The Second Russian Attack On Constantinople

The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople
Author(s): A. A. Vasiliev
Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers , 1951, Vol. 6 (1951), pp. 161+163-225
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291086
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers
This content downloaded from

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE SECOND RUSSIAN A'I"I'ACK
ON CONSTANTINOPLE
A. A. VASILIEV
Remember now firmly the words of my tongue;

The warrior delighteth in glory;
On the Gate of Byzantium the buckler is hung,
Thy conquests are famous in story.
The Lay of the Wise Oleg

by A. S. Pushkin *
* Translation by Thomas B. Shaw, in The Works of Alexander Pushkin, selected and

edited, with an introduction, by Avrahm Yarmolinsky, New York, 1936.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
FOREWORD
In 1946, in the Foreword to my book The Russian Attack on C

nople in 860, I have explained why, dealing with a single episode,
confined myself to a mere article but have instead written a book. A
my Second Russian Attack on Constantinople is being published n
form of a book but in the more modest shape of a monograph,
question, however, may arise again, and I feel that to justify writin
graph on such a subject I should allege my reasons. In this mon
have the same aim and the same plan as in the previous book, i.e., to
the attack in connection with the Viking incursions in Western
Then, with the secondary works, as in my previous book, I have not
myself to mere statements of titles or to a few words of summary, b
reproduced exact quotations, having in view that these works are
the disposal of the reader, and that many of them are written in R
language which, unfortunately, for the time being is not general
I have also had to discuss several questions which are connected
central subject of the study only indirectly, but which contribu
better understanding and confirmation of the fact of the secon
attack, which has been recorded in the Russian Chronicles only.
nately I had no time to use and discuss the commentary on Oleg's
by D. S. Likhachev published in the second part of "The Tale of
Years" (Povest Vremennykh Let), ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz
Leningrad, 1950), pp. 262-281 (in Russian).
I wish to tender my warm gratitude to Professors Sirarpie Der N
and Milton V. Anastos, of Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard University,
to Mrs. Nathalie Scheffer, for their help and suggestions which hav
great value to my work. I express my warm thanks to Miss Loi
Assistant to the Librarian and to the Research Staff, who, with
conscientiousness, has revised my manuscript and corrected inade
my English.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 165

Narrative of the Russian Annals ..... 168
Some Remarks on the Narrative of the Russian Annals . 172
The Historical Evidence on Oleg's Raid ...... 176

Leo the Deacon (Leo Diaconus). Masudi. Marvazi. Leo the Wis
Choirosphaktes. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. The Rhos
Dromitai: Combefis, T. S. Bayer, E. Kunik, S. A. Gedeonov, F. I. Uspe
R. J. H. Jenkins. The Origin of the Term Dromitai. False Rumor
a Constantinopolitan Inscription.
Oleg's Campaign in Russian Literature .. . ...... 195

Positive Argument: Oleg's Campaign Is an Historical Fact. HISTORIANS OF
RUSSIA: M. V. Lomonosov, V. N. Tatishchev, M. M. Shcherbatov, The Em-
press Catherine the Great, N. M. Karamzin, N. S. Artsybashev, N. Polevoy,
N. Ustryalov, S. M. Solovyov, M. Pogodin, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, N. P.
Lambin, E. Golubinsky, V. I. Lamansky, M. Grushevsky, V. Ikonnikov,
V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov, D. Bagaley, G. Veradsky, History of
U. S. S. R., B. D. Grekov, Baron M. de Taube, History of the Culture of
Ancient Russia. RUSSIAN BYZANTINISTS: A. Vasiliev, M. Sozyumov, G. A.
Ostrogorsky, F. I. Uspensky.
Negative Argument: Oleg's Campaign Is Not an Historical Fact. N. I. Kos-
tomarov, D. Ilovaisky, K. Tiander, A. Lyaschenko, H. Rydzevski, S.
Bakhrushin.
Oleg's Campaign in Foreign Literature .. . ...... 208

Positive Argument: Oleg's Campaign Is an Historical Fact. P. C. Levesque,
N. G. Le Clerc, A. Couret, G. Bie Ravndal, K. I. Amantos, L. Br6hier.
Negative Argument: Oleg's Campaign Is Not an Historical Fact. J. Pray, S.
Katona, E. Gibbon, F. Wilken, N. Brian-Chaninov, S. Runciman, G. Laehr,
H. Gregoire, N. de Baumgarten, G. da Costa-Louillet, R. H. Dolley, M. V.
Levchenko.
Some Remarks on Oleg's Treaties ...... 219

