal name bestowed at random. Rather, parents chose a name to reflect a child’s rank and political prospects, looking in large part to ancestors who might serve as suitable models for a young prince. Such considerations often outweighed those of the ecclesiastical calendar, and parents might pick a patron saint whose feast day was several weeks before or after a child’s birthday in the interests of having an appropriate patron.54 A number of other rules, such as the prohibition on naming a son after a living father or grandfather, complicated the process of naming but also allowed a prince’s name to convey a great deal of information about his status within the clan. 51

52 53

54

h is summary is based on the work of A. F. Litvina and F. B. Uspenskii, Vybor imeni u russkikh kniazei v X–XVI vv. (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), in particular chs. 4 and 5. Ibid., p. 111. Ibid., pp. 112–14, 151–2. he most striking example of this process relates to the martyred princes Boris-Roman and Gleb-David Vladimirovichi, whose clan names took on the functions of baptismal names within a few generations of their deaths in 1015. hey will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter. Ibid., pp. 188–9.

114

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Seals, unlike most written sources, reflected princes’ baptismal names rather than clan names. As a mark of identity, a princely seal usually bore an image of its owner’s patron saint on the obverse, with an inscription, a self-portrait or, most commonly, a depiction of the patron saint of the owner’s father on the reverse.55 he paucity of information about princes’ baptismal names means that it is not always possible to identify the owners of seals. Taken as a body of evidence, however, seals are informative about the veneration of saints within the clan, their popularity as namesakes and the iconographic forms in which they were best known. h is source is not, of course, without attendant difficulties. Since many seals have not been attributed to specific princes, and because the baptismal names of many princes are not known, it is often impossible to determine if multiple images of the same saint represent different individuals or the same prince – once on his own seals and again on those of his son or sons. Although it is usually possible to determine based on artistic differences whether a seal is a duplicate of a known type or a new type belonging to a different prince with the same baptismal name and patronymic, confusion can arise if a prince used more than one type of seal during his lifetime. Many seals are, moreover, so worn down that the identity of one or both subjects is impossible to determine. Finally, the high concentration of seals unearthed in Novgorod means that princes who ruled there are probably overrepresented within the corpus as a whole, although not to the exclusion of other princes. Since these circumstances apply equally to all seals, however, it is unlikely that they would result in the over- or underrepresentation of any particular saint. In any case, the following analysis has attempted to minimise the aforementioned problems by considering only seals catalogued by Ianin and Gaidukov belonging to the three princely groups, leaving aside seals of other categories which may or may not have belonged to princes. As far as possible, only one seal belonging to each individual has been included, regardless of how many specimens have been found. Seals with obscured or partially obscured images on one or both sides have been counted separately as long as it is clear that they are not duplicates of other types. 55

Ianin and Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati, i, p. 88. he meaning of the depictions of two saints was deciphered thanks to the survival of a few seals on their original documents. he author of the document could thus be matched with the saint on the obverse on the basis of his baptismal name, and his father with the saint on the reverse.

he military saints in early Rus

115

he 104 seals which meet these criteria feature 197 images of 38 different saints.56 George, Demetrios and heodore are among those most commonly depicted, with Demetrios appearing twelve times, George nine times and heodore twenty-two times. (In most cases the inscriptions on the seals do not specify which heodore is depicted, but it is probably safe to assume that the total number can be divided more or less equally between the two saints.) Besides the military saints, John the Baptist appears eleven times (including one image of the Baptism of Christ); the Archangel Michael ten times; Basil nine times; Boris and Gleb eight times each; the Archangel Gabriel seven times (including one image of the Annunciation); Panteleemon, Nicholas and John the heologian six times each; Andrew five times; David and Constantine four times each and Peter and Kosmas three times each. he remaining twenty saints appear once or twice each, including Prokopios (twice) and Merkourios (once). here are a further fourteen winged figures who can be identified as archangels, ten figures holding weapons who can be identified as military saints and thirteen unidentified saints whose type cannot be determined. hus, even taking into account the uncertainties noted above, it is clear that the four chief military saints were among the most popular patrons, appearing in over a quarter of the identifiable images of saints on princely seals. he number of saints depicted on the seals is not large, especially given that ecclesiastical calendars commemorated at least one male saint on almost every day of the year by the tenth century. his evidence suggests that only a small group of saints were considered appropriate patrons for princes. Yet even within this limited range, over half of the saints appear only once or twice. he overwhelming popularity of a handful of names over a period of some 200 years is a strong indication of the importance of these saints among the Riurikids. he iconography of the military saints on the seals provides further clues regarding their veneration within the clan. In the majority of cases, the saints are shown standing, holding spears in their right hands and leaning on shields (Illustration 6). Bust portraits showing the tops of the spear and shield, such as that of Iaroslav Vladimirovich described above, are also common. heodore is portrayed twice on horseback and Demetrios appears once in the act of unsheathing his sword, while George is shown once in each of these poses. Demetrios also appears once seated on a 56

Descriptions of these seals may be found in Ianin and Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati, i, chs. 1 and 4; iii.i, chs. 1 and 4.

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

116

Illustration 6 Seal of Mstislav Iurevich

throne holding a sword.57 Despite the variety of these images, all of them have military overtones and seem to represent different aspects of warfare in their depictions of saints displaying their weapons or on horseback. In only three instances is the iconography of the saints substantially different, showing them wearing martyrs’ robes and holding crosses.58 heodore appears twice in this manner and George once. Interestingly, George and heodore appear on two sides of the same seal in this guise, suggesting that this depiction reflected a preference within a family. In any case, although the existence of this iconography confirms that the martyrdom of the military saints was not unknown to the Riurikids, it was not widespread. In contrast to Rus ecclesiastical and Byzantine sources, there was no attempt to integrate the imagery of martyr and warrior. he iconographic patterns described above also differ from Byzantine practice in their consistent association of princes with their own patron saints and those of their fathers. By contrast, middle Byzantine emperors did not generally use seals with images of personal or family patrons. Between the mid ninth and late twelfth centuries, iconographic seals of reigning emperors used a restricted array of images of Christ, the Mother of God or the Mother of God with the infant Christ.59 Manuel I Komnenos, whose seals depicted Christ Emmanuel, managed to combine a personal image with the traditions of imperial iconography, but the first saint to appear on an imperial seal was Constantine the Great on 57 58 59

Ibid., i, pp. 204, 206–7, 208, 211, 213; nos. 192, 203–6, 211–12, 230, 243. Ibid., iii, pp. 144, 148; nos. 231в, 263e. Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, i.i, pp. 50–99, nos. 57–109.

he military saints in early Rus

117

the seal of Alexios III Komnenos.60 Before that time, saints were depicted with some frequency on the seals of members of the court, but those who became emperor adopted different imagery once they were crowned. G. Zacos and A. Veglery have published seals belonging to fifty middle Byzantine male imperial relatives and emperors before their reigns, covering the period 886–1203.61 Of these, thirty-five are iconographic, while the remainder have only inscriptions. he Mother of God is the most popular subject, appearing in various forms on nineteen seals. George is depicted six times, heodore four and Demetrios three, in every case dressed as warriors.62 Only three other sacred figures are found once each in this category of seals: Nicholas, Christ (in a depiction of the Transfiguration) and Hyakinthos, who appears together with heodore.63 Given how few sacred figures appear in this category of seals, the military saints are well represented, appearing in about the same proportion as they do in Rus princely seals. Yet only one of the owners of the Byzantine seals shared a name with any of the saints depicted, pointing toward an important difference between Byzantine and Rus practices.64 Despite the similarity of the iconography used in both cultures, it is clear that the Riurikids were not simply copying Byzantine conventions, but were manipulating them to suit their own political and devotional purposes. Although evidence of this sort should not be pushed too far, it seems that the Riurikids felt a strong attachment to personal and family patrons, and, as a general rule, showed special devotion to a saint only if they had a family connection with him. By contrast, most members of the Byzantine court confined themselves to a small group of tried and true images of Christ and/or the Mother of God. hey associated themselves with saints only if their station allowed it, and when they did so they almost never chose a namesake. Moreover, although the Byzantine seals consistently depict the holy warriors in military dress, the sources studied in Chapter 3 show that emperors and members of their courts also venerated them as martyrs. he two Rus seals on which the military saints appear as martyrs 60 61

62

63

64

Ibid., pp. 96–7, no. 107 (Manuel); pp. 99–100, no. 110 (Alexios). Ibid., i.iii, pp. 1442–571, nos. 2674–753. Zacos and Veglery include in this category the seals of certain Rus princes who had seals with Greek inscriptions (pp. 1474–5, no. 2694), but these have not been counted since they were included in the study of Rus seals above. Ibid., pp. 1453–6, 1497–500, 1501–2, 1544–6, 1555–7, nos. 2680–1 bis, 2708–9 bis, 2711, 2736, 2745 (George); pp. 1486–90, 1538–9, 1548–9, 1570–1, nos. 2701–2, 2732, 2739, 2753 (heodore); pp. 1463–8, 1490–6, 1536–8, nos. 2687–90 bis, 2703–7 bis, 2731 bis (Demetrios). Ibid., pp. 1446–9, nos. 2677, 2677 bis (Nicholas); pp. 1503–6, nos. 2713–14 (Transfiguration); pp. 1560–3, nos. 2748–9 (Hyakinthos and heodore). heodore Komnenos, active in the late twelfth to early thirteenth century, had a seal featuring heodore and an inscription. Ibid., pp. 1570–1, no. 2753.

118

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

show that this style was not unknown among the East Slavs, but there is no evidence for the promotion of both aspects of their sanctity within the clan akin to that found in the Byzantine sources. Despite the absence of saints from imperial seals, Byzantine coins show that a few emperors did associate themselves with heavenly patrons. Portraits of Christ were in use from the reign of Justinian II, although the Mother of God did not appear until almost 200 years later, during the reign of Leo VI.65 Two emperors, Alexander and Michael IV, had their namesakes depicted on their coins, showing an interest in these figures not generally seen in other sources.66 However, five other pre-1204 emperors chose non-patronal figures with martial associations for some (but not all) of their coins. Most of these were military saints: Demetrios appeared on the coins of Alexios I, Demetrios and George on those of John II, Demetrios and heodore on those of Manuel I and George on those of Alexios III. Alexios also minted coins with an image of Constantine the Great, while Isaac II chose the Archangel Michael.67 he evidence from Byzantine coins is thus in keeping with that from seals in showing that emperors, when they did choose to depict saints, generally preferred non-patronal ones. As a body of evidence, Rus seals are unique in their representation of the preferences of a wide cross-section of princes, providing clues about both the relative popularity of patron saints and the forms in which they were most commonly depicted. Unfortunately, Rus coins cannot provide the same breadth of evidence, since they were minted under only three princes – Vladimir Sviatoslavich, Sviatopolk Vladimirovich and Iaroslav Vladimirovich – between the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. he coins of Iaroslav and some of those of Sviatopolk conform to the pattern seen with the seals, portraying the princes’ patron saints (George and Peter, respectively) on the obverse and the princely emblem on the reverse.68 hose of Vladimir and the majority of those of Sviatopolk, however, follow different styles: some of Vladimir’s coins feature a portrait of Christ on the obverse and a self-portrait on the reverse, while others show the prince and his emblem, as does the other group belonging to 65

66 67

68

Philip Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London: Methuen; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 36–7. Ibid., nos. 778, 909. Ibid., nos. 1025, 1026, 1029, 1035 (Alexios I); 1067, 1068, 1078 (John II); 1083, 1084, 1100 (Manuel I); 1133–6, 1138–40 (Alexios III); 1128, 1129, 1132 (Isaac II). Saints (mostly non-patronal) continued to be popular subjects for coins in the late Byzantine period. See ibid., p. 283. Sotnikova and Spasskii, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii, types 206–10 (Sviatopolk) and 222–7 (Iaroslav).

he military saints in early Rus

119

Sviatopolk.69 While it is tempting to speculate about the reasons for these different patterns, the fact that so few princes minted coins means that it would be difficult to reach any conclusions. Other media, however, provide further insight into the veneration of military saints by the Riurikids. he foundation of masonry churches and monasteries, like the usage of seals and coins, involved the invocation of favoured holy figures and can be associated with a narrow segment of Rus society. For the most part, only princes, high-ranking clergy and wealthy merchants could finance the construction of such buildings, and the saints or feast days after which they were named may indicate the personal preferences of their founders. Although the number of churches built before the Mongol invasion which survive or are mentioned in written sources represents only a fraction of those which existed, they can still provide some idea of the general patterns of dedications from the period. Other than the lack of surviving specimens, however, the study of church dedications is complicated by a number of factors. he public importance of churches, as opposed to seals, meant that more complex considerations were involved in their dedications. Princes might invoke not only family patrons, but also figures and feasts which attracted more widespread devotion. Likewise members of the clergy often dedicated churches to the Mother of God and her feast days, but might also name a church after a saint if, for example, it was located in a monastery of the same name. hus church dedications, unlike seals, do not generally fall into predictable categories corresponding to social class, and it is only possible to determine the identity of a benefactor in the relatively rare cases when a chronicle or other written source mentions such information. Finally, church dedications are not informative about the manner in which a saint was commemorated. he churches dedicated to, for example, Demetrios do not specify whether the benefactor was invoking him as a warrior or martyr, and the decorations inside the church, even when they survive, cannot be assumed to reflect solely the tastes of the benefactor. Church dedications can therefore provide information only about the devotion to particular saints and holy figures by princes and other groups, rather than the form in which these figures were venerated. With the necessary precautions, however, this body of evidence can contribute to some of the conclusions made on the basis of the seals. 69

Ibid., types 1–38 (Vladimir, Christ and self-portrait); 52–175 (Vladimir, self-portrait and emblem); 177–205, 211–18 (Sviatopolk, self-portrait and emblem).

120

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

In total, the dedications of 157 churches and monasteries founded before approximately the first third of the thirteenth century, both extant and non-extant, are known.70 Another forty-five churches either survive or have been excavated, but their dedications are not known. Within the first group, sixty-seven are known to have been founded by members of the princely clan. Like the corpus of princely seals, the dedications of these churches suggest that the Riurikids were particularly devoted to family patron saints. As mentioned above, the greater public significance of churches, as opposed to seals, meant that princely foundations often invoked non-patronal figures of universal devotion such as Christ, the Mother of God and the Holy Wisdom. he princes appear, in fact, to have been almost equally enthusiastic in their dedications of churches and monasteries to these and to patronal figures, with twenty-eight dedicated to the former category, thirty to the latter and a further three which may belong to either category (see Appendix 4, section 6). he remaining six princely churches, which were dedicated to Boris and Gleb, will be the subject of a separate discussion in the next chapter. Of the thirty churches dedicated to patron saints, at least nineteen were built by princes who were named after the saint in question or had a close relative by that name, as set out in Appendix 4. In nine cases the baptismal names of the founders and/or their close relatives are not known, and in one case the relevant source gives conflicting information. Given the overall scarcity of evidence relating to princes’ baptismal names, the relatively large proportion of churches which are known to have been named for family patrons is striking. Also significant is the fact that all of the princely churches with unclear patronal significance are dedicated to saints from the small category of acceptable namesakes known from the corpus of lead seals, and therefore may well have been named for family patrons. he few churches with known founders dedicated to sacred figures who did not serve as namesakes for princes were built by members of the clergy (Sts Clement, Antony, Ioachim and Anna) or other groups (St Eupatios, the Prophet Elijah). he construction of churches was an activity which the Rus princes shared with their Byzantine counterparts. As in the case of the use of lead seals, however, the specific practices of the two groups differed significantly. Emperors seem not, in general, to have been particularly concerned

70

he following calculations are based on the work of P. A. Rappoport, Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv.: katalog pamiatnikov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1–47 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982).

he military saints in early Rus

121

to dedicate churches to their own or family patron saints.71 Although such dedications are not unknown, most of them seem to have arisen in the context of the exceptionally complicated personal circumstances of the early Macedonian emperors. Basil I built at least one (and possibly two) churches dedicated to St Constantine following the death of his son of the same name.72 Raymond Janin plausibly argues that Basil’s construction of another two churches dedicated to the Archangel Michael were part of his attempts to atone for his murder of his predecessor, Michael III.73 Leo VI, whose relations with his supposed father Basil were strained and who may have actually been Michael’s son, dedicated another chapel to the archangel.74 Leo also had no shortage of difficulties in connection with his numerous wives, and dedicated churches to Sts Zoe and heophano in honour of two of them.75 hese dedications thus arose in difficult situations, and represent attempts by the donors to assuage personal guilt or honour someone who had been wronged. Otherwise, however, dedications to the patron saints of family members were rare in the Byzantine court. his comparative evidence suggests, in agreement with that from the seals, that Rus princes were particularly devoted to personal and family patron saints, a practice which they did not inherit from Byzantium. Although the differing forms and functions of seals and churches mean that their invocations of saints are not identical, similar patterns do emerge in their evidence for the consistent preference for family patrons and the restriction of appropriate princely names. Despite their limitations, seals and church dedications are almost unique in their association with both sacred figures and the princely clan. hey do not allow sweeping conclusions to be made about the religious beliefs of every prince of the Kievan period, yet certain patterns can be discerned. Although the cults of saints in early Rus were similar to their Byzantine models in many respects, changes to certain devotional practices emerged in the first generations following the official establishment of Christianity. Specifically, the Riurikids’ devotion to their own patron saints and those of close relatives was consistent and represented a significant departure 71

72 73

74

hese conclusions are based on the work of Raymond Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzanin, 2nd edn (Paris: CNRS, 1969). Ibid., pp. 295, no. 3; 296, no. 6. Ibid., pp. 337; 340, no. 5; 342, no. 13. he latter church, more commonly known as the ‘Nea’, was also dedicated to Christ, the Mother of God, the Prophet Elijah, St Nicholas and the Archangel Gabriel. Ibid., p. 341, no. 7. 75 Ibid., pp. 134, 245, no. 1.

122

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

from Byzantine imperial practice. he cults of the military saints, who were particularly sought after as patrons, experienced noticeable changes within Rus princely circles. Whereas in Byzantium they were venerated by emperors and courtiers alike as a group of martyr-warriors, in Rus they tended to attract the devotion of those princes for whom they had a family significance, and their status as martyrs received much less attention than their valour as warriors. Despite the continuation of the collective martyr-warrior tradition in the ecclesiastical writings which circulated in Rus, many members of the princely clan apparently favoured a more personal and martial conception of their patrons. Although other types of evidence cannot be linked so closely with the princely clan, they can yield additional information about the manner in which the military saints were commonly venerated in pre-Mongol Rus. Many items of minor arts, such as enkolpia, jewellery and stone icons, feature the holy warriors, along with other saints. he discovery of these objects in relatively large numbers throughout the territory ruled by the Riurikids attests to their use by a wide cross-section of the population and their importance in early Rus religious culture. Although their iconography ultimately derived from Byzantine prototypes, the artistic variety found among surviving specimens suggests that the conventions governing these images were relatively flexible. As items used for private devotion and/or personal adornment, some of them may well have been commissioned to suit personal tastes, while others were probably mass-produced with popular images of widely revered saints to appeal to a large number of potential buyers. he minor arts, like seals, thus provide some insight into the preferences of those who venerated the military saints and the iconographic forms which held the widest appeal in Rus. Like the other media studied in this chapter, this category of objects presents certain interpretive difficulties. he minor arts are, first and foremost, difficult to date. A large number of specimens have come to light outside the context of archaeological excavations, meaning that they can only be dated on much more speculative stylistic and epigraphic grounds. Although many others have been discovered during the course of excavations, they may, as treasured devotional items, have been worn or used for several generations before being lost, meaning that they could be significantly older than their stratigraphic provenance might suggest. Perhaps as a result of their constant use, the images and inscriptions on many items are so worn down as to be unidentifiable, especially in the case of medallion portraits of saints on cruciform enkolpia. A great deal of this material has, moreover, not been published, although

he military saints in early Rus

123

enough of it is available to draw conclusions regarding general patterns in iconography. Finally, unlike seals and churches, it is almost impossible to associate these objects with a specific group or groups within Rus society. With few exceptions, most specimens of minor art could have been owned by almost anyone. hus, any conclusions made on the basis of these items must be assumed to apply to a broad cross-section of the Rus populace, rather than just the princely clan. In view of these uncertainties, the following analysis will seek to identify patterns in a representative sample of the various forms of the minor arts from the entire pre-Mongol period, rather than establish a precise chronology of the development of iconographic styles. Special caution must be exercised when identifying the saints depicted on enkolpia. hese devotional pendants, which were often cruciform, usually featured images of the Crucifixion on the obverse and the Mother of God on the reverse, with medallion portraits of saints on the ends of the cross.76 Since they were typically worn under clothing, these items are often more worn down than other works of minor art, thus complicating the study of the saints depicted on them. Although the military saints usually have distinctive facial features which allow them to be identified relatively easily without inscriptions, these features are often indistinct at best on enkolpia. he prominent attributes of shields and weapons are often more clearly identifiable, but the same is not true of the martyr’s cross. Any analysis of the iconography of the military saints based solely on numbers of visible attributes thus risks underestimating the number of depictions of them as martyrs because the corresponding attribute of the cross is smaller and more easily obscured. he following analysis of enkolpia will therefore make use only of decently preserved portraits which have accompanying inscriptions. Although this criterion significantly reduces the number of objects which can be studied, it is the only way to ensure that both sets of attributes are taken into account. Other types of minor arts are, by contrast, usually in better states of preservation, meaning that the military saints can often be identified based on their facial features alone. Even within the small group of enkolpia with intelligible portraits and inscriptions, the military saints are depicted much more frequently as warriors than as martyrs. G. F. Korzukhina and A. A. Peskova’s exhaustive study of tenth- to thirteenth-century enkolpia includes eight items which 76

For a useful introduction to the subject with reproductions and bibliography see Jean Blankoff, ‘Encolpia and Phylacteries in Old Russia’, Russian History/Histoire Russe, 28 (2001), 63–103.

124

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

depict George with a sword or other weapon.77 A further eight enkolpia with portraits of warriors are very similar to items in the first group and may have been made from the same moulds, but no longer have inscriptions.78 By contrast, there is only one enkolpion on which George appears as a martyr.79 Like enkolpia, stone icons occasionally show the military saints as martyrs, although such images are in the minority. T. V. Nikolaeva’s study of these objects includes fifteen from roughly the thirteenth century or earlier with depictions of the military saints as warriors: nine of George, five of Demetrios and one of heodore.80 George appears only once holding a spear and a cross and once holding a cross, while none of the other military saints is represented with the attributes of martyrs.81 Other media provide additional evidence for the popularity of the military dimension of the saints’ cults, such as the twelfth-century enamel icon of George holding a spear.82 Four pendant icons discovered in areas as distant as Riazan and the Baltic Sea coast feature a dragon-slaying figure who is probably George.83 George appears again along with heodore, both holding shields and uplifted swords, on one of the few items which can with assurance be connected with the princely clan: the helmet of Iaroslav Vsevolodovich.84 he enigmatic zmeeviki, pendants which combined Christian imagery on one side with a nest of snakes on the other, do not seem to have depicted the military saints as martyrs at all. Although relatively few zmeeviki from 77

78

79

80

81 82

83

84

Korzukhina and Peskova, Drevnerusskie enkolpiony, p. 102, no. 3, ill. 55; p. 107, no. 43, ill. 57; p. 107, no. 44, ill. 49; p. 109, no. 69, ill. 51; p. 109, no. 71, ill. 48; p. 141, no. 3, ill. 79; p. 228, nos. 1, 2, ill. 156. Ibid., p. 103, no. 8, ill. 54; pp. 103–4, no. 12, ill. 52; p. 106, no. 37, ill. 53; p. 107, no. 45, ill. 57; p. 109, no. 74, ill. 58; p. 142, no. 2, ill. 81; p. 229, nos. 3, 4. Ibid., p. 85, no. 8, ill. 36. Another enkolpion (pp. 151–2, no. 2, ill. 90) features a saint labelled heodore holding a book, which is represented as a small square with a cross. h is is probably a portrait of heodore the Studite rather than heodore Teron or Stratelates, although if one of the latter is depicted the image would seem to have more associations with martyrdom than warfare. Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika , ill. 3, nos. 4, 6; ill. 16, nos. 2, 8; ill. 17, nos. 1, 2; ill. 30, nos. 6, 7; ill. 50, no. 4 (George); ill. 6, nos. 4, 5; ill. 14, no. 1; ill. 17, no. 3; ill. 56, no. 7 (Demetrios); ill. 16, no. 7 (heodore). Ibid., ill. 16, no. 1; ill. 19, no. 4. I. A. Sterligova, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo Velikogo Novgoroda: khudozhestvennyi metall XI–XV veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1996), pp. 248–9. Other enamel works from Rus will be discussed in Chapter 5. M. V. Sedova, Iurvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X–XV vv.) (Moscow: Nauka, 1981), pp. 62–3, ill. 20, no. 11. Sterligova, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo, pp. 276–82. Sterligova provides an informative summary of the large volume of scholarship devoted to this object. he saints on the helmet seem to have a patronal significance, although three instead of two are represented: George and heodore are accompanied by Christ and Basil.

he military saints in early Rus

125

the thirteenth century and earlier survive, all of the specimens which feature a military saint emphasise his martial characteristics by depicting him as a warrior or a dragon-slayer. T. V. Nikolaeva and A. V. Chernetsov have published five examples of twelfth- and thirteenth-century zmeeviki which feature on the obverse nearly identical full-length portraits of a bearded saint wearing armour and holding a spear and shield.85 Although the saint is identified as heodore on only one of the items, the other images are so similar that they must be assumed to represent the same saint. In addition to those published, the authors note the existence of ‘a few’ other specimens of this type in the State Historical Museum in Moscow.86 A further three twelfth- and thirteenth-century zmeeviki feature a dragon-slaying saint with a beardless face and curly hair who is almost certainly George, and another one depicts George and heodore (Illustration 7).87 hese works of minor art show an overwhelming preference for the martial qualities of the military saints while generally ignoring their martyrdom. Although the proportion of images of the saints holding crosses on these items is slightly higher than that found in the corpus of princely seals, the generally strong emphasis on warrior imagery cannot be disputed. Assuming that these objects were owned by a relatively wide cross-section of the population of Rus, it seems that the people, like their rulers, were particularly attracted to the military aspects of the cults of these saints. Another inference to be gleaned from the minor arts is that the military saints did not enjoy equal popularity. he frequency with which George appears in the works studied above is noteworthy. His portraits outnumber those of the other saints by a large margin, hinting that he had a greater appeal for the faithful. his conclusion is supported by the work of N. G. Porfiridov, who surveyed 303 published and unpublished images of individual saints on stone icons. Nicholas was the most popular saint, appearing on forty-two icons. Of the military saints, George’s portrait was found on thirty icons, while Demetrios, the heodores and Eustathios had only twenty images between them.88 his distribution contrasts markedly with that found on the princely seals, which depict George, Demetrios and the heodores with almost equal 85

86 87 88

T. V. Nikolaeva and A. V. Chernetsov, Drevnerusskie amulety-zmeeviki (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), pp. 74–5, no. 32; pp. 75–6, no. 33; p. 108. Ibid., p. 75. Ibid., pp. 73–4, no. 30; p. 31, no. 74; p. 107. N. G. Porfiridov, ‘Drevnerusskaia melkaia kamennaia plastika i ee suzhety’, SA, 36 (1972), 200–8 (p. 203).

126

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 7 Zmeevik featuring George and heodore

frequency. he difference suggests that George was more widely venerated than his comrades-in-arms outside the clan. Although speculation about the reasons for his popular appeal would be beyond the scope of the present study, the special enthusiasm shown for only one of the military saints, like their persistent depiction as warriors, is another feature which distinguishes the Rus minor arts from their Byzantine counterparts. On Rus items used in church ritual, on the other hand, the holy warriors seem to have retained their ancient identity as martyrs as well as their mutual associations. Although all of the examples of minor art studied in this chapter use Christian imagery, the small size, scattered archaeological provenances and crude method of manufacture of the items surveyed above suggest that they were intended for personal use. As noted, they may have been commissioned by individuals or mass-produced to suit popular tastes. By contrast, a number of rather more elaborate objects which had defined

he military saints in early Rus

127

roles in church ritual were probably used in wealthy ecclesiastical foundations. Interestingly, the portrayal of the military saints on these works is noticeably different from that seen in other categories of the minor arts. Just as the texts studied above reveal that the Byzantine martyr-warrior ideal continued to be expressed in Slavonic ecclesiastical texts, so specimens of minor art made for church ritual portray the military saints as martyrs more consistently than those intended for private use. A twelfth-century chalice from Pereslavl-Zalesskii, for example, features medallion portraits of a number of saints, including George in his martyr’s robes.89 Demetrios is depicted holding a cross and wearing similar garments on an ampulla from the last third of the twelfth century, opposite an image of Christ blessing.90 Demetrios and George appear again as martyrs on the celebrated altar cross of Evfrosiniia of Polotsk, one of the few specimens of Rus minor art about which a good deal of background information is known. Although the cross disappeared during the Second World War, surviving photographs allow it to be studied. A lengthy inscription on the sides of the cross states that it was commissioned by the Princess Evfrosiniia in 1161 for use in the monastery in Polotsk which she had founded.91 he cross is decorated with medallion portraits of saints which, following the princely tradition, include the patron saint of the princess herself as well as George, that of her father.92 Unlike most of the patronal images on seals, however, George appears here holding a cross to his chest. Demetrios is depicted in a similar manner on the other side of the cross, in a position corresponding to George’s portrait. Inscriptions next to his portrait and nearby portraits of Stephen and Panteleemon note that the cross contained the blood of the first and the relics of the latter two saints (a distinction which seems to acknowledge the difficulty of obtaining Demetrios’ relics). Groups of military saints are depicted on other items from churches, such as two twelfth-century silver icon coverings from the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom in Novgorod. One, from an icon of the Mother of God Hodigitria, features Eustathios, Merkourios and Niketas on the left 89

90

91

92

A. N. Svirin, Iuvelirnoe iskusstvo drevnei Rusi XI–XVII vekov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972), pp. 58–61. B. Kolchin et al., Drevnii Novgorod: prikladnoe iskusstvo i arkheologiia (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1985), p. 49, no. 53, б. B. A. Rybakov, Russkie datirovannye nadpisi XI–XIV vekov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1–44 (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), pp. 32–3, pl. 31. L. V. Alekseev, Polotskaia zemlia v IX–XIII vv. (ocherki istorii severnoi Belorusi) (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), p. 223. Alekseev speculates that Sophia, the third saint in the group, was the patron saint of the princess’ mother.

128

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

margin and heodore, Prokopios and Nestor on the right, all identified by inscriptions.93 All of the saints wear martyrs’ robes and hold crosses, a combination which is unique among the objects under study. On the other covering, from an icon of Peter and Paul, portraits of saints decorate the left, right and top borders. he group includes Eustathios, who wears armour and holds a lance and shield, and Demetrios, who wears courtly robes and holds a cross.94 A group of three large stone carvings from Kiev depict a total of five military saints on horseback: George and heodore spearing dragons (Illustration 8), Demetrios and another saint, possibly Nestor or Merkourios, who spears a fallen warrior, and Eustathios at the moment of his vision. he similarity of these works to carved panels which decorate the exterior of some Georgian churches and their discovery on the grounds of Iziaslav Iaroslavich’s Church of St Demetrios in Kiev suggest that they were originally hung over the western, eastern and southern entrances to that church. Furthermore, their large size (over one metre across) makes it unlikely that they were used for private devotion. G. Iu. Ivakin and V. G. Putsko have argued that they were the work of a single craftsman and were made in the third quarter of the eleventh century.95 he interior decoration of Rus churches also provides examples of the survival of Byzantine traditions in the depiction of the military saints. Although few fresco and mosaic cycles from early Rus survive and their state of repair is generally poor, they include a number of depictions of military saints which show continuities with images on other ecclesiastical items. As discussed above, the founders of churches could and did choose the dedications of the buildings, and patrons seem to have had at least some influence over the content of the frescoes or mosaics which covered the inside walls. his influence was, however, limited by the well-established and relatively restrictive conventions which applied to church decoration in the medieval Orthodox world. With few exceptions, middle Byzantine churches featured individual portraits of saints on the lower areas of the walls, mostly full-length and life-size, but also in busts or medallions, and often grouped by type. Above them, narrative scenes from the life of Christ and/or the Mother of God decorated the upper 93 94

95

Sterligova, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo, pp. 242–8. Ibid., pp. 234–42. he author has since argued for an earlier date for the icon coverings: the mid to third quarter of the eleventh century for the icon of Peter and Paul, and possibly the eleventh century for the icon of the Mother of God. I. A. Sterligova, Dragotsennyi ubor drevnerusskikh ikon XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, 2000) pp. 92–126. G. Iu. Ivakin and V. G. Putsko, ‘Kievskii kamennyi rel’ef s izobrazheniem Evstafiia Plakidy’, Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia (2000), 160–8.

he military saints in early Rus

129

Illustration 8 Carved relief from Kiev featuring George and heodore

areas of the walls, the central dome featured a large portrait of Christ Pantokrator and the apse a portrait of Mary.96 Within this framework there was some scope for flexibility. A survey of 23 middle Byzantine churches showed, for example, that of the 175 saints depicted, none was common to all the churches, and only 75 appeared more than twice.97 hese findings support the widely accepted idea that patrons could commission donor portraits or depictions of saints with personal significance. For example, the Chapel of St George in the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom in Kiev was probably named for the patron saint of Iaroslav Vladimirovich, and is decorated with a fresco portrait of the saint with scenes from his martyrdom.98 N. V. Pivovarova has argued that the portraits of the healer saints Anastasia and Christina in the Church of the Saviour on Nereditsa hill outside Novgorod had a special significance 96

97

98

h is decorative programme was originally identified by Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948; repr. 1976), but see criticism by homas F. Mathews, ‘he Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration’, in Art and Architecture in Byzantium and Armenia: Liturgical and Exegetical Approaches (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995), pp. 11–21. Liz James, ‘Monks, Monastic Art, the Sanctoral Cycle and the Middle Byzantine Church’, in he heotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, ed. Margaret Mullett and Anthony Kirby, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6, 1 (Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1994), pp. 162–75 (p. 166). V. N. Lazarev, Drevnerusskie mozaiki i freski XI–XV vv. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973), pp. 25–6.

130

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

for the founder, a different Iaroslav Vladimirovich, whose two sons died shortly before the church was dedicated in 1198.99 Other elements of the fresco cycle, including portraits of ten military saints, reflect decorative styles inherited from Byzantium and conform to the norms found on other ecclesiastical objects from Rus. Although the poor state of repair of the frescoes means that it is not possible to determine the dress and attributes of each saint, at least one, John the Warrior, holds a cross in addition to a shield.100 Other Rus fresco cycles which include military saints show a similar adherence to the Byzantine traditions of depicting them as a group and mixing the attributes of martyr and warrior. he Church of the Transfiguration in Polotsk, for example, features a portrait of Eustathios as a martyr above a group of unidentified figures dressed in armour.101 he Church of St George in Staraia Ladoga, in addition to the famous dragon-slaying portrait of its namesake, includes portraits of unidentified saints in military dress, as well as Eustathios and Sabbas the Warrior as martyrs.102 he frescoes of the Church of St Cyril in Kiev once included at least six portraits of military saints; those which survive depict their subjects wearing armour.103 Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of much pre-Mongol church decoration means that a number of depictions of military saints survive outside of their original contexts, such as the portrait of George as a martyr in the fresco cycle of the Cathedral of St George in Novgorod, as well as the mosaic of Demetrios dressed as a warrior from the Cathedral of the Archangel Michael in Kiev.104 he Byzantine custom of presenting the military saints as a group of martyr-warriors thus endured in Rus in the ecclesiastical sphere: new and translated hagiographic literature preserved Byzantine ideas about them, and their portraits in churches and on ecclesiastical objects were faithful N. V. Pivovarova, Freski tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse v Novgorode: ikonograficheskaia programma rospisi (St Petersburg: ARS/Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002), p. 22. T. S. Shcherbatova-Sheviakova, Nereditsa: Monumental’nye rospisi tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse (Moscow: Galart, 2004), pp. 140, 144–8, ill. 112–13, 120–4. 101 V. D. Sarab’ianov, Spaso-Preobrazhenskaia tserkov’ Evfrosin’eva monastyria i ee freski (Moscow: Severnyi Palomnik, 2007), pp. 107–8, 170. 102 A. N. Ovchinnikov, ‘Nadpisi v georgievskoi tserkvi Staroi Ladogi’, in Pamiatniki kul’tury. Novye Otkrytiia (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), pp. 187–91. Ovchinnikov speculates that one of the unidentified figures is one of the heodores because the letters ‘θε’ appear by his left shoulder, but this is unlikely since the saint is beardless and has long hair. 103 Iryna Marholina and Vasylii Ul’ianovs’kyi, Kyivs’ ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla (Kiev: Lybid’, 2005), pp. 27, 136–7, 139. 104 V. G. Putsko, ‘Les fresques de la tour de la cathédrale du monastère St. Georges à Novgorod’, Byzantion, 46 (1976), 398–410; Lazarev, Drevnerusskie mozaiki, p. 30.