The Comet of 912 ............ 223
Conclusion . 224

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
INTRODUCTION
URING the Middle Ages there were four Russian attack

stantinople. The first attack, in 860, was described by t
and Russian sources and set with chronological accuracy;
attack under the Russian prince Igor, in 941, was recorded by
sian, Latin, and Arab sources, and even by the miniatures of
manuscript of John Skylitzes in Madrid; the fourth and last a
ducted by Vladimir, the elderly son of the Russian prince Yaroslav
in 1043, was told by Greek, Russian, and Arab sources, and
miniatures of the above-mentioned manuscript of John Skylitzes.
of the second attack, with which we shall deal, has survived o
Russian annals in connection with the name of the Russian prin
has come down to us in a rather legendary form, as it is told in
valuable chronicles.
Like the first attack of 860, Oleg's campaign was indissolubly

with the general course of European events in the ninth century a
beginning of the tenth, and cannot be detached from the ma
movement of that period. It was an episode in the process of th
destructive avalanche from the north which swept over Europ
Norsemen, Danes, Swedes and, to a lesser degree, Norwegians, h
European countries both in the west and in the east. In the nin
as L. Halphen says, Ireland became a Norwegian colony, and En
well prepared to become a Danish colony.' At the same time, a
part of the western territory of present-day Russia became a Swed
which had one center in the north, at Novgorod, and the other on
Dnieper, in the south, at Kiev. At the end of that century, the
leader Oleg, of Novgorod, by capturing Kiev, united both north
The Scandinavian newcomers, Varangians, Vikings, were ca
Russian sources Rus' (the Russes), and this name was applied b
state which they created and to the various tribes which they
Oleg, owing to his successful military achievements, in the new
ings, may be regarded as the real founder of the Russian state.
So, in the east, with the establishment of the Russian State in t
century, and the gradual subjugation of various Slavonic, Finnish,
tribes, Viking activity was almost at an end within the confines o
Principality. But, following their inborn piratical impulses, they e
1L. Halphen, Les Barbares des grandes invasions aux conquOtes turques
(Paris, 1926), ch. V: "L'Expansion scandinave aux neuvi6me et dixi6me siecle

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
166 A. A. VASILIEV
in the tenth century, on a number of distant raids, origi

center and extending in the southeast to the shores of th
in the south to the shores of the Black Sea; there the ma
the Byzantine Empire and the Capital itself, "the Guard
stantinople, lay open to the devastating inroads of the Varan
now by their new subjects. Although still adhering to a li
mere adventure and plunder, the Vikings of that period w
of trading interests and operations.
When in 911 Oleg's envoys in Constantinople, after th
made peace and concluded a treaty with the Emperors Le
in the Far West, in the same year, the Emperor Charles t
to oust the Northmen-Danes, who were led by the famo
Rolf, from the Seine basin, was forced to leave in their han
amount of territory on condition that they defend his
baptism, and do homage to him. This was the foundation
Normandy, the only permanent outcome of the Viking A
event of momentous importance for the future history of E
establishment of Normandy, Viking activity was practically
Frankish Kingdom.
Summing up, we always must keep in mind that Oleg
more accurately, Oleg's raid, must be discussed not as a se
event of minor significance but it must be studied against t
the general European tragedy of that period, when, as I
Introduction to my study on the first Russian attack o
terrified and exhausted Europe was driven to despair and
uttered a new prayer: "Ab ira Normannorum libera nos
line of approach may justify, to some extent, my decision t
study on Oleg's campaign.
In 1840, F. Kruse published an article entitled "The Tw
of the Russians into Byzantium." Such a title permits us to
second inroad should be that of Oleg. But for the first inro
event of the year 774, when the Emperor Constantin
(741-775) had sailed against the Bulgars es ra- Povtcra XeX
red imperial vessels, and Kruse mistook the adjective po
for Russian; so that, from his point of view, the first Russ
Byzantine Empire had taken place in 774, and the second
(Ascold) and Dir "in 862, or, as Bayer thinks, in 864 and 8
Theophanes, I, 446: (KoworravrLvos) . . . ewrXav Kat avTOS ets rT
Anastasii Chronographia Tripertita, p. 295: et ingressus et ipse in rubea
edition the Greek adjective 'Pov'ato is printed with a capital letter. F. K

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25ff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
SECOND RUSSIAN ATTACK ON CONSTANTINOPLE 167
In this study I put aside the interesting Jewish med