99

100

he military saints in early Rus

131

to Byzantine models. Within the princely clan and other sectors of the population, by contrast, the military saints seem to have been venerated chiefly as individual patrons, and their warrior qualities held more appeal than their group identity or their sufferings as martyrs. Although personal thoughts and sentiments are impossible to recover, the adornments and personal markers on which the saints were depicted are the best source of insight into their veneration outside of formal church ritual. he fact that, in contrast to church items, only a tiny fraction of surviving princely seals and works of minor art from Rus make reference to the martyrdom of the military saints is probably not coincidental. Unlike in Byzantium, the clerical and lay members of Rus society seem to have had distinct ideas about the nature of the holy warriors, which resulted in different iconographic conventions being favoured by each group. his chapter has attempted to identify the continuities and changes in the veneration of the military saints by the secular and religious authorities in Rus and Byzantium. he evidence points toward a continuation in the Church of Rus of the Byzantine martyr-warrior ideal, while the princes of Rus promoted an individual and more purely martial approach to their cults. Yet the art of both cultures, when expressing the dual identity of the holy warriors, rarely does so by depicting a saint holding a weapon in one hand and a cross in the other. One Byzantine ivory, studied in Chapter 3, depicts heodore and Eustathios in this manner, while George and John the Warrior appear on items from Rus holding weapons and crosses, as discussed above. It is intriguing that these attributes should appear separately so frequently but together so rarely in the iconography of the military saints. By contrast, two other saints – the martyred princes Boris and Gleb – are depicted much more consistently holding swords and crosses. he appearance of the sword and the cross – the longestablished attributes of the military saints – in the iconography of the brothers is indicative of the important continuities in the cults of the two groups. Yet, as with many other aspects of the brothers’ cult, the affinity is tempered, in this case by the unusual combination of attributes which had traditionally been separate. he growth of the brothers’ cult and the influence on it of those of the holy warriors are the subjects of the next chapter.

ch apter 5

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

Based on the findings of the previous chapter, it may seem that the military saints’ combination of martyrdom and triumph in war which so fascinated the middle Byzantine elite held little interest for the Riurikids. For the most part, only literary and artistic works from Rus which had a defined role in church ritual preserved the dual identity of the holy warriors which had developed in Byzantium, while personal emblems associated with individuals invoked almost exclusively on the martial and patronal aspects of their cults. Yet it would be unjustified to conclude that the martyr-warrior ideal was ignored outside the Church in Rus. Other groups of texts and artefacts reveal that the idea of martyrs functioning as military protectors did appeal to the princes after all – but that they looked to different saints to fulfil this role. Rather than the ancient corps of holy warriors imported from Byzantium, it fell to two of the princes’ own kinsmen, the saintly brothers Boris and Gleb, to ensure the success of their relatives’ military exploits through the triumph of martyrdom. he relatively plentiful surviving sources related to the cult of Boris and Gleb show a number of striking parallels between the veneration of the brothers in Rus and that of the military saints in Byzantium. Both groups of saints were favoured as patrons not only of individuals but of the entire ruling house, and they were invoked as protectors of its members and their armies in war. In both cases, the saints’ martyrdom was understood to be an essential element of their posthumous powers, and the interplay of these features was emphasised through the alternation of epithets in liturgical and hagiographic texts and the combination of attributes in a variety of artistic media. A number of the texts in question make explicit comparisons between Boris and Gleb and various members of the corps of military saints, while certain luxury objects show an intriguing tendency to depict both groups wearing the same distinctive garments. he richness and diversity of such sources suggest that the connections they draw between the brothers and the military saints were not a matter of 132

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

133

coincidence. Moreover, the similar means by which the attributes of martyr and warrior were expressed for both groups of saints is a strong indication that the emerging cult of Boris and Gleb was modelled on that of the holy warriors. hat is not to suggest that the brothers were carbon copies of their more ancient counterparts, nor that other traditions did not contribute to their early cult. Boris and Gleb’s cultural significance in early Rus was such that the present study cannot account for every aspect of their veneration and all of the influences on it. It would be beyond the scope of this chapter, for example, to consider Boris and Gleb’s importance within the political system of early Rus1 or the spread of their cult to other parts of the medieval world.2 Likewise the similarity of their cult to those of martyred princes from other parts of northern Europe will not be discussed in detail.3 As in the previous chapter, moreover, no attempt will be made to discuss the relative age of the literary and artistic sources under study – a subject of particularly intense debate with regard to the three narrative accounts of Boris and Gleb’s martyrdom.4 Although progress may yet be made in establishing a chronology of the surviving sources, the problem of dating has occupied a disproportionate amount of scholarship without resulting in anything like a consensus. Other approaches, meanwhile, have demonstrated that there is much to be learnt about the cult that does not depend on the relative age of the texts under study. Gail Lenhoff, for example, has highlighted the importance of the liturgical commemorations of Boris and Gleb and argued convincingly against the common practice of assigning the texts about the brothers to anachronistic generic categories.5 Early artistic sources also offer a wealth of information about 1

2

3

4

5

See, for example, Paul Hollingsworth, ‘Holy Men and the Transformation of Political Space in Medieval Rus’’, in he Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, ed. James Howard-Johnston and Paul Antony Hayward (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 187–213. On Armenian and Greek literature about Boris and Gleb see G. V. Abgarian, ‘K probleme predpolagaemoi grecheskoi versii “Skazaniia o Borise i Glebe”’, in Russkaia i armianskaia srednevekovye literatury, ed. D. S. Likhachev (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), pp. 235–54. he pioneering work on this question is that of Norman Ingham, ‘he Sovereign as Martyr: East and West’, Slavic and East European Journal , 17 (1973), 1–17. For a round in this debate which summarises many previous arguments see Ludolf Mü ller, ‘O vremeni kanonizatsii sviatykh Borisa i Gleba’ and Andrzej Poppe, ‘O zarozhdenii kul’ta sviatykh Borisa i Gleba i o posviashchennykh im proizvedeniiakh’, Russia Mediaevalis, 8 (1995), 5–20, 21–68. A summary of these and other discussions is provided in Paul Hollingsworth, trans., h e Hagiography of Kievan Rus’ , HLEUL: English Translations 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. xxxi–xliii. Gail Lenhoff, he Martyred Princes Boris and Gleb: A Socio-Cultural Study of the Cult and the Texts, UCLA Slavic Studies 19 (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1989).

134

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Boris and Gleb’s veneration, despite remaining understudied.6 his type of evidence can shed light on the development of the cult as it spread through the Rus population – especially if, like the written material, it is not forced into artificial chronological frameworks. As far as possible, therefore, the present chapter will consider evidence from the entire pre-Mongol period (excepting the Vladimir-Suzdal principality) on the basis of medium and content rather than age. Analysis will focus on a number of themes which appear throughout these sources and their relationship to those found in sources related to the military saints. Stepping into the scholarly minefield that characterises much of the study of Boris and Gleb might seem foolish at best. Yet the brothers’ connections with the military saints constitute a relatively unexplored area which seems to merit individual study. It is perhaps not surprising, given the cultural diversity of early Rus, that a variety of influences can be detected in the cults of that society’s first saints. hat fact does not mean, however, that special attention should not be given to a particular group of them. Although Boris and Gleb’s role as patrons of the clan and protectors in war is widely acknowledged in scholarship, their potential affiliations with similarly inclined Byzantine saints have not been explored in any depth. heir deaths, meanwhile, have been interpreted as a uniquely Rus phenomenon and compared with those of other northern European princes, but have not generally been studied in relation to their own posthumous martial traits or the deaths of Byzantine saints with warrior cults. Yet the similarities between Boris and Gleb and the holy warriors provide a unique source of insight into the continuation in Rus of a Byzantine religious tradition and the application of the Byzantine martyr-warrior ideal to a new pair of saints. hese processes and their expression in pre-Mongol Rus are the subject of the present chapter. he earthly lives of Boris and Gleb are not given much attention in early written sources. he Primary Chronicle notes, in the context of the pre-baptismal liaisons of their father Vladimir Sviatoslavich, that they were his sons by a Bulgarian woman.7 Following the description of the 6

7

he tendency to focus on literary sources is shown by the number of studies which have attempted to draw a direct connection between various works of art and specific texts about Boris and Gleb. See, among others, D. V. Ainalov, ‘Ocherki i zametki po istorii drevnerusskogo iskusstova. Miniatury Skazaniia o svv. Borise i Glebe Sil’vestrovskogo sbornika’, Izvestiia otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti, 15 (1910), 1–128; E. S. Smirnova, ‘Otrazhenie literaturnykh proizvedenii o Borise i Glebe v drevnerusskoi stankovoi zhivopisi’, TODRL , 15 (1958), 312–27; A. V. Poppe, ‘O roli ikonograficheskikh izobrazhenii v izuchenii literaturnykh proizvedenii o Borise i Glebe’, TODRL , 22 (1966), 18–23. Donald Ostrowski, ed., PVL: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, HLEUL 10, 1–3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), i, lines 80,5–80,6, p. 573. It has been argued that their

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

135

baptism of Vladimir and his family in its entry for 988, the chronicle informs us that he gave Boris the city of Rostov to rule and Gleb the city of Murom.8 Nothing more is said about them until their deaths, which are described at some length in three sources: the entry for 1015 in the Primary Chronicle, the monk Nestor’s Lesson on the Life and Murder of the Blessed Passion-Suff erers Boris and Gleb (hereafter the Lesson) and the anonymous Tale and Passion and Enkomion of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb (hereafter the Tale).9 Although these versions of the story differ in a number of details and scholars have questioned the veracity of various aspects of the accounts, it is generally agreed that the events of 1015 and beyond unfolded more or less as follows: Vladimir fell ill and died before being able to assemble his sons in Kiev. Sviatopolk, the eldest, occupied the throne and sent out his henchmen to eliminate potential rival claimants, including Boris and Gleb. Boris, the first to be killed, was buried hastily in the princely residence of Vyshgorod, near Kiev, while Gleb’s body was left in the wilderness near Smolensk. Another brother, Iaroslav, fought inconclusively with Sviatopolk for a few years. He eventually defeated Sviatopolk in 1019 with the help of an army of Varangians and warriors from Novgorod, and was able to take the throne of Kiev. During the early part of Iaroslav’s reign, the body of Gleb was brought to join that of Boris, and Vyshgorod became the focus of an emerging cult.10 he manner and implications of the brothers’ deaths have been the source of considerable debate. None of the three narrative accounts states or implies that they were killed for refusing to renounce their faith, in the manner of ancient martyrs. Sviatopolk, it is safe to assume, was baptised along with the rest of the princely family at the time of the official conversion in about 988, and the sources, although hostile toward him, never accuse him of attacking Boris and Gleb for religious reasons. Instead, the texts emphasise the princes’ unwillingness to fight their brother and their Christlike non-resistance as their path to holiness. he

8 9

10

mother was actually Vladimir’s Byzantine wife Anna. For a summary of scholarship on this topic see Andrzej Poppe, ‘Losers on Earth, Winners from Heaven. he Assassinations of Boris and Gleb in the Making of Eleventh-Century Rus’’, Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae, 8 (2003), 133–68. PVL , ii, lines 121,13–121,14, p. 947. Critical editions of these and other texts related to the brothers’ cult are published in D. I. Abramovich, ed., Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov Borisa i Gleba i sluzhby im, Pamiatniki drevne-russkoi literatury 2 (Petrograd: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1916). English translations of the major texts can be found in he Hagiography. Although most scholars agree with this version of events, some, following N. N. Il’in, argue that Iaroslav was in fact the brothers’ murderer, and that the evidence to the contrary represents an attempt to cover up the truth. See N. N. Il’in, Letopisnaia stat’ ia 6523 goda i ee istochnik (opyt analyza) (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1957).

136

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

differences between the ancient martyrs, who suffered religious persecution, and Boris and Gleb, who were victims of political intrigue, have led some scholars to conclude that the brothers were not perceived as martyrs in the traditional sense at all. Rather, they constituted a new category of ‘passion-bearers’ (Slavonic: strastoterptsy) – Christians who led exemplary lives and willingly imitated Christ’s innocent death but were not victims of religious persecution. George Fedotov, whose views have influenced many subsequent discussions of Boris and Gleb, went so far as to assert that this type of sainthood was something entirely new and unique to Rus.11 Norman Ingham rejected this idea, demonstrating the similarities between the hagiography of Boris and Gleb and that of the earlier Bohemian prince Václav, who died in similar circumstances. He concluded that Rus writers found in Václav and the term strastoterpets a solution to the supposed dilemma of how to portray Boris and Gleb in hagiography, arguing that strastoterpets, despite being a calque of the Greek athlophoros (a synonym for martyr), is used in early Rus literature only to refer to victims of political assassinations such as Boris and Gleb, and not ‘traditional’ martyrs.12 Closer inspection suggests, however, that Rus authors were less preoccupied with the precise definitions of categories of saints than their modern counterparts. here can be little doubt that the Churchmen of Rus were aware that Boris and Gleb differed in important respects from earlier martyrs. Indeed, the Lesson makes a somewhat awkward attempt to associate Boris with pagan misdeeds in a speech which the saint addresses to God following his murderers’ initial attack: ‘You sent your only begotten son into the world, and lawless men gave him up to death; and I was sent by my father to save people from the pagans rising up against them, and now I am wounded by my father’s servants.’13 Because of the circumstances of Boris’ death, Nestor could not hint any more strongly that he was actually persecuted by pagans. Nevertheless, many Rus authors used the same epithets for the brothers and ‘traditional’ martyrs. Franklin Sciacca has noted that the Old Church Slavonic manuscript Codex Suprasliensis translates the Greek athlophoros as both strastoterpets and muchenik (the 11

12

13

he Collected Works of George P. Fedotov (Belmont, MA: Norland Publishing, 1975), vol. iii, he Russian Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity, pp. 94–110. Norman W. Ingham, ‘he Martyred Prince and the Question of Slavic Cultural Continuity in the Early Middle Ages’, in Medieval Russian Culture, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Michael S. Flier, California Slavic Studies 12 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), pp. 31–53. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 11.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

137

more common Slavonic term for martyr) with reference to a group of martyrs who suffered in Persia in the 320s.14 Boris and Gleb themselves, in addition to their appellation of strastoterptsy, are frequently referred to as mucheniki in a variety of early sources.15 Above and beyond the Rus authors’ choice of epithets, their extended comparisons between Boris and Gleb and earlier martyrs, which will be discussed below, weakens the case for the perceived uniqueness of the brothers’ sanctity. It is perhaps reasonable to conclude that Rus Churchmen schooled in Byzantine hagiographic traditions made use of various models to construct a new cult when presented with two murder victims who were displaying signs of holiness but had little in common with saints in the established canon. Václav was certainly relevant, but so were a number of others, including the military saints. he precise circumstances of the brothers’ deaths and the motivations of their killers may have mattered less than the fact that they were innocent victims of violence and that they had posthumous careers as military intercessors. he development of the brothers’ veneration, including the miracles they worked, the churches built in their honour and the translations of their relics, are described in the Primary Chronicle, the Lesson and another text known as the Tale of the Miracles of the Holy Passion-Sufferers of Christ Roman and David (hereafter the Tale of the Miracles).16 As mentioned above, the ages and interrelations of these texts are a matter of intense (and for the most part unresolved) scholarly debate. Suffice it, for the purposes of the present study, to present a few brief remarks about their origins. he Primary Chronicle seems to have been compiled in the early twelfth century and may well have drawn on earlier written sources in its account of the murder of Boris and Gleb, although there is no firm evidence about the content and age of such sources. he Lesson probably dates from the last quarter of the eleventh century, since it is known that its author entered the Caves Monastery some time in the 1070s. he background of the Tale is more mysterious. It could have been composed at any point during the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries, with proposed dates including the translations of the saints’ relics in 1072 and 1115. he Tale of the Miracles can only be placed after 1115, since the events of that year are the last it describes.17 14

15 16

17

Franklin A. Sciacca, ‘In Imitation of Christ: Boris and Gleb and the Ritual Consecration of the Russian Land’, Slavic Review, 49 (1990), 253–60 (p. 258). Ibid., p. 259. Roman and David were the respective baptismal names of Boris and Gleb, and many writers used the names interchangeably. For a more detailed discussion see he Hagiography, pp. xxxii–xxxv, xxxix–xl, xlv–xlvi.

138

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

In all likelihood, therefore, even the earliest of these works was composed at least two generations after the events in question, and it seems safe to assume that the authors were from a monastic rather than a princely milieu. It is thus important to treat their presentation of the story with caution, especially in places where the texts contradict each other. Although they do discuss the early veneration of the brothers under Iaroslav and the increasing popularity of their cult over the course of the eleventh century, in many cases it is difficult to distinguish historical fact from hagiographic commonplace.18 Despite ingenious efforts by a number of scholars, the fact that no earlier narrative sources survive means that little can be said with any certainty about the development of Boris and Gleb’s cult prior to the composition of the texts themselves.19 As sources for the brothers’ veneration in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries rather than historical records of earlier events, however, the narratives provide a wealth of information about the construction of the brothers’ cult and its perceived similarities with those of earlier saints. he comparisons and allusions found throughout the works show that the authors were drawing on their considerable knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition to define a place for Boris and Gleb within it. he works present a wide range of precedents and comparisons, each of which highlights a different aspect of the brothers’ lives, deaths or posthumous powers and demonstrates the continuity between the events of biblical history and those of eleventh-century Rus. Reaching back to the Old Testament, the Lesson draws parallels between Gleb and his baptismal namesake King David, observing that they were both the youngest sons in their respective families and that they both defeated an enemy: David a human one and Gleb a demonic one.20 In a similar vein, both the Lesson and the Tale make note of the similarities between Boris and Gleb, the younger sons of Vladimir, and Joseph and Benjamin, the younger sons of Jacob.21 In the Lesson, furthermore, Gleb declares in his final appeal to God before his murder, ‘just as in ancient times on this day Zechariah was sacrificed before your altar, now I too am sacrificed before you, Lord’.22 Not surprisingly, numerous comparisons are made between 18 19

20 21 22

On this problem see ibid., pp. xxxvi–xxxvii, xli–xliii. One of the liturgical offices composed in honour of the saints is almost certainly older than the narrative sources, but it praises the saints in generalised terms and hence does not shed light on the historical circumstances of their cults. It will be discussed separately below. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 6. Ibid., pp. 7 (Lesson), 30 (Tale). Ibid., p. 13.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

139

Sviatopolk and Cain on the one hand and Boris and Gleb and Abel on the other.23 he Tale also likens Sviatopolk to Lamech, another murderous figure from the Book of Genesis.24 he authority of the Old Testament is used to prove the holiness of Boris and Gleb, strengthening their case for sainthood by demonstrating their similarity to patriarchs, prophets and kings. hey are compared even more frequently with their Christian predecessors, each of whom likewise illustrates different aspects of the brothers’ sanctity. Boris and Gleb’s martyrdom is foreshadowed in the Lesson when Boris is described as reading the lives of unspecified saints aloud to Gleb and praying, ‘My Lord Jesus Christ, make me like one of these saints and allow me to follow in their footsteps.’25 he same text compares Boris with his baptismal namesake Romanos the Melode, noting that the holiness of both men enraged the devil, who put obstacles in their paths.26 he Tale describes Boris, shortly before his murder, contemplating ‘the martyrdom and passion of the martyr St Niketas and of St Viacheslav [i.e. Václav], who was killed in the same manner, and how the father of St Barbara was her murderer’.27 hese three saints, all of whom were killed by family members, have an obvious feature in common with Boris and Gleb. he Tale also quotes Boris, just before he dies, repeating the words of Stephen, thereby emphasising the similarities between the first martyr of Rus and the first Christian martyr.28 As in the cases of the Old Testament figures, the reasoning behind these choices of Christian models is clear, since they shared either a name or an aspect of their lives or deaths with the brothers. he texts thus establish connections between the lives and martyrdoms of Boris and Gleb and those of a variety of Old Testament and Christian figures on the basis of shared traits or experiences. Somewhat more complex are the posthumous associations between the brothers and several other saints. In both the Lesson and the Tale of the Miracles, Boris and Gleb are shown to be closely linked with Nicholas. he fourth miracle in the Tale of the Miracles relates that a Vyshgorod town elder hosted a celebration on Nicholas’ feast day. A lame and mute beggar came to his house in the hope of being given food, but received nothing. Soon, however, he fell into a trance in which Boris and Gleb appeared to him and caused his leg to regenerate itself.29 Both texts also contain slightly different versions of a story about a woman who stayed home from church to work on 23 24 27

Examples include ibid., pp. 9 (Lesson), 32, 47 (Tale), 68, 70, 75 (Primary Chronicle). 25 Ibid., p. 47. Ibid., p. 5. 26 Ibid., pp. 5–6. 29 Ibid., p. 33. 28 Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., pp. 56–8.

140

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Nicholas’ feast day. Boris and Gleb appeared to her (in the Lesson Nicholas accompanied them) and caused her hand to become withered. After three years, she was cured by praying in the brothers’ church.30 Unlike the passages studied above, these stories do not focus on characteristics shared by Boris and Gleb and Nicholas, but rather show how the brothers helped him maintain order among the adherents of his cult. he town elder acted uncharitably by leaving a beggar without food on Nicholas’ feast day, so Boris and Gleb stepped in to rectify the situation. Likewise, a woman showed disrespect for the saint, and the brothers acted to punish her. As discussed in the previous chapter, depictions of Nicholas on stone icons from Rus outnumber those of all other saints, and Boris and Gleb’s association with him in these stories is probably not a coincidence. heir assistance of an ancient and widely venerated saint confirmed the brothers’ holiness and helped their own cult accrue authority. Further connections described in the texts between Boris and Gleb and the military saints demonstrate that the brothers could not only assist more ancient saints, but even take over aspects of their roles. he Lesson and the Tale of the Miracles contain similar stories about a blind man who prayed to George to restore his sight. George appeared to him, but instead of healing him said: Why are you calling to me in this way, fellow? If you need sight, I advise you: go to the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, and they will give you the sight which you need, if they desire. To them has been given grace from God: in this country, the land of Rus, to get rid of and heal every suffering and illness.31

Boris and Gleb’s relationship with George is thus markedly different from that which they were shown to have with Nicholas. Rather than simply assisting the other saint, the brothers are actually taking over some of his responsibilities. According to George’s words, this reallocation of authority is based on geography: Boris and Gleb have been granted the ability to work miracles in Rus, implying that they have a special role as the protectors of the land which overrides the powers of other saints. he Tale ’s comparison of Boris and Gleb with Demetrios has similar implications. Its author was clearly well acquainted with Demetrios’ cult and wished to demonstrate the brothers’ similarity to him. In addition to declaring that Vyshgorod had become a second hessalonika,32 30 31

32

Ibid., pp. 58–9 (Tale of the Miracles), 23–4 (Lesson). Ibid., pp. 59–60 (Tale of the Miracles). George makes a somewhat briefer but broadly similar speech in the Lesson (ibid., p. 24). Ibid., p. 50.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

141

he illustrated Boris and Gleb’s concern for their homeland by paraphrasing one of Archbishop John’s miracle stories about Demetrios: ‘You also fight for and protect your fatherland, even as the great Demetrios did for his fatherland, saying, “If I was with them when they were rejoicing, so I will die with them when they are perishing”.’33 he Tale goes on to imply, moreover, that the brothers’ powers are even greater than those of Demetrios, and confirms their particular concern for Rus: ‘But nevertheless the great and merciful Demetrios proclaimed this about one city, but you offer care and prayers not for one town and not for two, but for the whole land of Rus.’34 Here again, a more ancient saint’s powers are rivalled by those of Boris and Gleb, who have taken over certain aspects of his role in their own land. A further allusion to a military saint follows this general pattern. he Tale, after comparing Sviatopolk to Cain and Lamech, goes on to observe that his death was similar to that of the Emperor Julian the Apostate: ‘For even as the Emperor Julian, who spilled much blood of the holy martyrs, received a bitter and inhuman death, being pierced by someone unknown and stabbed in the heart with a spear: thus [Sviatopolk] as well, running, not knowing from whom, received an evil death.’35 Numerous late antique sources claim that divine intervention was responsible for Julian’s death in 363 during his Persian campaign. Various saints are given credit for killing him, including hekla and heodore, but Merkourios eventually became most closely associated with the incident.36 he story made its way to Rus via the Slavonic translation of the chronicle of John Malalas, according to which Basil the Great had a vision of Christ ordering Merkourios to kill the emperor.37 Although the author of the Tale does not name Merkourios, it thus seems safe to assume that he was familiar with the story, and his comparison of the two murderous rulers may well imply that Sviatopolk also met his demise at the hands of his victims. he Lesson also notes the similarity between Julian and Sviatopolk, commenting somewhat cryptically that after Sviatopolk died, ‘many say they saw him in his coffin, like Julian the Apostate’.38 33

34 36

37

38

Ibid. h is version of Demetrios’ speech is somewhat different from the Greek original and the Slavonic translation by Clement of Ohrid discussed in Chapter 4, but still shows a close familiarity with the saint’s cult. 35 Ibid., pp. 47–8. Ibid. Norman H. Baynes, ‘he Death of Julian the Apostate in a Christian Legend’, Journal of Roman Studies, 27 (1937), 22–9. John Malalas, Chronicle of John Malalas Books VIII–XVIII, trans. and ed. Matthew Spinka and Glanville Downey (University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 77. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 14

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

142

he idea that Boris and Gleb drove Sviatopolk to his death from beyond the grave is strengthened by other allusions to the brothers’ posthumous participation in the efforts to defeat him. he Tale, for example, relates that Iaroslav benefited from the protection of his departed brothers in his battles against Sviatopolk: ‘Iaroslav … fought many battles with him, and always, with the help of God and the help of the saints, was victorious.’39 Even more significantly, both the Tale and the Primary Chronicle confirm Iaroslav’s faith in his brothers’ powers by describing how he prayed to them directly. Standing on the place of Boris’ murder prior to his final confrontation with Sviatopolk in 1019, Iaroslav is quoted as saying: ‘My brothers, even if you are gone from here in body, help me with your prayer against this hostile and proud murderer.’40 he defeat of Sviatopolk was not the only occasion on which Boris and Gleb were believed to have provided military intercession. he Tale goes on to extol the brothers’ protection not just of Iaroslav, but of the Riurikids in general: With your aid and protection our princes achieve powerful victories against their enemies and with your help they are glorified. For you are weapons for them and us, ramparts and a fortress for the land of Rus and sharp two-edged swords with which we defeat the audacity of the pagans and trample the arrogance of the devil into the earth.41

A related sentiment is found in the Primary Chronicle ’s praises for Boris and Gleb following their murder: ‘Christ-loving passion-sufferers and our defenders, subjugate the pagans under the feet of our princes.’42 Boris and Gleb are thus given strong military characteristics throughout the narrative literature associated with them. Prayers for victory in battle are directed to them, they are likened to weapons and fortresses and described as having special powers to protect Rus and its princes. Although they are compared to a number of saints and Old Testament figures, it is only military saints – George, Demetrios and, indirectly, Merkourios – whose powers the brothers appropriate or imitate in some way. he choice of these saints, with their well-established military associations, as models for Boris and Gleb is unlikely to have been accidental. Military prowess is not, to be sure, Boris and Gleb’s only quality described in the texts: their healing powers are also praised and they intercede on behalf of those wrongly imprisoned, among other characteristics. Yet the 39 40 41 42

Ibid., p. 44. PVL , ii, lines 144,18–144,20, p. 1149. See also Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 46. Ibid., p. 49. PVL , ii, lines 139,7–139,9, pp. 1112–13.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

143

passages analysed above demonstrate that intercession in war and the protection of Rus and its princely house were two of the brothers’ most important traits. he monastic authors of these works made complex comparisons between their subjects and the military saints, implying that the sphere of influence of the former overlapped with that of the latter to a significant degree. he comparisons between Boris and Gleb and the holy warriors are not made because of any acts of valour which the brothers committed during their earthly lives. Indeed, Gleb is not described as having any experience of warfare. Although the Tale and the Primary Chronicle either state or imply that he was ruling his patrimony in Murom at the time of his father’s death,43 the Lesson claims that Vladimir ‘kept St Gleb with him, for he was still young in body’.44 he saint’s youth is, in any case, a recurring theme in all of the texts, indicating that he had not yet been tested on the battlefield. Boris had reached maturity by the time of his death but does not seem to have distinguished himself in war. he three narrative texts note that Vladimir sent Boris to fight the Pechenegs in 1015 since he was too ill to go himself. According to the Tale and the Primary Chronicle, Boris failed even to find the enemy and turned back to Kiev, only to meet Sviatopolk’s assassins on the way.45 According to the Lesson, the Pechenegs heard Boris was coming and fled.46 Although this version of events implies that they had something to fear, the text does not describe Boris engaging in any actual fighting. A short work entitled ‘he Appearance of Boris’ which precedes the Tale of the Miracles in its oldest manuscript copy likewise hints at Boris’ skill in warfare, saying that he was ‘brave in battles’, but gives no further details.47 Whatever his abilities may have been, all of the texts devote much more attention to his saintly qualities, and in particular his non-resistance of his assassins, than to any martial skills. It was only after death that he, along with Gleb, became a tried and true intercessor in war. Martyrdom was thus the path to military prowess for Boris and Gleb as much as for the military saints. he liturgical materials associated with the brothers’ cult indicate that they were associated with the holy warriors for their shared experience of martyrdom as much as for their posthumous roles as intercessors in war. It should be stressed once again that the military saints were by no means the only figures who were seen as 43 44 45 46

Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 28 (Tale), 70 (Primary Chronicle). Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., pp. 28–9 (Tale), 67 (Primary Chronicle). 47 Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 52.

144

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

prototypes for the brothers, and the liturgical tradition is at least as rich as the hagiographic in the comparisons it makes between Boris and Gleb and their saintly precursors. Nevertheless, the place of the holy warriors within these texts gives some indication of their perceived connections with the brothers. Two full offices of Boris and Gleb, which include hymns for Matins and Vespers, survive from the pre-Mongol period. he oldest one was composed by Metropolitan John of Kiev, generally thought to be the first incumbent by this name, who held office from 1020 to 1035, but possibly his successor from 1076 to 1089. he second office, which incorporates elements of the first, is associated with Arkadii, archbishop of Novgorod from 1156 to 1163, although he may not have been the author.48 Whoever composed the offices, it is clear that many of the verses in the hymns were not original compositions, even though they honoured new saints. Rather, they were translated and recompiled from a variety of Greek hymns to older saints with only minimal adaptations, a process which was not unusual in Byzantium and among the Orthodox Slavs.49 At least two of the hymns in John’s office are found in earlier offices of military saints. he proëmion, one of the components of the Matins service, is very similar to a Greek sticheron, a hymn used in the Vespers service, to Prokopios.50 One of John’s stichera, meanwhile, is a translation of a Greek sticheron used in the offices of Demetrios and George, among others. Its Slavonic translation, in addition to appearing in Boris and Gleb’s office, is also found in an office of Prokopios.51 hese passages do not contain any military imagery, instead praising their subjects as martyrs and asking for their intercession. Yet there were many early martyrs who could have provided model hymns for Boris and Gleb, and these particular texts were probably selected because of perceived similarities between the brothers and their predecessors in addition to their violent deaths. John’s office also contains, for example, adapted passages from Greek hymns to two other pairs of saints: Peter and Paul and Cyrus and 48 49 50

51

Lenhoff, he Martyred Princes, pp. 56, 67. On this process see ibid., pp. 56–65. Felix Keller, ‘Das Kontakion aus der ersten Slu žba f ür Boris und Gleb’, in Schweizerische Beiträge zum VII. Internationalen Slavistenkongreß in Warschau, August 1973, ed. Peter Brang, Harald Jaksche and Hildegard Schroeder, Slavica Helvetica 7 (Lucerne: C. J. Bucher, 1973), pp. 65–73 (pp. 67–8). Text in Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 136. Miloš Velimirović, ‘he Influence of the Byzantine Chant on the Music of the Slavic Countries’, in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky and S. Runciman (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 119–47 (p. 136). Text in Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 138.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

145

John.52 he latter pair were also, like Boris and Gleb, renowned for their healing powers. Noting the importance of paired saints in the selection of passages for inclusion in the service, F. Keller expresses confusion regarding John’s choice of Prokopios as another model: ‘It is harder to answer the question why [the composer] reworked a sticheron to a single saint into a proëmion; could he not also have found material for that from texts for the feast days of paired saints?’53 Besides belonging to a pair, it seems there were other features which linked Boris and Gleb with earlier saints. he adaptation of hymns to Prokopios, Demetrios and George suggests that these saints were perceived to be connected to the brothers through their posthumous qualities as much as their violent deaths. John’s composition expresses the idea that, like the healing or paired qualities of other saints, the martyrdom and posthumous valour of the military saints had found a parallel in Boris and Gleb. here is, as noted, little military imagery in the early liturgical offices to the brothers. John’s composition, addressing itself to Boris, declares: ‘Christ God in his judgement called you to martyrdom and gave you strength from heaven to vanquish the enemy bravely with David, your brother’ and elsewhere calls the brothers ‘unconquerable soldiers of Christ’.54 One of Arkadii’s hymns echoes this theme: ‘For you, having suffered righteously, defeated the inimical enemy … rejoice, intercessors for the world and allies against the enemies.’55 he context of these references to ‘the enemy’ suggests, however, that they refer to the devil rather than human foes, and the term ‘soldier of Christ’ was a common epithet for martyrs whether or not they had other military associations. he prolog texts about Boris and Gleb are similar in this respect, offering narrative accounts of their subjects’ paths to sanctity through martyrdom and paying relatively little attention to their posthumous powers.56 Some liturgical compositions do, however, echo the military imagery found in the hagiographic works studied above. An entry in a fourteenth-century minei manuscript commemorating the translation of the brothers’ relics in 1115, for example, associates the victories of the Riurikids with their intercession, first declaring that 52

53 54 55 56

Velimirović, ‘he Influence’, pp. 131–3; Keller, ‘Das Kontakion’, pp. 69–72. Texts in Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 136–7 (Cyrus and John), 137–8 (Peter and Paul). Keller, ‘Das Kontakion’, p. 72. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 137, 140. Ibid., pp. 144–5. Prolog texts on Boris and Gleb’s feast days include: RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 153, ff. 8r–v; 154, f. 7r; 157, ff. 11v–12r; 158, f. 7 v (martyrdom of Gleb); 168, f. 36v; 169, f. 75r; 170, ff. 66r–v; 171, ff. 26r–v (translation of 1072); 168, ff. 103r–104 r; 169, ff. 158r–159r; 170, ff. 143v–145r; 171, ff. 90r–92r (martyrdom of Boris).

146

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the saints bring them victory and then elaborating: ‘For you lay low diabolic cunning and infidel forces. For through your prayers and aid our faithful princes win mighty victories.’57 Boris is later called ‘wondrous and brave warrior’.58 Interestingly, like the Tale, this text also implies a similarity between hessalonika and Vyshgorod and, by extension, the cities’ patron saints: ‘A second hessalonika in the Rus land rejoices: glorious Vyshgorod, having in it glorious grace.’59 Another family of liturgical texts, the paremeinik readings for Boris and Gleb, also emphasise the fact that the brothers could be invoked as intercessors in war. hese readings focus on a specific battle – Iaroslav’s victory over Sviatopolk – and imply that Boris and Gleb had a role in securing its outcome. he paremeinik was a collection of passages from the Old Testament arranged in calendar order for reading during the Vespers service on feast days. Unusually, some of the passages for Boris and Gleb’s feast day on 24 July are not taken from the Old Testament, but describe the events of 1015–19.60 A number of theories have been advanced about when the various versions of the text were composed and their relationship to the similar account in the Primary Chronicle. Although most scholars agree that the reading for Boris and Gleb’s feast day is derived from the chronicle and is a pre-Mongol composition, there is no consensus about a more exact date or how the incongruous text found its way into the paremeinik. Boris Uspenskii argues that ‘the history of Boris and Gleb was understood as the biblical story [of Cain and Abel] translated into the language of Rus history – into the concrete language of Rus realities’. He observes that the original biblical readings were gradually replaced or supplemented by chronicle readings, and that the two categories could be combined relatively freely.61 Lenhoff, on the other hand, suggests that a Rus scribe, mistaking the Old Testament for a chronicle or historical document, decided to substitute a different historical account for the reading for 24 July.62 She also provides a summary of the conclusions of L. S. Soboleva, who postulates that four different redactions of the text were produced between the mid eleventh century and 1115.63 57 58 60

61 63

RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, no. 113, ff. 5r, 5 v. 59 Ibid., f. 8v. Ibid., f. 9r. Biblical readings for the brothers’ feast days also existed, in particular the story of Cain and Abel. B. A. Uspenskii, Boris i Gleb: vospriiatie istorii v drevnei Rusi (Moscow: IaRK, 2000), pp. 26–9. Ibid., pp. 22–32. 62 Lenhoff, he Martyred Princes, pp. 76–7. L. S. Soboleva, ‘Istoricheskie paremii Borisu i Glebu – maloizuchennyi pamiatnik Kievskoi Rusi’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, 1981).

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

147

However they came to be in the paremeinik, the readings confirm the importance of both martyrdom and posthumous military intercession in Boris and Gleb’s cult. hey do not describe the brothers’ murder in detail, instead focusing on Iaroslav’s summoning of an army in Novgorod and his march south to do battle with Sviatopolk. Having gathered his forces, Iaroslav is said to have prayed to God, asking him to avenge his brothers. he reading then describes Boris and Gleb’s protection of Rus: ‘On your walls, Vyshgorod, I have placed two watchmen all day and all night who do not sleep or doze, but protect and strengthen their fatherland, the land of Rus, from hostile pagans and mutinous strife.’64 hereafter, as Iaroslav prepared to face Sviatopolk, he invoked Boris and Gleb personally, asking for their aid in an entreaty which is almost identical to the equivalent passages in the Tale and the Primary Chronicle. he brothers seem to have heard his prayers, for during the battle ‘many of the faithful saw angels helping Iaroslav’.65 he concentration of the reading on Sviatopolk’s defeat and the saints’ protective abilities implies that these elements were of special importance to their cult, worthy of being the subject of an important reading on their feast day. Although the brothers did not appear during the battle, they clearly had the power to determine its outcome and an interest in influencing it. his power stemmed from their martyrdom: the ‘precious blood’ by which they were brought to God.66 he fact that Iaroslav’s invocation appears in the same form in the paremeinik reading as it does in two narrative sources is another hint that, for the monastic authors of these works, Boris and Gleb’s ability to intercede in battle was a vital aspect of their cult which was closely linked to their martyrdom. On the basis of the texts studied above, it seems that, within the ecclesiastical sphere at least, Boris and Gleb’s combination of the qualities of martyr and warrior were seen to continue a tradition that began with the military saints. he similarity of the brothers’ attributes to those of the holy warriors, as well as the manner in which the two groups are compared, suggest that the ancient saints served as potent models for their younger counterparts. he origins and early development of this influence remain obscure (as indeed do all other aspects of Boris and Gleb’s cult prior to the late eleventh century). Although any attempt at a precise reconstruction would be hazardous, a number of observations can be made. Despite the similarities between the Byzantine cults of the military saints and the veneration of Boris and Gleb as presented in the texts 64 65

Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 117–18. 66 Ibid., p. 120. Ibid., p. 118.

148

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

studied above, it is unlikely that the Byzantine authorities had any direct influence over the construction of the brothers’ cult. he literary evidence suggests, rather, that certain members of the Rus clergy were familiar with Byzantine conventions pertaining to the veneration of the military saints, probably thanks to the presence in Rus of Byzantine clerics and some of the relevant texts. When presented with two new martyrs who, as princes, were obvious candidates for protectors of the ruling house, the authors may well have noticed that they shared a number of features with the holy warriors. When composing the texts needed for the veneration of the former, they found inspiration in the works dedicated to the latter. Whatever the exact sequence of events, it seems clear that, by the time the surviving literary works about them were being composed, Boris and Gleb had acquired distinct military features which were intertwined with their martyrdom in a manner that inspired comparisons with the military saints. But despite the fact that the two groups shared a number of attributes, it seems that Boris and Gleb had not actually joined the ranks of the holy warriors. As discussed in the previous chapter, there seems to have been some recognition in Rus ecclesiastical circles of the military saints as a distinct group, rather than individual patrons. Yet the texts related to Boris and Gleb stress that the brothers had taken over some of the functions of the military saints, not that they had become members of their phalanx. It thus seems that the military saints were particularly significant among a number of influences on Boris and Gleb’s early cult without, at this stage, turning the brothers into newer versions of themselves. One aspect of this influence which seems to have been particularly important to Boris and Gleb’s monastic hagiographers was the brothers’ patronage of the ruling dynasty, a characteristic which is mentioned on a number of occasions in the texts studied above. his clerical fascination with the protection of the princely clan in war may well be indicative of the princes’ own attitudes toward their saintly ancestors. he repeated references in the hagiographic and liturgical literature to Boris and Gleb bringing the princes success in battle were probably not added merely for dramatic effect, and hint that the princes themselves shared these expectations. Yet extrapolating about actual behaviour within the princely clan on the basis of these writings would be hazardous. Iaroslav’s widely copied speech prior to his defeat of Sviatopolk, for example, may shed light on monastic attitudes about the appropriateness of invoking Boris and Gleb in battle, but it says nothing at all about Iaroslav himself, who in all likelihood died several decades before the words were first ascribed to him.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

149

How, then, to reconstruct the Riurikids’ own treatment of their saintly ancestors? One of the few surviving writings by a pre-Mongol prince, the Testament of Vladimir Monomakh, reveals a belief in divine intercession similar to that ascribed to his grandfather Iaroslav Vladimirovich. In recounting his campaigns between the 1070s and 1110s, Monomakh mentions receiving help on a number of occasions from God alone, as well as together with the Mother of God and Boris.67 he different combinations Monomakh describes make it seem unlikely that the passages are simply formulaic, but rather that they reflect the prince’s beliefs about his heavenly protectors on different occasions. Chronicle entries show a similar variety in the invocation of saints and other holy figures in battle, indicating that the monastic compilers of these works sought to reflect princes’ beliefs about such matters. Indeed, the chronicles’ discussions of divine intercession are not dissimilar to those found in the late antique histories examined in Chapter 2: although divine intercession is mentioned relatively infrequently, each incident involving more than one saint or other holy figure is described differently, meaning that the authors were probably not relying on a topos but reflecting actual perceptions of the event. (By contrast, short parenthetical remarks such as ‘in this way God helped Rus’ or ‘this was accomplished with God’s aid’ are more frequent and do seem to be standard topoi.) he entry for 1107 in the Primary Chronicle, for example, quotes Sviatopolk Iziaslavich as saying that his enemies had been defeated thanks to the prayers of the Mother of God and Feodosii of the Caves Monastery in Kiev. he chronicler then observes that the prince always prayed at Feodosii’s grave before going to war.68 According to the Hypatian Chronicle, in 1150 Vladimir Mstislavich gave thanks after a battle at the Church of Boris and Gleb, the Tithe Church, the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom and the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Caves Monastery.69 Following a battle in 1173, Mikhalko and Vsevolod Iurevichi ‘returned 67

68 69

PVL , iii, lines 248,39–249,1, p. 1927; lines 249,21–249,26, p. 1930; lines 249,29–249,31, p. 1931; line 250,11, p. 1933; line 250,16, p. 1933; line 250,17, p. 1933; line 250,19, p. 1934; line 250,24, p. 1934; line 251,18, p. 1938. he name Monomakh is a Slavicised form of the surname of the prince’s Byzantine mother. Ibid., lines 282,15–282,24, pp. 2142–4. PSRL 2, Ipat’evskaia letopis’ , 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Tipografiia M. A. Aleksandrova, 1908; repr. Moscow: IaRK, 1998), col. 403. he Hypatian and Laurentian chronicles are the earliest manuscript witnesses of the Primary Chronicle, and continue Rus history through the early Mongol period. he Hypatian Chronicle, the earliest manuscript of which was compiled in the first quarter of the fi fteenth century, focuses on events in southern and south-western Rus, while the Laurentian Chronicle, dated to 1377, is the main historical source for north-eastern Rus. See D. S. Likhachev, ed., SKK (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), pp. 235–45.

150

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

to Kiev, praising God and the holy Mother of God and the power of the honourable cross, and the holy martyrs [Boris and Gleb] who helped in the battle against the infidels’.70 In 1174 Mstislav Rostislavich prayed to, and later thanked, God and the brothers for a victory,71 while in 1185, ‘Sviatoslav [Vsevolodovich] and Grand Prince Riurik [Rostislavich] were victorious thanks to the prayers of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb. And each went home, praising God in the Trinity.’72 Crucially, none of the princes who believed they had been helped by the brothers shared their names or patronymics, implying not only that Boris and Gleb could intercede in war on behalf of princes, but that they did so on behalf of all deserving members of the clan, not just their own namesakes. he direct influence of the princes themselves on the chronicle entries is unclear, but these incidents strengthen the idea of the entire clan’s veneration of Boris and Gleb as military protectors and universal patrons. Besides the chronicles, many of the sources used in the previous chapter to investigate the princely cult of the military saints can also be employed to study that of Boris and Gleb. Church dedications, seals, icons and frescoes paint a picture of elite devotion to the brothers which was similar to that found among the clergy. he Riurikids seem, in general, to have envisioned Boris and Gleb as closely related, but not identical, to the military saints. Like their more ancient counterparts, Boris and Gleb were believed to have an intercessory role in warfare and were popular as personal patrons. Yet the evidence suggests that they were seen as the protectors of the entire clan, rather than just their own namesakes. he Riurikids also seem to have understood the importance of the brothers’ martyrdom as their path to posthumous military prowess. In princely circles Boris and Gleb seem to have functioned, in other words, in a similar capacity to the military saints in Byzantium: as martyr-warriors who had a special concern for the fortunes of the ruling house. he reasons for the Riurikids’ apparent interest in the martyr-warrior ideal in their veneration of Boris and Gleb but not the military saints remain unclear. As relatively recent events with far-reaching political consequences, the brothers’ deaths must have had an immediacy within the clan which the sufferings of the military saints lacked, and which the princes therefore saw as a more vital aspect of their cult.73 here is no way to reconstruct the evolution of their veneration within the clan fully, as 70 73

72 Ibid., col. 636. PSRL 2, col. 563. 71 Ibid., col. 576. For an analysis of the political weight given to Boris and Gleb’s deaths see Hollingsworth, ‘Holy Men’, pp. 187–213.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

151

the available sources account for only a small proportion of princes. But despite the generalisations which must inevitably be made, the evidence points toward a number of similarities between the imperial cults of the military saints and the princely cult of Boris and Gleb. he brothers’ status as protectors of the Riurikids, for example, is reflected in church dedications. Boris and Gleb inspired an unprecedented and unrepeated frenzy of church-building by three early generations of the clan: Iaroslav Vladimirovich and his sons and grandsons. It will be recalled from the discussion in the previous chapter that the dedications of princely churches in pre-Mongol Rus tended to fall into two categories: those honouring non-patronal figures of universal devotion such as Christ and the Mother of God and those honouring the founder’s patron saint or that of a close relative, usually his father or son. Iaroslav Vladimirovich’s building projects in Vyshgorod, however, honoured not his brothers’ patron saints (Romanos the Melode and King David, respectively) but his brothers as saints, thus forming a different category. Iaroslav seems, indeed, to have built two wooden churches to the saints. hey were originally buried near a Church of St Basil in Vyshgorod, but after this burned down and miraculous signs were witnessed at their graves, Iaroslav sponsored the construction of a new church in which to house their coffins. Soon thereafter, as the brothers’ cult grew, he decided to build a larger church in their honour.74 he next two generations of the clan showed continued enthusiasm for honouring their relatives in this manner. Iaroslav’s son Iziaslav sponsored the construction of the next wooden church, into which Boris and Gleb’s relics were translated in 1072. he next year, Iziaslav was overthrown by his brothers Sviatoslav and Vsevolod. Sviatoslav took the throne of Kiev and started work on a stone church, but died before it was finished. Vsevolod oversaw the completion once he took control of Kiev in 1076, but the roof collapsed shortly thereafter and he did not attempt to rebuild it. he church was eventually completed by Sviatoslav’s son Oleg, prince of Chernigov, but the prince of Kiev, Iziaslav’s son Sviatopolk, would not allow the saints’ relics to be translated into it. (According to the Tale of the Miracles, Sviatopolk was envious since he had wanted to build a new church himself.75) he translations finally took place in 1115, following the 74

75

he construction of the churches is described in the Lesson, Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 16, 18. he varying interpretations of this evidence are discussed in he Hagiography, p. 21. For a detailed account of the building activity in Vyshgorod see M. K. Karger, ‘K istorii kievskogo zodchestva XI veka: khram-mavzolei Borisa i Gleba v Vyshgorode’, SA, 16 (1952), 77–99. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 64.

152

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

accession of Vsevolod’s son Vladimir Monomakh to the throne of Kiev. Soon thereafter, Sviatoslav’s son David founded a cathedral in Boris and Gleb’s honour in Chernigov, and in 1117 Monomakh founded his own church on the Alta River at the place of Boris’ murder.76 It seems unlikely that questions of personal patronage alone inspired the building projects described above. Iaroslav Vladimirovich, his sons and Vladimir Monomakh did not share a name with Boris or Gleb, and although some of the church-builders named sons after them (Sviatoslav Iaroslavich and Vladimir Monomakh), others did not (Iaroslav Vladimirovich, Iziaslav Iaroslavich and Vsevolod Iaroslavich). In any case, other popular baptismal names, such as those of the military saints, gave rise to no such cross-generational displays of devotion. he princes seem, indeed, to have competed with each other to express their reverence for Boris and Gleb in the most lavish manner possible. Vladimir Monomakh, for example, while ruling in distant Pereslavl, sneaked into Iziaslav’s wooden church in Kiev at night to gild and decorate the saints’ coffins. his action, according to the Tale of the Miracles, inspired Oleg Sviatoslavich to rebuild his father’s collapsed church.77 Not wanting to be outdone, Vladimir later built his own church. Another unique aspect of this activity was its initial concentration in Vyshgorod, despite the fact that not all of the princes in question ruled in Kiev. Princes generally sponsored the construction of churches and adornment of relics in their own patrimonies in order to enhance the prestige of the area. In the case of Boris and Gleb, however, the focus on Vyshgorod until the second decade of the twelfth century hints at a belief that the location of the brothers’ relics in that city could bring benefits to any prince, no matter where he was ruling. Even Vladimir Monomakh, the first prince to look beyond Vyshgorod for a place to build his church, was actually continuing the tradition by seeking out a location which was central to the story of the brothers’ martyrdom. A monastery at the place of Gleb’s murder on the Smiadyn River near Smolensk must have followed shortly thereafter and is mentioned in the entry for 1145 of the Novgorod First Chronicle, although its founder is not known.78 At about the same time, churches honouring the brothers began to appear in other parts of Rus, beginning with David Sviatoslavich’s cathedral in Chernigov. his 76

77 78

P. A. Rappoport, Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv.: katalog pamiatnikov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-47 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), pp. 38, 41–3. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 63–4. A. N. Nasonov, ed., Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1950), p. 27.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

153

is not surprising, as there must have been limited space and resources in Vyshgorod for further churches and the other obvious locations on the Alta and Smiadyn rivers had already been taken. A church to the brothers appeared in Novgorod in 1146, and four other foundations, in Riazan, Polotsk, Novogrudok and Grodno can only be dated to within the twelfth century.79 he later spread of church-building away from the focal points of the cult does not, however, undermine the importance of the early activity in Vyshgorod. In all likelihood, the establishment of Boris and Gleb as all-clan protectors in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries ensured their continued veneration as such by later generations of princes. here is some evidence to suggest that certain members of the clan favoured one brother over the other: Sviatoslav Iaroslavich and his descendants apparently held Gleb in particular esteem, while Vladimir Monomakh and his family preferred Boris.80 he evidence cited for this phenomenon includes the Tale of the Miracles, which relates that, during the translation of the brothers’ relics in 1072, Metropolitan George used Gleb’s hand to bless Sviatoslav and his brothers. Sviatoslav pressed it to his eyes, pate and a wound on his neck. He later discovered that a fingernail had become lodged in his head, which was taken to be a sign of favour and blessing.81 Sviatoslav named two sons after Gleb (giving them the names Gleb and David) before naming another one Roman. According to the Tale of the Miracles, David Sviatoslavich accompanied Gleb’s coffin during the translation ceremony of 1115, while Monomakh accompanied Boris’ coffin.82 An unusual stone icon found on the Taman peninsula which features only Gleb may have been made during the reign of Gleb Sviatoslavich.83 he names Gleb, David and Roman continued to be popular in subsequent generations of the Sviatoslavichi, while the name Boris is not attested.84 Monomakh, as discussed above, mentioned in his Testament that Boris had protected him, but did not name Gleb, and his descendants preserved Boris’ sword as a family relic (as will be 79 80

81 82 83

84

See Appendix 4: 2. V. I. Lesiuchevskii, ‘Vyshgorodskii kul’t Borisa i Gleba v pamiatnikakh iskusstva’, SA, 10 (1946), 225–45; M. Kh. Aleshkovskii, ‘Russkie gleboborisovskie enkolpiony 1072–1150 godov’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: khudozhestvennaia kul’tura drevnei Rusi, ed. V. N. Lazarev et al. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), pp. 104–25. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 56. Ibid., p. 65. T. V. Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika iz kamnia XI–XV vv., Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-60 (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), ill. 1, no. 1. Martin Dimnik, he Dynasty of Chernigov 1054–1146, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies: Studies and Texts 116 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1994), p. 125.

154

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

discussed in the next chapter). hese and other scraps of evidence may show that some members of the clan felt particularly attached to one brother. It should be noted, however, that there is no indication of any attempts to separate their cults. Indeed, according to the Lesson it was Boris’ fingernail which was found in Sviatoslav’s head in 1072.85 Although the family avoided the name Boris, the fact that they still used the name Roman is significant. All known churches were dedicated to both saints, and even the stone icon of Gleb may originally have been part of a pair. Aside from the references to Boris by Monomakh and his descendants, the few exceptions to the overwhelming tendency to pair the saints are found on seals. Princes named Boris, Gleb, Roman or David could be represented by their own patron alone or both saints, according to personal preference.86 Images of Boris and Gleb appear on eleven different types of seals issued between the 1150s and 1250s.87 Taken together, the depictions of the brothers on princely seals outnumber those of all other saints besides the military saints, Basil, the Archangel Michael and John the Baptist. heir iconography, however, is more diverse than that of the other popular namesakes. Instead of having a standard iconographic type with a small minority of exceptions, as in the case of the military saints, there is a variety of portrait types: in five cases they appear together on one side of a seal with another saint on the other side, another four seals feature one of the brothers on one side and another saint on the other and two seals show one brother on each side (Illustration 9). Of these sixteen portraits, nine depict the brothers with martyrs’ crosses and six with some combination of weapons, while in one case Gleb carries a cross and a sword. It is difficult to discern any patterns in the different types of portraiture based on the identity of the saints who appear on the opposite side of the seals. Paired with an archangel, the brothers together and Boris alone carry weapons, but Gleb alone holds a cross. hey also display weapons when paired with Peter and Paul, and when paired with Symeon Boris carries a sword and Gleb a cross and a sword. With John the heologian, heodore and by themselves, the brothers hold only crosses. his assortment of pairings and iconographic types appears random, a fact which in itself provides important clues about Boris and Gleb’s 85 86

87

Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, pp. 21–2. V. L. Ianin and P. G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., 3 vols. (Moscow: Nauka and Intrada, 1970, 1998), i, p. 92. h is was also the case with other paired saints such as Peter and Paul and Kosmas and Damian. Eight of these types were published in the 1970 catalogue of seals: ibid., i, nos. 156, 167, 182, 193, 194, 207, 208, 217, 218–20. h ree more were discovered later: ibid., iii, nos. 219a, 228a, 231г.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

155

Illustration 9 Seal of Rostislav Mstislavich

veneration within the princely clan. Although all of the surviving seals are of relatively late manufacture, there is no indication that any strict iconographic norms had been established by the time they were made. Rather, the princes seem to have had some degree of choice in the matter, with almost equal numbers over a period of about a century preferring to invoke their patrons’ martyrdom and their military prowess. his iconography gave Boris and Gleb clear similarities with the military saints. he latter, plus the Archangel Michael (who also had strong martial associations), were the only other figures who were commonly depicted as warriors on seals.88 To be sure, the iconography of the two groups was not identical. he military saints, with few exceptions, hold a spear in one hand and lean on a shield with the other. Boris and Gleb are usually shown with swords at their hips, a portrait type which is never applied to the military saints. In one case, however, Gleb does appear in the standard pose of the holy warriors, further highlighting the affinities of the two groups.89 Like the texts studied above, the iconography of the seals does not imply that Boris and Gleb were identical to the military saints in every respect, but it does suggest a strong association between the two groups. he brothers’ depiction as martyrs on the seals, on the other hand, 88

89

he corpus of seals includes three other figures in military dress. he martyr Niketas the Goth, known as a soldier during his lifetime, appears twice (ibid., i, no. 240; iii, no. 230б ). he martyr Agathonikos appears once (ibid., i, no. 178), as does a saint labelled Ignatios (ibid., iii, no. 233a). he identity of this saint is unclear since all known saints with this name were bishops. Ibid., iii, no. 208.

156

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

highlights a different aspect of their princely cult. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Riurikids tended not to portray the military saints in this manner, preferring to emphasise their martial qualities. It is therefore noteworthy that saints with otherwise similar iconography should be portrayed as martyrs as well. his pattern hints that Boris and Gleb’s role in Rus was similar to that of the military saints in Byzantium: both groups were envisioned as intercessors in war whose martyrdom was a vital aspect of their patronage of the ruling house. he shared attributes of the brothers and the military saints are also expressed in another medium associated with princely circles. Enamels, a prized form of decorative art in Rus and Byzantium, feature a surprising link between the two groups: one of the patterns commonly depicted on the garments of the military saints is also found on the clothing of Boris and Gleb. he pattern in question, closely spaced rows of inverted hearts, is found not infrequently on middle and late Byzantine enamels dating from approximately the early eleventh century onward, but rarely if at all in any other medium.90 Much about the design is unknown, including its name. A number of terms for fabric patterns are mentioned in Byzantine sources, but a lack of illustrations means that it is impossible to know how they actually looked and whether they were identical or similar to the inverted hearts.91 Furthermore, the fact that the inverted hearts appear on depictions of clothing as well as certain other objects suggests that the design may have been used only in enamels and was not copied from fabrics. he inverted hearts do not, in any case, appear indiscriminately: only royal and imperial figures, Christ and the Mother of God, a select group of martyrs and, in one instance, archangels, are associated with it. Inverted hearts were not, to be sure, the only pattern which appeared in representations of these figures, but its application was clearly restricted to this group.92 he identity of the figures associated with the inverted hearts and the medium in which the pattern appears provide clues about its meaning. 90

91

92

For a detailed study of the inverted heart motif along with a list of works which feature the design see Monica White, ‘Byzantine Visual Propaganda and the Inverted Heart Motif ’, Byzantion, 76 (2006), 330–63. See, for example, Leo VI, Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen, trans. and ed. Johannes Koder, CFHB 33 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), p. 94, and Constantine VII, What Should Be Observed When the Great and High Emperor of the Romans Goes on Campaign, in hree Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, trans. and ed. John F. Haldon, CFHB 28 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaff ten, 1990), p. 110. White, ‘Byzantine Visual Propaganda’, p. 331 and appendix.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

157

As a particularly costly art form, enamel was an elite medium in both Byzantium and Rus, and the subject matter of many works reflects the interests of the court. In Byzantium, the inverted hearts appeared most frequently in depictions of the outer garments of rulers and their entourages, including King David, Alexander the Great, Constantine I and various middle Byzantine emperors. It is also found in depictions of Christ and the Mother of God, in which it invariably decorates nearby objects such as thrones or tombs, since traditional iconography dictated that their clothing should be unadorned.93 he resemblance of Byzantine emperors to Christ, David and Alexander was a staple of imperial panegyric and political thought, and the placement of the inverted hearts seems to confirm this link in a visual medium.94 he full meaning of the pattern becomes apparent, however, with the inclusion of the third major group with which it is associated: military saints (Illustration 10). Byzantine emperors are thus shown to be connected not only to their biblical and historical models and predecessors, but also to the saints who assisted them in their duties as the defenders of God’s people. his constellation of figures confirmed the emperor’s sources of religious and secular authority and military power, brought together in an appropriately sumptuous medium.95 It is probably not coincidental that the inverted heart motif seems to have appeared around the early eleventh century, soon after the military saints had been established as imperial patrons.96 Like the evidence discussed in Chapter 3, the pattern confirmed the saints’ status as the protectors of emperors and their armies, while also linking them with other imperial patrons. he widespread recognition of the meaning of the inverted heart motif is confirmed by its usage in enamels made in far-flung parts of the Byzantine commonwealth, where craftsmen combined Byzantine norms with certain local variations. Among published Georgian enamels, for example, the inverted hearts are found on three works featuring military saints, two with the Mother of God and three with imperial

93 94 95

96

Ibid., pp. 345–7 and appendix. Ibid., pp. 344–5. he martyrs Kosmas, Damian and Tryphon each appear once wearing clothing with inverted hearts, as do two archangels. he Pala d’Oro also associates the design with Mark, probably reflecting the desire of the work’s Venetian commissioners to convey the highest possible honour on their patron. See ibid., pp. 351–2. he earliest example of the inverted heart motif is thought to be on an enamel enkolpion of Demetrios, dated to about 1000. Klaus Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th century, trans. Irene R. Gibbons (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1969), pp. 108, 111, no. 36.

158

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 10 Byzantine enamel icon of Demetrios

figures.97 In Rus, where enamelling first appeared along with other crafts imported from Byzantium, the depiction of the inverted heart motif followed the same rules. Although only a small number of early enamels has been discovered, the pattern is found six times on pendants and plaques featuring young male martyrs and four times on depictions of Boris and Gleb. Although the other martyrs are not identified, some of 97

Sh. Amiranashvili, Georgian Metalwork, from Antiquity to the 18th Century (London: Hamlyn, 1971), pp. 63, 65, nos. 37, 38 (military saints); p. 121, no. 77 (Mother of God), and Medieval Georgian Enamels of Russia (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1964), pp. 54–5 (military saint); L. Z. Khuskivadze, Gruzinskie emali (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1981), pll. xiv (empresses), xxxix (Mother of God).

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

159

them have the curly hair or large ears which are usually associated with George and Demetrios, respectively.98 In all likelihood, Boris and Gleb were depicted wearing the same type of clothing because of a perceived similarity between the two groups. Although the brothers did appear in enamel portraits wearing different styles of clothing, as did all of the figures to whom the inverted heart pattern was applied, their depiction in clothing with the motif shows that Rus craftsmen and their princely patrons linked them with the military saints.99 It is not entirely clear whether the enamels depicting young male martyrs in clothing decorated with inverted hearts were made in Byzantium or Rus, but their discovery in several areas of Rus indicates that the pattern at least circulated widely there. An argument for the enamels’ Rus origin can also be made on stylistic grounds. Most of the items discovered in Rus are not as large or richly decorated as those known to be from Byzantium, and the inverted heart pattern seems to have been crafted with less precision. Instead of the regular rows seen on the Byzantine items, the hearts appear in some cases to be placed randomly on the fabric, and are sometimes interspersed with dots (Illustration 11). hese differences hint that the pattern was being copied by craftsmen who were not entirely familiar with it. hey seem to have been aware, however, that the hearts needed to be there in some form, and that they could only be applied to saints who met certain criteria. hese items thus indicate that even seemingly arcane conventions of Byzantine iconography were well known and understood in Rus. Boris and Gleb shared their royal status with Byzantine emperors and Old Testament kings, and Gleb shared his baptismal name with King David. It is unclear, however, if Rus craftsmen were also attempting to associate the brothers with them since no surviving enamels from Rus depict them. Although several enamel portraits of Christ and Alexander the Great have been discovered, they do not feature inverted hearts.100 In any case, Boris and Gleb’s martyrdom, symbolised by the crosses they 98

99

100

T. I. Makarova, Peregorodchatye emali drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), p. 33, nos. 29 (George?), 30, 31, 33; p. 57, no. 84 (Demetrios?); p. 67, no. 99: 8, 9 (Boris and Gleb, medallions from the Kammenobrodsk hoard); p. 75, nos. 120, 121 (Boris and Gleb, medallions from the Mstislav Gospels); D. S. Likhachev et al., eds., Velikaia Rus’: Istoriia i khudozhestvennaia kul’tura (Moscow: Iskusstvo; Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 1994), p. 127, no. 36a (George?). For enamel portraits of Boris and Gleb in other types of dress see, for example, Makarova, Peregorodchatye emali, tab. 16, nos. 97, 98. See, among others, ibid., p. 47, no. 61; p. 55, nos. 1, 75, 79; tab. 22, no. 100 (Christ); p. 49, no. 69 (Alexander the Great). Surviving enamels from Rus depict Christ alone, without a throne or tomb on which the inverted hearts would appear.

160

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 11 Rus enamel pendants with unidentified martyrs

hold, links them to the military saints and suggests that this shared feature, along with their patronage of the ruling family, inspired craftsmen to include them in the group of saints associated with the inverted hearts. Depictions of the brothers wearing clothing with the pattern are found on enamel plaques from a necklace and on the cover of the Mstislav Gospels. he necklace, one of the items from the Kamennobrodsk hoard of 1903, consists of nine medallions forming a Deesis scene with portraits of Christ, the Mother of God, John the Baptist, the archangels Michael and Gabriel, Peter and Paul and Boris and Gleb. he brothers, in the outermost medallions, carry crosses and wear capes decorated with inverted hearts, while the clothing of the other figures has different patterns. Although the necklace can only be dated to the eleventh or twelfth centuries, its Slavonic inscriptions and the fact that it includes Boris and Gleb indicate that it was made in Rus. he enamel plaques on the cover of the Mstislav Gospels feature similar portraits of Boris and Gleb along with a number of other holy figures (Christ Emmanuel, three male martyrs, the Hetoimasia, Peter, Paul, the Mother of God, John the Baptist, James and Bartholomew) whose clothing is not decorated with inverted hearts. Although not identified by inscriptions, the brothers are recognisable in this as in other portraits

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

161

thanks to their distinctive princely hats. A colophon written by the scribe Naslav recounts how he went to Constantinople on the orders of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, who reigned in Kiev 1125–32, to obtain the enamels on the original cover.101 his cover was replaced in the sixteenth century, and scholars have come to different conclusions about which of the enamels on the current cover were part of the original cover, although there is general agreement that the thirteen plaques are medieval and the central mandorla is from the sixteenth century. I. A. Sterligova has argued that the portraits of Boris and Gleb did not come from Constantinople but were made in Rus in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century and may originally have decorated an item of princely dress before being applied to the new cover.102 Paul Hetherington, on the other hand, observes that five of the enamels, including the portraits of Boris and Gleb, have rough and unfinished surfaces, and concludes that they were commissioned in Constantinople but left unfinished when Naslav had to return to Rus for unknown reasons. Hetherington also notes that the ecclesiastical calendar in the manuscript is the earliest to commemorate the feast day of Boris and Gleb on 24 July, and concludes that Mstislav used the Gospels to promote the brothers’ cult and equate them with other martyrs, with the help of prestigious enamels from Constantinople.103 It is widely assumed that the three other martyrs depicted in the plaques on the Mstislav Gospels are George, Demetrios and heodore.104 he latter identification is almost certainly incorrect, since the saint in question does not have a beard. he other two may, however, be George and Demetrios, since one has curly hair and the other straight hair with prominent ears. If these identifications are correct, and if all of the plaques were on the original Gospel cover, the composition would provide further evidence for the strong associations between these saints and Boris and Gleb, although this conclusion must remain speculative given the uncertainties surrounding the enamels. Whatever their origins, however, the Gospel plaques of Boris and Gleb show an awareness of the proper use 101

102

103

104

For a summary of the scholarly debates surrounding Naslav’s comments see L. V. Stoliarova, Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 2000), pp. 73–6. I. A. Sterligova, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo Velikogo Novgoroda: khudozhestvennyi metall XI–XV veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1996), pp. 150–4. Paul Hetherington, ‘Byzantine Enamels for a Russian Prince: he Book-Cover of the Gospels of Mstislav’, in Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons: Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 309–24 (pp. 316–20). Sterligova, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo, pp. 152–3; Makarova, Peregorodchatye emali, pp. 117–18.

162

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

of the inverted heart pattern. Even if they were made in Constantinople, the Byzantine craftsman and his Rus customer must have agreed that Boris and Gleb’s qualities of martyrdom and protection of the ruling house matched those of other saints associated with the inverted hearts, and hence felt justified in the application of the pattern to them. Such exchanges may have been one of the ways by which the motif made its way from Byzantium to Rus, where local artisans retained the convention of applying it to the military saints. Like their Byzantine counterparts, when presented with two new saints who shared many of the characteristics of the holy warriors, craftsmen applied the pattern to them as well, a decision which was evidently supported by members of the princely clan. he iconography of Boris and Gleb was not inherited from Byzantium, but the application to it of Byzantine iconographic conventions reflects the brothers’ perceived similarities with other saints to whom these conventions were applied. As expensive luxury objects, enamels could for the most part be commissioned only by members of the princely clan and high-ranking clergy, and hence are likely to reflect their tastes. he necklace from the Kamennobrodsk hoard may, for example, have been worn by a Rus princess, as enamels seem to have been a popular form of adornment for wealthy women.105 Like the iconography of princely seals, the appearance of the inverted heart pattern on these enamel portraits of Boris and Gleb suggests a close association, in the minds of members of the clan, between the brothers and the military saints. he Riurikids’ appreciation of the similarities between the two groups is also in keeping with the evidence from ecclesiastical texts. It seems that both the clergy and the princes expressed, in the media available to them, the idea that the brothers shared important features with the holy warriors: the texts describe them as having similar powers, the seals depict them with the same attributes and enamels show them wearing matching garments. Although there is no indication that either the princes or the clergy thought of the groups as identical, the holy warriors were clearly an important influence on both literary and artistic representations of Boris and Gleb. his influence is also apparent in other, less elite, artistic media, which express the similarities of the two groups in yet another way. Stone, metal and panel icons, like the princely seals, highlight the martyrdom and martial powers of Boris and Gleb by depicting them carrying crosses 105

L. Pisarskaia, N. Platonova and B. Ul’ianova, Russkie emali XI–XIX vv. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1974), pp. 7–8.

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

163

and swords, and many of these portraits unite the two attributes. As discussed above, the combination of the cross and the sword is very rare in Byzantine and Rus depictions of the military saints. Although Byzantine art in particular tends to emphasise the interrelated nature of the features of martyr and warrior, it usually does so by different means. For Boris and Gleb, however, this form of portraiture seems to have been more common. Pre-Mongol icons of the brothers in any medium are not plentiful: Porfiridov notes only eight stone icons in his study,106 of which only three seem to have been published, yet in all of these they hold both swords and crosses.107 A metal icon from Riazan dated to the early thirteenth century depicts them in the same way (Illustration 12),108 as do two approximately contemporary panel icons. One, featuring Nicholas, includes ten other saints, including Boris and Gleb, in the margins,109 while the other shows the brothers alone.110 Although this type of evidence is not abundant, it does suggest that the tendency to combine the brothers’ traits of martyrdom and military triumph was not limited to the clergy and the princely clan. he style seems, indeed, to have been another possibility for expressing these characteristics in an iconographic canon which was apparently still evolving. Like the depictions of Boris and Gleb in other media, this portrait type suggests a significant if not absolute similarity with the military saints. he sword and the cross had obvious connections with this group, who were the only other figures to appear with both of these attributes. It is unlikely that the manufacturers and purchasers of icons of Boris and Gleb did not recognise these similarities, yet they must also have been aware that the depictions of the two groups were not, in most cases, exactly the same. Boris and Gleb’s combination of attributes which were normally kept separate implies, once again, a close association, if not complete identity, with the holy warriors. he tendency to separate the two groups is also seen in the few surviving pre-Mongol fresco portraits of Boris and Gleb. In the Church of 106

107

108

109

110

N. G. Porfiridov, ‘Drevnerusskaia melkaia kamennaia plastika i ee siuzhety’, SA, 36 (1972), 200–8 (p. 203). Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika iz kamnia , ill. 1, no. 1 (Gleb only); ill. 5, no. 1; ill. 16, no. 3. Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika XI–XVI vekov (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968), ill. 4. Ia. V. Bruk and L. I. Iovleva, eds., Gosudarstvennaia Tret’ iakovskaia galereia: katalog sobraniia (Moscow: Krasnaia Ploshchad’, 1995), vol. i, Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo X–nachala XV veka, pp. 54–7. Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom, eds., he Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 284.

164

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 12 Metal icon from Riazan

the Saviour on Nereditsa hill outside Novgorod, a portrait of the Mother of God in the apse includes Boris and Gleb on either side in intercessory poses, located apart from the group of military saints who appear on the south wall.111 hese frescoes, emphasising the martyrdom and intercessory powers of the brothers, are in keeping with some of the other works of art studied above.112 Other objects reveal, however, entirely different aspects of Boris and Gleb’s iconography. Pectoral crosses usually show the brothers holding models of churches or martyrs’ crowns, and in a small number 111

112

N. V. Pivovarova, Freski tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse v Novgorode: ikonograficheskaia programma rospisi (St Petersburg: ARS/Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002), pp. 27–8; T. S. Shcherbatova-Sheviakova, Nereditsa: Monumental’nye rospisi tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse (Moscow: Galart, 2004), pp. 140, 144–8, ill. 112–13, 120–4. Much discussion has been devoted to the portraits of Boris and Gleb in the Church of St Cyril in Kiev, but the frescoes which are currently visible were painted in the nineteenth century. he underlying twelfth-century frescoes may not depict the brothers: Olenka Pevny notes that

Boris and Gleb and the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus

165

they hold their palms open in front of their chests.113 his type of iconography emphasises their patronage of building activity along with their martyrdom but makes no reference to their intercession in war, showing the independence and vitality of the various aspects of their cult. Because pectoral crosses could have belonged to a broader section of the population than seals or enamels, their iconography may seem to suggest that the non-elite population of Rus did not venerate Boris and Gleb as military intercessors. Stone and metal icons were, however, similarly widespread, and these items do emphasise the brothers’ martial traits. Although surviving pectoral crosses bearing images of the brothers greatly outnumber icons, this was not necessarily the case in the medieval period. he minor arts thus attest to the diversity of Boris and Gleb’s veneration, showing that certain aspects of their cult had no military associations. he brothers’ unusual and varied iconography in the works studied above probably reflects the fact that, uniquely, it was not part of the artistic canon received from Byzantium. Although their portraiture followed recognisable Byzantine conventions, including the individual elements of cross and sword, its exact forms were established in Rus. It was thus relatively flexible and to some extent dependent on medium. Whether or not they are identified by an inscription, the brothers are always recognisable by their princely caps and capes. Otherwise, however, their portraits can vary considerably: seals usually depict them with crosses or swords and icons combine these attributes, while enamels, frescoes and pectoral crosses show them as martyrs, but in different styles. Even Boris’ facial hair, which later became a standard aspect of his iconography, is not always present in his pre-Mongol portraits. Such variety is not surprising: since Boris and Gleb’s cult was both new and popular, many artists may well have experimented with their portraiture before a standard type emerged. Given the impossibility of dating most of the objects in question, this interpretation presents fewer difficulties than attempts, such as that of V. I. Lesiuchevskii, to identify distinct stages in the evolution of Boris and Gleb’s iconography. hat author proposes that the brothers were depicted first holding only crosses, then with models of

113

the official report from the nineteenth-century restorations does not mention any images of them. Olenka Z. Pevny, ‘he Kyrylivs’ka Tserkva: he Appropriation of Byzantine Art and Architecture in Kiev’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1995), p. 210. G. F. Korzukhina and A. A. Peskova, Drevnerusskie enkolpiony: nagrudnye kresty-relikvarii X–XIII vv., Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury, trudy 7 (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2003), pp. 88–94, nos. 1–66, ill. 39–43; p. 113, no. 25, ill. 64; p. 152, nos. 1, 2, ill. 90; p. 255, no. 1, ill. 155; p. 227, no. 26, ill. 155; p. 227, no. 27, ill. 157.

166

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

churches and finally with crosses and swords, a process which supposedly corresponded to the transformation of their cult from popular healers to princely protectors.114 Although the brothers were clearly venerated as healers, there is no particular reason why this (or any other) quality should predate their military characteristics. In any case, there is so little evidence to shed light on the earliest decades of their cult that speculation is probably fruitless. It is more clear, on the other hand, that by the late eleventh century Boris and Gleb’s military qualities were an important aspect of their cult in both ecclesiastical and princely circles. he military saints were a strong influence on this development. Ecclesiastical texts make comparisons between the two groups and use passages from hymns to the military saints to praise Boris and Gleb. Princes portrayed them on seals and enamels with the same attributes and clothing as the holy warriors. It seems that most of the Riurikids preferred not to integrate the two groups any further: frescoes do not portray the brothers in armour with the military saints, while the military saints were venerated as individual patrons and not, like the brothers, protectors of the entire clan. Beginning in the mid twelfth century, however, the princes of the north-east began to introduce changes into the cults of both groups of saints. Under their influence, Boris and Gleb and the military saints became even more closely integrated, sharing the patronage of the clan and the integrated attributes of martyrs and warriors. hese changes, and their relationship to Byzantine practices, are the subject of the final chapter. 114

Lesiuchevskii, ‘Vyshgorodskii kul’t’, pp. 225–45.

ch apter 6

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

he previous two chapters have considered evidence relating to the cults of the military saints and Boris and Gleb from the pre-Mongol period as a whole, without proposing a chronology for the texts and artistic works under study. his approach has been adopted because of the difficulties of dating most of the sources and, more importantly, considering their consistency across time and space. Although exact attitudes and beliefs are impossible to reconstruct, most Rus princes appear to have venerated the military saints as warriors and individual patrons, while the Byzantine conception of the saints as a group of martyr-warriors lived on in the ecclesiastical sphere. As the cult of Boris and Gleb grew, their role as the protectors of the clan gave them certain similarities with the holy warriors, and many sources attest to their mutual association. Nevertheless, the cults of the two groups remained clearly delineated: in contrast to the military saints, Boris and Gleb were venerated by princes and clergy alike as martyrs and protectors of the entire clan in addition to their role as patrons in war. Changing political circumstances in Rus led, however, to the development of a new approach to the cults of both groups of saints. As the princely clan proliferated over the course of the eleventh century, competition for existing patrimonies increased and new cities were founded to defend the frontier and accommodate the growing family. As the chances of ruling Kiev became ever more remote, some princes redoubled their efforts to secure it, while others took themselves out of the running and focused on aggrandising their own cities. Both strategies were pursued by early rulers of the north-eastern region of Rus, originally centred in the ancient city of Rostov. he princes of this area were a branch of the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh, to whose southern patrimony of Pereslavl was attached the still largely untamed north-eastern frontier. In about 1108, Monomakh sent his eldest son by his second wife, Iurii Vladimirovich (later known as he Long-Armed or Dolgorukii) to this region to rule the 167

168

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

minor city of Suzdal. From there, Iurii launched a number of campaigns against his brothers and nephews in the 1130s–50s to control the ancestral patrimony of Pereslavl and, through it, Kiev. Despite succeeding in taking Kiev in 1149 and 1151, he was not able to hold it until 1155, when all of his brothers and his most powerful nephew had died.1 Dolgorukii himself died only two years later, and it is a widely noted irony that his most powerful sons Andrew and Vsevolod chose not to rule Kiev themselves. Andrew (later known as Bogoliubskii, a reference to his residence in the village of Bogoliubovo outside the city of Vladimir) seems to have become disenchanted with Kiev during the course of his father’s struggles to occupy it. After relocating to the north-east before his father’s death, he sent armies to Kiev in 1169 during a dispute over control of Novgorod. Following their sack of the city, Bogoliubskii had his younger brother Gleb installed as prince and continued to focus his energies on his own patrimony, and in particular on his new capital of Vladimir. Although Janet Martin and others have shown that Bogoliubskii’s actions did not signify a decline in Kiev’s importance within the Rus political system, he certainly did much to increase the prominence of the north-east. By the early thirteenth century, the region usually referred to in modern scholarship as Vladimir-Suzdal was arguably the most powerful in Rus, and its prince Vsevolod influenced political developments in Kiev without becoming directly involved in the ongoing struggles to control the city.2 he political changes of the mid twelfth to early thirteenth centuries went hand in hand with the emergence of new religious rituals and innovations to older practices, as the princes of the house of Suzdal attempted to secure divine protection for their lands. Although much attention has rightly been paid to the new festivals and cults initiated by Bogoliubskii, the continued development of Kievan traditions, including veneration of Boris and Gleb and the military saints, has attracted less attention. Yet the sources related to Dolgorukii and some of his descendants indicate a growing tendency to venerate the military saints as a group of martyr-warriors who functioned as the collective protectors of their branch of the clan, 1

2

For details of princely politics during Dolgorukii’s reign see V. A. Kuchkin, ‘Istoricheskie portrety. Iurii Dolgorukii’, Voprosy Istorii, 10 (1996), 35–56, and Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980– 1584, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 115–23. he political history of north-eastern Rus is well studied, not least because of its relevance to the early history of Moscow. See, e.g., Iu. A. Limonov, Vladimiro-suzdal’skaia Rus’: ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987); John Fennell, he Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200–1304 (London: Longman, 1983); Martin, Medieval Russia , pp. 123–34; and Ellen S. Hurwitz, Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij: he Man and the Myth, Studia Historica et Philologica 12, Sectio Slavica 4 (Florence: Licosa Editrice, 1980).