Khazaro-Russian-Byzantine relations in the tenth century, w
and translated into English in 1912, by S. Schechter. It me
of "Helgu (Oleg), the King of Russia," and his unsucces
against Constantinople. Although edited and translated man
text still presents chronological and topographical difficul
not been satisfactorily clarified, and which prevent me from
ment for my study.3 In his lectures given in St. Petersbur
in other words, immediately after the publication of the
Presnyakov, after stating that Oleg is not a legendary bu
figure, wrote: "His name and activities are confirmed by t
which are independent of annalistic traditions and combi
treaties with the Greeks and by the recently found Jewish
after telling its contents and recognizing its vagueness and
concludes that such a document cannot be rejected as a sou
The period from the first Russian attack on Constantino
to the beginning of the tenth century was marked by the act
tween Byzantium and the young Russian State of Kiev. Th
Inroads of the Russians into Byzantium," Journal of the Ministry of Public
(1840), 149-170 (in Russian). See G. Finlay, A History of Greece, ed.
(Oxford, 1877), p. 87, n. 2: Theophanes' passage is remarkable for containi
tion of the Russians in Byzantine history. For the explanation of Theopha
B. Dorn-E. Kunik, "Caspia;" Memoires de l'Academie des sciences de St
serie, XXIII (1877), 221-228 (in German); there is a Russian edition of
burg, 1875), 364-371. Even in the twentieth century there are some schola
AovaLa X?AavSta the Russian vessels; for instance, the Serbian historian St.
the German Dr. Fritzler in 1923. See V. Moshin, "The Varangian-Russian P
(Prague, 1931), 131-132 (in Russian).
'S. Schechter, "An Unknown Khazar Document," Jewish Quarterly R
III (Philadelphia, 1912-1913), 181-219; the name of Helgu on pp. 217-
before the year 1928 in A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire
p. 390, n. 36; French edition, I (Paris, 1932), p. 425. See also V. Parkh
Question about the Chronology and Life of the Annalistic Oleg," Izv
Otdeleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, XIX (1915
'When did Oleg the Wise Live?" (on the question of the authenticity of
document of Cambridge), Slavia, XIV (Prague, 1936-1937), 170-171. In
considered the document as a fraud. "La legende d'Oleg, et l'expedition
la classe des lettres de lAcademie royale de Belgique, XXIII (1937), 81, note.
"L'expedition du Prince Oleg contre Constantinople en 907," Annales de l'In
(Seminarium Kondakovianum), XI (1939), 55, n. 21 and 22: Helgu cannot
Oleg; Parkhomenko's speculations are arbitrary.
'Presnyakov's Lectures were published in 1938. A. E. Presnyakov, Le
History, I. Kievan Russia (Moscow, 1938), pp. 69-71. More recently, se
The Beginnings of Russian History: An Enquiry into Sources (Cambridg
see p. 41: the authenticity of the Cambridge fragment, i.e., of the above t
to much controversy, and the last word on the matter has not yet been spo

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
168 A. A. VASILIEV
friendly and hostile character. Even in the time of Mich

under whom the first attack had taken place, there were aft
embassies to Constantinople. According to the circular let
Photius, which is ascribed to the spring or summer of 86
blood-thirsty race, the so-called Rus, had changed their H
less religion for the pure and unadulterated faith of the Chr
placed themselves under the protection of the Empire
friends instead of continuing their recent robbery and da
These peaceable relations did not last very long. Evidently
place between Byzantium and Russia under Michael's
(867-886), who, about 874, by means of many preciou
agreement with the "most unconquerable and most impi
Russians" and concluded with them a treaty of peace.6 Th
be regarded as the first treaty between Byzantium and Russ
probability, ended their last conflict before the beginni
century.
NARRATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN ANNALS
Here follows the narrative of Oleg's expedition as it is described i