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

169

rather than only as individual patrons. Over time, moreover, they began to integrate the veneration of the holy warriors with that of Boris and Gleb, creating a combined phalanx out of the two groups. he final chapter of this study will examine the process by which these princes blended the veneration of their ancestors with that of the holy warriors, adopting elements of Byzantine traditions and breaking with the forms of veneration practiced by other branches of the clan. his process is one of the few developments in Boris and Gleb’s cult which can be dated with a relative degree of assurance, because it seems to have been confined to several generations of a single family. here were probably, to be sure, other princes within this branch of the clan whose veneration of Boris and Gleb and the military saints is unrecorded in the surviving sources, and the traditions of the family can therefore be only partially reconstructed. he narrower focus of this type of investigation, as opposed to that undertaken in the previous chapters, also means that the evidence is inevitably scarcer. Although the princes under study were prominent figures for whom a relatively large number of sources survive, the gaps in these sources are still significant, and the overall picture less clear than that presented by other groups of sources. Nevertheless, the contrast between the known practices of members of the house of Suzdal and the other forms of princely veneration studied above is noteworthy, and hints at the determination of the north-eastern princes to reshape the cults of both groups of saints and cultivate a new form of patronage for their lands. By the eve of the Mongol invasion, the most powerful princes of Rus had established a phalanx of military patrons in the Byzantine tradition which combined their saintly ancestors with the ancient corps of holy warriors. Scholarship has generally viewed the shift of power to north-eastern Rus as the beginning of an important transition, and rightly so, since the house of Suzdal quickly rose to prominence and even domination among the princely families. Many studies, however, treat this period as politically and culturally inferior to the preceding ‘golden age’ of Iaroslav Vladimirovich and his sons. Most Soviet scholarship, adhering to predetermined Marxist categorisations, described the period from the mid twelfth century until the Mongol invasion in overly simplistic terms as a time of ‘feudal disintegration’, characterised by endless internecine strife and a consequent weakening of princely power, leaving Rus divided and vulnerable in the face of the Mongol onslaught.3 Some recent studies have, 3

Examples of the ‘feudal disintegration’ model include B. A. Rybakov, Kievskaia Rus’: russkie kniazhestva XI–XII vv., 2nd edn (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), pp. 469–564, and B. Grekov, Kiev Rus,

170

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

however, rejected this view, focusing on the overall continuity of dynastic politics with the early Kievan period. Janet Martin, for example, warns against interpreting the princely feuds of the late pre-Mongol period as a sign of the disintegration of Rus political culture. Rather, she shows how princes strived to maintain dynastic traditions in increasingly complex circumstances.4 he art and architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal have likewise been subjects of lively debate, some of which has sought to explain the innovations of the period in terms of events in the political and social spheres.5 Relatively unexplored, however, is the evolution of Kievan religious traditions in the north-east, as opposed to the new cults initiated by Bogoliubskii. Yet an examination of these developments is justified: in the light of the political changes which they initiated, it is not surprising that the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal also pioneered a new approach to the cultivation of patron saints. heir practices show that the earlier models of veneration studied in the previous two chapters were not static, and give some idea of the cultural and religious influences which helped shape the emerging north-eastern principalities. he concerns of a new dynasty ushered in the final stage in the pre-Mongol cults of the military saints and Boris and Gleb: one in which the two groups took on joint responsibilities for the patronage of the clan in a manner reminiscent of Byzantine practices. A number of the actions and monuments of Iurii Dolgorukii point towards his cultivation of the collective powers of the military saints to defend his patrimony. his effort, and his cultural and political policies more generally, reflect the prince’s close connections with the Byzantine Empire and consistent support of its interests.6 Dolgorukii was, for example, allied with Vladimirko of Galich and Manuel I Komnenos against Géza II of Hungary and Iziaslav Mstislavich of Kiev beginning in the late 1140s.7 In 1155, following his capture of Kiev from Iziaslav, Dolgorukii expelled the Rus metropolitan who had been appointed by

4 5

6

7

trans. Y. Sdobnikov (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959), pp. 674–85. Martin, Medieval Russia , pp. 109–34. Particularly detailed analyses can be found in G. K. Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi: XII vek, Vladimir, Bogoliubovo (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1969); G. K. Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi: g. Iur’ev-Pol’skoi (Moscow: Nauka, 1964); and N. N. Voronin, Zodchestvo severno-vostochnoi Rusi XII–XV vekov, 2 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961–2). On the political and ecclesiastical aspects of Rus’ relations with Byzantium in the late pre-Mongol period see V. T. Pashuto, Vneshniaia politika drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), pp. 186–201. John Kinnamos, Vizantiiskii istorik Ioann Kinnam o Rusi i narodakh vostochnoi Evropy: teksty, perevod, kommentarii, trans. and ed. M. V. Bibikov (Moscow: Ladomir, 1997), pp. 52, 116.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

171

his nephew and sent to Constantinople for a Greek replacement, demonstrating his commitment to maintaining Byzantine authority in the upper echelons of the Rus Church.8 Even following Dolgorukii’s death, his widow and children took refuge at Manuel’s court, as will be discussed below. While this incident does not prove, as has often been speculated, that his wife was a Byzantine princess, it does attest to the good relations that existed between the two ruling houses.9 he importance of these relations to the continuing development of the cult of the military saints in Rus warrants a short digression into their veneration in Byzantium in the era of the Komnenoi emperors. Like their predecessors the Macedonians, the Komnenoi were enthusiastic in their devotion to the military saints, a fact of which Dolgorukii and his descendants probably became aware during their dealings with their Byzantine counterparts. Representations of the saints in Byzantine art of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries show a great deal of continuity with earlier items, and some of the works studied in Chapter 3 may date from either period. Although some details of style changed over time, the court’s fascination with the martyr-warrior ideal remained strong. Indeed, in certain respects the Komnenoi surpassed even the Macedonians in their devotion to the holy warriors. As Alexander Kazhdan and Ann Wharton Epstein have shown in their study of eleventh- and twelfth-century court panegyric and historical writing, the Komennoi valued noble birth and prowess in battle much more highly than their immediate predecessors.10 It is not surprising that these representatives of Byzantium’s emerging warrior aristocracy were also especially devoted to the cults of the military saints.11 Although the Komnenoi were not the first emperors to look to these saints for aid in battle, their unprecedented public displays of reverence for them suggest that the holy warriors were playing an increasingly important role in imperial ideology. hese emperors were, for example, the first to feature military imagery and warrior saints on their coins. Some of the coins of Isaac I, the first member of the family to become emperor, show him holding an uplifted sword, while others show him with his sword by his side – both poses 8 9

10

11

PSRL 1, Lavrent’evskaia Letopis’ , 2nd edn (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2001), col. 347. On this debate see Alexander Kazhdan, ‘Rus’–Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, HUS , 12/13 (1988/9), 414–29 (pp. 423–4). Alexander Kazhdan and Ann Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, he Transformation of the Classical Heritage 7 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 104–16. See also Paul Magdalino, he Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 418–21. Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 116.

172

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

in which the military saints were often depicted. his portrait was considered shocking by contemporaries, who believed that it implied that he had gained the throne by the sword, rather than the grace of God.12 Nevertheless, Isaac’s nephew Alexios I continued the military theme on his coinage by minting the first coins with an image of a military saint. He chose a portrait of Demetrios, an innovation which was continued by his son John II, who also minted coins bearing an image of George. John’s son Manuel I carried on the tradition by introducing a portrait of heodore.13 Military saints were not the only figures portrayed on the coins of these emperors, and were outnumbered by depictions of Christ and the Mother of God, but the fact that they began to appear on the coins of successive members of a single dynasty is significant. Over a period of three generations, the Komnenoi thus firmly and publicly established this groups of saints, along with the more traditional sacred figures, as their patrons. Other media served similar functions: in addition to coins, monumental painting and historical writing attest to the particular esteem in which the Komnenoi and their contemporaries held the holy warriors. Charalambos Bakirtzis argues, for example, that the frescoes of four military saints which decorate a church founded in 1152 by Isaac Komnenos, the third son of Alexios I, are meant to be likenesses of Isaac himself, his brothers Andronikos and John II, and their father. he saints’ features are very similar to known portraits of Isaac, Alexios and John, although there is no other surviving portrait of Andronikos.14 If this identification is correct, the portraits, like the coins, tie together multiple members of the Komnenos clan and their divine patrons. In the next generation, a courtier of Manuel Komnenos decorated a wall of his home with a fresco depicting the emperor being crowned by the Mother of God and handed a spear by heodore Teron, with an angel on one side and Nicholas on

12

13

14

Philip Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London: Methuen; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 31, 200. Ibid., nos. 918, 919 (Isaac I); 1025, 1026, 1029, 1035 (Alexios I); 1067, 1068, 1078 (John II); 1083, 1084 (Manuel I). As discussed in Chapter 4, the Komnenoi also seem to have been among the first members of the imperial household to feature military saints on their seals, although they did so only before they were reigning as emperors. Charalambos Bakirtzis, ‘Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos?’, in Mosaic: Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, ed. Judith Herrin et al. (London: he British School at Athens, 2001), pp. 85–7. For a list of fresco cycles of the eleventh to early thirteenth centuries which include portraits of military saints see Karin M. Skawran, he Development of Middle Byzantine Fresco Painting in Greece (Pretoria: University of South Africa, 1982), pp. 46–7.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

173

the other.15 Manuel’s faith in the saints is also reflected in the work of the court official George Skylitzes (not to be confused with the historian John Skylitzes), who composed kanones to George and Demetrios. P. S. Pétridès has argued that Skylitzes’ kanon to George, which prays for the saint’s aid in the fight against Skythians, Persians and barbarians, was composed during Manuel’s campaigns against the Hungarians and Turks. he kanon to Demetrios, meanwhile, may have honoured the translation to Constantinople of the saint’s ‘grave covering’, an event which will be discussed below.16 Veneration of the military saints continued to be no less enthusiastic outside the capital: fresco portraits of them in Cappadocia attracted more graffiti than those of any other figures bar Christ and the Mother of God.17 he saints’ veneration by members of the magnate elite in Asia Minor is particularly noticeable in the sigillographic record from the mid eleventh century, when aristocrats began using their images to display political loyalties or signal career changes.18 Familiar compositions featuring the military saints can be found in frescoes from the late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries in churches in the south-western Crimea: one depicts the martyrdom of heodore, George on horseback and two other military saints in armour, while the other features three saints in military dress on horseback, one of whom is spearing a dragon.19 Demetrios, in particular, gained an even wider following throughout the empire thanks to the myron which emanated from his cathedral in hessalonika. Although this oil seems to have appeared by the early tenth century, it is widely attested only from the time of the Komnenoi onward.20 A number of flasks and enkolpia for carrying this oil, some of which were studied in Chapter 3, combine the imagery of martyr and warrior in a manner reminiscent of the Macedonian period. he spread 15 16

17 18

19 20

Magdalino, he Empire, pp. 471–2. George Skylitzes, ‘Deux canons inédits de Georges Skylitzès’, ed. P. Sophrone Pétridès, VV, 10 (1903), 460–94 (pp. 469–70). Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 116. Jean-Claude Cheynet, ‘Le culte de saint héodore chez les officiers de l’armée d’orient’, in Vyzantio kratos kai koinonia , ed. Anna Avramea et al. (Athens: Institouto Vyzantinon Ereunon, Ethniko Hidryma Ereunon, 2003), pp. 137–53, and ‘Par saint Georges, par saint Michel’, TM, 14 (2002), 115–34. O. I. Dombrovskii, Freski srednevekovogo Kryma (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1966), pp. 27–42. On this phenomenon and its dating see Christopher Walter, he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), pp. 80–2, but note the arguments for the authenticity of the writings of John Kaminiates, the first author to mention the myron, in Joseph Frendo, ‘he Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of hessalonika’, Byzantinoslavica, 58(1997), 205–24.

174

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

of Demetrios’ cult may have been the reason for the composition of a third collection of miracle stories at some point no later than the twelfth century, in which the saint’s powers are manifested in Constantinople and Cappadocia, as well as hessalonika.21 Given the continued popularity of the holy warriors under the Komnenoi and Dolgorukii’s alliance with the empire, the prince may well have emulated his Byzantine contemporaries in his own devotion to the saints as a group of military patrons. Although the precise nature of this influence would be impossible to reconstruct, it is nevertheless intriguing that the fortified outposts and churches which Dolgorukii founded in north-eastern Rus reflect Byzantine ideas about the protection offered by the corps of the military saints. he names he gave his new cities reveal an interesting shift from earlier practices and foreshadow a similar interest on the part of his sons and grandsons in the cultivation of a group of patrons to defend their patrimony. Specifically, Dolgorukii seems to have been one of the first Rus princes clearly to favour baptismal names, as opposed to clan names, when establishing new cities. His foundation of the cities of Dmitrov, Iurev-Polskoi and Ksniatin or Konstantin showed an unprecedented attention to patron saints, and in particular those with strong military and imperial associations, as the protectors of himself and his increasingly powerful clan.22 When naming new settlements after themselves or their relatives (most commonly their sons), Rus princes of the pre-Mongol period traditionally favoured clan names over baptismal names. Although it is often impossible to know which prince established a given settlement and for what reason, there are a few definite examples of a prince choosing a clan name to designate a new city. For example, the entry for 1095 in the Primary Chronicle relates that, following a successful battle against the Polovtsy, ‘Sviatopolk [Iziaslavich] ordered a city to be built in his 21

22

See Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS, 1979), ii, p. 203. he texts can be found in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., October, iv (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1780), 90–5, pp. 190–7 (BHG 524–31). PSRL 24, Tipografskaia letopis’ (Petrograd: 2-ia Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1921), p. 77 (Iurev-Polskoi and Dmitrov), and PSRL 9 and 10, Letopisnyi sbornik, imenuemyi patriarsheiu ili nikonovskoiu letopis’ iu (St Petersburg: V tipografii Eduarda Pratsa, 1862; repr. Patriarshaia ili nikonovskaia letopis’ , Moscow: Nauka, 1965), p. 158 (Ksniatin). he foundation of these cities is not mentioned in the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles, which are generally more reliable than these chronicles for the period in question. Iu. A. Limonov has demonstrated, however, that a number of events in the early history of the north-east, including Dolgorukii’s foundation of cities, were incorporated into the later chronicles directly from a compilation produced in Rostov in the first half of the twelfth century. See Iu. A. Limonov, Letopisanie Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi (Leningrad: Nauka, 1967), pp. 18–33.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

175

name on Vytecheva hill called the city of Sviatopolch.’23 he Laurentian Chronicle also contains, in its entry for 1128, a story about the foundation of Iziaslavl by Vladimir Sviatoslavich in honour of his son Iziaslav in the late tenth or early eleventh century.24 Whether or not the exact circumstances of a city’s foundation are known, a reference in a chronicle to a city with a form of a clan name is probably a good indication that it was named after a specific prince, and that the prince in question favoured his clan name over his baptismal name. To be sure, only a small proportion of Rus settlements were known by a form of a personal name, whether pagan or Christian. About thirty-six are recorded, against Tikhomirov’s estimated total of 300 cities and towns which existed at the time of the Mongol invasion.25 Among these thirty-six, nineteen (just over half) had a form of a clan name, while the rest may have been named for saints or other holy figures. he oldest, a city called Vasilev, was probably founded or renamed by Vladimir Sviatoslavich in honour of his patron saint following his baptism in the late tenth century.26 Iaroslav Vladimirovich founded the city of Iurev (the modern Tartu) in honour of his patron saint George in 1030 following a victory over the Chud,27 and a bishop from another city of the same name is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle and the Tale of the Miracles as attending the translation of the relics of Boris and Gleb in 1072.28 he foundation of the second Iurev is not mentioned in the chronicles, but Tikhomirov argues that it was part of Iaroslav’s briefly noted campaign ‘to establish cities around Rus’ in 1032.29 It is noteworthy, in any case, that both Vladimir and Iaroslav used clan as well as baptismal names for their new foundations. Vladimir, as noted above, named Iziaslavl for his son Iziaslav and may have founded Vladimir on the Kliazma, while Iaroslav founded Iaroslavl during the early part of his political career, possibly before 1015.30 23

24 25

26 27 28

29 30

Donald Ostrowski, ed., PVL: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, HLEUL 10, 1–3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), iii, lines 229,2–229,8, pp. 1813–14. PSRL 1, cols. 300–1. M. N. Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1956; repr. St Petersburg: Nauka, 2008), p. 52. Tikhomirov rightly notes the imprecision involved in making such calculations, given the patchy state of the written and archaeological evidence (p. 49). he incomplete sources should not, however, result in the over- or underrepresentation of towns with a form of a personal name as a proportion of the total. Ibid., pp. 226–7. PVL , ii, lines 149,26–149,27, pp. 1185–6. Ibid., iii, line 181,22, p. 1464; D. I. Abramovich, ed., Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov Borisa i Gleba i sluzhby im, Pamiatniki drevne-russkoi literatury 2 (Petrograd: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1916), p. 56. Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, pp. 227–8. See PVL , ii, lines 150,9–150,10, pp. 1188–9. here is also evidence to suggest that Vladimir on the Kliazma was founded by Vladimir Monomakh. Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, pp. 293–4, 302.

176

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Besides those established by Dolgorukii, eleven other settlements potentially named for saints are known to have existed before the Mongol invasion.31 Mikulin (possibly a variant of the name Nicholas) and Ksniatin on the Sula are mentioned in the Testament of Vladimir Monomakh in connection with campaigns he conducted in 1079 and 1107. he others, beginning with Borisov in 1127, appear in the sources relatively late and already during or after Dolgorukii’s reign. Furthermore, four have a form of the names Boris and Gleb. hese could function as both clan and baptismal names, making it difficult to determine whether their founders named the settlements for themselves or for the saintly brothers. While the city of Borisov-Glebov was certainly dedicated to the martyrs, who were almost always paired, the cases of Borisov, Glebl and Glebov are less clear.32 hus, eight cities – Mikulin, Ksniatin on the Sula, Davydova bozhenka, Mikhailov, Borisov-Glebov, Dmitrov Kievskii, Vasilev Galitskii and Andreev – can be said with more certainty to have been named after saints and biblical figures. Although they must have existed prior to being recorded in the chronicles, it is perhaps not coincidental that the majority of the settlements begin to appear in a cluster in the middle decades of the twelfth century, with Vasilev Galitskii and Andreev not mentioned until the early thirteenth century. he founders of the cities and the reasons for their foundation are not known, but the references to them in the chronicles suggest that they were, for the most part, twelfth-century establishments. If this is the case, it may well represent an increasing preference for baptismal names starting in the early to mid twelfth century, a practice which Dolgorukii continued and expanded, if not initiated. It is also true that during the twelfth century more princes were given baptismal names but not clan names, meaning that there was a larger supply of princes with only baptismal names and a correspondingly greater chance that a city would be given a form of one of those names. he 31

32

he cities are, in order of the first references to them: Mikulin (1079; PVL , iii, lines 248,18– 248,22, p. 1925); Ksniatin on the Sula (1107; PVL , iii, line 250,10, p. 1933); Borisov (1127; PSRL 1, col. 298); Glebl (1147; PSRL 2, Ipat’evskaia letopis’ , 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Tipografiia M. A. Aleksandrova, 1908; repr. Moscow: IaRK, 1998), col. 357); Davydova bozhenka (1151; PSRL 2, col. 417); Mikhailov (1172; PSRL 2, col. 550); Borisov-Glebov or Borisoglebsk (1180; PSRL 1, col. 388); Dmitrov Kievskii (1183; PSRL 2, col. 628); Glebov (1185; PSRL 2, col. 643); Vasilev Galitskii (1229; PSRL 2, col. 761); Andreev (1245; PSRL 2, col. 796). Tikhomirov notes two pieces of indirect evidence for the founding of Borisov by Prince Boris Vseslavich of Polotsk in 1102 following a victory over the Iatviag: Tatishchev’s mention of the incident in his Istoriia rossiiskaia and the appearance of the story in a late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century chronicle known as the Spisok bykhovtsa. Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, p. 273.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

177

tradition of double-naming is still well attested during the period, however.33 Dolgorukii himself did not have a clan name, the name Iurii being a form of George, but he continued the tradition of double-naming with his sons, giving five of them clan and baptismal names and six of them only baptismal names (counting Boris and Gleb as baptismal names).34 In founding his cities, however, Dolgorukii showed a clear preference for baptismal names. Iurev-Polskoi, as mentioned above, was named for his own patron George, while Dmitrov honoured the birth of his son Vsevolod-Dmitrii in 1154.35 he case of Ksniatin is less clear: none of Dolgorukii’s sons is known to have been baptised Constantine, but the baptismal names of two of them (Mstislav and Rostislav) are not known. Whether or not the city was named after one of them, it is also clear that Dolgorukii was influenced in his choice of place names by those of existing settlements in southern and western Rus. As discussed above, two towns called Iurev and one by the name of Ksniatin already existed by Dolgorukii’s time. His reuse of these names was doubtless part of his strategy to make his principality the equal of the older power centres, yet the fact that he chose names with martial overtones also indicates his desire to invoke the protection of the military saints to secure his realm. Dolgorukii’s invocation of Constantine in combination with George and Demetrios demonstrates both an interest in a group of military saints and a desire to augment their number. Constantine, although certainly connected with warfare and empire-building, never appears among groups of military saints in Byzantine written or artistic sources. Dolgorukii seems, however, to have recognised important similarities between him and the others – most likely, given their role as namesakes for his new fortifications, their triumphal associations. As will be discussed below, the inclusion of Constantine in the group of military saints seems to have been well received, since it was continued in the next generation. Dolgorukii’s foundations thus stand out as a break with previous patterns in both Byzantium and Rus. Although the prince did not name all of his new settlements after saints, he also did not, like his ancestors, give any of them clan names. Taken together, the cities appear to be as much monuments to a group of saints as they are to the princes concerned. More so than his predecessors, Dolgorukii seems to have made a conscious effort to establish settlements in the same area that would 33

34 35

A. F. Litvina and F. B. Uspenskii, Vybor imeni u russkikh kniazei v X–XVI vv. (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), p. 111. Evgenii Pchelov, ‘Genealogiia sem’i Iuriia Dolgorukogo’, Ruthenica , 3 (2004), 68–79. PSRL 9, p. 158.

178

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

be under the protection of a group of closely related patron saints, rather than function simply as memorials to individuals. Dolgorukii did not, as far as is known, name any of his fortified settlements after Boris and Gleb. On the other hand, his establishment of a ‘second Vyshgorod ’ in the north-east does indicate an interest in cultivating the brothers’ patronage in a similar manner to that of the military saints. In the context of the names he gave his other settlements, Dolgorukii’s attempt to recreate the traditional centre of Boris and Gleb’s cult suggests a perception that the brothers belonged to the same phalanx of patrons under whose protection he placed his patrimony. Dolgorukii’s church dedicated to the brothers at his residence at Kideksha outside Suzdal, built at some point before its first mention in 1159, was quite possibly the first of its kind in north-eastern Rus.36 Even more significantly, it seems to have been the first such church to have been constructed in a princely residence since the building activities of Iaroslav Vladimirovich and his descendants in Vyshgorod. hese similarities gave Dolgorukii’s foundation clear associations with that city which are unlikely to have been accidental: Dolgorukii must have understood the importance of Vyshgorod and its saints thanks to his intermittent periods on the throne of Kiev. Although he clearly coveted the prestige of the ancient capital, his actions signify a more nuanced conception of the symbolic value of princely power. If he could not physically hold Kiev, he could at least transfer some of its political and spiritual importance to his own capital by recreating the shrine to the saints who were the acknowledged patrons of the princely clan. heir patronage, combined with that of the holy warriors and Constantine, created a powerful force to protect his own lands. Dolgorukii, it seems, was going a step further than his father and other relatives who had dedicated churches to the brothers in locations connected with their cult. he conclusion that he was making a conscious effort to imitate Vyshgorod is strengthened by the fact that such an idea was perfectly comprehensible to contemporary and later commentators. Some sixteen years later, when Dolgorukii’s son Andrew began building 36

PSRL 1, col. 349. As discussed in the previous chapter, churches dedicated to Boris and Gleb first appeared in locations connected with their cult, and thereafter in Chernigov, Riazan, Novogord, Polotsk, Novogrudok and Grodno. he next known church to the brothers in the north-east was built by Constantine Vsevolodovich in Rostov in 1214. (P. A. Rappoport, Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv.: katalog pamiatnikov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-47 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), p. 62.) Only isolated fragments of the frescoes of the Kideksha church survive, one of which depicts two riders. Although Vagner and others have argued that the riders are Boris and Gleb, this identification seems unlikely since the figures have neither nimbi nor princely caps. (Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi, p. 248.)

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

179

his residence at Bogoliubovo, the association was not lost on the compiler of the Hypatian Chronicle, despite the fact that Bogoliubovo did not have a church to Boris and Gleb: ‘Andrew established for himself a stone city called Bogoliubovo. As far as Vyshgorod is from Kiev, that is how far Bogoliubovo is from Vladimir.’37 Similarly, the prolog account of the translation of Boris and Gleb’s relics to the monastery on the Smiadyn River in 1191 states that the relics’ new home had become a second Vyshgorod.38 Based on these examples, it seems that the designation of ‘second Vyshgorod ’ could refer to a location’s status as a princely residence or its connection with Boris and Gleb. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that Kideksha, which met both of these criteria, was indeed intended to be a second Vyshgorod and a new centre of the brothers’ cult in the north-east.39 By modelling his new residence on the original resting place of Boris and Gleb’s relics, Dolgorukii was invoking the brothers as martyrs and warriors simultaneously. In the context of the names he gave his other cities the brothers seem to have had a role to play in the protection of Dolgorukii’s patrimony, yet the recreation of Vyshgorod had clear associations with their graves and martyrdom. Prominent representatives of the next two generations of the house of Suzdal, Andrew and Vsevolod Iurevichi and Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, followed Dolgorukii’s innovations. he monuments associated with these princes paint a picture of veneration of Boris and Gleb as martyr-warriors whose role in the defence of the patrimony matched that of the ancient corps of military saints. Like Dolgorukii, his descendants seem to have been influenced by Byzantine ideas about the military saints, but modified these traditions to include Boris and Gleb within their ranks. he devotion of Andrew Bogoliubskii to divine figures was one of the defining aspects of his reign. He is perhaps best known for the attention he lavished on the Mother of God: in addition to sponsoring the construction of several churches dedicated to her, he established a feast day on 1 October honouring her Intercession (Pokrov) and brought a Byzantine icon bearing her image from Vyshgorod to Vladimir, where it became an important focus of her cult in north-eastern Rus. Bogoliubskii’s promotion of the cult of the Saviour through the establishment of another feast 37 38 39

PSRL 2, col. 580. Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 109. he original Vyshgorod, it will be recalled, is described as a ‘second hessalonika’ in the Tale and the mineia entry commemorating the translation of Boris and Gleb’s relics in 1115, thus strengthening the associations of all of the cities in question with Demetrios.

180

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

day on 1 August and the building of at least two churches was equally energetic, and his activities inspired a number of contemporary or nearly contemporary accounts which offer a relatively rich picture of the prince’s undertakings. hese works include Discourse on the Feast Day of 1 August, Tale of the Victory over the Volga Bulgars in 1164, he Life of Leontii of Rostov, Tale of the Miracles of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, Discourse on the Intercession and Tale of the Murder of Andrew Bogoliubskii, different versions of which appear in the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles. he exact nature of Bogoliubskii’s influence on these writings is unclear, and is widely discussed in the scholarship. It is likely that the prince commissioned and may have had a hand in writing some of them as part of a programme of self-aggrandisement, while others were composed by admiring members of his inner circle.40 he fact that Bogoliubskii chose to focus his devotion primarily on Christ and the Mother of God, a practice which was common in the Byzantine court and the Rus princely clan, is not surprising. he traditional role of the Mother of God in particular as the protector of Constantinople and Kiev made her an obvious choice for the prince, who sought to recreate Byzantine and Kievan traditions in his capital city of Vladimir. Nevertheless, the references to heodore and Boris and Gleb in the sources related to Bogoliubskii are not without interest or significance, and show that these saints also served as his protectors in battle. During a battle with the Polovtsy in 1149, according to the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles, Bogoliubskii ‘prayed to God and drew his sword and called to his aid the holy martyr heodore. And by his faith God and the holy martyr heodore saved him without harm. For the memory of the holy martyr heodore was celebrated on that day.’41 As discussed in the previous chapter, the chronicles frequently mention the intercession of saints and other holy figures on behalf of princes. he fact that the identity of these intercessors differs on each occasion suggests that the descriptions were not entirely formulaic. Indeed, the battle of 1149 is the only one described in the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles in which heodore (or any of the military saints) comes to the rescue. In most cases, princes received assistance from figures of universal devotion such as Christ, the Mother of God, the Holy Cross or Boris 40

41

For an analysis of the texts, their dating and authorship see D. S. Likhachev, ed., SKK (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), pp. 37–9, 159–61, 365–7, 411–12, 416–18; Hurwitz, Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij; and Iu. V. Krivosheev, Gibel’ Andreia Bogoliubskogo: Istoricheskoe rassledovanie (St Petersburg: Izdatel’skii dom S.-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2003). PSRL 1, col. 325, and PSRL 2, col. 390.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

181

and Gleb, while the appearance of patron saints (military or otherwise) was a rarity. Aside from the battle of 1149, for example, the texts dealing with Bogoliubskii’s exploits describe him as being aided only by Christ and/or the Mother of God: the Laurentian Chronicle mentions four such incidents between 1149 and the prince’s death in 1175,42 and the Tale of the Victory over the Volga Bulgars offers a more detailed account of the intercession of Christ and the Mother of God on behalf of Bogoliubskii and the Byzantine emperor Manuel Komnenos during simultaneous but geographically distant battles in 1164.43 he appearance of heodore in battle is thus highly unusual, especially given the fact that he was not Bogoliubskii’s patron saint, and suggests that the prince looked to him (and possibly the other military saints as well) for protection in battle. heodore, it would seem, could fulfil this role because he had become a patron of the princely clan in general (or at least Bogoliubskii’s branch of it), rather than exclusively of his own namesakes. References to Boris and Gleb indicate that the brothers fulfilled, for Bogoliubskii, a protective role similar to that of heodore. he brothers are mentioned in the entries in the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles describing Bogoliubskii’s murder in 1175.44 Both versions of the account are very sympathetic to the prince, describing his reign in a favourable light and hinting at his sanctity. his bias suggests that the original composition was the work of one of the prince’s close associates and that it reflects the sentiments of his inner circle.45 he chronicle entries begin by emphasising Bogoliubskii’s similarity to exemplary rulers of the past, describing the prince’s lavish building projects, his generosity toward the poor and comparing him to David and Solomon.46 hese comparisons are then brought into a Christian context: it is Bogoliubskii’s similarity to the Old Testament kings which makes him worthy of his namesake St Andrew (from the Greek word for courage) and his martyr-like death, which in turn is equated with those of Boris and Gleb: ‘He was a second wise Solomon. Because of this it was worthy for him to receive a victorious crown from God, being like his namesake Andrew in his courage. 42 43 44 45

46

PSRL 1, cols. 333, 334, 352–3, 355. Hurwitz, Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij, pp. 90–1. PSRL 1, cols. 367–74, and PSRL 2, cols. 580–95. While most scholars agree that the original version of this story was composed soon after the events it describes by a member of Bogoliubskii’s court, opinions vary regarding the identity of the author and the exact content of the original work. See Hurwitz, Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij, pp. 48–53; SKK, pp. 365–7; and N. N. Voronin, ‘“Povest’ ob ubiistve Andreia Bogoliubskogo” i ee avtor’, Istoriia SSSR , 7:3 (1963), 80–97. PSRL 1, cols. 367–68, and PSRL 2, cols. 580–4.

182

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

For he followed the noble-minded brothers and washed himself with the blood of suffering.’47 he transition from Solomon to Andrew and Boris and Gleb via Bogoliubskii indicates the particular importance of each party: wisdom, splendour and piety for Solomon, courage for Andrew, martyrdom for Boris and Gleb, and Bogoliubskii as the hybrid of these virtues. he chronicle accounts do not focus exclusively on the brothers’ martyrdom, but deftly combine this attribute with their role as the protectors of the princely clan and Bogoliubskii in particular. Both versions of the story describe how the prince reached for his sword when the murderers broke into his room, adding, ‘for the sword was that of St Boris’.48 Bogoliubskii could not save himself with the sword, as one of the plotters had removed it from his room, but the passage implies that it was a prized weapon on which he had relied previously in combat. It is likely, therefore, that the prince had looked to the saint himself for aid in battle, probably in the same manner as he had to heodore. An indirect reference to Gleb is also made in the Hypatian Chronicle, which quotes Bogoliubskii as comparing his attackers to Goriaser, one of Gleb’s murderers.49 hus, although Bogoliubskii was not able to defend himself with Boris’ sword at the critical moment, its absence helped him attain a loftier goal: a ‘martyr’s’ death like those of the brothers. he Hypatian Chronicle describes the prince’s imitation of his saintly ancestors: ‘[Andrew] washed himself of his sins with the blood of martyrdom and with his brothers [i.e. ancestors] Roman and David came in a single spirit to Christ.’50 Taken together, these passages indicate that, despite the martial imagery surrounding the sword, Bogoliubskii also prized the martyrdom of his ancestors, echoing the symbolism of Dolgorukii’s earlier recreation of Vyshgorod. he image of the sword reappears in the Laurentian and Hypatian chronicles following a description of the looting of Bogoliubskii’s palace by the citizens of Bogoliubovo and Vladimir following the prince’s death. he chronicler, criticising this lawlessness, quotes a respected source to urge submission to princely authority: ‘For in his earthly nature an emperor is like any man. But in his power he has a dignity like God. For the great Chrysostom says that whoever opposes power opposes God’s law. For a prince does not carry a sword for no reason, but because he is 47 48 49

PSRL 1, col. 368, and PSRL 2, col. 584. PSRL 1, col. 369, and PSRL 2, cols. 586–7. PSRL 2, col. 587. 50 Ibid., col. 594.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

183

God’s servant.’51 he first part of this quotation is a passage from Agapetos (not, as stated, from John Chrysostom), which became known in Rus through the Pchela, the Slavonic translation of the Greek miscellany Melissa, from which the chronicler presumably copied it.52 he comments about the sword and the status of the prince seem to be taken from the Letter to the Romans 13.4: ‘For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. hey are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ It seems that the chronicler decided to draw on two respected authorities to comment on recent events. he terms ‘emperor’ and ‘prince’ doubtless refer to Bogoliubskii, whose murderers the author is reproaching, while the ‘sword’, in the context of the passage discussed above, probably alludes to Boris’ sword. he quotation thus implies that Boris and his weapon had a role to play in the maintenance of princely power: in addition to the saint’s roles as patron in war and symbol of martyrdom, his patronage was also vital to Bogoliubskii’s own authority. his interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the passage from the Letter to the Romans seems to have been a popular one which was used by Rus writers to comment on various political situations. For example, it is appended to a different quotation (this time correctly attributed) in the paremeinik reading for 24 July. he context is Iaroslav Vladimirovich’s appeal to the Novgorodians to fight for him against Sviatopolk. he Novgorodians were disinclined to do so, having recently had an unspecified quarrel with Iaroslav. According to the reading, however, ‘hey remembered the words of the Apostle [i.e. 1 Peter 2.17] “Brothers, fear God, honour the prince. For he is the Lord’s servant; not for nothing does he carry a sword.”’53 he passage appears once again in the eulogy to Bogoliubskii’s brother Vsevolod in the Laurentian Chronicle’s entry commemorating his death in 1212. In the context of its praise for the prince as a just ruler it notes, ‘For a prince does not carry a sword for no reason, but to punish the wrongdoer.’54 51 52

53

54

PSRL 1, col. 370, and PSRL 2, cols. 592–3. Ihor Ševčenko, ‘A Neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology’, in Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture, Renovatio 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1991), pp. 49–87 (pp. 50–1). Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov, p. 117. Abramovich’s use of punctuation implies that the author of the paremeinik reading mistakenly attributed the entire passage to 1 Peter. It is impossible to be certain, however, since the punctuation used in Rus manuscripts does not usually convey such details. PSRL 1, col. 436.

184

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

In the chronicle entry for 1175 and the paremeinik reading, the passage from the Letter to the Romans has been added to a quotation from a different source. In both cases, it serves to explain and justify another text’s command to obey the ruler. he sword is doubtless meant to be interpreted as the most potent symbol of the ruler’s power, whether on its own merit or, in the case of Bogoliubskii, because of a connection with one of the heavenly protectors of the clan. Although the paremeinik reading concerns Boris and Gleb, the formula seems in this case to apply only to Iaroslav. Since there is no implication that he fought with Boris’ sword, the reference to the weapon as the symbol of his God-given power presumably applies to him alone. Although the passage from Romans thus seems to have been used in various contexts, its proximity to the reference to Boris’ sword in the chronicle entry for 1175 was surely not coincidental. As in the paremeinik reading, the formula draws attention to the sword as the source of the prince’s power. In Bogoliubskii’s case this power came directly from the clan patron, whose weapon symbolised both protection of the prince and military prowess. he vision of Boris and Gleb articulated in the passages studied above – as martyrs, military protectors of Bogoliubskii and contributors to his power – is similar to that seen in the sources related to Dolgorukii. Like his father, Bogoliubskii sought to combine his ancestors’ martyrdom with their battle skills to create a Byzantine-style phalanx of martyr-warriors. At the same time, the princes’ approach to the cult of the military saints was groundbreaking. Dolgorukii’s building projects and heodore’s intercession on behalf of Bogoliubskii suggest that, unlike other members of the clan, these princes envisioned the holy warriors as a group of protectors whose intercessory powers extended beyond their own namesakes. he sources associated with Bogoliubskii’s younger half-brother Vsevolod, who came to power in 1176, indicate that he continued his relatives’ innovations in the cult of Boris and Gleb, cultivating their patronage in conjunction with that offered by the military saints. In his devotion to a phalanx of heavenly protectors and his appreciation of the complementary aspects of martyr and warrior, Vsevolod seems to have assimilated contemporary Byzantine ideas to an even greater degree than his father and half-brother.55 Such influences are in keeping with Vsevolod’s personal history: his mother, Dolgorukii ’s second wife, was 55

On the Byzantine influences of Vsevolod’s political ideology see Dietrich Wörn, ‘Studien zur Herrschaftsideologie des Großf ürsten Vsevolod III. “Bol’šoe gnezdo” von Vladimir (1176–1212)’, Jahrbücher f ür Geschichte Osteuropas, n.s. 27 (1979), 1–40.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

185

exiled to Byzantium with her children on the orders of Bogoliubskii following Dolgorukii’s death in 1157. he family was received kindly by Manuel Komnenos: ‘In the same year [1162] Mstislav and Vasilko Iurevichi went to Constantinople with their mother, and took with them a third brother, the young Vsevolod. And the emperor gave Vasilko four towns on the Danube, and to Mstislav he gave the region of Otskalan.’56 he date of Vsevolod’s return to Rus is uncertain. he Hypatian Chronicle mentions him again in 1170, but a supplementary article which precedes the younger recension (izvod ) of the Novgorod First Chronicle in the mid-fifteenth-century Commission manuscript states that ‘In the third year [after the death of Bogoliubskii in 1174] his brother Vsevolod, called Dmitrii Iurevich in baptism, arrived from overseas, from hessalonika.’57 Little is known about Vsevolod’s period in exile, which occurred while he was very young. His surviving monuments, however, display a remarkable degree of Byzantine influence while at the same time following in the traditions established by his relatives. As mentioned above, Vsevolod’s patron saint was Demetrios, and Dolgorukii founded the city of Dmitrov in honour of his son’s birth in 1154.58 Like most of his contemporaries, Vsevolod showed a degree of special favour to his own patron: the prince may well have sponsored the construction of a church dedicated to Demetrios in Dmitrov and the creation of a celebrated icon of the same saint which was originally housed in the church.59 Vsevolod also commissioned a sumptuous cathedral in his patron’s honour for his court in Vladimir in 1197, possibly in connection with the birth of his own son on or around Demetrios’ feast day in 1193.60 he Dmitrov icon, if it was in fact commissioned by Vsevolod, shows the prince’s veneration of his namesake as a military patron with its portrayal of the saint as a warrior unsheathing his sword. he icon’s connection with the prince is all the more likely given that this unusual portrait type

56

57

58 59

60

PSRL 2, col. 521. he incident is also mentioned in Kinnamos, Vizantiiskii istorik, p. 56. For the historical and political context see Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204 (Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 106–7. PSRL 2, col. 543; A. N. Nasonov, ed., Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1950), p. 468. PSRL 24, p. 77. G. V. Popov, ‘Iz istorii drevnego pamiatnika goroda Dmitrova’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: khudozhestvennaia kul’tura domongol’skoi Rusi, ed. V. N. Lazarev et al. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), pp. 198–216. E. S. Smirnova, ‘Khramovaia ikona dmitrievskogo sobora. Sviatost’ solunskoi baziliki vo vladimirskom khrame’, in Dmitrievskii sobor vo Vladimire: k 800–letiiu sozdaniia, ed. Smirnova (Moscow: Modus Graffiti, 1997), pp. 220–54 (p. 225).

186

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

is also found on Vsevolod’s seals.61 Yet the friezes on his cathedral indicate that the prince looked to a number of other martyr-warriors as protectors in battle, among them Boris and Gleb. Unlike interior decorations, which followed patterns developed in Byzantium, exterior carvings on Rus churches were much freer in their iconography. hey were not a feature of churches built during the early Kievan period, since most of these used bricks as their primary building material. In the north-east, by contrast, limestone was more widely available, and this medium seems to have encouraged the development of a new style of decoration. For reasons that are not entirely clear, however, exterior carvings quickly fell out of favour, and the earliest surviving Moscow churches show no trace of them. But despite the many unanswered questions surrounding the carvings, it is clear that they were unfettered by stylistic conventions for church decoration from Byzantium and southern Rus. Although only a few examples of the friezes survive, none of them follows even the most basic patterns for interior frescoes or mosaics, such as depicting the Last Judgement on the western wall. Nor do they particularly resemble each other. Despite some overlap in the depiction of certain saints and biblical scenes, many more elements are unique to each church. G. K. Vagner reasonably surmises that the friezes of north-eastern Rus expressed their own coherent and interrelated set of ideas which are not fully understood as a result of the loss of many of the carvings.62 Nevertheless, his efforts and those of other scholars, in particular M. S. Gladkaia, have elucidated many aspects of the friezes.63 In the case of the Cathedral of St Demetrios, it seems particularly likely that the friezes reflect the tastes of Vsevolod and his court rather than ecclesiastical convention. A large proportion of the decoration is decidedly worldly, and the intricate carvings of wrestlers, hunters, foliage and real and fantastical animals scattered among the portraits of saints give the impression that the facades were meant to be decorative as much as devotional.64 he depictions of the ascension of Alexander the Great 61

62 63

64

V. L. Ianin and P. G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., 3 vols. (Moscow: Nauka and Intrada, 1970, 1998), i, p. 208; nos. 211–12. Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi, pp. 44–5. See, for example, M. S. Gladkaia, Rel’efy dmitrievskogo sobora vo Vladimire: opyt kompleksnogo issledovaniia (Moscow: Indrik, 2009); and Smirnova, Dmitrievskii sobor vo Vladimire. Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi, pp. 258, 262, 264–92. A reconstruction of the cathedral’s façades indicating which carvings were part of the original decoration and which were added in the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries can be found in M. S. Gladkaia and A. I. Skvortsov, ‘Periodizatsiia rel’efov dmitrievskogo sobora vo Vladimire’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: Khudozhestvennaia kul’tura X–pervoi poloviny XIII v., ed. A. I. Komech and O. I. Podobedova (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), pp. 307–29 (pp. 316–23).

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

187

and the deeds of Hercules, moreover, were certainly not a standard element of church decoration and probably reflect Vsevolod’s political and military ambitions.65 Another aspect of the frieze which differs strikingly from artistic canons and may well express the prince’s interests is an intriguing row of twelve haloed riders, some brandishing swords, which decorates the south and west façades.66 he figures are without doubt military saints: an inscription identifies a youthful rider with curly hair as George, and most of the others have features which coincide with the traditional iconography of the group. On the basis of close study of the reliefs, Gladkaia has identified the riders as George (Illustration 13), heodore (Illustration 14), Constantine, Eustathios, Merkourios, Prokopios, Boris and Gleb (Illustration 15), Demetrios and Nestor.67 he frieze thus represents a significant break with precedent in Rus art. As discussed in Chapter 4, Byzantine-style depictions of groups of military saints are unknown among works of art associated with the princely clan, and even works made for the Church did not usually feature more than three or four of the holy warriors together. he large group in the Vladimir frieze is also unusual for its depiction of the military saints on horseback, a portrait type which is otherwise found only on a few seals and the large stone carvings from Kiev, and its inclusion of Constantine. hese unusual elements are a further indication that the inspiration for the carvings did not come entirely from existing iconographic conventions. In particular, the inclusion of Constantine may reflect the preferences of Vsevolod, whose father also chose the saint as a protector of his principality. Following Dolgorukii’s example, it seems, Vsevolod was invoking the entire corps of holy warriors, in which he included Constantine, to protect his new cathedral and his increasingly powerful patrimony. Like Dolgorukii’s town names, the Vladimir friezes confirm the status of the military saints as the collective patrons of north-eastern Rus. Even more so than Dolgorukii’s recreation of Vyshgorod, the friezes also indicate that this phalanx included Boris and Gleb. Two of the saints in the group of riders can be identified with the brothers: both wear their characteristic princely caps and capes, while Boris has moustaches and 65 66

67

Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi, pp. 260–1; Wörn, ‘Studien zur Herrschaftsideologie’, pp. 14, 39. Vagner, Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi, pp. 199–201, 246–8; Gladkaia, Rel’efy dmitrievskogo sobora , pp. 144–9. Gladkaia, Rel’efy dmitrievskogo sobora , pp. 144–59. Gladkaia argues that Demetrios and Nestor are each depicted twice, although such repetition is otherwise unknown in group portraits of the military saints and therefore seems unlikely. he frieze of Constantine is damaged, but can be reconstructed thanks to an archival photograph. he saint is depicted in traditional middle Byzantine style: as a bearded middle-aged man wearing a square crown and the imperial loros.

188

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 13 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: George

Gleb is clean shaven.68 heir presence in the company of the military saints is a break with all other known depictions of the brothers from the pre-Mongol period: although Boris and Gleb were compared with the holy warriors and often portrayed with similar attributes, the two groups were not actually combined or described as fighting together. Vsevolod’s frieze, however, took the step of creating a unified corps out of the brothers and the military saints. Vsevolod may well have appreciated the similarities between his ancestors and the holy warriors as both martyrs and patrons in war and seen no reason not to combine them. In any case, the iconography indicates that, despite being established as patrons of the clan, Boris and Gleb had to become part of the group of ancient holy warriors in order to continue in their role as the protectors of Vsevolod and his patrimony. he prince’s integration of the brothers with the holy warriors may have been inspired by Dolgorukii, whose choice of names for his new settlements gives an indication of similar ideas. Whatever 68

Gladkaia, Rel’efy dmitrievskogo sobora , p. 147.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

189

Illustration 14 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: heodore

Illustration 15 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: Boris and Gleb on horseback

190

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

its source, the frieze makes a clear statement about Vsevolod’s favoured patrons and the manner in which he preferred to invoke them: like his Byzantine contemporaries, he sought the collective patronage of the holy warriors, but added to this group the Rus saints who shared many of their characteristics. In addition to the martial implications of Boris and Gleb’s depiction as warriors on horseback, Vsevolod did not neglect the other aspect of their sanctity, and the brothers appear again holding crosses in a row of other martyrs on the north façade (Illustration 16).69 h is portrait type is identical to that found on most other works associated with the princely clan, and the brothers’ depiction among other martyrs emphasises their mutual associations. Of interest, however, is the portraits’ location in the same frieze as the depictions of the brothers as warriors. Unlike other members of the princely clan, Vsevolod saw fit to emphasise both aspects of their sanctity in a single work, showing his appreciation of their interdependency. Further evidence for this understanding is found in a second portrait of Demetrios as a martyr, holding a cross in his right hand.70 As discussed in Chapter 4, depictions of the military saints as martyrs were very rare in Rus, and in the vast majority of patronal images on seals they are dressed as warriors. he portrait’s appearance in the frieze is thus highly unusual, particularly as it appears in the same row of carvings as the twelve military saints on horseback. he proximity of the two portraits of Demetrios, along with the parallel friezes of Boris and Gleb, show an effort to balance the features of martyrdom and military might which is otherwise unknown in Rus art. In addition to the friezes, other sources offer further clues about Vsevolod’s interest in the martyrdom of Demetrios and his promotion of the martyr-warrior ideal in Rus. It is in this context that the prince’s ties with the religious life of the Byzantine court are most clear. he Laurentian Chronicle notes that in 1197 ‘the grave slab [dska grobnaia] of St Demetrios was brought from hessalonika’.71 It is not clear what this curious item was, since Demetrios did not have a ‘grave’ as such. As discussed in Chapter 1, the whereabouts of his relics were unknown, and attempts by various emperors to obtain them had always been unsuccessful. A number of scholars have concluded that the ‘slab’ was

69 71

70 Ibid., pp. 159–61. Ibid., p. 401. PSRL 1, col. 414.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

191

Illustration 16 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir: Boris and Gleb holding crosses

192

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

in fact a large panel icon of the saint which may have been made for export abroad.72 Vsevolod’s acquisition of the ‘slab’ was, in any case, a significant event, as it is listed among his noteworthy deeds following his death in 1212. he entry for that year also notes that the slab, much like the saint’s shrine in hessalonika, ‘continually exudes myron for the healing of the sick’.73 he chronicle goes on to remark, in the context of Vsevolod’s decoration of the Cathedral of St Demetrios: ‘and he placed a shirt (sorochka) of the same martyr there’.74 h is choice of memento is significant and hints at a close familiarity with the saint’s Byzantine cult. he Passio altera , a version of his vita composed at some point before the mid tenth century, mentions that Leontios, eparch of Illyricum, took Demetrios’ chlamys to deposit in a church dedicated to him after the saint refused to let him take his relics.75 Like his predecessor, Vsevolod brought the garment to his cathedral, where, together with the ‘grave slab’, it served as a reminder of Demetrios’ martyrdom and death, as opposed to his military powers highlighted in the cathedral’s frieze and the Dmitrov icon. Additional evidence points to the Byzantine origin of Vsevolod’s choice of relic. A number of sources, including the liturgical calendar of Constantinople, describe how Manuel Komnenos commissioned a new ‘grave covering’ ( prokalymma) for Demetrios after taking the original from hessalonika and donating it to the Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople.76 his event took place in 1149, meaning that the covering could have served as an inspiration to Vsevolod during his Byzantine exile.77 In any case, the intense interest in the martyr-warrior 72

73 76

77

G. V. Popov, ‘Dekoratsiia fasadov Dmitrievskogo sobora i kul’tura vladimirskogo kniazhestva na rubezhe XII–XIII vv.’, pp. 42–59 (pp. 43–4), and Smirnova, ‘Khramovaia ikona’, pp. 220, 226– 32, 241–44, in Dmitrievskii sobor vo Vladimire. Smirnova argues that the icon was painted over in 1701 with a similar portrait of the saint and is currently in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin. PSRL 1, cols. 436–7. 74 Ibid., col. 437. 75 AASS , October, iv, p. 89. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ed., Analekta hierosolymitikes stachiologias, 4 vols. (St Petersburg: Ek tou typografiou V. Kirspaoum, 1891–8), iv, pp. 238–46. For a summary of the story and a discussion of other manuscripts and publications which include it, see V. Tăpkova-Zaimova, ‘Quelques représentations iconographiques de Saint Démétrius et l’insurrection des Assenides – première scission dans son cult “oecuménique”’, Byzantinobulgarica , 5 (1978), 261–7 (pp. 263–4); V. Vasil’evskii, ‘Vasiliia Okhridskogo, arkhiepiskopa (mitropolita) Solunskogo, neizdannoe nadgrobnoe slovo na smert’ Iriny, pervoi suprugi imperatora Manuila Komnina’, VV, 1 (1894), 55–132 (p. 97). Magdalino notes that Manuel requisitioned an icon of heodore from Corinth in about 1148–9, showing an effort to gather the military saints around him in the capital. (h e Empire, p. 178.)

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

193

ideal in Manuel’s court, as exemplified by the texts and artefacts studied above, may well have influenced Vsevolod. (In the best traditions of Byzantine military sainthood, the story of the translation of the ‘grave covering’ for Manuel describes the saint as ‘Demetrios, a star in martyrdom and unconquerable in wars’.78) Vsevolod’s apparent appreciation of the interrelated qualities of martyr and warrior in his own patron saint was unprecedented, and was probably related to his approach to the cult of Boris and Gleb. Understanding the dual nature of one set of saints, he recognised similar features in his own patron and possibly the other military saints as well. Although Vsevolod’s frieze seems to be the only surviving depiction of Boris and Gleb riding into battle with the military saints, he was not the last member of his family to use this medium to express the similarities between their favoured patrons. Vsevolod’s son Sviatoslav was as enthusiastic as his father in his veneration of both Boris and Gleb and the military saints, invoking their shared qualities in several sets of carefully balanced portraits in the friezes of his Cathedral of St George in Iurev-Polskoi. Still a teenager at the time of his father’s death in 1212, Sviatoslav gained this minor city during the ensuing succession struggle, and ruled there until becoming prince of Suzdal in 1238.79 he friezes of the cathedral which he rebuilt during his reign in Iurev-Polskoi imply that he, like previous members of his family, looked to the military saints and Boris and Gleb as his collective protectors. he carvings weave together many of the traditions studied above in the cults of both groups of saints, showing strong Byzantine influences while also developing some of the innovations reflected in the monuments of his father and grandfather. he cathedral was built between 1230 and 1234 on the site of an earlier church commissioned by Dolgorukii which had collapsed, and by a stroke of misfortune Sviatoslav’s cathedral suffered the same fate. Sadly, the rebuilding work undertaken in the fifteenth century did not preserve the order of the carvings, which originally covered the entire outer walls of the cathedral, and much of this work was lost in the process. Vagner’s efforts to reconstruct the original configuration have, however, clarified many details of the frieze, giving some indication of the way in which it portrayed the military saints and Boris and Gleb and their places within 78 79

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta , p. 239. Fennell, he Crisis of Medieval Russia , pp. 47, 98.

194

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the larger pattern of the carvings.80 Like the Vladimir friezes, the decoration of the Iurev-Polskoi cathedral freely mixes the sacred and profane, and probably reflects the tastes of its patron as much as iconographic canons. he portrait of Alexander the Great, for example, must have had the same political and military significance for Sviatoslav as it did for Vsevolod.81 Sviatoslav’s cathedral was, however, stylistically different from that of his father: a much larger proportion of the outside walls was originally covered in carvings, which included fewer animals than the Vladimir friezes but more floral decorations, human figures and biblical scenes.82 Within the decorative programme of the friezes, the military saints appear twice: in full-length frontal portraits separated by columns (Illustration 17) and surrounding a portrait of the Mother of God orans (Illustration 18). An additional portrait of George, to whom the cathedral was dedicated, had a prominent position above the north porch.83 he series of frontal portraits, which originally consisted of at least eleven figures, included four warriors dressed in armour, standing and holding spears in their right hands, two of whom also supported shields.84 hree of the saints have the characteristic features of George, Demetrios and one of the heodores. he fourth figure, although identified by Vagner as the other heodore, does not seem to have a beard, and may therefore be one of the other young military saints such as Nestor or Prokopios. In any case, Byzantine-style depiction of a group of military saints was, as discussed above, unusual in Rus art associated with the princely clan, and probably indicates that Sviatoslav venerated the entire group as his protectors in battle. heir location within the row also indicates that they were part of a larger group of important saints, each of whom may have represented different qualities. It is thus unlikely that the holy warriors had any particular patronal meaning for Sviatoslav. Although Vagner and other scholars have attempted to determine which of Sviatoslav’s relatives is represented by each military saint,85 it is unclear why a group of patron saints should be placed in the middle of a scene of this type, which does not traditionally have patronal significance. It seems more likely that this 80

81 82

83 84 85

Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi, and G. K. Vagner, Mastera drevnerusskoi skul’ptury: rel’efy Iur’eva-Pol’skogo (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1966). Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi, p. 79, ill. 37. A reconstruction of the cathedral’s west, north and south façades can be found in Vagner, Mastera , pp. 12–14. Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi, pl. i. Ibid., p. 37, ill. xvii a, б. Ibid., pp. 37–8.

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

195

Illustration 17 Cathedral of St George, Iurev-Polskoi: frontal portraits

Illustration 18 Cathedral of St George, Iurev-Polskoi: Mother of God and military saints

frieze, like similar ones in Byzantium, simply depicts prominent saints whom Sviatoslav wished to invoke in various capacities. he fact that the military saints appear as a group hints at both the prince’s devotion to them, independently of any patronal significance, and the Byzantine influences on the friezes. Even stronger evidence of Byzantine influence is found in the orans scene, originally located on the western façade. he Mother of God was originally surrounded by four saints in intercessory poses. Although the figures are not identified and the face of one is partially obscured, their attributes of spears and shields mean that they are in all likelihood holy warriors, probably George, Demetrios, one of the heodores and the other saint from the row of figures between columns. he saints are dressed in

196

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

courtly robes with their weapons placed behind them.86 he empty space on the right can probably be filled in with a figure who, despite having lost his shield and spear, has similar proportions and is standing in a similar pose.87 his scene is significant, providing even stronger clues than the row of saints about Sviatoslav’s veneration of the military saints and the influences which shaped it. he orans scene indicates, first of all, the primacy of the holy warriors within Sviatoslav’s constellation of saints. While a large number of saints appear in the row of figures, only the holy warriors appear again in separate portraits. his repetition adds further weight to the idea that Sviatoslav understood them (along with the Mother of God) as the collective protectors of himself and his patrimony in the Byzantine tradition. Byzantine influence is also apparent in the intercessory poses of the figures and their blessing by the Mother of God. Like the presence of the four saints in a single composition, these aspects of the frieze are otherwise unknown in surviving Rus art but have a definite precedent in Byzantine iconography. A number of stone icons from the middle Byzantine period feature one or more of the military saints with their weapons close at hand being blessed and/or in intercessory poses. he figure doing the blessing is usually Christ, although damage to a number of the icons means that the identity of this figure is not always clear. Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner lists eleven of these portraits in her study of Byzantine steatite icons,88 arguing, along with Alice Bank, that most of these works were made in Constantinople.89 he number of surviving examples indicates that, while not among the most popular iconographic subjects, the blessing of military saints was not uncommon. By contrast, only one such icon has been unearthed in Kiev,90 but it is probably Byzantine in origin: in addition to being stylistically very similar to the Byzantine specimens, steatite is not found in great quantities on the territory of Rus and was not widely used in the production of minor arts.91 he intercessory pose of the saints is necessitated by the presence of the Mother of God, toward whom they incline their heads and stretch out 86 88

89

90 91

87 Ibid., p. 46. Ibid., pp. 45–6. Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, 2 vols., Byzantina Vindobonensia 15, 1 and 2 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaff ten, 1985), i, nos. 21, 23, 27, 28, 107 (blessing); 6, 25, 24a (intercessory poses); 5, 7, 100 (both). Ibid., pp. 85–7, and Alice Bank, ‘Les Stéatites: essai de classification, méthodes des recherches’, Corsi di Cultura sull’arte Ravennate e Bizantina , 17 (1970), 355–81 (p. 368). Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons, i, no. 25. N. G. Porfiridov, ‘O masterakh, materialakh i tekhnike drevnerusskoi melkoi kamennoi plastike’, SA, 39 (1975), 75–81 (p. 79).

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

197

their hands. Her presence at the centre of the scene is another noteworthy and unusual feature which hints at Sviatoslav’s vision of a unified corps of military patrons in the Byzantine tradition. he Mother of God was, of course, widely revered in Rus as the guardian of Kiev and other cities, as well as a patroness in war. As discussed above, she was one of the small but varied group of figures who were known to come to the rescue of favoured princes in the heat of battle. While the chronicles record her appearance less often than they do that of Christ, there are a number of occasions on which she comes to the aid of a beleaguered army, usually together with other divine figures. In addition to her intercessions on behalf of Bogoliubskii, for example, the entry in the Laurentian Chronicle for 1146 describes a victory of Iziaslav Davydovich of Chernigov as achieved ‘with the help of God and the strength of the honourable Cross and the intercession of holy Michael and the prayers of the holy Mother of God’.92 Yet nowhere in the chronicles is the Mother of God described as joining forces with military saints, and representations of her with this group are otherwise unknown in Rus art and literature of the pre-Mongol period.93 In the Iurev-Polskoi frieze, however, the saints’ combination of intercessory and military features suggests that they were meant to aid Sviatoslav in war alongside the Mother of God. It seems that Sviatoslav, doubtless aware of her protective powers and previous intercessions in battles, took the logical step of placing her at the head of the group of saints whose patronage he also sought in war, thereby ensuring himself of the benefit of their collective powers. he association between the Mother of God and the military saints is another aspect of the frieze which, while lacking precedents in Rus, was familiar in middle Byzantine culture.94 In contrast to the steatite icons discussed above, most of which depict Christ blessing the military saints, a middle Byzantine panel icon from Mount Sinai shows the two heodores receiving crowns from the Mother of God, indicating that both figures 92 93

94

PSRL 1, col. 313. In one of the stories of the Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery, two Byzantine craftsmen receive instructions to build the monastery’s Cathedral of the Dormition from an empress surrounded by warriors. Upon their arrival in Kiev, the superior Anthony reveals that the empress was the Mother of God, ‘and the warriors standing around her were incorporeal angelic forces’. It is thus unlikely that the Mother of God was surrounded by military saints. If that had been the case, they probably would have been named, especially since the ‘empress’ had already given the relics of heodore to the craftsmen to take to Kiev. L. A. Ol’shevskaia and S. N. Travnikov, eds, Drevnerusskie pateriki (Moscow: Nauka, 1999), pp. 12–13. Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power: he Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), pp. 82–93.

198

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

could perform this function.95 he reverse side of a seal which belonged to Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a grandson of Alexios I, depicts George and Demetrios stretching out their hands toward the Mother of God, who holds a shield decorated with an image of Christ Emmanuel.96 Leo the Deacon’s widely copied story about the maiden’s vision of the Mother of God calling heodore to fight with John Tzimiskes was discussed in Chapter 3. A similar motif (but with a different result) is found in the work of the Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates, which describes the vision of a Byzantine citizen predicting the disastrous defeat of Manuel Komnenos by the Turks in 1176. In the vision, the citizen heard a voice coming from an icon of the Mother of God saying: ‘he emperor is in the greatest danger’ and ‘who will go out on my behalf as an aid to him?’ Someone unseen said, ‘Send [Saint] George.’ ‘He is sluggish,’ he said, and added, ‘Let [Saint] heodore go.’ He was also rejected, and finally with great pain it was proclaimed that no one could avert the forthcoming evil.97

Although in this case the unfortunate emperor was denied the aid of his would-be intercessors, Choniates’ description is intriguing: his almost casual mention of the incident with no explanation of the association between the saints suggests that their cooperation would have been understandable and unsurprising to his readers, and probably a well-established aspect of their cults. Furthermore, the story suggests that only George and heodore, acting ‘on behalf’ of the Mother of God, were capable of providing military protection, thus clearly associating the three saints and their powers. he same effect (with the addition of Demetrios and another saint) is achieved by the frieze, which depicts the saints’ weapons while emphasizing the submission of the entire group to the Mother of God. Yet despite the military overtones of the orans scene, the intercessory figures are dressed in the courtly robes of martyrs, not the armour of warriors. Although their weapons are depicted, the martyrdom of the saints is also emphasized by their clothing and the fact that, unusually, their shields are 95 96

97

Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons, ii, p. 65. Valeri P. Stepanenko, ‘Bogomater’ Nikopeia i sviatye voiny’, in Preslavska knizhovna shkola (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’, 1995–), vol. v, Izsledvaniia v chest na prof. d. ist. n. Totiu Totev, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Khristo Trendafi lov (2001), p. 44. Alexios also sponsored the construction of the Church of St Panteleemon at Nerezi in Macedonia, which features frescoes of the military saints. Ida Sinkević, ‘Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a Patron without History?’, Gesta , 35 (1996), 34–42 (pp. 36–7). Niketas Choniates, Nicetae Choniatae Historia , ed. Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, CFHB series Berolinensis 11, 1 (Berlin: Apud Walter de Gruyter et Socios, 1975), pp. 190–1. English translation in Niketas Choniates, O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984).

Military saints under the house of Suzdal

199

inscribed with the martyr’s attribute of the cross. he dress of the military saints does not seem to have any parallels in the Byzantine steatite icons studied above, although a number of these icons are fragmentary and show only their subjects’ heads. It is, however, probably safe to assume that this portrait type was unusual even in Byzantine art. Within the logic of the frieze’s iconography, however, it makes sense: having already displayed the saints’ warrior traits in the row of saints, the iconography now emphasises their martyrdom. he attributes of the spear and shield in the orans scene still reinforce their military characteristics, but the weapons are placed behind the figures, indicating that they are not being used. he frieze is perhaps the closest approximation in Rus art of the Byzantine tradition of depicting the two attributes of the military saints as separate but interdependent. he arrangement thus continues the symbolism of Vsevolod’s monument, which emphasised the martyrdom of Demetrios and Boris and Gleb. Sviatoslav went a step further and applied this representation of the martyr-warrior ideal to a coherent groups of the military saints. Boris and Gleb have a different but closely related place in the cathedral’s iconographic programme. Although the missing saints from the row between columns may have included the brothers, they were certainly not part of the orans scene, which can be fully reconstructed with the surviving stone blocks. Both brothers appear twice in the frieze in two pairs of bust portraits, both of which depict them holding crosses and swords. One of the pairs seems to have belonged within a row of similarly proportioned portraits of martyrs and healer saints, and Vagner conjectures that the other pair was originally at the top of a column on the north porch, opposite similar portraits of Kosmas and Damian.98 Boris and Gleb thus straddle several categories, much as they do in the Vladimir frieze and other sources related to their cult: they seem to have been in physical proximity to other healer saints, a reminder of this important aspect of their cult. Yet their attributes differ from those of their neighbours, who hold only crosses or the doctor’s attributes of a medicine box and spoon. he brothers’ attributes give them clear associations with the military saints, whose portraits also feature weapons. he iconography of both groups indicates, moreover, that it is the combination of martyrdom and military prowess which is being emphasised: for the military saints by their different costumes, and for Boris and Gleb by their simultaneous display of swords and crosses. his portrait type is not usually associated with the

98

Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi, pp. 76–7.

200

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

princely clan and represents an integration of these features even beyond that seen in the Vladimir friezes, indicating that Sviatoslav understood the importance and interrelated nature of the two features for the sanctity of both groups. Although the friezes depict Boris and Gleb and the military saints separately, their shared attributes hint at a continuation of the integration process pioneered by previous generations of the family. he Vladimir friezes show the brothers as both martyrs and warriors, but in separate portraits; here, these features are combined in individual portraits. he military saints, meanwhile, appear for the first time in group portraits which emphasise both aspects of their sanctity in turn. Like the Vladimir frieze, the Iurev-Polskoi frieze features a number of new iconographic elements which point toward the increasing integration of Boris and Gleb with the holy warriors: if the former shows them riding into battle together, it does not give equal attention to the martyrdom of both groups, while the latter accounts for both aspects in both groups, but not together. In each case, however, a unifying trend is apparent. he holy warriors, once venerated strictly as individual patrons, had become, for the house of Suzdal, a collective force of protectors in war and defenders of the patrimony whose military prowess was closely related to their martyrdom. his process did not, however, cause Boris and Gleb, the traditional patrons of the clan, to lose their status. Rather, the brothers were drawn into much closer association with the military saints, sharing the attribute of martyrdom along with responsibilities for protection. he brothers’ military qualities were given new emphasis and depicted in conjunction with their martyrs’ crosses, mirroring the attributes of their new comrades-in-arms. By the early thirteenth century, the house of Suzdal thus enjoyed the joint patronage of its own ancestors and the corps of military saints who also protected their Byzantine counterparts. By recognising the features common to both of these groups, the princes of the north-east were able to create a new force of patron saints for themselves, one which was different to that venerated by the Byzantines and other princes, but which successfully combined the protective benefits of both.

Conclusion

he veneration of the military saints by the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal was clearly innovative. Instead of following tradition within the clan and focusing their devotion solely on their own patron saints, they established a new corps of protectors, placing their faith in the joint powers of the ancient military martyrs while integrating Boris and Gleb into their ranks. hese new patterns of veneration were not, furthermore, restricted to the princes under study or north-eastern Rus: later icons indicate that the associations between the two groups of saints became even closer in the period after the Mongol invasion. An intriguing stone icon from about the fourteenth century, for example, depicts two riders wearing armour and carrying weapons. he original inscription, identifying them as George and Demetrios, has been scratched out, and another inscription names the figures as Boris and Gleb.1 he two pairs of warriors thus seem to have had enough common features that their names were interchangeable. heir close associations, particularly on the battlefield, are also emphasised in a different manner in three fi fteenth-century panel icons from Novgorod depicting that city’s victory over invaders from Suzdal in 1170.2 In two of the icons, the Novgorodians are led into battle by four saints. Boris and Gleb are identifiable thanks to their characteristic hats. Between them is a beardless saint with curly hair, in all likelihood George. he fourth saint is difficult to identify because he wears a helmet, but he may well be Demetrios (Illustration 19). In the third icon, which depicts only three saints leading the army, a figure with no helmet who looks like Demetrios accompanies Boris and Gleb. Like the Vladimir 1

2

T. V. Nikolaeva, Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika iz kamnia XI–XV vv., Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-60 (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), tab. 52, no. 1 (292). See, e.g., D. S. Likhachev et al., eds., Velikaia Rus’: Istoriia i khudozhestvennaia kul’tura (Moscow: Iskusstvo; Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 1994), p. 254.

201

202

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

Illustration 19 Icon depicting Novgorod’s victory over Suzdal (detail)

friezes, these icons show that the two groups of saints had taken on joint responsibilities for patronage in warfare. he new forms of veneration ushered in by the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal thus seem to have been a strong influence on the later cults of the military saints and Boris and Gleb. he princes had succeeded in creating a collective force of divine patrons in which later generations, in other regions of Rus, continued to place their hopes. Indeed, the princes’ innovations were not dissimilar to those of their Byzantine predecessors, who had, in like fashion, established a new phalanx of military protectors out of a group of unrelated saints several hundred years earlier. Like Dolgorukii and his descendants, the Macedonians developed a new form of heavenly patronage differing from that cultivated by previous emperors, combining the elements of martyrdom and military triumph to ensure the appropriate protection for their sacred undertakings on the battlefield. It is unlikely, of course, that the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal were consciously trying to emulate the changes which the Macedonians had initiated, and the two processes differed in many essential details. To oversimplify matters, the emperors created a corps of martyr-warriors out of a handful of martyrs, while the princes achieved a similar result by combining warriors with unrelated martyrs. But despite these differences, the processes illustrate the continuous evolution which characterised the cults of the military saints over the entire period under consideration.

Conclusion

203

In both Byzantium and Rus, as this study has attempted to demonstrate, the military saints occupied central if not consistent positions in religious life and military ideology. Although their basic role as the protectors of armies varied little, the changing details of their cults show how different leaders envisioned them and invoked their powers. It was under the influence of the Macedonians that the military saints were initially transformed from martyrs and local patrons into a defined group of imperial protectors in war, despite their diverse and in some cases non-military origins. Prior to their initial appearance in the imperial court in the tenth century, the future holy warriors were neither mutually associated nor primarily connected with warfare. he admittedly sparse evidence relating to this period paints a picture of the saints as widely venerated but otherwise not particularly noteworthy martyrs, some of whom had, among other features, certain martial affiliations. heir development into a corps of comrades-in-arms began only once the Macedonians recognised their similarities and encouraged a new emphasis on their combined martial prowess in addition to their traditional roles as martyrs. he works of art and rewritten hagiography of the middle Byzantine period show an interweaving of the features of martyr and warrior in a new form of veneration which was closely related to the increasingly religious terms in which warfare itself was conceptualised. By the reign of Basil II and thereafter, Byzantine emperors and soldiers thus enjoyed the protection of a corps of holy warriors whose triumphs in their earthly sufferings enabled them to intercede on behalf of the army, itself sanctified through its role as the defender of Orthodoxy. In Byzantium, the initial development of the corps of holy warriors was a phenomenon of the court rather than the Church. Although there is no evidence to suggest that the Church opposed the militarisation of a handful of martyrs, the works which most clearly show the changes in their cults originated in imperial circles. hese innovations were, however, incorporated into church texts and rituals, with the result that many ecclesiastical writings featured the same interplay of the attributes of martyrdom and military prowess as the works of art commissioned for the court. It was through the medium of liturgical and hagiographic literature that the martyr-warrior ideal spread to Rus, where it seems initially to have been confined to the Church. he reasons for the early Riurikids’ lack of enthusiasm for a Byzantine-style group of military martyrs remain unclear. On the other hand, there is no particular reason why they should have adopted this approach to the cults of the holy warriors. Although

204

Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200

the princes of Rus inherited the institution of military sainthood from the Byzantines, it is perhaps not surprising that they did not emulate the emperors in every detail of their veneration of the saints. In a new cultural context, it was probably inevitable that their cults would take new forms. While still seen as intercessors in war, the saints’ veneration in Rus princely circles became centred on their patronage of individuals, while the attribute of martyrdom lost much of the prominence which it enjoyed in the imperial court. Another feature which differentiated the saints’ cults in Rus and Byzantium was the association which developed in Rus between Boris and Gleb and the holy warriors. Like the earlier changes to their cults, this process reflected the new cultural milieu in which the holy warriors found themselves. Following the appearance of two new saints who were understood to be the patrons of the princely clan and its protectors in war, connections were soon made between the brothers and their more ancient counterparts. Although Boris and Gleb’s cult was influenced by a variety of earlier figures, the comparisons and iconographic similarities between the two groups show that the holy warriors were particularly important models for Boris and Gleb’s attributes of intercession in war and defence of Rus and its princes. he widespread veneration of the brothers’ martyrdom, on the other hand, distinguished their cults from those of the military saints. For many of the Riurikids, it was their ancestors, rather than the holy warriors, who embodied the martyr-warrior ideal. Once again, there is no reason to assume that the princes developed this style of veneration in imitation of their Byzantine counterparts. he idea of martyrs functioning as warriors may well have been attractive to the Riurikids independently of the emperors’ preferences, and the similarities probably testify more to the universal appeal of these qualities than to any direct Byzantine influence on the cult of Boris and Gleb. here is, on the other hand, somewhat more evidence of Byzantine influence in the practices of the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal. Over the course of three generations, members of this family adopted various elements of Byzantine veneration of the military saints. heir monuments indicate that they envisioned the holy warriors as a defi ned group which had collective responsibility for the protection of their lands. Even these princes, however, continued to make innovations in the cults of the saints by further integrating Boris and Gleb into the group, creating a new force of heavenly patrons. hese and earlier permutations in the veneration of the military saints thus mirror, in many important respects, some of the more general features of cultural exchange

Conclusion

205

between Byzantium and Rus during the pre-Mongol period. Military sainthood found its way to Rus along with many other Byzantine traditions. Like monumental architecture, monasticism, manuscript illumination and other forms of cultural and religious expression, veneration of the holy warriors soon took on subtle but distinct local colouring. Scrutiny of the sources reveals important clues not only about the cults of the military saints, but also about religious life in Rus in general. Although often overlooked, these differences provide a wealth of information about the reception of Byzantine culture in Rus. hey show, for example, that clerical forms of veneration were unlike those found within the clan and generally closer to Byzantine practices. Rus iconography, although closely resembling Byzantine forms, differed in its emphases and in its combinations of attributes. he role of patron saints, moreover, was distinct in both cultures, with Rus princes identifying strongly with individual patrons while their Byzantine counterparts venerated various categories of saints. hus, in addition to the saints’ importance in the military and political spheres of both states, they represent a microcosm of medieval Orthodox cultural life, illustrating some of the paths taken by institutions in their transition from Byzantium to Rus. But despite the significance of these changes to old traditions and the development of new practices, the most important feature of the cults of the military saints remained unchanged in Byzantium and Rus, both before and after the early thirteenth century: the rulers of both countries, seeking to secure divine aid in battle, never ceased to look to these figures for protection. Although the permutations studied above shed light on the diff usion and interplay of cultures, their ultimate source was nothing more than the universal desire to bring heavenly powers into play on the battlefield and provide comfort to mortal soldiers. Whether by themselves or with younger local saints, in a group or individually, as martyr-warriors or simply soldiers, the military saints primarily served these purposes. Nor did their appeal diminish even following the disastrous defeats suffered by Rus and Byzantium in the early thirteenth century: their role as the objects of the army’s devotion and the victory which they continued to promise ensured their lasting popularity. Even many centuries later, following the Russian Empire’s entry into the First World War, George appeared in government posters, urging the Russians on in battle just as he had done in his earliest icons.

a ppe n di x 1

Feast days of the principal military saints

September October November December February April May June July August

5 20 10 26 27 24/25 26 13 8 17 23 2 20 8 8 24 11

Gleb Eustathios Arethas Demetrios Nestor Merkourios George Eustratios heodore Stratelates heodore Teron George Boris and Gleb (translation of relics, 1115) Boris and Gleb (translation of relics, 1072) heodore Stratelates (translation of relics) Prokopios Boris Boris and Gleb (translation of relics, 1191)

206

     

Reigns of Roman and Byzantine emperors mentioned in the text

Decius Diocletian Maximian Licinius Constantine I Constantius II Julian Anastasios I Justin I Justinian I Justin II Tiberios Constantine Maurice Phokas Herakleios Justinian Constantine Constantine V Leo IV Irene

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –, – – – – (regent for and co-ruler with Constantine VI) –

Macedonian dynasty Basil I Leo VI Alexander Constantine VII Romanos I Lekapenos Romanos II

– – – – – (co-emperor) – 



Appendix 

Basil II Nikephoros II Phokas John I Tzimiskes Constantine VIII

– – (co-emperor) – (co-emperor) –

Komnenos and Angelos dynasties Isaac I Komnenos Alexios I Komnenos John II Komnenos Manuel I Komnenos Alexios II Komnenos Andronikos I Komnenos Isaac II Angelos Alexios III Angelos

– – – – – – – –

     

Simplified genealogy of the Riurikids

IGOR +  + OLGA +  | SVIATOSLAV +  | VLADIMIR +  | SVIATOPOLK + —IAROSLAV + —Boris + —Gleb +  | IZIASLAV + —SVIATOSLAV + —VSEVOLOD +  | | Oleg + —David +  VLADIMIR MONOMAKH +  | IURII DOLGORUKII +  | ANDREW—————— VSEVOLOD BOGOLIUBSKII +  BIG NEST +  | | Sviatoslav + 

Dates refer to deaths. Brothers in each generation are connected by dashes (—), spouses by a plus symbol (+), parents and children by vertical lines (|). Names in capital letters indicate princes of Kiev and/or senior princes of the clan.