Laurentian and Hypatian redactions of the Russian Primary Chroni
the year 6415 (907) Oleg went against the Greeks. He took with
multitude of the peoples who were under his rule: Varangians, Slavs, Chu
Krivichians, Merians, Polyanians, Severians, Derevlians, Radimich
Croats, Dulebians, and Tivercians, who are Turks. With this entire
Oleg sallied forth by horse and ship, and the number of his vessels was
thousand. He arrived before Tsargrad, but the Greeks locked the strai
the Golden Horn) with the chain (Gretzi Zamkosha Sud) and closed up
city. Oleg disembarked upon the shore, and ordered his soldiers to beach
ships. They waged war around the city, and slaughtered many Greeks
also destroyed many palaces and burned the churches. Of the prisoners t
captured, some they beheaded, some they tortured, some they shot, and
others they cast into the sea. The Russes inflicted many other woes upon
Greeks after the usual manner of soldiers. Oleg commanded his warri
See A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mas
setts, 1946), pp. 229-230.
Cont. Theoph., 342, c. 97: Ka't o7rovs8a 7rpoS aTrovs TraELa/aeLvoS EpwVLKas*. See Vasili
Russian Attack, pp. 230-231.
7See F. Dolger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren
Reihe A: Regesten, I (Miinchen und Berlin, 1924), No. 493 (p. 60), ca. 874(?). Also
Michel de Taube, Rome et la Russie avant rinvasion des Tatars (IX-XIII siecle), I
1947), pp. 30, 93, 129-130, 141.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
make wheels which they attached to the ships, and when the
favorable, they spread the sails and bore down upon the city from
country. When the Greeks beheld this, they were afraid and se
sengers to Oleg, they implored him not to destroy the city and
submit to such tribute as he should desire. Thus Oleg halted his
Greeks then brought out to him food and wine, but he would n
for it was mixed with poison. Then the Greeks were terrified, and
"This is not Oleg, but St. Demetrius, whom God has sent upon
demanded that they pay tribute for his two thousand ships at
twelve grivni 8 per man, with forty men reckoned to a ship.
The Greeks assented to these terms and prayed for peac
should conquer the land of Greece. Retiring a short distance fro
Oleg concluded a peace with the Greek Emperors Leo and Alex
sent into the city to them Karl, Farlof (Farulf), Velmud (Verm
(Hrollaf), and Stemid (Steinvith),9 with instructions to receive
The Greeks promised to satisfy their requirements. Oleg dem
they should give to the troops on the two thousand ships twelv
bench, and pay in addition the sums required for the various Ru
first Kiev, then Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotzk, Rostov, Lyub
other towns. In these cities lived princes subject to Oleg.
Then follows the text of the first document, which we shall di
and the Annalist continues: "Thus the Emperors Leo and Alex
peace with Oleg, and after agreeing upon the tribute and mutu
themselves by oath, they kissed the cross, and invited Oleg and
swear an oath likewise. According to the religion of the Russes
swore by their weapons and by their god Perun, as well as by Volo
of cattle, and thus confirmed the treaty.
"Oleg gave orders that silken sails should be made for the R
linen ones for the Slavs, and his demand was satisfied. The Russes
shields upon the gates as a sign of victory, and Oleg then dep
Tsargrad. The Russes unfurled their silken sails and the Slavs t
linen, but the wind tore them. Then the Slavs said: 'Let us keep
ones; linen sails are not made for the Slavs.' So Oleg came to Ki
palls, gold, fruit, and wine, along with every sort of adornment. T
called Oleg 'the Sage' for they were but pagans, and therefore ig
8 Grivna was the old Russian equivalent of "pound"; the word originally s
meant a circular ingot of silver.
9 Here I give the names of the Russian envoys in the form as they stand in
original, and then, in parenthesis, in their Scandinavian forms as they have been
translator of the Laurentian redaction, Professor Samuel Cross.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
170 A. A. VASILIEV
This story was told in the annals under the year 6415. Th
resumes his narrative under the year 6420.
"Oleg despatched his vassals to make peace and to draw
tween the Greeks and the Russes. His envoys thus declare
nation: Karly (Karl), Inegeld (Ingjald), Farlof (Farulf),
mund), Rulav (Hrollaf), Gudy (Gunnar), Ruald (Harold
Frelav (Frithleif), Ryuar (Hroarr), Aktevu (Angantyr), T
Lidulfost (Leithulf, Fast), Stemid (Steinvith), are sent
Prince of Rus, and by the glorious boyars under his sway, u
Alexander and Constantine, great autocrats in God, Emperor
for the maintenance and proclamation of the long-stand
joins Greeks and Russes, in accordance with the desire of
and at their command, and in behalf of all those Russes w
the hand of our Prince.
"'Our serenity, above all desirous, through God's help

and proclaiming such amicable relations as now exist bet
and Russians, has often deemed it proper to publish and con
not merely in words but also in writing and under a firm
our weapons according to our religion and our law. As we
in the name of God's peace and amity, the articles of th
as follows:
"'First of all, that we make peace with you Greeks (Po

slovu da umirimsya s vami Greky), and love each other w
and will, and as far as lies in our power, prevent any sub
Princes from committing any crime or misdemeanor. Rat
ourselves as far as possible to maintain as irrevocable and
forth and forever the amity thus proclaimed by our agr
Greeks and ratified by signature and oath. May you Gre
maintain as irrevocable and immutable henceforth and fo
amity toward our serene Princes of Rus and toward all t
serene Prince."'
Then the Chronicle reproduces a very lengthy excerpt of this treaty deal-
ing with various stipulations concerning all kinds of damages and incidents
occurring between Russians and Greeks, which are of minor interest for
this study.
Here is the concluding part of the treaty: "As a convention and an in-
violable pledge binding equally upon you Greeks and upon us Russes, we
have caused the present treaty to be transcribed in the handwriting of Ivan
upon a double parchment, bearing your Emperor's and our own signature,

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
to be promulgated and handed to our envoys in the name of the H

and the Holy and Indivisible Trinity of your one true God. Accordin
own faith and the custom of our nation, we have sworn to your
who rules over you by the grace of God, that we ourselves will
violate, nor allow any of our subjects to violate the peace and ami
by the articles thus concluded between us. We have also given to
ernment an identical document for the mutual ratification of the sa
vention in order to confirm and promulgate the treaty thus co
between us this second of September, in the fifteenth indiction,?1 i
from Creation 6420."
Then the Russian annalist describes the treatment of the Russian