A ppe n di x 4

Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to patronal igures

All foundations are listed approximately chronologically. Monasteries and the churches in them are numbered separately only if they have separate known founders or dedications. All references in Appendices 4 and 5 are to Rappoport, Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv. 1

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of t h e pr i nc e ly c l a n

1 Monastery of St Irene, Kiev, founded by Iaroslav Vladimirovich, c. 1050 (p. 14, no. 13) Patronal signiicance: Irene was the baptismal name of Iaroslav’s wife 2 Monastery of St George, Kiev, founded by Iaroslav Vladimirovich, early 1050s (pp. 14–15, no. 14) Patronal signiicance: Iaroslav’s baptismal name was George 3 Church of St Peter, Kiev, founded by Iaropolk Iziaslavich, before 1086 Patronal signiicance: unknown 4 he church is located in the Monastery of St Demetrios, founded by Iziaslav Iaroslavich, 1051 (p. 17, no. 19) Patronal signiicance: Iziaslav’s baptismal name was Demetrios 5 Church of the Archangel Michael, Kiev, 1070, founded by Vsevolod Iaroslavich Located in the Monastery of the Archangel Michael (‘Vydubitskii’), founded by Vsevolod Iaroslavich (pp. 26–7, no. 35) Patronal signiicance: unknown 6 Church of St Andrew, Kiev, founded by Vsevolod Iaroslavich, 1086 Located in the Monastery of St Andrew (‘Ianchin’), founded by Vsevolod Iaroslavich, 1086 (p. 113, no. 204) Patronal signiicance: Vsevolod’s baptismal name was Andrew 7 Monastery of St Symeon, Kiev, founded by Sviatoslav Iaroslavich, c. 1100 (p. 113, no. 209) Patronal signiicance: unknown 210

Dedications to patronal igures

211

8 Church of the Archangel Michael, Kiev, founded by Sviatopolk Iziaslavich, 1108 (pp. 16–17, no. 18) Patronal signiicance: Sviatopolk’s baptismal name was Michael 9 Church of St John, Peremyshl, founded by Volodar Rostislavich, irst quarter of the twelfth century (p. 112, no. 201) Patronal signiicance: unknown 10 Church of St Demetrios, Pskov, founded by Vsevolod Mstislavich or Aved, 1116–36 or 1143–4 (pp. 79–80, no. 128) Patronal signiicance: various manuscripts of the Pskov Chronicle give conlicting accounts of the building of this church, citing both princes as the founders in diferent entries. Neither Vsevolod nor his father had the baptismal name of Demetrios, and the baptismal name of his son is not known, but Aved’s baptismal name was Demetrios (A. N. Nasonov, ed., Pskovskie letopisi, 2nd edn (Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1955), pp. 77, 227, 292–3) 11 Cathedral of St George, Novgorod, founded by Vsevolod Mstislavich, 1119 Located in the Monastery of St George (pp. 73–4, no. 113) Patronal signiicance: unknown 12 Church of St John the Baptist, Novgorod, founded by Vsevolod Mstislavich, 1127 (pp. 68–9, no. 102) Patronal signiicance: John was the baptismal name of Vsevolod’s son 13 Church of St heodore, Kiev, founded by Mstislav Vladimirovich, 1128–9 Located in the Monastery of St heodore (p. 11, no. 8) Patronal signiicance: Mstislav’s baptismal name was heodore 14 Monastery of St Panteleemon, Novgorod, founded by Iziaslav Mstislavich, c. 1134 (pp. 72–3, no. 112) Patronal signiicance: Iziaslav’s baptismal name was Panteleemon 15 Church of St Cyril, Kiev, completed by the widow of Vsevolod Olgovich Located in the Monastery of St Cyril, founded by Vsevolod Olgovich, 1140 (pp. 20–1, no. 30) Patronal signiicance: Vsevolod’s baptismal name was Cyril 16 Church of St George, Kanev, founded by Vsevolod Olgovich, 1144 (p. 31, no. 43) Patronal signiicance: unknown 17 Cathedral of St George, Iurev-Polskii, founded by Iurii Dolgorukii, 1150s (p. 64, no. 95) Patronal signiicance: the name Iurii was a form of George

212

Appendix 4

18 Church of St George, Vladimir, founded by Iurii Dolgorukii, 1150s (pp. 55–6, no. 79) Patronal signiicance: the name Iurii was a form of George 19 Church of the Archangel Michael, Luchin, founded by Riurik Rostislavich, 1173 (p. 114, no. 212) Patronal signiicance: Michael was the baptismal name of Riurik’s father and son 20 Church of the Archangel Michael, Chernigov, founded by Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, 1174 (p. 43, no. 59) Patronal signiicance: Sviatoslav’s baptismal name was Michael 21 Church of St John the heologian, Smolensk, founded by Roman Rostislavich, before 1176 (p. 87, no. 141) Patronal signiicance: unknown 22 Church of St Basil, Kiev, founded by Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, early 1180s (pp. 10–11, no. 7) Patronal signiicance: unknown 23 Church of the Miracles of the Archangel Michael, Smolensk, founded by David Rostislavich, 1180–90 (pp. 84–5, no. 137) Patronal signiicance: Michael was the baptismal name of David’s father 24 Church of St Basil, Vruchii, founded by Riurik Rostislavich, c. 1190 (pp. 29–30, no. 40) Patronal signiicance: Riurik’s baptismal name was Basil 25 Church of St Basil, Smolensk, founded by David Rostislavich, before 1191 Located in the Monastery of Sts Boris and Gleb (‘Smiadyn’; see below, no. 34) (p. 83, no. 134) Patronal signiicance: Basil was the baptismal name of David’s brother 26 Cathedral of St Demetrios, Vladimir, founded by Vsevolod Iurevich, 1193–7 (pp. 53–4, no. 76) Patronal signiicance: Vsevolod’s baptismal name was Demetrios 27 Church of St Basil, Kiev, founded by Riurik Rostislavich, 1197 (p. 114, no. 210) Patronal signiicance: Riurik’s baptismal name was Basil 28 Church of Sts Constantine and Helen, Rostov, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1207–19 (p. 62, no. 93) 29 Church of the Archangel Michael, Nizhnii Novgorod, founded by Iurii Vsevolodovich 1227 (p. 61, no. 88) Patronal signiicance: unknown

Dedications to patronal igures

213

30 Church of St Nicholas, Vladimir-Volynskii, founded by Daniel Romanovich, 1235 Patronal signiicance: unknown 2

F ou n dat ions de dic at e d t o B or i s a n d G l e b

31 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Vyshgorod, founded by Sviatoslav Iaroslavich, before 1076 (pp. 27–8, no. 37) 32 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Alta River, founded by Vladimir Monomakh, 1117 (p. 38, no. 53) 33 Cathedral of Sts Boris and Gleb, Chernigov, founded by David Sviatoslavich, irst quarter of the twelfth century (pp. 41–3, no. 58) 34 Cathedral of Sts Boris and Gleb, Smolensk, founded by Rostislav Mstislavich, 1145 Located in the Monastery of Sts Boris and Gleb (‘Smiadyn’) (pp. 82–3, no. 133) 35 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Kideksha, founded by Iurii Dolgorukii, 1152 (pp. 60–1, no. 85) 36 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Polotsk, mid twelfth century Located in the Monastery of Sts Boris and Gleb (‘Belchitskii’) (p. 98, no. 169) 37 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Novgorod, founded by Sadko Sytinits, 1167 (pp. 66–7, no. 98) 38 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Grodno, late twelfth century (pp. 103–4, no. 179) 39 Cathedral of Sts Boris and Gleb, Riazan, twelfth century (pp. 49–50, no. 70) 40 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Novogrudok, twelfth century (pp. 101–2, no. 174) 41 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, Rostov, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1214 (p. 62, no. 92) 3

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of t h e c l e rg y

42 Church of the Archangel Michael, Pereslavl, founded by Metropolitan Efrem, before 1089 (pp. 32–3, no. 44) 43 Gate Church of St heodore, Pereslavl, founded by Metropolitan Efrem, before 1089 (p. 33, no. 45) 44 Church of St Andrew, Pereslavl, founded by Metropolitan Efrem, before 1089 (pp. 33–4, no. 46)

Appendix 4

214

45 Church of St Clement, Staraia Ladoga, founded by Archbishop Nifont, 1153 (pp. 78–9, no. 125) 46 Gate Church of Sts Ioachim and Anna, Vladimir, founded by Bishop John, 1196 (pp. 52–3, no. 75) 47 Church of St Antony, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Antony, 1211 (p. 115, no. 234) 48 Church of St Barbara, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Antony, 1218 Located in the Monastery of St Barbara (p. 71, no. 108) 4

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of o t h e r g rou p s

49 Church of St John the Baptist, Kiev, founded by Zachary, c. 1073 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Caves’; see Appendix 5, no. 29) (pp. 23–5, no. 33) 50 Church of St heodore Teron, Novgorod, founded by Voigost, 1115 (p. 67, no. 99) 51 Church of St Nicholas, Novgorod, founded by Irozhnet, 1135 (p. 114, no. 222) 52 Church of St Eupatios, Novgorod, founded by Radko and his brother, 1183 (p. 114, no. 227) 53 Church of Sts Peter and Paul, Novgorod, founded by the people of Luki, 1185 Located in the Monastery of Sts Peter and Paul (see below, no. 62) (pp. 71–2, no. 109) 54 Church of St Cyril, Novgorod, founded by the brothers Constantine and Dmitrii, 1196 Located in the Monastery of St Cyril (‘Nelezin’) (p. 75, no. 116) 55 Church of the Prophet Elijah, Novgorod, founded by Erevsha, 1198 (p. 71, no. 106) 56 Gate Church of St Symeon the Stylite, Novgorod, founded by Tverdislav, 1206 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Arkazhskii’; see Appendix 5, no. 43) (p. 115, no. 233) 57 Church of St Paraskeva, Novgorod, founded by foreign merchants, 1207 (p. 69, no. 103) 58 Church of St Panteleemon, Novgorod, founded by heodore Pineshchinits, 1207 Located in the Monastery of St Panteleemon (see above, no. 14) (pp. 72–3, no. 112)

Dedications to patronal igures

215

59 Church of the Archangel Michael, Novgorod, founded by Tverdislav and Fedor, 1219 (p. 115, no. 235) 60 Church of Sts Paul, Symeon the God-Receiver and Constantine and Helen, Novgorod, founded by Symeon Borisovich, 1224 (p. 115, no. 236) 5

F ou n dat ions b y u n k now n f ou n de r s

61 Church of St Nicholas, Novgorod-Seversk, 1086 (p. 114, no. 216) 62 Monastery of Sts Peter and Paul, 1092 (pp. 71–2, no. 109) 63 Church of St Nicholas, Kiev, second half of the eleventh century (p. 20, no. 29) 64 Church of the Archangel Michael, Osterskii Gorodok, late eleventh– early twelfth century (p. 38, no. 54) 65 Cathedral of St Nicholas, Novgorod, 1113 (pp. 70–1, no. 105) 66 Church of St John, Kiev, 1121 (p. 113, no. 206) 67 Cathedral of St John the Baptist, Pskov, 1130s–40s Located in the Monastery of St John the Baptist (p. 80, no. 129) 68 Monastery of St John, Pereslavl, before 1146 (p. 114, no. 214) 69 Church of the Archangel Michael, Kiev, before 1147 (p. 113, no. 209) 70 Church of St Sava, Novgorod, 1154 (p. 114, no. 223) 71 Church of Sts Peter and Paul, Smolensk, mid twelfth century (pp. 86–7, no. 140) 72 Church of St James, Novgorod, 1172 (p. 114, no. 225) 73 Church of St John, Galich, before 1189 Located in the Monastery of St John (p. 115, no. 247) 74 Church of St George, Staraia Ladoga, second half of the twelfth century (p. 78, no. 124) 75 Church of the Prophet Elijah, Chernigov, twelfth century (pp. 46–7, no. 64) 76 Church of St Paraskeva, Polotsk, twelfth century Located in the Monastery of Sts Boris and Gleb (‘Belchitskii’; see above, no. 36) (pp. 98–9, no. 169) 77 Cathedral of St Nicholas, Staraia Ladoga, second half of the twelfth– irst third of the thirteenth century Located in the Monastery of St Nicholas (p. 79, no. 126) 78 Church of the Prophet Elijah, Galich, second half of the twelfth–irst half of the thirteenth century Located in the Monastery of the Prophet Elijah (p. 108, no. 188) 79 Church of St Panteleemon, Galich, late twelfth–irst decade of the thirteenth century (pp. 109–10, no. 192)

Appendix 4

216

80 Church of St Paraskeva, Chernigov, late twelfth–irst third of the thirteenth century (pp. 44–5, no. 62) 81 Church of St Paraskeva, Smolensk, irst third of the thirteenth century (p. 88, no. 146) 82 Church of St heodore, Novgorod, 1233 (p. 115, no. 237) 83 Church of St Demetrios, Kholm, 1230s (pp. 107–8, no. 186) 84 Church of St John, Kholm, 1230s (pp. 107–8, no. 186) 85 Church of Sts Kosmas and Damian, Kholm, 1230s (pp. 107–8, no. 186) 6

F ou n dat ions w h ic h c ou l d b e pat ron a l or non-pat ron a l

Churches dedicated to the Annunciation could invoke the feast in general or the Archangel Gabriel in particular. All churches with this dedication have been included for the sake of consistency, although it is clear in one case that the dedication had patronal signiicance. he dedication to the Apostles could have been made in imitation of the more famous church in Constantinople or in honour of a particular namesake among the Apostles. he Forty Martyrs were usually invoked together, but individual members of the group could also serve as namesakes. 86 Church of the Annunciation, Novgorod, founded by Mstislav Vladimirovich, 1103 (p. 74, no. 114) Patronal signiicance: Gabriel was the baptismal name of Mstislav’s son 87 Church of the Annunciation, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Elijah, 1179 Located in the Monastery of the Annunciation, founded by Archbishop Elijah, 1170 (p. 72, no. 111) 88 Church of the Annunciation, Chernigov, founded by Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, 1186 (pp. 43–4, no. 60) 89 Church of the Apostles, Belgorod, founded by Riurik Rostislavich, 1197 (pp. 28–9, no. 38) 90 Church of the Forty Martyrs, Novgorod, 1199 (p. 115, no. 231) 91 Church of the Annunciation, Vitebsk, twelfth century (pp. 99–100, no. 172) 92 Church of the Annunciation, Vladimir, before 1227 (p. 114, no. 219)

A ppe n di x 5

Rus churches and monasteries dedicated to non-patronal igures

All foundations are listed approximately chronologically. Monasteries and the churches in them are numbered separately only if they have separate known founders or dedications. All references in Appendices 4 and 5 are to Rappoport, Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv. 1

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of t h e pr i nc e ly c l a n

1 Church of the Mother of God (‘Desiatinaia’), Kiev, founded by Vladimir Sviatoslavich, c. 989 (pp. 7–8, no. 1) 2 Church of the Mother of God, Tmutarakan, founded by Mstislav Vladimirovich, 1022 (p. 115–16, no. 248) 3 Church of the Transiguration, Chernigov, founded by Mstislav Vladimirovich, before 1036 (pp. 39–40, no. 55) 4 Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, Kiev, founded by Iaroslav Vladimirovich, c. 1037 (pp. 11–13, no. 10) 5 Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, Novgorod, founded by Iaroslav Vladimirovich, 1045 (pp. 65–6, no. 97) 6 Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, Polotsk, founded by Vseslav Briacheslavich, before 1066 (pp. 93–4, no. 161) 7 Church of the Mother of God, Pereslavl, founded by Vladimir Monomakh, 1098 (p. 114, no. 213) 8 Cathedral of the Dormition, Smolensk, founded by Vladimir Monomakh, 1101 (p. 89, no. 149) 9 Cathedral of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Suzdal, founded by Vladimir Monomakh, 1101–5 (pp. 59–60, no. 84) 10 Church of the Mother of God, Kiev, founded by Mstislav Vladimirovich, 1131 (p. 19, no. 25) 11 Church of the Dormition, Novgorod, founded by Vsevolod Mstislavich, 1135 (pp. 69–70, no. 104) 217

218

Appendix 5

12 Cathedral of the Trinity, Pskov, founded by Vsevolod Mstislavich, before 1138 (p. 79, no. 127) 13 Church of the Saviour, Kiev, founded by Vladimir Monomakh (?), irst half of the twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Saviour (pp. 22–3, no. 32) 14 Cathedral of the Dormition, Vladimir-Volynskii, founded by Mstislav Iziaslavich, c. 1156 (pp. 105–6, no. 183) 15 Cathedral of the Dormition, Vladimir, founded by Andrew Bogoliubskii, 1158 (pp. 51–2, no. 74) 16 Cathedral of the Transiguration, Pereslavl-Zalesskii, founded by Iurii Dolgorukii, 1150s (pp. 62–3, no. 94) 17 Cathedral of the Dormition, Rostov, founded by Andrew Bogoliubskii, 1161 (pp. 61–2, no. 91) 18 Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, Bogoliubovo, founded by Andrew Bogoliubskii, c. 1166 (pp. 58–9, no. 83) 19 Cathedral of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Vladimir, founded by Vsevolod Iurevich, 1192 Located in the Monastery of the Nativity of the Mother of God (pp. 54–55, no. 77) 20 Church of the Transiguration (‘na Nereditse’), Novgorod, founded by Iaroslav Vladimirovich, 1198 (pp. 74–5, no. 115) 21 Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Novgorod, founded by the wife of Iaroslav Vladimirovich, 1199 Located in the Monastery of the Nativity of the Mother of God (p. 115, no. 232) 22 Cathedral of the Dormition, Vladimir, founded by Vsevolod Iurevich, 1200 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Kniaginin’) (p. 55, no. 78) 23 Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, Kiev, founded by Mstislav Mstislavich, 1212 (p. 114, no. 211) 24 Church of the Dormition, Iaroslavl, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1215 (p. 61, no. 89) 25 Cathedral of the Transiguration, Iaroslavl, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1216 26 Church of the Entry into Jerusalem, Iaroslavl, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1218 Both located in the Monastery of the Transiguration, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1216 (p. 61, no. 90) 27 Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, Vladimir, founded by Constantine Vsevolodovich, 1218 (p. 114, no. 218)

Dedications to non-patronal igures

219

28 Cathedral of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Murom, founded by David Iurevich, before 1228 (p. 61, no. 86) 2

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of t h e c l e rg y, i nc l u di ng m e m be r s of t h e pr i nc e ly c l a n a f t e r ta k i ng mon a s t ic vow s

29 Cathedral of the Dormition, Kiev, founded by Hegumen Feodosii, 1073 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Caves’), founded by Antony, 1050s (pp. 23–5, no. 33) 30 Church of the Mother of God of Blachernae, Kiev, founded by Hegumen Stephen, late eleventh–early twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Mother of God (‘Klovskii’) (pp. 21–2, no. 31) 31 Gate Church of the Trinity, Kiev, founded by Nicholas (Sviatosha) Davydovich, c. 1106 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Caves’) (pp. 25–6, no. 34) 32 Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Novgorod, founded by Hegumen Antony, 1117 Located in the Monastery of the Nativity of the Mother of God (‘Antoniev’) (pp. 67–8, no. 100) 33 Cathedral of the Transiguration, Pskov, founded by Archbishop Nifont (?), late 1140s–early 1150s Located in the Monastery of the Transiguration (‘Mirozhskii’) (pp. 80–1, no. 130) 34 Church of the Saviour, Polotsk, founded by Evfrosiniia (Predslava) Sviatoslavovna, 1150s Located in the Monastery of the Saviour (‘Evfrosiniev’) (pp. 96–8, no. 167) 35 Church of the Mother of God, Polotsk, founded by Evfrosiniia (Predslava) Sviatoslavovna, before 1159 (p. 115, no. 238) 36 Gate Church of the heophany, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Elijah, 1180 Located in the Monastery of the Annunciation (see Appendix 4, no. 87) (p. 114, no. 226) 37 Cathedral of the Transiguration, Novgorod, founded by the monk Varlam, 1192

Appendix 5

220

Located in the Monastery of the Transiguration (‘Khutynskii’) (p. 75, no. 118) 38 Gate Church of the Deposition of the Robes of the Mother of God, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Marturii, 1195 (p. 115, no. 230) 39 Church of the Resurrection, Novgorod, founded by Archbishop Marturii, 1195 Located in the Monastery of the Resurrection (p. 71, no. 107) 40 Church of the Transiguration, Staraia Russa, founded by Archbishop Marturii, 1198 (pp. 75–6, no. 119) 3

F ou n dat ions b y m e m be r s of o t h e r g rou p s

41 Church of the Virgin (Roman Catholic), Smolensk, founded by foreign merchants, 1170s–80s (p. 87, no. 142) 42 Church of the Ascension, Novgorod, founded by Miloneg, 1185 (p. 115, no. 228) 43 Church of the Dormition, Novgorod, founded by Symeon Dybakhevich, 1188 Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Arkazhskii’) (p. 72, no. 110) 4

F ou n dat ions b y u n k now n f ou n de r s

44 Church of the Transiguration, Pereslavl, late eleventh century (pp. 36–7, no. 51) 45 Cathedral of the Dormition, Chernigov, irst half of the twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (‘Eletskii’) (pp. 45–6, no. 63) 46 Church of the Transiguration, Vladimir, early to mid twelfth century (p. 56, no. 80) 47 Cathedral of the Dormition, Galich, 1140s–50s (p. 108, no. 187) 48 Church of the Ascension, Putivl, before 1146 (p. 114, no. 215) 49 Church of the Mother of God, Polotsk, before 1150s (p. 115, no. 238) 50 Church of the Saviour, Galich, before 1152 (p. 115, no. 246) 51 Gate Church of the Saviour, Novgorod, 1166 Located in the Monastery of St George (Appendix 4, no. 11) (p. 114, no. 224) 52 Cathedral of the Dormition, Riazan, mid twelfth century (p. 49, no. 69)

Dedications to non-patronal igures

221

53 Church of the Dormition, Staraia Ladoga, mid to late twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Dormition (p. 76, no. 120) 54 Church of the Resurrection, Pereslavl, mid to late twelfth century (pp. 37–8, no. 52) 55 Church of the Mother of God, Kiev, late twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Nativity of the Mother of God (‘Gniletskii’) (p. 27, no. 36) 56 Cathedral of the Saviour, Riazan, late twelfth century (p. 50, no. 71) 57 Cathedral of the Trinity, Smolensk, late twelfth century Located in the Monastery of the Trinity (pp. 81–2, no. 132) 58 Cathedral of the Saviour, Smolensk, late twelfth century–1220s Located in the Monastery of the Saviour (pp. 83–4, no. 136) 59 Cathedral of the Saviour, Novgorod-Seversk, late twelfth–irst third of the thirteenth century Located in the Monastery of the Saviour (pp. 47–8, no. 66) 60 Church of the Saviour, Nizhnii Novgorod, 1225 (p. 61, no. 87) 61 Church of the Saviour, Kholm, 1230s (pp. 107–8, no. 186) 62 Church of the Saviour, Staraia Ladoga, twelfth–irst half of the thirteenth century (pp. 76–7, no. 121) 63 Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, Novgorod, irst half of the thirteenth century (p. 75, no. 117)

Bibliography

S OU RC E S Abramovich, D. I., ed., Zhitiia sviatykh muchenikov Borisa i Gleba i sluzhby im, Pamiatniki drevne-russkoi literatury 2 (Petrograd: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1916) ‘Acta Graeca S. heodori Ducis Martyris’, AB, 2 (1883), 359–67 Agathias, he Histories, trans. and ed. Joseph D. Frendo, CFHB 2A (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975) Amiranashvili, Sh., Georgian Metalwork, from Antiquity to the 18th Century (London: Hamlyn, 1971) Medieval Georgian Enamels of Russia (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1964) Aufhauser, J., ed., Miracula S. Georgii (Leipzig: Typis B. G. Teubneri, 1913) Basil of Ohrid, ‘Vasiliia Okhridskogo, arkhiepiskopa (mitropolita) Solunskogo, neizdannoe nadgrobnoe slovo na smert’ Iriny, pervoi suprugi imperatora Manuila Komnina’, ed. V. Vasil’evskii, VV, 1 (1894), 55–132 Binon, Stéphane, ‘Documents grecs inédits relatifs à S. Mercure de Césarée’, Université de Louvain Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des Conférences d’Histoire et de Philologie, series 2, 41 (1937), 7–174 Buckton, David, ed., Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections (London: British Museum Press, 1994) Bruk, Ia. V. and L. I. Iovleva, eds., Gosudarstvennaia Tret’ iakovskaia galereia: katalog sobraniia (Moscow: Krasnaia Ploshchad’, 1995), vol. i, Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo X–nachala XV veka Bye, Cornelius, ed., Passio altera, in AASS, ed. Constantine Suysken et al., October, iv (Brussels : Typis Regis, 1780), 90–5 Chrysippos of Jerusalem, ‘Des Chrysippos von Jerusalem Enkomion auf den hl. heodoros Teron’, ed. Antonios Sigalas, Byzantinisches Archiv, 7 (1921), i–102 Clement of Ohrid, Kliment Ohridski s’ brani s’chineniia , ed. B. St. Angelov et al., 2 vols. (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na b’lgarskata akademiia na naukite, 1970) Constantine VII, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. I. I. Reiskii, 3 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1829 –40) ‘Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète’, ed. Hélène Ahrweiler, TM, 2 (1967), 393–404 222

Bibliography

223

‘Two Military Orations of Constantine VII’, trans. Eric McGeer, in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, TMM 49 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 111–35 ‘Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’, ed. R. Vári, BZ , 17 (1908), 75–85 Constantine VII (?), Vita Basili, in heophanes Continuatus, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1838), pp. 211–353 Dain, Alphonse, ed., ‘Mémorandum inédit sur la défense des places’, REG, 53 (1940), 123–36 Sylloge tacticorum (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1938) Darrouzès, Jean, ed., Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantins, 1960) de Foucault, J.-A., ed., Parekbolai, in Strategemata, ed. de Foucault (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1949), pp. 69–120 Delehaye, Hippolyte, ed., Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fils, 1909) Les légendes hagiographiques (Brussels: Bureaux de la Société des Bollandistes, 1906) SEC , in AASS , ed. Constantine Suysken et al., Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1902) Dennis, George T., ed., hree Byzantine Military Treatises, CFHB 25, DOT 9 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985) Détorakis, h. and J. Mossay, eds., ‘Un office byzantin inédit pour ceux qui sont morts à la guerre, dans le Cod. Sin. Gr. 734–735’, Le Muséon, 101 (1988), 183–211 Diez, Ernst and Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931) Dindorf, L., ed., Chronicon Paschale, 2 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1832) Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans. and ed. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, ed. Friedhelm Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke i.i (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975) Euthemios Protasecretis, ‘L’éloge de saint héodore le Stratélate par Euthyme Protasecretis’, ed. François Halkin, AB, 99 (1981), 221–37 Evagrios, he Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans. and ed. Michael Whitby, TTH 33 (Liverpool University Press, 2000) he Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964) Evans, Helen C. and William D. Wixom, eds., he Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997) Festugière, A.-J., trans. and ed., Sainte hècle, Saints Côme et Damien, Saints Cyr et Jean (Extraits), Saint Georges (Paris: Editions A. & J. Picard, 1971) Vie de h éodore de Sykéôn , SH 48 ( Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1970)

224

Bibliography

Flusin, Bernard, trans. and ed., Saint Anastase le Perse et l’ histoire de la Palestine au début du VIIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1992) George Kedrenos, Synopsis historion, ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1838–9) George of Pisidia, Giorgio di Pisidia: Poemi, trans. and ed. Agostino Pertusi, Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7 (Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag, 1959) George Skylitzes, ‘Deux canons inédits de Georges Skylitzès’, ed. P. Sophrone Pétridès, VV, 10 (1903), 460 –94 Gladkaia, M. S., Rel’efy dmitrievskogo sobora vo Vladimire: opyt kompleksnogo issledovaniia (Moscow: Indrik, 2009) Goldschmidt, Adolf and Kurt Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.–XIII. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1934) Gregory the Deacon, Enkomion on the Saint and Great Martyr Demetrios, in Mnemeia Hagiologica, ed. heophilos Joannou ( Venice: Typois Phoinikos, 1884; repr. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1973), pp. 64–6 Gregory of Nyssa, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, ed. Werner Jaeger et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960 –), vol. x.i, Sermones, ed. Gunter Heil et al. (1990) Grierson, Philip, Byzantine Coins (London: Methuen; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982) Gushchin, A. S., Pamiatniki khudozhestvennogo remesla drevnei Rusi X–XIII vv. (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1936) Haldon, John F., trans. and ed., hree Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, CFHB 28 ( Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990) Halkin, François, trans. and ed., Six inédits d’ hagiologie byzantine, SH 74 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1987) Hassall, M. W. C. and Robert Ireland, eds., De Rebus Bellicis, BAR International Series 63 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports., 1979) Heron of Byzantium, Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by ‘Heron of Byzantium’, trans. and ed. Denis F. Sullivan, DOS 36 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000) Hollingsworth, Paul, trans., he Hagiography of Kievan Rus’, HLEUL: English Translations 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) Homer, he Iliad, trans. and ed. A. T. Murray, 2nd edn, rev. William F. Wyatt, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library 170 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999) Ianin, V. L. and P. G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., 3 vols. (Moscow: Nauka and Intrada, 1970, 1998) Ipat’evskaia letopis’, PSRL 2, 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Tipografiia M. A. Aleksandrova, 1908; repr. Moscow: IaRK, 1998) Jagič, V., ed., MSON (St Petersburg: Imp. Academiae scientiarum socius, 1886) John Geometros, Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques élégiaques, trans. and ed. Emilie Marlène van Opstall, TMM 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2008)

Bibliography

225

John Kaminiates, De Expugnatione hessalonicae, ed. Gertrud Böhlig, CFHB 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973) John Kinnamos, Vizantiiskii istorik Ioann Kinnam o Rusi i narodakh vostochnoi Evropy: teksty, perevod, kommentarii, trans. and ed. M. V. Bibikov (Moscow: Ladomir, 1997) John Malalas, Chronicle of John Malalas Books VIII–XVIII, trans. and ed. Matthew Spinka and Glanville Downey (University of Chicago Press, 1940) John Skylitzes, Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. Hans hurn, CFHB 5 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973) Synopsis of Byzantine History 811–1057, trans. John Wortley (Cambridge University Press, 2010) John of hessalonika, ‘L’enkômion de Saint Démétrius par Jean de hessalonique’, ed. Anna Philippidis-Braat, TM, 8 (1981), 397–414 John Zonaras, Epitomae historiarum, ed. M. Pinderi, 3 vols. (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1841–97) Jolivet-Lévy, Catherine and Ahmet Ertuğ, Sacred Art of Cappadocia: Byzantine Murals from the 6th to 13th Centuries (Istanbul: Ertuğ & Kocabıyık, 2006) Justinian II, ‘Un édit de l’empereur Justinien II daté de Septembre 688’, ed. H. Grégoire, Byzantion, 17 (1944–5), 119–24 Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Ioli, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, Byzantina Vindobonensia 15, 1 and 2 ( Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1985) Kekaumenos, Sovety i rasskazy: pouchenie vizantiiskogo polkovodtsa XI veka, trans. and ed. G. G. Litavrin, 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2003) Khuskivadze, L. Z., Gruzinskie emali (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1981) Kolchin, B. et al., Drevnii Novgorod: prikladnoe iskusstvo i arkheologiia (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1985) Kondakov, N., Russkie klady. Issledovanie drevnostei velikokniazheskogo perioda (St Petersburg: Tipografiia glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1896) Korzukhina, G. F. and A. A. Peskova, Drevnerusskie enkolpiony: nagrudnye kresty-relikvarii X–XIII vv., Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury, trudy 7 (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2003) Krumbacher, Karl, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung, Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologisch und historische Klasse 25, 3 (Munich, 1911), 1–332 Kurtz, E., ed., ‘Zwei griechische Texte über die Hl. heophano, die Gemahlin Leos VI.’, Zapiski IAN, 8:3/2 (1898), 1–80 Lavrent’evskaia letopis’, PSRL 1, 2nd edn (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul ’tury, 2001) Lazarev, V. N., Freski Staroi Ladogi (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1960) Lemerle, Paul, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS, 1979) Leo VI, De Navali Praelio, in Naumachica, ed. Alphonse Dain (Paris: Société d ’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1943)

226

Bibliography

Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen, trans. and ed. Johannes Koder, CFHB 33 ( Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991) Leonis VI Sapientis Problemata, ed. Alphonse Dain (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1935) Leontos tou sophou panugerikoi logoi, ed. Hieromonk Akakios (Athens: Ek ton piesterion Nikolaou Rousopoulou, 1868) he Taktika of Leo VI, trans. and ed. George Dennis ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010) Leo VI (?), ‘Anekdotos ekklesiastike poiesis ek tou Laureotikou mousikou kodikos l 164’, ed. Spyriodon Lavriotes, Gregorios ho Palamas, 6 (1922), 577–84 Leo the Deacon, Leonis Diaconi Caloënsis historiae libri decem, ed. C. B. Hase (Bonn: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1828) he History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, trans. and ed. Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan, DOS 41 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005) Letopisnyi sbornik, imenuemyi patriarsheiu ili nikonovskoiu letopis’ iu, PSRL 9, 10 (St Petersburg: V tipografii Eduarda Pratsa, 1862; repr. Patriarshaia ili nikonovskaia letopis’, Moscow: Nauka, 1965) Life and Education of heodore Teron, in AASS, ed. Constantine Suysken et al., November, iv (Brussels: Apud Socios Bollandianos, 1925) McGeer, Eric, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century, DOS 33 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995) Makarova, T. I., Peregorodchatye emali drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1975) Marcellinus, he Chronicle of Marcellinus, trans. and ed. Brian Croke, Byzantina Australiensia 7 (Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1995) Markopoulos, Athanasios, ed., ‘An Anonymous Laudatory Poem in Honor of Basil I’, DOP, 46 (1992), 225–32 Maurice, Strategikon, trans. George T. Dennis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984) Das Strategikon des Maurikios, trans. Ernst Gamillscheg, ed. George T. Dennis, CFHB 17 ( Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981) Melissae per Antonium monachum graecum, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cvii, cols. 765–1244 Menander, he History of Menander the Guardsman, trans. and ed. R. C. Blockley, Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 17 (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985) Il Menologio di Basilio II (Cod. Vaticano Greco 1613), 2 vols. (Turin: n.p., 1907) Menologium graecorum Basilii Imp. jussu editum, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxvii, cols. 19–614 Michael Autoreianos, ‘Cinq actes inédits du Patriarche Michel Autôreianos’, ed. N. Oikonomidès, REB, 25 (1967), 113–45 Michael Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), trans. and ed. Emile Renauld, 2 vols. (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les belles lettres’, 1926)

Bibliography

227

Müller, Ludolf, ed., Die Altrussischen hagiographischen Erzählungen und liturgischen Dichtungen über die Heiligen Boris und Gleb, Slavische Propyläen 14 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1967) Nasonov, A. N., ed., Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1950) Pskovskie letopisi, 2nd edn (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1955) Nektarios, ‘De Festo S. heodori’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), xxxix, cols. 1821–40 Nicholas I, ‘Sermon of Nicholas the Patriarch, on the Capture of hessalonica, Pronounced from the Pulpit of the Great Church after the Entrance’, in Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. and ed. L. G. Westerink, DOT 6 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1981), pp. 8–17 Nikephoros, Short History, trans. and ed. Cyril Mango, CFHB 13 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990) Nikephoros Ouranos, ‘Douze chapitres inédits de la Tactique de Nicéphore Ouranos’, ed. J.-A. de Foucault, TM, 5 (1973), 281–312 ‘Un opuscule inconnu du Magistre Ouranos’, ed. François Halkin, AB, 80 (1962), 308–24 Nikephoros Phokas, Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969), trans. and ed. Gilbert Dagron and Haralambie Mihăescu (Paris: CNRS, 1986) Niketas Choniates, Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, CFHB series Berolinensis 11, 1 (Berlin: Apud Walter de Gruyter et Socios, 1975) City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984) Niketas the Paphlagonian, ‘Laudatio S. heodori Ducis’, in AASS, ed. Constantine Suysken et al., November, iv (Brussels: Apud Socios Bollandianos, 1925), 83–9 Niketas the Paphlagonian (?), ‘Martyrdom of the Holy and Honourable Great Martyr George’, in AASS, ed. Constantine Suysken et al., April, iii (Brussels: Typis Regis, 1675), ix–xv Nikolaeva, T. V., Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika XI–XVI vekov (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968) Drevnerusskaia melkaia plastika iz kamnia XI–XV vv., Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-60 (Moscow: Nauka, 1983) Nikolaeva, T. V. and A. V. Chernetsov, Drevnerusskie amulety-zmeeviki (Moscow: Nauka, 1991) Oikonomidès, Nicolas, trans. and ed., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris: CNRS, 1972) Ol’shevskaia, L. A. and S. N. Travnikov, eds., Drevnerusskie pateriki (Moscow: Nauka, 1999) Ostrowski, Donald, ed., PVL: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, HLEUL 10, 1–3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003)