in Constantinople by the Emperor after the signature of the tr
about their departure. "The Emperor Leo honored the Russian en
gifts of gold, palls, and robes, and placed his vassals at their disp
show them the beauties of the churches, the golden palace, and t
contained therein. They thus showed the Russes much gold and m
and jewels, together with the relics of our Lord's Passion: the cr
nails, and the purple robe, as well as the bones of the Saints. The
structed the Russes in their faith, and expounded to them the tr
Thus the Emperor dismissed them to their native land with great ho
envoys sent by Oleg returned to Kiev, and reported to him all the u
of both Emperors.1' They recounted how they had made peace a
lished a covenant between Greece and Rus, confirmed by oath i
for the subjects of both countries.
"Thus Oleg ruled in Kiev, and dwelt at peace with all nations."
The Annalist concludes the story of Oleg with the very well-
legend of how he was bitten on the foot by a serpent who crawl
from the skull of his dead favorite horse, so that in consequence he
and died.12
10 In his English translation, Cross omits the last four words. In the original O
text: a v nedelyu 15.
" At the beginning of this treaty, as we have seen above, the three Emperors a
tioned, Leo, Alexander, and Constantine. But the latter, born in 905 and crowned
still an infant; so that the negotiations were carried on with the two Empero
Alexander.
" The Russian Primary Chronicle or The Tale of Bygone Years (Povest Vremenn
ed. E. F. Karski (Leningrad, 1926), pp. 29-39 (the Laurentian redaction). I us
English translation of the Chronicle by Samuel H. Cross, The Russian Primary
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1930), pp. 149-155. Cross' work was published in
Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, vol. XII, pp. 75-320. I use his t
always comparing it with the Slavonic original. The First Novgorod Chronicle (Let
the story of Oleg's campaign upon the Greeks under the year 6438 = 922 A.D. See

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
172 A. A. VASILIEV
SOME REMARKS ON THE NARRATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN ANNALS
As we see from the above text, in the imagination of the Russian ch

icler, there was an expedition on a large scale led by Oleg. In reality
one of those raids which, beginning with the attack of 860, continued,
some interruptions, down to the tenth century. And the raid in which
took part at the outset of this century has been transformed, in the An
writing, into a great expedition composed of the representatives of
tribes, whose long catalogue is produced by the author, and some of
were not under Oleg's rule. But, no doubt, some of the listed tribes too
in the raids of that period. The number of the boats - 2,000, if we c
it with 200 boats used for the attack of 860, may be accepted as a
normal exaggeration. It is not to be forgotten that for the expedition o
Russian Prince Igor, in 941, the Byzantine sources give the fantastic
of 10,000 boats. The striking inconsistency in the narrative of the R
Annalist on Oleg's campaign is that this sea-borne expedition was am
ous, being composed of horse and ship. If we admit the presence of a h
i.e., of an army, then we must ask by which route the Russian troops r
Constantinople. The obvious route was through the territory of th
garian King, Symeon, implacable enemy of Byzantium. But from the tr
of 904, which fixed the boundary between Bulgaria and the Byzanti
pire, until the end of Leon's rule we do not hear of any collision be
the two empires. Oleg's army therefore, if we admit the annalistic
must have marched along the eastern shore of the Black Sea, throu
Caucasus and across the northern regions of Asia Minor, a march, as
ley writes, comparable only with Hannibal's crossing of the Alps bu
the Russian chronicler accepts without comment.13 May we see in this
sistency a certain allusion to the Russian expeditions to the Caspia
which took place at the same period but about which we know from
sources, not from the Russian annals? The mention of the chain w
barred the way into the Golden Horn and which had been used for the
time, in 717-718, against the Arabs who had laid siege to Constantin
a very well known historical fact.14 The commonplace description of d
edition of this chronicle by the Academy of Sciences of SSSR (Moscow-Leningra
p. 108; 435; 515. The Ustug Chronicle (Letopisny Svod), the so-called Archangel
tells this story twice: under the year 6408 = 900 A.D. (sic) and under 6430 = 9
Ed. by K. N. Serbina (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), pp. 21-22.
1 R. H. Dolley, "Oleg's Mythical Campaign against Constantinople," Bulletin de
et des sciences morales et politiques de lAcad6mie royale de Belgique, 5' serie, tom
(1949), 119.
4 The same device to bar the way to rivers or to gulfs by means of chains can be fo
Scandinavian sources; it may have been borrowed by Scandinavians from the Gr

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
tion and cruelties inflicted by the Russians upon the captured G

easily refer either to the attack of 860 or to the expedition of Igor.
tion of the ships on wheels which were carried across Galata and
on the Golden Horn may be explained by the Norman traditions i
Europe, which reproduced the same stratagem. Once (in 1851) F
wrote: hic loci res inaudita, Nortmannis consueta.l5 The recent sch
have been interested in this episode believe that it is time to re
pletely the opinion owing to which the transport of Oleg's ships
but a legend.16 The obvious closest parallel to this episode is th
attack on Constantinople in 1453. The Radzivil or K6nigsberg ma
of the Russian Chronicle written at the end of the fifteenth centur
its 617 miniatures, contains one reproducing ships with bird bea
represent Oleg's approach to Constantinople in the ships put on
Oleg's idea that food and wine offered to him were poisoned h
parallel in West European sources. Saxo Grammaticus tells that
Gori, during his travel in ulterior Biarmia had the same experie
story of Oleg's death from the bite of a serpent crawling forth from
of his dead horse reminds us of the story of the Norwegian he
(Oddr), who spent the greatest part of his life in Russia, and died fr
bite of a serpent in Norway.l9 From the chronicler's statement
terrified Greeks exclaimed: "This is not Oleg, but St. Demetrius,
E. A. Rydzevski, "About the Annalistic Tradition of the Expedition of Rus on