228

Bibliography

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., ed., Analekta hierosolymitikes stachiologias, 4 vols. (St Petersburg: Ek tou tupografiou V. Kirspaoum, 1891–8) Pertusi, Agostino, ed., ‘Una acolouthia militare inedita del X secolo’, Aevum, 22 (1948), 145–68 Petit, Louis, ed., ‘Office inédit en l’honneur de Nicéphore Phocas’, BZ , 13 (1904), 398–420 Photios, ‘Hymnos ek prosopou tes Ekklesias eis Basileion ton philochriston basilea’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cii, cols. 576–84 Pisarskaia, L., N. Platonova and B. Ul’ianova, Russkie emali XI–XIX vv. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1974) Pivovarova, P. V., Freski tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse v Novgorode: ikonograficheskaia programma rospisi (St Petersburg: ARS/Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002) Prokopios, History of the Wars, trans. H. B. Dewing, 5 vols. (London: William Heinemann, 1914; repr. 1961) Rappoport, P. A., Russkaia arkhitektura X–XIII vv.: katalog pamiatnikov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-47 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982) RGADA, ROBMST, Fond 381, nos. 89, 110, 113, 116, 122, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171 RNB, nos. F.π.I.36, F.π.I.47, соф. 188, соф. 199, соф. 206 Rybakov, B. A., Russkie datirovannye nadpisi XI–XIV vekov, Arkheologiia SSSR, SAI E1-44 (Moscow: Nauka, 1964) Sarab’ianov, V. D., Spaso-Preobrazhenskaia tserkov’ Evfrosin’eva monastyria i ee freski (Moscow: Severnyi Palomnik, 2007) Sedova, M. V., Iuvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X–XV vv.) (Moscow: Nauka, 1981) Semenov, V., ‘Drevniaia russkaia Pchela po pergamennomu spisku’, Sbornik obshchestva russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti IAN, 54, 4 (1893), 1–185 Archbishop Sergii (Spasskii), ed., Polnyi mesiatseslov vostoka, 2nd edn ( Vladimir: Tipo-Litografiia V. A. Parkova, 1901; repr. Moscow: Palomnik, 1997) Shcherbatova-Sheviakova, T. S., Nereditsa: Monumental’nye rospisi tserkvi Spasa na Nereditse (Moscow: Galart, 2004) Slaviano-russkii prolog po drevneishim spiskam: Sinaksar’, ed. V. B. Krys’ko et al. (Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2010 –) Sotnikova, M. P. and I. G. Spasskii, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii: svodnyi katalog russkikh monet X–XI vekov (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1983) Sterligova, I. A., Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo Velikogo Novgoroda: khudozhestvennyi metall XI–XV veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1996) Dragotsennyi ubor drevnerusskikh ikon XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, 2000) Stoliarova, L. V., Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 2000) Sullivan, Denis F., trans., and Hilda van den Berg, ed., ‘A Byzantine Instructional Manual on Siege Defense: he De Obsidione Toleranda’, in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, TMM 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 139–266

Bibliography

229

Svirin, A. N., Iuvelirnoe iskusstvo drevnei Rusi XI–XVII vekov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972) Symeon Metaphrastes, Passio Tertia S. Demetrii M., in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxvi, cols. 1185–201 Symeon Metaphrastes (?), ‘Martyrdom of the Holy and Honourable Great Martyr and Victory-Bearer George’, in PG, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1857–1912), cxv, cols. 141–61 Syrianos Magistros (?), he Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy, in hree Byzantine Military Treatises, trans. and ed. George T. Dennis, CFHB 25, DOT 9 ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985), pp. 1–136 Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg, ed. K. K. Müller ( Würzburg: A. Stubner’s Buch- und Kunsthandlung, 1882) Rhetorica militaris, ed. H. Köchly, in Index lectionum in Literarum Universitate Turicensi (University of Zurich, 1855–6) heophanes, he Chronicle of heophanes Confessor, trans. and ed. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) heophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963) heophylaktos Simokattes, he History of heophylact Simocatta, trans. and ed. Michael and Mary Whitby (Oxford University Press, 1986) heophylacti Simocattae Historiae, ed. C. de Boor and Peter Wirth (Leipzig: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1887; repr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972) hierry, Nicole, Haut Moyen-Âge en Cappadoce: les églises de la region de Çavuşin, 2 vols., Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 102 (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1983) Tipografskaia letopis’, PSRL 24 (Petrograd: 2-ia Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1921) Urbikios, ‘Urbicius’ Epitedeuma: An Edition, Translation and Commentary’, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, Hugh Elton and Richard Burgess, BZ , 98 (2005), 35–74 Vagner, G. K., Mastera drevnerusskoi skul’ptury: rel’efy Iur’eva-Pol’skogo (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1966) Skul’ptura drevnei Rusi: XII vek, Vladimir, Bogoliubovo (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1969) Skul’ptura Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi: g. Iur’ev-Pol’skoi (Moscow: Nauka, 1964) Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, ed. M. D. Reeve (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004) Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science, trans. N. P. Milner, 2nd edn, TTH 16 (Liverpool University Press, 1996) Veselovskii, A. N., ed., ‘Khozhdenie Feodory po mytarstam i neskol’ko epizodov iz zhitiia Vasiliia novogo’, Sbornik otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti IAN, 46 (1890), 1–102 (repr. Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1966) Weitzmann, Kurt, he Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai, 3 vols. (Princeton University Press, 1976) Wessel, Klaus, Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th Century, trans. Irene R. Gibbons (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1969)

230

Bibliography

Whitby, Michael and Mary Whitby, trans. and ed., Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, TTH 7 (Liverpool University Press, 1989) Woods, David, ‘he Military Martyrs’, www.ucc.ie/milmart/index.html Zacos, G. and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols. (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1972) S T U DI E S Abgarian, G. V., ‘K probleme predpolagaemoi grecheskoi versii ‘Skazaniia o Borise i Glebe’’, in Russkaia i armianskaia srednevekovye literatury, ed. D. S. Likhachev (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), pp. 235–54 Ainalov, D. V., ‘Ocherki i zametki po istorii drevnerusskogo iskusstova. Miniatury Skazaniia o svv. Borise i Glebe Sil’vestrovskogo sbornika’, Izvestiia otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti, 15 (1910), 1–128 Alekseev, L. V., Polotskaia zemlia v IX–XIII vv. (ocherki istorii severnoi Belorusi) (Moscow: Nauka, 1966) Aleshkovskii, M. Kh., ‘Russkie gleboborisovskie enkolpiony 1072–1150 godov’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: khudozhestvennaia kul’tura drevnei Rusi, ed. V. N. Lazarev et al. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), pp. 104–25 Alexakis, Alexander, ‘Leo VI, heophano, a Magistros Called Slokakas, and the Vita heophano (BHG 1794)’, Byzantinische Forschungen, 21 (1995), 45–56 Alpatov, M. V., ‘Obraz Georgiia-voina v iskusstve Vizantii i drevnei Rusi ’, TODRL , 12 (1956), 292–310 Antonopoulou, heodora, he Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI, TMM 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) Bakirtzis, Charalambos, ‘Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos?’, in Mosaic: Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, ed. Judith Herrin et al. (London: he British School at Athens, 2001), pp. 85–7 Baldwin, B., ‘On the Date of the Anonymous ∏ΕΡΙ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΙΚΗΣ’, BZ , 81 (1988), 290 –3 Bank, Alice, ‘Les Stéatites: essai de classification, méthodes des recherches’, Corsi di Cultura sull’arte Ravennate e Bizantina, 17 (1970), 355–81 Barišić, Franjo, Čuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvori, Posebna Izdanja, 219 (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka, 1953) ‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626’, Byzantion, 24 (1954), 371–95 Baynes, Norman H., ‘he Death of Julian the Apostate in a Christian Legend ’, Journal of Roman Studies, 27 (1937), 22–9 ‘he Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople’, AB, 67 (1949), 165–77 Begunov, Iu. K., ‘Greko-slavianskaia traditsiia pochitaniia Dimitriia Solunskogo i russkii dukhovnyi stikh o nem’, Byzantinoslavica, 36 (1975), 149 –72 Binon, Stéphane, ‘Essai sur le cycle de Saint Mercure: martyr de Dèce et meurtrier de l’empereur Julien’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes: Sciences Religieuses, 52–4 (1936 –9), v–144

Bibliography

231

Blankoff, Jean, ‘Encolpia and Phylacteries in Old Russia’, Russian History, Histoire russe, 28 (2001), 63–103 Brubaker, Leslie and John Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History (Cambridge University Press, 2011) Bubnov, N. D., ‘Slaviano-russkie prologi’, in Metodicheskoe posobie po opisaniiu slaviano-russkikh rukopisei dlia svodnogo kataloga rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR, ed. Arkheograficheskaia komissiia pri otdelenii istorii AN SSSR et al. (Moscow: n.p., 1973) Bugoslavskii, S. A., ‘K voprosu o kharaktere i ob’’eme literaturnoi deiatel’nosti prepodobnogo Nestora’, Izvestiia otedeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti IAN, 19:1 (1914), 131–86 Butler, Francis, ‘he Autumn Saint George’s Day (Iur’ev Den’), the Date of the Codex Assemanianus, and the Dedication of Iaroslav’s Kievan Church of Saint George in the East Slavic Tradition’, Palaeoslavica, 13 (2005), 37–47 Cameron, Averil, ‘Constantine and the “Peace of the Church”’, in he Cambridge History of Christianity, 9 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 2006), vol. i, Origins to Constantine, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, pp. 538–51 ‘he heotokos in Sixth-Century Byzantium: A City Finds Its Symbol’, in Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), ch. xvi Cheynet, Jean-Claude, ‘Le culte de saint héodore chez les officiers de l’armée d’orient’, in Vyzantio kratos kai koinonia, ed. Anna Avramea et al. (Athens: Institouto Vyzantinon Ereunon, Ethniko Hidryma Ereunon, 2003), pp. 137–53 ‘Par saint Georges, par saint Michel ’, TM, 14 (2002), 115–34 Cormack, Robin, ‘he Making of a Patron Saint: he Powers of Art and Ritual in Byzantine hessaloniki’, in World Art: hemes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVIth International Congress of the History of Art, ed. Irving Lavin, 3 vols. (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1989), iii, 547–54 ‘he Mosaic Decoration of S. Demetrios, hessaloniki: A Re-examination in the Light of the Drawings of W. S. George’, in he Byzantine Eye: Studies in Art and Patronage (London: Variorum Reprints, 1989), pp. 17–52 Corrigan, Kathleen, ‘he Ivory Scepter of Leo VI: A Statement of Post-Iconoclastic Imperial Ideology’, Art Bulletin, 60 (1978), 407–16 Cosentino, Salvatore, ‘he Syrianos’s “Strategikon”: A 9th-Century Source?’, Bizantinistica, 2 (2000), 243–80 Crostini, Barbara, ‘he Emperor Basil II’s Cultural Life’, Byzantion, 66 (1996), 55–80 Cutler, Anthony, ‘Inscriptions and Iconography on Some Middle Byzantine Ivories: he Monuments and heir Dating’, in Late Antique and Byzantine Ivory Carving (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1998), pp. 630–57 Dagron, Gilbert, ‘Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle: à propos des Constitutions Tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI’, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (April–June 1983), 219 –42

232

Bibliography

Dain, Alphonse, ‘Les stratégistes byzantins’, TM, 2 (1967), 317–92 Delehaye, Hippolyte, ‘La légende de Saint Eustache’, in Mélanges d’ hagiographie grecque et latine, SH 42 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1966), pp. 212–39 Demus, Otto, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948; repr. 1976) Dennis, George T., ‘Defenders of the Christian People: Holy War in Byzantium’, in he Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh ( Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001), pp. 31–9 ‘Religious Services in the Byzantine Army’, Studia Anselmiana, 110 (1993), 107–17 Dimnik, Martin, he Dynasty of Chernigov 1054–1146, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies: Studies and Texts 116 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1994) Dombrovskii, O. I., Freski srednevekovogo Kryma (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1966), pp. 27–42 Drake, H. A., ‘What Eusebius Knew: he Genesis of the Vita Constantini ’, Classical Philology, 83 (1988), 20 –38 Ehrhard, Albert, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols., Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 4/6 (51) (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1938) Fedotov, George P., he Collected Works of George P. Fedotov (Belmont, MA: Norland Publishing, 1975), vol. iii, he Russian Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity Fennell, John, he Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200–1304 (London: Longman, 1983) Fet, E. A., ‘O Sofiiskom Prologe kontsa XII–nachala XIII v.’, in Istochnikovedenie i arkheografiia Sibirii, ed. N. N. Pokrovskii and E. K. Romodanovskaia (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977), pp. 78–92 Förster, Richard, ‘Studien zu den griechischen Taktikern’, Hermes, 11 (1876), 426 –71 Franklin, Simon and Jonathan Shepard, he Emergence of Rus: 750–1200 (London: Longman, 1996) Frendo, Joseph, ‘he Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of hessaloniki ’, Byzantinoslavica, 58 (1997), 205–24 Gladkaia, M. S. and A. I. Skvortsov, ‘Periodizatsiia rel’efov dmitrievskogo sobora vo Vladimire’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: Khudozhestvennaia kul’tura X–pervoi poloviny XIII v., ed. A. I. Komech and O. I. Podobedova (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), pp. 307–29 Graber, I. E., V. N. Lazarev and V. S. Kemenov, eds., Istoriia russkogo iskusstva (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk, 1953) Grégoire, Henri, ‘Saint héodore le Stratélate et les Russes d’Igor’, Byzantion, 13 (1938), 291–300

Bibliography

233

Grekov, B., Kiev Rus, trans. Y. Sdobnikov (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959) Guilland, Rodolphe, ‘Sur quelques termes du livre des cérémonies de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète’, REG, 62 (1949), 328–50 Haldon, John, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 (London: UCL Press, 1999) Halkin, François, Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, 3rd edn, SH 8a (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1957) Etudes d’ épigraphie grecque et d’ hagiographie byzantine (London: Variorum, 1973) Novum auctarium Bibliothecae hagiographicae Graecae, SH 65 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1957) Helgeland, John, ‘Christians in the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine’, in ANRW, ed. Hildegard Temporini et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972–), ii.23.1: Religion (vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Verhältnis zu römischem Staat und heidnischer Religion), ed. Wolfgang Haase (1979), pp. 724–834 ‘Roman Army Religion’, in ANRW, ed. Hildegard Temporini et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972–), ii.16.2, Religion (Heidentum: Römische Religion, Allgemeines), ed. Wolfgang Haase (1978), pp. 1470 –505 Hengstenberg, W., ‘Der Drachenkampf des heiligen heodor’, OC, n.s. 2 (1912), 78–106, 241–80 Hetherington, Paul, ‘Byzantine Enamels for a Russian Prince: he Book-Cover of the Gospels of Mstislav’, in Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons: Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), ch. x Hollingsworth, Paul, ‘Holy Men and the Transformation of Political Space in Medieval Rus’’, in he Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, ed. James Howard-Johnston and Paul Antony Hayward (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 187–213 Holmes, Catherine, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025) (Oxford University Press, 2005) Horster, Marita, ‘Ein Demetrios-Elfenbein des 10. Jahrhunderts’, Felix Ravenna, 73 (1957), 33–51 Howard-Johnston, James, ‘Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns and the Revival of the East Roman Empire, 622–630’, War in History, 6:1 (1999), 1–44 ‘he Official History of Heraclius’ Persian Campaigns’, in he Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, ed. E. Dąbrowa (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1994), pp. 57–87 Hurwitz, Ellen S., Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij: he Man and the Myth, Studia Historica et Philologica 12, Sectio Slavica 4 (Florence: Licosa Editrice, 1980) Hutter, Irmgard, ‘heodorupolis’, in ΑΕΤΟΣ: Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango, ed. Ihor Ševčenko and Irmgard Hutter (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1998), pp. 181–90 Il’in, N. N., Letopisnaia stat’ ia 6523 goda i ee istochnik (opyt analyza) (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1957)

234

Bibliography

Ingham, Norman, ‘he Martyred Prince and the Question of Slavic Cultural Continuity in the Early Middle Ages’, in Medieval Russian Culture, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Michael S. Flier, California Slavic Studies 12 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), pp. 31–53 ‘he Sovereign as Martyr: East and West’, Slavic and East European Journal, 17 (1973), 1–17 Ivakin, G. Iu. and V. G. Putsko, ‘Kievskii kamennyi rel’ef s izobrazheniem Evstafiia Plakidy’, Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia (2000), 160 –8 Jakobson, Roman, ‘Methodius’ Canon to Demetrius of hessalonica and the Old Church Slavonic Hirmoi ’, Sbornik praci filosoficke fakulty Brnenske University, F9 14 (1965), 115–21 James, Liz, ‘Monks, Monastic Art, the Sanctoral Cycle and the Middle Byzantine Church’, in he heotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, ed. Margaret Mullett and Anthony Kirby, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6, 1 (Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1994), pp. 162–75 Janin, R., ‘Les églises byzantines des saints militaires (Constantinople et banlieue)’, EO, 33 (1934), 163–80 and 331–42; 34 (1935), 56–70 La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzanin, 2nd edn (Paris: CNRS, 1969) Kaegi, Walter E. ‘he Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm’, in Army, Society and Religion in Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1982), ch. xvii Byzantine Military Unrest 471–843: An Interpretation (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1981) Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, 2003) Kaldellis, Anthony, Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) Karger, M. K., ‘K istorii kievskogo zodchestva XI veka: khram-mavzolei Borisa i Gleba v Vyshgorode’, SA, 16 (1952), 77–99 Kazhdan, Alexander, ‘Rus’–Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, HUS, 12/13 (1988/9), 414–29 Kazhdan, Alexander and Ann Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, he Transformation of the Classical Heritage 7 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985) Kazhdan, Alexander P. et al., eds., ODB, 3 vols. (Oxford University Press, 1991) Keller, Felix, ‘Das Kontakion aus der ersten Slu žba f ü r Boris und Gleb’, in Schweizerische Beiträge zum VII. Internationalen Slavistenkongreß in Warschau, August 1973, ed. Peter Brang , Harald Jaksche and Hildegard Schroeder, Slavica Helvetica 7 ( Lucerne: C. J. Bucher, 1973), pp. 65–73 Kolbaba, Tia M., ‘Fighting for Christianity: Holy War in the Byzantine Empire’, Byzantion, 68 (1998), 194–221 Kolia-Dermitzake, Athena, Ho Vyzantinos ‘ hieros polemos’: he ennoia kai e provole tou threskeutikou polemou sto Vyzantio, Historikes monographies 10 (Athens: Historikes Ekdoseis St. D. Vasilopoulos, 1991) Kollmann, Nancy, ‘Collateral Succession in Kievan Rus’’, HUS, 14 (1990), 377–87

Bibliography

235

Komarovich, V. L., ‘Kul’t roda i zemli v kniazheskoi srede XI–XIII vv.’, TODRL , 16 (1960), 84–104 Kondakoff, N., Histoire de l’art byzantin, trans. M. Trawinski, 2 vols. (Paris: Libraire de l ’art, 1886) Krivosheev, Iu. V., Gibel’ Andreia Bogoliubskogo: Istoricheskoe rassledovanie (St Petersburg: Izdatel’skii dom S.-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2003) Kuchkin, V. A., ‘Istoricheskie portrety. Iurii Dolgorukii ’, Voprosy Istorii, 10 (1996), 35–56 Laiou, Angeliki, ‘On Just War in Byzantium’, in To Hellenikon: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., ed. Milton V. Anastos (New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1993), pp. 153–77 Lazarev, V. N., Drevnerusskie mozaiki i freski XI–XV vv. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973) ‘Novyi pamiatnik stankovoi zhivopisi XII v. i obraz Georgiia-voina v vizantiiskom i drevnerusskom iskusstve’, VV, 6 (1953), 186 –222 Lee, A. D., ‘Morale and the Roman Experience of Battle’, in Battle in Antiquity, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Duckworth, 1996), pp. 199–217 Lee, Douglas and Jonathan Shepard, ‘A Double Life: Placing the Peri Presbeon’, Byzantinoslavica 52 (1991), 15–39 Lemerle, Paul, ‘Note sur les plus anciennes représentations de saint Démétrius’, Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias, 10 (1981), 1–10 Lenhoff, Gail, he Martyred Princes Boris and Gleb: A Socio-Cultural Study of the Cult and the Texts, UCLA Slavic Studies 19 (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1989) Lesiuchevskii, V. I., ‘Vyshgorodskii kul’t Borisa i Gleba v pamiatnikakh iskusstva’, SA, 10 (1946), 225–45 Likhachev, D. S., ed., SKK (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987) Likhachev, D. S. et al., eds., Velikaia Rus’: Istoriia i khudozhestvennaia kul’tura (Moscow: Iskusstvo; Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 1994) Limonov, Iu. A., Letopisanie Vladimiro-suzdal’skoi Rusi (Leningrad: Nauka, 1967) Vladimiro-suzdal’skaia Rus’: ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987) Litvina, A. F. and F. B. Uspenskii, Vybor imeni u russkikh kniazei v X–XVI vv. (Moscow: Indrik, 2006) Loseva, O. V., Russkie mesiatseslovy XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 2001) McCormick, Michael, Eternal victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge University Press, 1986) McGrath, Stamatina, ‘he Battles of Dorostolon (971): Rhetoric and Reality’, in Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., ed. Timothy S. Miller and John Nesbitt ( Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 152–64

236

Bibliography

Magdalino, Paul, ‘Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah ’, JÖB, 38 (1988), 193–6 he Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge University Press, 1983) ‘Saint Demetrios and Leo VI’, Byzantinoslavica, 51 (1990), 198–201 Marholina, Iryna and Vasylii Ul’ianovs’kyi, Kyivs’ ka obytel’ sviatoho Kyryla (Kiev: Lybid ’, 2005) Martin, Janet, Medieval Russia 980–1584, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2007) Mathews, homas F., ‘he Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration’, in Art and Architecture in Byzantium and Armenia: Liturgical and Exegetical Approaches (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995), ch. xii Miller, Timothy S. and John Nesbitt, Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J. ( Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995) Moravcsik, Gyula, ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I.’, DOP, 15 (1961), 61–126 Müller, Ludolf, ‘O vremeni kanonizatsii sviatykh Borisa i Gleba’, Russia Mediaevalis, 8 (1995), 5–20 Mundell Mango, Marlia, ‘Imperial Art in the Seventh Century’, in New Constantines: he Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries, ed. Paul Magdalino, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 2 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), pp. 109–38 Nazarenko, A. V., ‘“Moydreishi vsekh chelovek”: kreshenie kniagini Ol’gi kak fakt mezhdunarodnoi politiki’, in Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh: mezhdistsiplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh sviazei IX–XII vekov (Moscow: IaRK, 2001), pp. 219–310 Obolensky, Dimitri, he Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500–1453 (London: Phoenix Press, 2000) ‘he Cult of St. Demetrius of hessalonika in the History of Byzantine–Slav Relations’, in Byzantium and the Slavs (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), pp. 281–300 Oikonomidès, Nicolas, ‘he Concept of “Holy War” and Two Tenth-Century Byzantine Ivories’, in Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J., ed. Timothy S. Miller and John Nesbitt ( Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 62–86 ‘Le dédoublement de saint héodore et les villes d’Euchaïta et d’Euchaneia’, AB, 104 (1986), 327–35 Ovchinnikov, A. N., ‘Nadpisi v georgievskoi tserkvi Staroi Ladogi’, in Pamiatniki kul’tury. Novye Otkrytiia (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), pp. 187–91 Pashuto, V. T., Vneshniaia politika drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1968) Pchelov, Evgenii, ‘Genealogiia sem’i Iuriia Dolgorukogo’, Ruthenica, 3 (2004), 68–79 Pentcheva, Bissera V., Icons and Power: he Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2006)

Bibliography

237

Petit, L., ‘La grande controverse des colybes’, EO, 2 (1898–9), 321–31 Pevny, Olenka Z., ‘he Kyrylivs’ka Tserkva: he Appropriation of Byzantine Art and Architecture in Kiev’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1995) Popov, G. V., ‘Iz istorii drevnego pamiatnika goroda Dmitrova’, in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: khudozhestvennaia kul’tura domongol’skoi Rusi, ed. V. N. Lazarev et al. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), pp. 198–216 Poppe, A. V., ‘O roli ikonograficheskikh izobrazhenii v izuchenii literaturnykh proizvedenii o Borise i Glebe’, TODRL , 22 (1966), 18–23 Poppe, Andrzej, ‘Losers on Earth, Winners from Heaven. he Assassinations of Boris and Gleb in the Making of Eleventh-Century Rus’, Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae, 8 (2003), 133–68 ‘O zarozhdenii kul’ta sviatykh Borisa i Gleba i o posviashchennykh im proizvedeniiakh ’, Russia Mediaevalis, 8 (1995), 21–68 Porfiridov, N. G., ‘Drevnerusskaia melkaia kamennaia plastika i ee suzhety’, SA, 36 (1972), 200 –8 ‘O masterakh, materialakh i tekhnike drevnerusskoi melkoi kamennoi plastike’, SA, 39 (1975), 75–81 Prochazka, Helen Y., ‘Warrior Idols or Idle Warriors? On the Cult of Saints Boris and Gleb as Reflected in the Old Russian Military Accounts’, Slavonic and East European Review, 65 (1987), 505–16 Putsko, V. G., ‘Les fresques de la tour de la cathédrale du monastère St. Georges à Novgorod’, Byzantion, 46 (1976), 398–410 ‘Krest Marka Peshchernika’, SA, 51 (1987), 217–30 Rance, Philip, ‘he Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (Formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus)’, BZ, 100 (2007), 701–37 Rybakov, B. A., Kievskaia Rus’: russkie kniazhestva XI–XII vv., 2nd edn (Moscow: Nauka, 1993) Rydén, Lennart, ‘he Life of St. Basil the Younger and the Date of the Life of St. Andreas Salos’, HUS, 7 (1983), 568–86 Sciacca, Franklin A., ‘In Imitation of Christ: Boris and Gleb and the Ritual Consecration of the Russian Land ’, Slavic Review 49 (1990), 253–60 Ševčenko, Ihor, ‘he Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II’, DOP, 16 (1962), 243–76 ‘A Neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology’, in Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture, Renovatio 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1991), pp. 49–87 Shepard, Jonathan, ed., he Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500– 1492 (Cambridge University Press, 2008) Shepard, Jonathan and Simon Franklin, eds., Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992) Sinkević, Ida, ‘Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a Patron without History?’, Gesta, 35 (1996), 34–42

238

Bibliography

Skawran, Karin M., he Development of Middle Byzantine Fresco Painting in Greece (Pretoria: University of South Africa, 1982) Smirnova, E. S., ‘Otrazhenie literaturnykh proizvedenii o Borise i Glebe v drevnerusskoi stankovoi zhivopisi ’, TODRL , 15 (1958), 312–27 Smirnova, E. S., ed., Dmitrievskii sobor vo Vladimire: k 800–letiiu sozdaniia (Moscow: Modus Graffiti, 1997) Soboleva, L. S., ‘Istoricheskie paremii Borisu i Glebu – maloizuchennyi pamiatnik Kievskoi Rusi’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, 1981) Speck, Paul, ‘De miraculis Sancti Demetrii, qui hessalonicam profugus venit’, Poikila Byzantina, 12 (1993), 255–542 ‘Nochmals zu den miracula Sancti Demetrii ’, Poikila Byzantina, 13 (1994), 317–429 Stepanenko, Valeri P., ‘Bogomater’ Nikopeia i sviatye voiny’, in Preslavska knizhovna shkola (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’, 1995–), vol. v, Izsledvaniia v chest na prof. d. ist. n. Totiu Totev, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Khristo Trendafilov (2001), pp. 40–50 Stephenson, Paul, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204 (Cambridge University Press, 2000) ‘Imperial Christianity and Sacred War in Byzantium’, in Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and Violence across Time and Tradition, ed. James K. Wellman, Jr (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), pp. 81–93 he Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (Cambridge University Press, 2003) Sternbach, L., ‘De Georgii Pisidae apud heophanem aliosque historicos reliquiis’, Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział Filologiczny, 2:15 (1900), 1–107 Tăpkova-Zaimova, V., ‘Quelques représentations iconographiques de Saint Démétrius et l’insurrection des Assenides – première scission dans son cult “oecuménique”’, Byzantinobulgarica, 5 (1978), 261–7 homson, Francis J., ‘“Made in Russia”. A Survey of the Translations Allegedly Made in Kievan Russia’, in he Reception of Byzantine Culture in Mediaeval Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), ch. v Tikhomirov, M. N., Drevnerusskie goroda, 2nd edn (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1956) Treadgold, Warren, Byzantium and Its Army 284–1081 (Stanford University Press, 1995) ‘Byzantium, the Reluctant Warrior’, in Noble Ideals and Bloody Realities: Warfare in the Middle Ages, ed. Niall Christie and Maya Yazigi, History of Warfare 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 209–33 A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford University Press, 1997) Uspenskii, B. A., Boris i Gleb: vospriiatie istorii v drevnei Rusi (Moscow: IaRK, 2000) Velimirović, Miloš, ‘he Influence of the Byzantine Chant on the Music of the Slavic Countries’, in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress

Bibliography

239

of Byzantine Studies, ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky and S. Runciman (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 119–47 Vieillefond, J.-R., ‘Les pratiques religieuses dans l’armée byzantine d’après les traités militaires’, Revue des études anciennes, 37 (1935), 322–30 Voronin, N. N., ‘“Povest’ ob ubiistve Andreia Bogoliubskogo” i ee avtor’, Istoriia SSSR, 7:3 (1963), 80 –97 Zodchestvo severno-vostochnoi Rusi XII–XV vekov, 2 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961–2) Walter, Christopher, ‘St Demetrios: he Myroblytos of hessalonika’, in Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London: Ashgate Variorum, 1977), 157–78 ‘Saint heodore and the Dragon’, in hrough a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed. C. Entwistle (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003), pp. 95–106 ‘heodore, Archetype of the Warrior Saint’, REB, 57 (1999), 163–210 he Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003) Weitzmann, Kurt, Classical Heritage in Byzantine and Near Eastern Art (London: Variorum, 1981) Wellesz, Egon, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949) Whitby, Mary, ‘Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and his Deputies’, in he Propaganda of Power: he Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. M. Whitby (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 247–73 ‘A New Image for a New Age. George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius’, in he Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, ed. E. Dąbrowa (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1994), pp. 197–225 Whitby, Michael, ‘Deus nobiscum: Christianity, Warfare, and Morale In Late Antiquity’, in Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoff rey Rickman, ed. Michel Austin et al. (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1988), pp. 191–208 ‘Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality’, in he Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East (Princeton: Darwin, 1992), vol. i, Problems in the Literary Source Material, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1, ed. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad, pp. 25–80 White, Monica, ‘A Byzantine Tradition Transformed: Military Saints under the House of Suzdal’, he Russian Review, 63/3 (2004), 493–513. ‘Byzantine Visual Propaganda and the Inverted Heart Motif ’, Byzantion, 76 (2006), 330 –63 ‘he Rise of the Dragon in Middle Byzantine Hagiography’, BMGS, 32 (2008), 149 –67 Whittow, Mark, he Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025 (London: Macmillan, 1996) Wörn, Dietrich, ‘Studien zur Herrschaftsideologie des Großfürsten Vsevolod III. “Bol’šoe gnezdo” von Vladimir (1176–1212)’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, n.s. 27 (1979), 1–40

240

Bibliography

Yannopoulos, L’ hexagramme: un monnayage byzantin en argent du VIIIe siècle, Numismatica Lovaniensia 3 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d ’archéologie et d ’ histoire de l ’art, 1978) Zuckerman, Constantine, ‘Cappadocian Fathers and the Goths’, TM, 11 (1991), 473–86 ‘he Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister’, JÖB, 40 (1990), 209 –24 ‘he Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. heodore the Recruit (BHG 1764)’, REB, 46 (1988), 191–205

Index

All ancient and medieval people are listed by first name. Princes of Rus in the generations up to and including Boris and Gleb are listed by first name only, while princes in subsequent generations are listed by first name and patronymic or epithet (e.g. Dolgorukii). Princes are generally identified by the city which they ruled last, unless an earlier city was particularly important for their career. Emperors up to and including Constantine I are identified as ‘Roman’, subsequent emperors as ‘Byzantine’. Emperors are listed by first name and number, not surname or epithet. Abel, 146 comparison with Boris and Gleb, 139 Achaeans, 1 Agapetos, deacon, 183 Agathias, historian, 39 Histories, 38 Agathonikos, St depiction on seals, 155 Alamanni, 38 Alexander the Great, 40 comparison with Byzantine emperors, 157 depictions in friezes, 186, 194 in minor arts, 157, 159 Alexander, Byzantine emperor coins, 118 Alexandra, legendary Persian empress, 21 Alexios I, Byzantine emperor, 111, 198 coins, 118, 172 Alexios III, Byzantine emperor coins, 118 seals, 117 Alexios Angelos Komnenos, grandson of Alexios I seals, 198 All Souls’ Day, 60 Alta, river, 153 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 152 Amasea, city in Asia Minor, 27 Ambrose, St, 37 Ammianus Marcellinus, historian, 34 Anastasia, St depiction in frescoes, 129

Anastasios I, Byzantine emperor, 42 Anastasios the Persian, St miracles of, 23–4 Andreev, city in Rus, 176 Andrew Bogoliubskii, prince of Vladimir, 179, 183, 184, 185, 197 career, 168 comparisons with Andrew, 181 with Boris and Gleb, 181, 182 with King David, 181 with King Solomon, 181 murder of, 181–3 religious innovations, 168, 170 residence, 168, 178–9 Tale of the Victory over the Volga Bulgars, 180, 181 texts by and about, 180 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 181–2, 184 of Christ, 179–80, 181 of Mother of God, 181, 211 of heodore, 180–1 Andrew, St, 182 comparison with Andrew Bogoliubskii, 181 depiction on seals, 115 Andronikos Komnenos, son of Alexios I, 172 Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy, he, see Syrianos Magistros: De re strategica Antioch, 32, 59 Antony, St church dedications, 120 Apamea, city in Syria, 38 Apostles, 60

241

242

Index

Arab invasions, 28, 49 Arabs, 14, 22, 29, 60, 69, 107, 108 Arethas, St, 79, 81 depiction in ivory carvings, 78 Arkadii, archbishop of Novgorod liturgical office to Boris and Gleb, 144, 145 Arkadios, archbishop of Cyprus homily to George, 23, 24 Armenia, 32 Arrianos, military author Taktikon, 42 Asia Minor, 173 Avars, 45 Avar-Slav invasions, 14, 18, 71 Baghdad, 95 Balkans, 5, 25 Baltic Sea, 124 Barbara, St church in Soğ anlı, 83 comparison with Boris, 139 Bardas Phokas, rebel, 89 Bardas Skleros, rebel, 89 Bartholomew, St depiction in minor arts, 160 Basil I, Byzantine emperor, 51, 65, 66, 67, 78, 121 anonymous poem to, 65 campaigns, 32 church-building activities, 66, 72, 121 comparisons with Constantine I, 65 with King David, 65 with King Solomon, 65 murder of Michael III, 121 veneration of Diomedes, 66 of Elijah, 65 Basil II, Byzantine emperor, 32, 59, 64, 85, 89, 94, 203 campaigns, 32 veneration of military saints, 89–91 of Mother of God, 89 Basil the Great, St, 78 church in Vyshgorod, 151 depiction on seals, 115, 154 vision of, 141 Basil the Parakoimomenos, 85 Basil the Younger, St Life, 86–7 Beirut, 32 Belarus, 94 Belisarios, general, 37, 40 Bible, 52, 54, 113 Black Sea, 73

Bogoliubovo, town in Rus, 168, 179 citizens of, 182 Boris, prince of Rostov, see also Boris, prince of Rostov and Gleb, prince of Murom ‘he Appearance of Boris’, 143 comparisons with Barbara, 139 with Niketas, 139 with Romanos the Melode, 139 with Václav, 139 depiction on seals, 115 relics, 153, 154, 182, 183, 184 Boris, prince of Rostov and Gleb, prince of Murom, 4, 6, 7, 132, 139, 167, 179, 180, 181, 184, 186, 193, 199 accounts in Primary Chronicle, 134–5, 137, 142, 143, 146, 147 association with Demetrios, 140–1, 142 with George, 140, 142 with Merkourios, 142 with military saints, 3, 4, 6, 93, 131, 132–3, 134, 142–5, 147–8, 155–66, 187–90, 199–200, 201–2, 204 with Nicholas, 139–40 category of sainthood, 135–7 cathedral in Chernigov, 152 church dedications, 120 churches in Grodno, 153 in Kideksha, 178 in Kiev, 149 in Novgorod, 153 in Novogrudok, 153 in Polotsk, 153 in Riazan, 153 in Vyshgorod, 151–2, 178 on Alta River, 152 comparisons with Abel, 139 with Andrew Bogoliubskii, 181, 182 with Joseph and Benjamin, 138 cultural significance of, 133 death of, 135–6 depictions in frescoes, 163–4, 165–6 in friezes, 187–90, 193 in minor arts, 158–63, 164–6, 201 on seals, 154–6, 165–6 earthly lives of, 134–5, 143 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 145, 179 in minei, 145–6 Lesson, 135, 136, 137, 138–40, 141, 143, 154 liturgical offices, 143–5

Index monastery on Smiadyn River, 152, 179 paremeinik readings, 146–7, 183, 184 relics, 151–2, 175, 179 sources, 7, 8–9, 133–4, 137–8, see also works by title, medium or genre Tale, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140–1, 142, 143, 146, 147 Tale of the Miracles, 137, 139–40, 151, 152, 153, 175 veneration by house of Suzdal, 168–9, 170, 178, 179, 181–2, 184, 187–90, 199–200, 201–2 by Iaroslav, 142, 147 by Riurikids, 142, 145–6, 148–62 Borisov, city in Rus, 176 Borisov-Glebov, city in Rus, 176 British Museum, 81 Bulgaria, 32, 61, 87, 104 Bulgarians, 56, 61 Bulgars, 95 Byzantine Commonwealth, 157 Byzantine emperors, see emperors, dynasties or periods by name Byzantine Empire, 3, 4, 8, 61, 62, 63, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 102, 121, 122, 130, 131, 132, 144, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 165, 171, 177, 185, 186, 195, 203, 204, 205 trade with Varangians, 94–5 Byzantines, 38, 39, 45, 54, 56, 62, 87, 96, 200, 204 Byzantium, see Byzantine Empire Cain, 146 comparison with Sviatopolk, 139, 141 Campaign Organization and Tactics, see De re militari Cappadocia, 13, 25, 173, 174 churches Cistern church, 82–3 of the Cross, 83 of Nikephoros II, 81, 83 Caucasus, 45, 94, 95 Chaldaeans, see Persians Chernigov, city in Rus Cathedral of Sts Boris and Gleb, 152 Christ, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 103, 106, 139, 145, 180 anguish at sins of people, 69 baptism of depiction on seals, 115 church dedications, 120 comparison with Byzantine emperors, 157 Crucifi xion depiction in minor arts, 123 death of, 136 depictions on coins, 118, 172

243

in frescoes, 128, 173 in minor arts, 127, 156, 157, 159, 160, 196, 197 on seals, 116, 117, 198 as example to soldiers, 54 icons of, 14, 38, 40, 108 intercession in war, 64, 89, 197 Pantokrator monastery in Constantinople, 192 Transfiguration church in Polotsk, 130 depiction on seals, 117 veneration by Andew Bogoliubskii, 179–80, 181 in vision of Basil the Great, 141 Christendom, 46 Christianity, 42, 45, 62, 79, 101, 121 Christians, 41, 56, 58, 59, 136 Nestorian, 39 non-Chalcedonian, 45 in Roman army, 1, 34 persecution of, 1, 6, 13, 35 of hessalonika, 15 Christina, St depiction in frescoes, 129 Chronicon Paschale, 37–8, 45, 46, 47–8 Chrysippos of Jerusalem, 30 miracle stories about heodore Teron, 28 Chud, tribe, 111, 175 church dedications Byzantine, 120–1 Rus, 119–20, 151–3 Clement of Alexandria, St church dedications, 120 depiction in ivory carvings, 81 Clement of Ohrid, St enkomion to Demetrios, 101–2 lessons in honour of Demetrios, 101–2 in honour of George, 101 coins Byzantine, 118, 171–2 Rus, 118–19 Constantine I, Roman emperor, 37, 47, 50, 178 church in Constantinople, 121 comparison with Basil I, 65 decree of religious toleration by, 2 depictions on coins, 118 in friezes, 187 in minor arts, 157 on seals, 115, 116 Life, 35–6 rehabilitation of victims of persecution, 40 religious leadership of army, 2, 35–6, 42 veneration by Iurii Dolgorukii, 177 war with Licinius, 36

244

Index

Constantine V, Byzantine emperor, 28, 46, 50 Constantine VII, Byzantine emperor, 51, 57, 61, 77 Book of Ceremonies, 69, 78 campaigns, 32 military orations, 58 veneration of military saints, 78–80 What Should be Observed When the…, 50–1, 57–8, 78 Constantine IX, Byzantine emperor seals, 111 Constantinople, 15, 17, 29, 44, 47, 49, 50, 65, 70, 77, 82, 85, 87, 97, 100, 102, 107, 110, 161, 162, 171, 173, 174, 180, 185, 192, 196 attacks by Rus, 86–7, 96 Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, 37 Chapel of Archangel Michael, 121 churches of Archangel Michael, 121 of St Constantine, 121 of St Demetrios, 66, 67, 71, 72 of St George, 22, 107 of St Peter, 69 of St heodore Teron, 30, 87 of St heophano, 121 of St Zoe, 121 citizens of, 71 monasteries of the Pantokrator, 192 of St Diomedes, 65 prayer for protection of, 57 protection by Mother of God, 45, 84 relics, 58 siege of 626, 45, 46 Constantius II, Byzantine emperor, 37, 38 Crimea, 173 Crusades, 61 Cyprus, 32 Cyril and Methodios, Sts, see also Methodios, St veneration of Demetrios, 99–100 Cyril of Alexandria, St church in Kiev, 130 frescoes, 165 Cyril, bishop of Turov, 108 Cyrus and John, Sts depiction in ivory carvings, 81 hymns to, 145 Dadianos, legendary Persian emperor, 21 Danube, 185 David Sviatoslavich, prince of Chernigov Cathedral of Sts Boris and Gleb, 152 veneration of Gleb, 153

David, king of Israel, 45, 151, 159 comparisons with Andrew Bogoliubskii, 181 with Basil I, 65 with Byzantine emperors, 157 with Gleb, 138 depictions in minor arts, 157 on seals, 115 David, St, see Gleb, prince of Murom Davydova bozhenka, city in Rus, 176 De re militari, 52 De rebus bellicis, 42 Delehaye, Hippolyte, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 27, 73 Demetrios, St, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 30, 32, 33, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 96, 102, 108, 119, 177, 198, 199 anonymous collection of miracle stories, 7, 18 association with Boris and Gleb, 140–1, 142 Byzantine artistic sources, 13, 19–21, 25, see also works by category or medium Byzantine textual sources, 12, 25, 75, see also works by title cathedrals in hessalonika 17, 19, 24, 190 in Vladimir, 185, 192 churches in Constantinople, 66, 67, 71, 72 in Dmitrov, 185 in Kiev, 128 depictions on coins, 118, 172 in frescoes, 84 in friezes, 187, 190, 194, 195 in ivory carvings, 78, 84 in manuscript illuminations, 90, 91 in minor arts, 82, 85, 124, 125, 127, 128, 157, 158–9, 161, 173, 185–6, 192, 201 in mosaics, 82, 130 on seals, 115, 116, 117, 125, 186, 198 enkomia by Clement of Ohrid, 101–2 by Gregory the Deacon, 71 by John, 18 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 106 in Menologion of Basil II, 71, 74 in Metaphrastic Menologion, 71 in minei, 102 in Second Redaction of prolog, 108–9 in Synaxarion of Constantinople, 71–2 epigrams by John Geometros, 85, 86 failure to aid hessalonika in 904, 70

Index grave covering, 173, 190–3 homilies by Leo VI, 68–9, 71 hymn by Leo VI, 69 icons of, 20 kanones by George Skylitzes, 173 by Methodios, 100–1, 102 lessons by Clement of Ohrid, 101–2 miracle stories by John, 7, 16–18, 20, 101–2, 140–1 myron, 173, 192 Passio altera , 18–19, 68, 71, 192 Passio prima , 15–16, 19, 20, 67, 68 as protector of hessalonika, 16, 18, 25, 31, 71–2, 101 ranks and titles, 18–19 relics, 16–17, 70, 127, 190, 192 sticheron, 144, 145 third collection of miracle stories, 173–4 veneration by Basil II, 89–90 by Cyril and Methodios, 99–100 by Justinian II, 17, 31 by Leo VI, 66–9, 70, 100 by Manuel I, 192–3 by Slavs, 101, 102 by Vsevolod Iurevich, 185–6, 190–2 Diocletian, Roman emperor, 1, 22, 107 Diomedes, St monastery in Constantinople, 65 veneration by Basil I, 65–6 Dmitrov, city in Rus, 174, 177, 185 Church of St Demetrios, 185 Dmitrov Kievskii, city in Rus, 176 Dnieper, river, 95 Domitianos, bishop of Martyropolis, 39, 43 Domnitziolos, nephew of Phokas veneration of George, 23, 24, 31 Dorostolon, city in Bulgaria, 88 renaming of, 87–8 East Slavs, 10, 118, see also Rus (people) Edessa, Persian siege of 38 Egypt, 25 Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg, see Syrianos Magistros, military author: Naumachiae Elijah, prophet, 78 church dedications, 120 veneration by Basil I, 65 by Leo VI, 66 Euchaita, city in Asia Minor, 13, 26, 27, 28, 30, 72, 75, 106

245

Church of St heodore Teron, 30 citizens of, 28 renaming of, 89 Euchaneia, town near Euchaita, 72, 73 renaming of, 88, 89 Eupatios, St church dedications, 120 Europe, 94, 96, 133 Eusebios, archbishop of hessalonika, 16 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, 37, 40 Life of Constantine, 35–6 Eustathios, St, 14, 79 depictions in frescoes, 83, 130 in friezes, 187 in ivory carvings, 78, 80, 81, 131 in minor arts, 125, 128 enkomion by Niketas the Paphlagonian, 73 Eustratios, St, 79 depictions in frescoes, 83 in ivory carvings, 78, 81 enkomion by Niketas the Paphlagonian, 73 Euthemios Protasecretis, author, 73 hagiography of heodore Stratelates, 73 Evagrios, church historian, 64 Ecclesiastical History, 38, 39, 40 Evfrosiniia, princess of Polotsk altar cross, 127 Ezra, city in Syria Church of St George, 22 Feodosii, St veneration by Sviatopolk Iziaslavich, 149 Feriale Duranum, 34 Finland, 94 First World War, 205 Forty martyrs of Sebasteia depictions in frescoes, 83 in ivory carvings, 81 frescoes and mosaics Byzantine, 128–9 Rus, 128–30 friezes, Rus, 186–90, 193–7, 198–200 Gabriel, Archangel depictions in minor arts, 160 on seals, 115 icons of, 14, 108 Genesis, Book of, 139 George, Metropolitan of Kiev, 153

246

Index

George, St, 4, 6, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 64, 70, 72, 76, 77, 103, 175, 177, 198 association with Boris and Gleb, 140, 142 Byzantine artistic sources, 13, 25, 26, 31, 77, see also works by category or medium Byzantine textual sources, 7, 12, 25–6, 76, 77, see also works by title cathedrals in Iurev-Polskoi, 193 in Novgorod, 130 chapel in Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom, Kiev, 129–30 churches in Constantinople, 22, 107 in Ezra, 22 in Jerusalem, 22 in Kiev, 107 in Lydda, 22 in Rome, 22 in Staraia Ladoga, 130 depictions on coins, 118, 172 in frescoes, 83, 84, 130, 173 in friezes, 187, 194, 195 in ivory carvings, 78, 80, 81, 84 in manuscript illuminations, 91 in minor arts, 82, 85, 123, 125–6, 127, 128, 131, 158–9, 161, 201 in mosaics, 82 in posters, 205 on seals, 115, 116, 117, 125, 198 dragon-slaying miracle, 14, 30, 128, 130 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 107 in Metaphrastic Menologion, 75–6 in minei, 103, 104 in Synaxarion of Constantinople, 75, 77, 88, 107 hagiography by Niketas the Paphlagonian, 75 by heodore Daphnopates, 75 homily by Arkadios, 23, 24 inscriptions, 23 Iur’ev den’ , 107 kanon by George Skylitzes, 173 lesson by Clement of Ohrid, 101 miracle stories, 22, 24 Paphlagonian collection, 76 passiones, 21–2 sticheron, 144, 145 veneration by Basil II, 90 by Domnitziolos, 23, 24, 31 by Iaroslav, 111–12 by John I, 88

George Kedrenos, historian Synopsis historion, 88–9 George of Pisidia, poet works, 46, 48 George Skylitzes, court official kanones to Demetrios, 173 to George, 173 Gerontios, father of George, 21 Géza II, king of Hungary, 170 Gildo, pagan count, 37 Gleb Iurevich, prince of Kiev, 168 Gleb Sviatoslavich, prince of Tmutarakan, 153 Gleb, prince of Murom, 143, see also Boris, prince of Rostov and Gleb, prince of Murom comparisons with King David 138 with Zechariah, 138 depictions in minor arts, 153, 154 on seals, 115 relics, 153 veneration by David Sviatoslavich, 153 by Sviatoslav Iaroslavich, 153 Glebl, city in Rus, 176 Glebov, city in Rus, 176 gods, Greco-Roman, 1 Goliath, 45 Göreme, town in Cappadocia chuch of Mother of God, 83 Goriaser, murderer of Gleb, 182 Gorodishche, town in Rus, 95 Gospels, 49, 54, 68 Goths, 38 Greece inscriptions about heodore Teron, 30 Greeks, see Byzantines Gregory of Nyssa, St, 27, 30 enkomion to heodore Teron, 26–7 Gregory the Deacon enkomion to Demetrios, 71 Grodno, city in Rus Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 153 Herakleios, Byzantine emperor, 33, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 61, 65 dispatches, 47–8 letter to Kavadh II, 46 military theories, 44, 49, 51 religious propaganda, 44–5, 48–9 rise to power, 44 wars with Persia, 44

Index Hercules depiction in friezes, 187 Hermitage, 80 Hermogenes, rhetorician, 54 Hieron, St depiction in frescoes, 83 holy war, inapplicability to Byzantium, 61–2 Holy Wisdom cathedrals in Constantinople, 37 in Kiev, 129, 149 in Novgorod, 127 church dedications, 120 Homer, 1 house of Suzdal, 98, 166, 169, see also princes by name veneration of Boris and Gleb, 168–9, 170, 179, 201–2 of military saints, 168–9, 170, 184, 201–2 Hungarians, 56, 173 Hyakinthos, St depiction on seals, 117 Hypatian Chronicle, 149, 179, 180, 181, 182 Ianin, V. L., 112, 113, 114 Iaroslav, prince of Kiev, 129, 135, 138, 142, 148, 149, 151, 152, 169, 183, 184 churches of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151, 178 of St George, 107 coins, 118 foundation of cities, 111, 175 seals, 111, 115 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 142, 147 of George, 111–12 war with Sviatopolk, 135, 142, 146, 147, 148, 183 Iaroslav Vladimirovich, prince of Novgorod Church of the Saviour (Nereditsa), 130 Iaroslav Vsevolodovich, prince of Vladimir helmet, 124 Iconoclasm, 2, 12, 14, 28, 29, 51, 91 used to rally army, 50 Iconoclast emperors, 51, see also emperors by name Ignatios, St depiction on seals, 155 Igor, prince of Kiev, 95, 96 Ioachim and Anna, Sts church dedications, 120 Irene, Byzantine empress, 50 Isaac I, Byzantine emperor, 172 coins, 171–2 Isaac II, Byzantine emperor coins, 118

247

Isaac Komnenos, son of Alexios I, 172 Isaurian emperors. 51, see also emperors by name Islam, 62 Ismael, descendants of, 59 Italy, 38 Iurev (Tartu), city in Rus, 177 foundation, 175 Iurev, city in Rus, 177 foundation, 111, 175 Iurev-Polskoi, city in Rus, 174, 177 Cathedral of St George, 193 friezes, 193–7, 198–200 Iurii Dolgorukii, prince of Suzdal, 168, 170, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 193, 202 career, 167–8 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 178 foundation of cities, 174, 177–8, 185 relations with Byzantine empire, 170–1 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 178 of Constantine, 177 of military saints, 177–8 ivory carvings, Byzantine, 78–81, 84–5 Iziaslav Davydovich, prince of Chernigov veneration of Archangel Michael, 197 of Mother of God, 197 Iziaslav Iaroslavich, prince of Kiev, 128, 151, 152 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151, 152 Iziaslav Mstislavich, prince of Kiev, 170 Iziaslav Vladimirovich, prince of Polotsk, 175 Iziaslavl, city in Rus, 175 foundation, 175 Jacob, Old Testament patriarch, 138 James, St depiction in minor arts, 160 Jerusalem, 38, 45, 46, 108 churches of St George, 22 of St heodore Teron, 30 jihad , 61, 62 John I, Byzantine emperor, 81, 85, 198 campaigns, 87 Church of St heodore Stratelates, 88, 89 renaming of cities, 87–9 veneration of George, 88 of heodore Stratelates, 87–9, 111 John II, Byzantine emperor, 172 coins, 118, 172

248 John, archbishop of hessalonika, 18 enkomion to Demetrios, 18 miracle stories about Demetrios, 16–18, 20, 101–2, 140–1 John, metropolitan of Kiev liturgical office of Boris and Gleb, 144–5 John Chrysostom, St, 104, 182, 183 John Geometros, poet, 85 works about military saints, 85–6 John Kaminiates, hessalonian De Expugnatione hessalonicae, 69–70 John Komnenos, father of Alexios I seals, 111 John Malalas, historian Chronicle, 141 John Skylitzes, historian, 88, 173 Synopsis historiarum, 88, 89–90 John the Baptist, St depictions in minor arts, 160 on seals, 115, 154 John the heologian, St depiction on seals, 115, 154 John the Warrior, St depiction in frescoes, 130, 131 John Zonaras, historian Epitomae historiarum, 89 Jordan inscriptions about heodore Teron, 30 Joseph and Benjamin, sons of Jacob comparison with Boris and Gleb, 138 Judaism, 79 Julian, Byzantine emperor, 28, 141 comparison with Sviatopolk, 141 killing by Merkourios, 14, 141 by hekla, 141 by heodore, 141 Julius Caesar, Roman emperor, 34, 50 Justin I, Byzantine emperor, 23 Justin II, Byzantine emperor veneration of Mother of God, 39 Justinian I, Byzantine emperor, 16, 37 conquest of North Africa, 38 Justinian II, Byzantine emperor coins, 118 veneration of Demetrios, 17, 31 Justinian, general, 39, 43, 49 Kavadh II, Persian emperor, 44, 47, 48 letter from Herakleios, 46 Kekaumenos, military author works, 52 Khazar Empire, 95

Index Kideksha, town in Rus, 179 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 178 Kiev, 95, 96, 128, 135, 143, 150, 151, 152, 161, 167, 168, 170, 178, 179, 180, 187, 196, 197 cathedrals of Archangel Michael, 130 of the Holy Wisdom, 129, 149 Caves Monastery, 149 Cathedral of the Dormition, 149 Paterik, 197 Chapel of St George, 129–30 churches of Sts Boris and Gleb, 149 of St Cyril of Alexandria, 130, 165 of St Demetrios, 128 of St George, 107 Tithe Church, 149 Kievan Rus, see Rus Komnenoi emperors, 174, see also emperors by name veneration of military saints, 92, 171–3 Kosmas and Damian, Sts depictions in friezes, 199 in minor arts, 157 on seals, 115, 154 veneration by Leo VI, 66 Ksniatin on the Sula, city in Rus, 176, 177 Ksniatin, city in Rus, 174, 177 Kyrion, St depiction in ivory carvings, 81 Lamech, Old Testament patriarch comparison with Sviatopolk, 139, 141 Last Judgement, 186 Laurentian Chronicle, 149, 175, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 190, 197 Lemerle, Paul, 7, 18, 19, 20 Lent, 100 Leo IV, Byzantine emperor, 50 Leo VI, Byzantine emperor, 50, 55, 57, 61, 65, 70, 71, 72, 78, 101 campaigns, 32 church-building activities, 121 coins, 118 homilies to Demetrios, 68–9, 71 hymn to Demetrios, 69 Problemata , 55 Tactical Constitutions, 55–7 veneration of Demetrios, 66–9, 70, 100 of Elijah, 66 of Kosmas and Damian, 66 Leo the Deacon, 88, 198

Index History, 87–8 Leontios, eparch of Illyricum, 15, 192 Licinius, Roman emperor decree of religious toleration by, 2 persecution of Christians, 40 war with Constantine I, 36 liturgical texts, military-related, 60–1 Longinos, St inscription, 30 Louvre, 80 Luke, St Monastery of (Hosios Loukas) mosaics, 82 Lyaeus, gladiator, 15, 103 Lydda, city in Palestine, 13, 77 church of St George, 22 Macedonian dynasty, see Macedonian emperors Macedonian emperors, 4, 13, 15, 21, 26, 33, 34, 50, 51, 171, see also emperors by name military successes, 32 veneration of military saints, 13, 33, 64–5, 77–80, 86–91, 94, 202–3 Magnentios, usurper, 38 Manuel I, Byzantine emperor, 170, 171, 173, 181, 185, 192, 193, 198 coins, 118, 172 depiction in frescoes, 172–3 seals, 116 veneration of Demetrios, 192–3 Marcellinus, historian Chronicle of Marcellinus, 37, 64 continuation of, 37 Mark, St depiction in minor arts, 157 relics, 30 martyr-generals, see military saints Martyropolis, siege of, 39 martyrs Byzantine strategists’ fascination with, 49–50, 53 exhortations to soldiers to emulate, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57–8, 59–61, 63, 77 martyr-warrior ideal, 4, 77, 102, 127, 131, 132, 134, 150, 171, 193, 199 Mary, St, see Mother of God Mascezel, brother of Gildo, 37 Maurice, Byzantine emperor, 16, 44, 46, 47, 54 campaigns, 39 Strategikon, 43–4, 47, 55, 56, 59 Maximian, Roman emperor, 15 Mediterranean, 94 Melias, general, 81 Melissa , 183

249

Melitene, city in Armenia, 32 menaia , see minei, Rus Menander, historian, 39 History, 39 Menas, St depiction in ivory carvings, 81 Menologion of Basil II, 90, 104, 106 entries for Demetrios, 71, 74 for heodore Stratelates, 74 for heodore Teron, 74 illuminations, 90 opening poem, 90, 91 Merkourios, St, 4, 14, 24, 103, 108, 141 association with Boris and Gleb, 142 depictions in friezes, 187 in ivory carvings, 81 in manuscript illuminations, 91 in minor arts, 128 in mosaics, 82 on seals, 115 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 107 in minei, 103 killing of Julian, 14, 141 Methodios, St, 101, 102, 103, see also Cyril and Methodios, Sts kanon to Demetrios, 100–1, 102 Michael III, Byzantine emperor, 51, 121 murder by Basil I, 121 Michael IV, Byzantine emperor coins, 118 seals, 111 Michael, Archangel, 11, 12 cathedral in Kiev, 130 chapel in Constantinople, 121 churches in Constantinople, 121 depictions on coins, 118 in minor arts, 160 on seals, 115, 154, 155 icons of, 14, 108 military role, 11 name used as password, 57 veneration by Iziaslav Davydovich, 197 Michael Autoreianos, patriarch of Constantinople, 62 Middle East, 94 Mikhailov, city in Rus, 176 Mikhalko Iurevich, prince of Vladimir veneration of Boris and Gleb, 149–50 of Mother of God, 149–50 Mikulin, city in Rus, 176

250

Index

military handbooks, see military writings, Byzantine military saints, see also saints by name alliance with Mother of God, 11, 84, 87, 197–8 Byzantine sources, 7–8, 9–11, 77–8, see also works by title, medium or genre Byzantine terms for, 3 as Christian equivalent of ancient gods, 1 depictions in frescoes, 163–4, 173 in minor arts, 157 on seals, 154, 173 état-major, 4, 5, 6, 13, 78 historical reliability of texts, 12 as models for Boris and Gleb, 3, 4, 6, 93, 131, 132–3, 134, 142–5, 147–8, 155–66, 187–90, 199–200, 201–2, 204 modern terms for, 3 names used as passwords, 57, 78 Rus sources, 8–11, 98, 110, see also works by title, medium or genre scholarship about, 7, 99 veneration as group, 3, 6, 77–84, 89–91 by house of Suzdal, 168–9, 170, 177–8, 184, 187–90, 194–6, 197, 198–200, 201–2 by Komnenoi emperors, 92, 171–3 by Macedonian emperors, 13, 33, 64–5, 77–80, 86–91, 94, 202–3 as martyrs, 3, 5, 15, 65, 78–84, 90–1 by Riurikids, 2, 92, 109–11, 122, 203–4 military treatises, see military writings, Byzantine military writings, Byzantine, 10 Iconoclast, 50–1, see also works by title late antique, 40–4, see also works by title middle Byzantine, 49–61, see also works by title minei, Rus, 100–1, 102–4, 105, 109 entries for Boris and Gleb, 145–6 for Demetrios, 102 for George, 103, 104 for Merkourios, 103 for Nestor, 103 for heodore Stratelates, 103–4 minor arts Byzantine, 82, 85, 156–7, 196 Georgian, 157–8 Rus, 122–8, 156, 158–62 Mithraism in Roman army, 34 Mother of God, 11, 12, 43, 48, 49, 59, 60, 87, 88, 151, 180, 196, 197

alliance with military saints, 11, 84, 87, 197–8 Annunciation depiction on seals, 115 church dedications, 119, 120 church in Göreme, 83 depictions on coins, 118, 172 on enkolpia , 123 in frescoes, 128, 163–4, 172–3 in friezes, 194, 195 in ivory carvings, 84 in minor arts, 84, 156, 157, 160, 197 on seals, 116, 117, 198 Dormition Cathedral in Caves Monastery, 149 icons of, 11, 88, 89, 127 Intercession, 179 intercession in war, 197 military role, 11, 39–40, 64, 89 name used as password, 57 protection of Constantinople, 45, 84 relics, 11 veneration by emperors, 39, 89 by Riurikids, 149–50, 179–80, 181, 195–6, 197 Mstislav Iurevich, prince of Novgorod, 177 exile in Byzantine empire, 185 Mstislav Rostislavich, prince of Novgorod veneration of Boris and Gleb, 150 Mstislav Vladimirovich, prince of Kiev commissioning of enamels, 161 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 161 Murom, city in Rus, 135 Muslims, 28, 62 Najran, city in Arabia, 79 Narses, general, 38 Naslav, scribe, 161 journey to Constantinople, 161 Nektarios, archbishop of Constantinople homily to heodore Teron, 28 Nestor, monk, 136 Lesson, 135, 136, 137, 138–40, 141, 143, 154 Nestor, St, 14, 15, 103 depictions in friezes, 187, 194 in minor arts, 128 in mosaics, 82 entry in minei, 103 Nicholas, St, 140 association with Boris and Gleb, 139–40 depictions in frescoes, 172–3

Index in minor arts, 125, 140, 163 on seals, 115, 117 Nicholas Mystikos, patriarch of Constantinople, 70 sermon on sack of hessalonika, 69 Nikephoros I, Byzantine emperor, 61 invasion of Bulgaria, 61 Nikephoros II, Byzantine emperor, 85 akolouthia commemorating, 61 church in Cappadocia, 81, 83 De velitatione bellica , 58, 59–60 petition of Patriarch Polyeuktos, 60 Praecepta militaria , 58–9 Nikephoros, patriarch of Constantinople Short History, 46 Nikephoros Ouranos, governor of Antioch, 90 hagiography of heodore Teron, 74–5, 90 Taktika , 59, 74 Niketas, St comparison with Boris, 139 depictions in minor arts, 127 on seals, 155 Niketas Choniates, historian, 198 Niketas the Paphlagonian, scholar, 72, 73 enkomia to Eustathios, 73 to Eustratios, 73 to Prokopios, 73 to heodore Stratelates, 72–3 hagiography of George, 75 Nisibis, Persian siege of, 37 North Africa, 37 Novgorod, city in Rus, 95, 112, 114, 135, 147, 168, 201 cathedrals of St George, 130 of the Holy Wisdom, 127 churches of Sts Boris and Gleb, 153 of the Saviour (Nereditsa), 129, 163–4 Novgorod First Chronicle, 152, 185 Novgorodians, 183, 201 Novogrudok, city in Rus Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 153 Old Testament, 52, 54, 138, 139, 146, 181 use in paremeinik, 146 Oleg, Varangian prince attack on Constantinople, 96 Oleg Sviatoslavich, prince of Chernigov Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151, 152 Olga, princess of Kiev, 96 conversion to Christianity, 97 Orthodoxy, 51, 203

251

Otskalan, region in Byzantine empire, 185 Ottoman conquests, 5 Palestine, 22, 40 inscriptions about heodore Teron, 30 Panteleemon, St depiction on seals, 115 relics, 127 Paphlagonia, region in Asia Minor, 76 Parekbolai, 52 Paul, St, see also Peter and Paul, Sts Letter to the Romans, 183–4 Pchela , 183 Pechenegs, tribe, 143 Pereslavl, city in Rus, 152, 167, 168 Pereslavl-Zalesskii, city in Rus, 127 Persia, 45, 49, 137 trade with Varangians, 94 Persians, 23, 29, 39, 45, 76, 173 Peter, bishop of Euchaita, 27 Peter, bishop of hessalonika, 20 Peter, St, see also Peter and Paul, Sts church in Constantinople, 69 depictions on coins, 118 on seals, 115 Peter and Paul, Sts, see also Peter, St; Paul, St depictions in minor arts, 128, 160 on seals, 154 hymns to, 144 Phokas, Byzantine emperor, 23, 44 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople, 65 Bibliotheca , 68 Photios of hessalonika, St enkomion to, 90 Polotsk, city in Rus churches of Sts Boris and Gleb, 153 of the Transfiguration, 130 Polovtsy, tribe, 174, 180 Poluainos, military author, 52 Polyeuktos, patriarch of Constantinople, 60 pre-Mongol Rus, see Rus Primary Chronicle, 95, 96, 149, 174, 175 accounts about Boris and Gleb, 134–5, 137, 142, 143, 146, 147 Procopius of Caesarea, 38, 40 History of the Wars, 38 Prokopios, St, 4, 14, 107 depictions in frescoes, 83 in friezes, 187, 194 in ivory carvings, 78, 81 in manuscript illuminations, 91

252 Prokopios, St (cont.) in minor arts, 82, 128 in mosaics, 82 on seals, 115 enkomion by Niketas the Paphlagonian, 73 entry in First Redaction of prolog, 107–8 sticheron, 144, 145 prolog, Slavonic, 104, 105, 109 First Redaction, 104–6, 108 entries for Boris and Gleb, 145, 179 entries for George, 107 entry for Demetrios, 106 entry for Merkourios, 107 entry for Prokopios, 107–8 entry for heodore Stratelates, 106 entry for heodore Teron, 106 Second Redaction, 105, 108 entry for Demetrios, 108–9 Slavonic Synaxarion, 104, 108 Psalms, 47 Psalter of Basil II, 90 frontispiece, 91 opening poem, 91 Ravenna Church of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, 20 Riazan, city in Rus, 124, 163 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 153 Riurik, prince of Novgorod, 95 Riurik Rostislavich, prince of Kiev veneration of Boris and Gleb, 150 Riurikids, 2, 95, 96, 99, 110, 122, 132, 156, 166, see also princes by name dedication of churches, 119, 120 naming system, 113 seals, 111–13, 114–16, 117–18 succession system, 96 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 142, 145–6, 148–62 of military saints, 2, 92, 109–11, 122, 203–4 Roman army, pre-Constantine I, 1 Christianity in, 5 religious observances in, 34–5 Roman emperors, post-Constantine I, see Byzantine emperors Roman Empire, pre-Constantine I, 13 Roman, St., see Boris, prince of Rostov Romanos I, Byzantine emperor, 89 campaigns, 32 Romanos II, Byzantine emperor, 86 campaigns, 32 Romanos III, Byzantine emperor seals, 111 Romanos the Melode, St, 151

Index comparison with Boris, 139 Romans, post-Constantine I, see Byzantines Rome churches of Santa Maria Antiqua, 20 of St George, 22 of St heodore Teron, 30 Palazzo Venezia, 78 Rostislav Iurevich, prince of Pereslavl, 177 Rostov, city in Rus, 135, 167 Rus, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 107, 109, 121, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 149, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 174, 177, 178, 179, 183, 185, 186, 190, 196, 197, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 earliest history of, 94–5 official conversion to Christianity, 2, 94, 97, 135 princely clan of, see Riurikids Rus (people), 86, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, see also East Slavs attacks on Constantinople, 87, 96 Russia, 94 Russian Empire, 205 Russians, 205 Sabbas the Warrior, St depiction in frescoes, 130 Saracens, see Arabs Saviour church outside Novgorod (Nereditsa), 129 frescoes, 163–4 Scandinavians, see Varangians Scythians, 26, 27, 87, 173 seals Byzantine, 116–17, 173 Rus, 111–13, 114–16, 117–18 Second World War, 127 Serbia, 104 Sergiopolis, city in Syria, 40, 64 Shapur II, Persian emperor, 37 Symeon, depiction on seals, 154 Sinai, Mt, 197 Skirmishing, see Nikephoros II: De velitatione bellica Slavs, 102, 144 attacks on hessalonika, 71 veneration of Demetrios, 101, 102 Smiadyn, river, 153 Monastery of Sts Boris and Gleb, 152, 179 Smolensk, city in Rus, 135, 152 Soğ anlı, valley in Cappadocia Church of St Barbara, 83

Index Solachon, battle of, 40 Solomon, king of Israel comparisons with Andrew Bogoliubskii, 181 with Basil I, 65 Staraia Ladoga, city in Rus Church of St George, 130 Stephen, St, 139 depiction in ivory carvings, 81 relics, 127 Suzdal, city in Rus, 98, 168, 178, 193, 201 Sviatopolch, city in Rus foundation, 174–5 Sviatopolk, prince of Kiev, 143 baptism, 135 coins, 118–19 comparisons with Cain, 139, 141 with Julian, 141 with Lamech, 139, 141 death of, 141, 142 murder of Boris and Gleb, 135 war with Iaroslav, 135, 142, 146, 147, 148, 183 Sviatopolk Iziaslavich, prince of Kiev, 151 foundation of cities, 174–5 veneration of Feodosii, 149 of Mother of God, 149 Sviatoslav Iaroslavich, prince of Kiev, 151, 152 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151 veneration of Gleb, 153 Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, prince of Iurev-Polskoi, 179, 193 Cathedral of St George, 193 friezes, 193–7, 198–200 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 199–200 of military saints, 194–6, 197, 198–200 of Mother of God, 195–6, 197 Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich, prince of Kiev veneration of Boris and Gleb, 150 Sviatoslavichi, see princes by name Sylloge tacticorum , 57 Symeon Metaphrastes, 19, 74, 75 Menologion entry for Demetrios, 71 entry for George, 75–6 entry for heodore Stratelates, 73 entry for heodore Teron, 73, 74 Synaxarion of Constantinople, 106 commemoration of soldiers massacred in 811, 61

253

entries for Demetrios, 71–2 for George, 75, 107 for George and heodore, 77, 88 for heodore Stratelates, 73–4 for heodore Teron, 74 Syria, 32 inscriptions about heodore Teron, 30 Syrianos Magistros, military author, 53–5, 56 authorship of works, 53 date, 53 De re strategica , 53, 54 Naumachiae, 53, 54 Rhetorica militaris, 53, 54 tagmata , 57, 69 Tbilisi, 84 heagenes, St, 27 hekla, St killing of Julian, 141 themata , 57 heodore, St, 6, 13, 14 , 33, 64 , 77, 161, 181, 182 , 184 , 194 , 198, see also heodore Stratelates, St ; heodore Teron, St Byzantine artistic sources, 13, see also works by category or medium Byzantine textual sources, 12, 75, see also works by title depictions on coins, 118, 172 in frescoes, 83, 173 in friezes, 187, 194, 195 in ivory carvings, 84 in minor arts, 82, 85, 124, 125, 128 on seals, 115, 116, 117, 125, 154 disambiguation, 6 dragon-slaying miracle, 14, 128 entry in Synaxarion of Constantinople, 77, 88 killing of Julian, 141 poems by John Geometros, 85, 86 relics, 197 veneration by Andrew Bogoliubskii, 180–1 heodore Daphnopates, author hagiography of George, 75 heodore of Sykeon, St Church of St George, 23 Life, 23, 24 heodore Stratelates, St, 4, 72, 73, 74, 90–1, 107, 198, see also heodore, St appearance of, 72 churches built by John I, 88, 89 in Constantinople, 87

254

Index

heodore Stratelates, St (cont.) depictions in ivory carvings, 78, 79, 80, 81, 131 in manuscript illuminations, 90, 91 in minor arts, 84, 125, 197 in mosaics, 82 on seals, 115, 125 dragon-slaying miracle, 72, 73 enkomion by Niketas the Paphlagonian, 72–3 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 106 in Menologion of Basil II, 74 in Metaphrastic Menologion, 73 in minei, 103–4 in Synaxarion of Constantinople, 73–4 hagiography by Euthemios Protasecretis, 73 intercessions in battles against the Rus, 86–9 passio, 72 relics, 72 veneration by Basil II, 90, 91 by John I, 87–9, 111 heodore Teron, St, 4, 13, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 64, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 88, see also heodore, St Byzantine artistic sources, 30–1, see also works by title churches in Constantinople, 30 in Euchaita, 30 in Jerusalem, 30 in Rome, 30 in Venice, 30 depictions in frescoes, 172–3 in ivory carvings, 78, 80 in manuscript illuminations, 90, 91 in minor arts, 84, 125, 197 in mosaics, 82 on seals, 115, 125 dragon-slaying miracle, 27, 29–30, 74, 75, 106 earliest passio, 27 early military associations, 26, 30 enkomion by Gregory of Nyssa, 26–7 entries in First Redaction of prolog, 106 in Menologion of Basil II, 74 in Metaphrastic Menologion, 73, 74 in Synaxarion of Constantinople, 74 hagiography by Nikephoros Ouranos, 74–5, 90 homily by Nektarios, 28 inscriptions, 30

Life and Education of heodore Teron, 27 Life, Education and Miracles of St heodore Teron, 7, 28–30 miracle stories by Chrysippos of Jerusalem, 28 poems by John Geometros, 85 veneration by Basil II, 90 heodoropolis, see Dorostolon, Euchaita or Euchaneia heophanes Confessor, historian, 51 Chronicle of heophanes, 47, 48–9, 61 heophano, Byzantine empress, 67 church in Constantinople, 121 Life, 67 heophilos, Byzantine emperor, 19, 95 heophylaktos Simokattes, historian, 44, 49 History, 39–40, 44 hessalonians, 16, 17, 18, 20, 69, 70, 71, 101 hessalonika, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 89, 100, 102, 106, 108, 140, 174, 185, 190, 192 Cathedral of St Demetrios, 17, 19, 173 comparison with Vyshgorod, 146 protection by Demetrios, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 31, 66 sack of 904, 70 seventh-century attacks on, 16, 71 Tiberios Constantine, Byzantine emperor, 39 toponomy, Rus, 174–6 Trojans, 1 True Cross, 44, 45, 46 Tryphon, St depiction in minor arts, 157 Turks, 173, see also Hungarians Ukraine 94 Urbikios, military author Epitedeuma , 42 Taktikon, 42 Václav, prince of Bohemia, 136, 137 comparison with Boris, 139 Varangians, 95, 135 trade conducted by, 94–5 Vasilev, city in Rus foundation, 175 Vasilev Galitskii, city in Rus, 176 Vasilko Iurevich, prince of Porose exile in Byzantine Empire, 185 Vatican City Museo Sacro, 80 Vegetius, military author, 53 Epitome of Military Science, 41–2 Venice Church of St heodore Teron, 30 Vespers, 146

Index Virgin Mary, see Mother of God Vladimir, city in Rus, 98, 175, 179 Cathedral of St Demetrios, 185, 192 friezes, 186–90 citizens of, 182 Vladimir, prince of Kiev, 96, 111, 138, 143 coins, 118–19 conversion to Christianity, 97, 99, 102, 135 death of, 135 foundation of cities, 175 wives, 134 Vladimir Monomakh, prince of Kiev, 152, 167 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 152 Testament, 149, 153, 176 veneration of Boris, 149, 153–4 of Boris and Gleb, 152 of Mother of God, 149 Vladimir Mstislavich, prince of Kiev, 149 Vladimirko Volodarevich, prince of Galich, 170 Vladimir-Suzdal, principality, 134, 168, 170, 201, 202, 204 Volga, 95 Vsevolod Iaroslavich, prince of Kiev, 151, 152 Church of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151 Vsevolod Iurevich, prince of Vladimir, 168, 177, 179, 184, 193, 194, 199 career, 184–5 Cathedral of St Demetrios

255

friezes, 186–90 church-building activities, 185 eulogy to, 183 seals, 186 veneration of Boris and Gleb, 149–50, 187–90 of Demetrios, 185–6, 190–2 of military saints, 187–90 of Mother of God, 149–50 Vyshgorod, town in Rus, 135, 139, 147, 151, 152, 153, 178, 179, 182, 187 churches of St Basil, 151 of Sts Boris and Gleb, 151–2, 178 comparison with hessalonika, 140, 146 Vytecheva, hill, 175 Walter, Christopher, 4, 5, 9, 12, 19, 25 What Should Be Observed When the Emperor …, 50 Xusro II, Persian emperor, 39, 44, 46, 47, 48 Zechariah, prophet comparison with Gleb, 138 Zelve, town in Cappadocia Church no. 3, 84 Zoe, St church in Constantinople, 121