907," Izvestiya (Accounts) of the Academy of Sciences of SSSR, Section of the soc
1932, 478-479 (in Russian).
' Fr. Kruse, Chronicon Nortmannorum, Wariago-Russorum necnon Danorum, S
Norwegorum inde ab a. DCCLXXVII usque ad a. DCCCLXXIX . . . motisque g
historicis, chronologicis, illustratum (Hamburg and Gotha, 1851), p. 451. Ther
edition of this book, absolutely identical, published in the same year (1851
(Estonia), where Kruse was professor. This edition, dedicated to the Emperor Nico
published at the author's expense.
" A. Lyaschenko, "The Annalistic Tales about the Death of Oleg the Wise,"
Otdeleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti of the Russian Academy of Sciences, XX
283-285 (in Russian), Helene Rydzevski, "Die dinische Huno Sage und eine Epis
altrussischen Chronik," Acta Philologica Scandinavica. Tidsskrift for nordisk Spro
V (Copenhagen, 1930-31), 35. Ostrogorsky, L'expedition du Prince Oleg, p. 60.
17 See D. V. Ainalov, "Essays and Notes on the History of the Early Russian Ar
Otdeleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, XIII, 2 (1908), 322
On the number of the miniatures in the Radzivil manuscript, see D. S. Likhachev
sian Annals and their Cultural, Historical Significance (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947),
See Lyaschenko, op. cit., pp. 282, 288.
" See Lyaschenko, op. cit., pp. 263-267: The story was brought to Russia from N
Cf. F. R. Schroder, "Skandinavien und der Orient im Mittelalter," Germanisch-rom
Monatsschrift, VIII (1920), 215: it is very probable that the Varangian saga o
transferred in the West upon Oddr. N. K. Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 25-26; appendix
174: The Scandinavian Background: Oddr Vithfbrli (Orvar-Oddr).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
174 A. A. VASILIEV
has sent upon us," we may conjecture that this legend m

origin in the environment in which the veneration of St. De
salonica was particularly strong; so that the legend might
Annalist's mind either from Byzantium or from Bulgaria.20
In the list of the various cities for which Oleg demande
pay indemnity, Novgorod is not mentioned. This means th
no part in Oleg's campaign.
The story of the silken and linen sails has not been satisfa
and the parallel from the Norwegian saga, referring to th
1030), given by H. Rydzevski, is not convincing.21 After
campaign, Oleg, or, according to some versions of the chron
warriors in general, fixed their shields on the gates of Cons
episode sung by the famous Russian poet Pushkin - as a
This is not a legend. It is an old Norman custom when, in or
the war was over, the chief of the expedition fixed his shiel
the city, or raised it, not as a sign of victory but as a s
Russian chronicler either misunderstood his source or int
to enhance the glory of the victorious Oleg.22 As a curiosity
that the Polish writer of the sixteenth century, M. Stryjkow
during his journey in Turkey in 1575, he had seen, among o
"with his own eyes," Oleg's shield hanging above the
opposite Constantinople.23
2 See Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 57. Dolley, op. cit., p. 121 and n. 3.
21 Rydzevski, About the Annalistic Tradition, pp. 473-477. Ostrogorsky
According to Dolley (p. 122), this story may mean nothing more than th
gave rich cloths for the adornment of the sails of the leader's ships. See
of the Scandinavians to the White Sea (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 405 (
' See Ostrogorsky, pp. 58-59. Lyaschenko, pp. 285-288. Dolley, p
earlier writers, see Y. K. Grot, From the Scandinavian and Finnish W
Works of Y. K. Grot, I (St. Petersburg, 1898), p. 894 (in Russian).
M. Stryjkowskiego, Kronika polska litewska, imodzka i wszystk
1846), p. 116: A ten podobno herb albo scit, miedzy inszymi dawnos
tymi wlasnymi oczyma widzial roku 1575, nad brama Galatakq przeciw K
po staroswiecku malowany, wiozqe sie . . . See H. Rydzevski, Die dd
p. 40. A. V. Solovyov, "Vladimir the Saint as described by a Polish Histor
Century," Vladimirsky Sbornik 988-1938 (Belgrade, 1939), 201-202 (i
about Oleg's shield reminds me of another episode in Byzantine history
tion whatever with this study. In 813, according to the chronicle of Theo
King, Krum, laid siege to Constantinople and asked the Emperor Leo
allow him "to fix his lance on the Golden Gate"; the Emperor refused, a
his camp. Theophanes, ed. de Boor, vol. I, p. 503 (Bonn, 785). Anas
Tripertita, ed. de Boor, p. 340. I do not understand why Ostrogorsky, just
Petersen's book in general, rather angrily remarks that he has a peculia
Oleg's shield with Krum's lance which the latter wished to drive in

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
The Chronicler gives correctly the names of the emperors und

the agreements were made. Under the year 907, Leo (886-912) a
ander (886-913), the two joint emperors-brothers, are mentioned
ing with the second document the chronicler gives the names of
emperors, Leo, Alexander, and Constantine. Since Leo VI died on
912, and Constantine, Leo's son, the future Constantine VII Porp
itus, was crowned as co-emperor on June 9, 911, and since the t
dated the second of September, it is clear that it was concluded i
ber, 911. In this particular case, the chronology of the Russian
correct.
The honors which were bestowed upon the Russian envoys after the
signature of the treaty do not differ from the honors granted the representa-
tives of other foreign countries. But one peculiarity of this treatment is to
be pointed out. In the chronicle we read that the envoys were also instructed
in the Christian faith. Referring to this passage, Dolley calls attention to a
significant coincidence with the narrative of an Arabian writer of the twelfth
century, Marvazi, who says that the Rus became Christians during the year
300 of the Hegira, that is, A.D. 912-913; and here Dolley remarks that it is
surprising that modern scholars seem to have overlooked the coincidence
of Marvazi and Nestor, i.e., the Russian annalist. But the editor, translator,
and commentator of Marvazi, V. Minorsky, states that Marvazi's dating
"300/912" is wrong, the second and the third figures having been omitted,
because the Russians were baptized A.D. 988 or 989 (378-379 of the
Hegira) .24
I say again that Oleg's campaign was not an expedition undertaken on
a large scale, as it is described in the Russian Annals, but it was one of the
raids which were so usual, both in the west and in the east, in the ninth cen-
tury and at the outset of the tenth. But it is possible that the raid which was
conducted by Oleg himself was one undertaken with more ships than were
used on ordinary raids, so that we may call it a raid (not an expedition) on
a large scale.
Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 59, n. 34 (probably by misprint, he writes dans le Come d'Or). See
Ad. Stender-Petersen, "Die Varagersage als Quelle der altrussischen Chronik," Acta Jutlandica,
VI, 1. Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet, VI (Kopenhagen, 1934), 94.
4 Dolley, Oleg's Mythical Campaign, pp. 128-129 and n. 1, to p. 129, V. Minorsky, Sharaf
al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and India. Arabic text (circa A.D. 1120), with
an English translation and commentary (London, 1942), p. 36; Arabic text, p. 23, 1. 7; com-
mentary, p. 118. G. Veradsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), p. 62: according to
Marvazi, the Russians first became Christians A.H. 300; that is, A.D. 912-913. On Marvazi
we shall speak later. See N. K. Chadwick, The Beginnings of Russian History, p. 70: accord-
ing to Marvazi, the "Rus" had become Christians in the year 923 (sic).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
176 A. A. VASILIEV
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON OLEG'S RAID
The most essential ground upon which several scholars deny O

on Constantinople is the fact that this event has not been record
Byzantine sources. It is true that the description of this raid, sup
many legendary adornments which certainly reflect Varangian
vian customs and legends, has been preserved in the Russian Ann
It has been taken for granted that the name of the Russian prince O
led the raid, has come down to us also through the Russian chron
if we put aside the vague evidence given by the Hebrew docum
by Schechter. But I think that it is a striking exaggeration to say th
raid has left no trace whatever in the Byzantine tradition. If one av
it would mean that either he has overlooked the Byzantine evide
has embarked on the study of this question with the preconceived
Oleg's raid had never taken place. Now I hope also to show that
of Oleg and a mention of his fight against Byzantium have sur
contemporary Arab source, which has never been taken into con
in this particular respect.
LEO THE DEACON
The most important allusion to Oleg's raid and to the tr

by him is found in the famous history of Leo the Deacon. I
passage as direct evidence for the historicity of the event
tion which, although having been familiar to many scholars
has not received due consideration. The statement we are ref
threat to the Russian Prince Svyatoslav which Leo the Dea
mouth of the Emperor John Tzimisces: "I hope you have
defeat of your father Igor, who, having scorned the sworn
by sea to the imperial city with a great army and numerous
to reach the Cimmerian Bosporus with barely ten embarcati
his own disaster." 25
I wish to bring forward here the names of several sch

dealing with the above passage. In 1829 a German histor
phasizing the vagueness of Leo the Deacon's statement, th
to refer this allusion either to the treaty concluded by Basil
Leo the Deacon, VI, 10 (Bonn, 106): opluat yap ac r/\ XEX?revaL TO TOV o
'Iyyopos, CraTr TaL' EVOpKOV orT7rovS&L rapa <aVAov OLeevos, crv tLEyadAX KxVwey
KaCTa T7F /PaacLXevovcrr KTArXETVraCs, !oXdAs OVV SEKa AcXPoLs otls TOV KtlLvp
avTrayyeXog Titv OLKELtIV yEyovW; 'rvufopi}v.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
sians, which we have mentioned above, or to an unknown treat

himself. Since we have the two official documents in the Russian
Chronicle, dated from the beginning of the tenth century, it is out
to go back to the year circa 874, when Basil's treaty was made.
hypothesis concerning Igor's unknown treaty is to be discarded.26
Ernst Kunik mentioned Leo the Deacon's text in 1845 and 1874
In 1870, A. Rambaud, referring to Leo the Deacon's passage, w
it is the only text in the whole Byzantine literature which may
treaty with Oleg.28
In 1916 a Russian historian, M. Sozyumov, after emphasizing
the Deacon was well informed about Russia, wrote that it may b
that he was aware of Oleg's campaign and his treaty on which all th
tine sources are so stubbornly silent. And then, after producing
passage from Leo, he writes: "What oaths did Igor violate? We sha
be mistaken in admitting in Leo the Deacon's words an allusion
treaty."29
In 1928, I myself, after quoting Leo the Deacon, wrote that these "sworn
agreements" made with the Byzantine Empire before Igor's time must have
been the agreements of Oleg reported by the Russian chronicler.30
In 1949, Dolley wrote: "Some settlement between 860 and 941 seems to
be implied in a most important allusion in Leon Diakonos, quoted by Profes-
sor Vasiliev but apparently overlooked by Professor Ostrogorsky and Profes-
sor Vernadsky." 31 To Dolley's words I must add that the text of Leo's has
also been overlooked by Professor H. Gregoire.32
In Leo the Deacon we must acknowledge a reference to Oleg's treaties
which is an undeniable trace of the survival of Oleg's campaign or raid in
the Byzantine evidence.
2 Wilken, "Ueber die Verhiltnisse der Russen zum Byzantinischen Reiche in dem Zeitraume
vom neunten bis zum zwolften Jahrhundert," Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen
Klasse der K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1829, pp. 93-94.
27 Ernst Kunik, Die Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen durch die Finnen und Slawen, II
(St. Petersburg, 1845), p. 446. Idem, On the Report of the Toparchus Gothicus (St. Peters-
burg, 1874), p. 87 (the latter study in Russian).
A. Rambaud, L'Empire Grec au dixieme siecle. Constantin Porphyrogenete (Paris,
1870), p. 374, n. 1.
9 M. Sozyumov, "On the Sources of Leo the Deacon and Skylitzes," Vizantiskoe Obozrenie
(Revue Byzantine), II (Yuryev, 1916), p. 165. The whole article, pp. 106-166 (in Russian).
3 A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, I (Madison, 1928), p. 389; French edition
(Paris, 1932), I, pp. 424-425; Spanish edition (Barcelona, 1946), I, p. 397. In Russian, I
(Petrograd, 1917), p. 294. See N. K. Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
1 R. H. Dolley, Oleg's Mythical Campaign, p. 125.
2 About Gregoire's article see below.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
178 A. A. VASILIEV
MASUDI
Now I wish to turn to an Arab writer, Masudi, whose evidence ref

to our question has never been pointed out.
The Arab historian and geographer, Masudi, of the tenth cent
a contemporary of the events which are discussed in this study. H
only a writer but also an indefatigable traveler. Born in Baghdad, he
in Persia in 915, in India as far as Ceylon in 916, in the China Sea
and Oman. Then we find him traveling along the southern shor
Caspian Sea and in 926 in Palestine. In 943 he visited Antioch and t
frontier towns; in 945 he was in Damascus, and in 947 and 955 at
Egypt, where he died in 956 or 957. From this brief sketch of his tr
see that he was well acquainted with the Near East and that he vi
shores of the Caspian Sea just at the time of the Russian raids in tha
As we shall mention below, he described the Russian attack and c
Barda'a, the prosperous city on the western shore of the Caspia
912-913. He not only might, but must, have had firsthand informati
the Russians of that period, and his data about the Slavs (al-S
must be taken into serious consideration. Here I have in mind his wo
Golden Meadows" (Murudj-az-Zahabi).
In my book The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (Cam
1946, pp. 177-178), I used Masudi's work, in which, in my opinion
tions the name of the Russian leader, Dir, writing that "the first am
kings of the Slavs was the King al-Dir, who possesses vast cities a
cultivated lands. Muhammedan merchants go to his capital with
kinds of merchandise." Then Masudi proceeds, "Afterward this Ki
Slavs was succeeded by the King Alawang (Alawandj). He poss
cultivated lands, numerous troops, and many military resources.
the Greeks, the Franks, the Nokabard, and other peoples. And th
tween them had various chances." 33
According to the Russian Annals, Dir's successor in Kiev was O
if we attentively examine the distorted name Alawang, we shall
the necessary letters to restore the real name of Oleg. And Mas
some precious information that this Prince Alawang-Oleg fought th
in other words, the Arab contemporary writer confirms Oleg's camp
Constantinople. It is also interesting to point out that in the distort
3 Magoudi, Les Prairies d'Or. Texte et traduction par C. Barbier de Meynard et

Courteille, III (reprint, Paris, 1917), p. 64 (chapter XXXIV). In their transla
French editors and translators erroneously take Dir and Alawang for the names o
saying "le roi des Dir" et "le roi des Awandj."

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Alawang we discover the name of the Russian Prince not in the

form Helgi but in its Slavonic form Oleg, which Masudi ev
from the Russian troops during his travels on the shores of th
Unfortunately the French editors fail to give any variants to t
the manuscripts used, which were several.34 Setting aside th
who were the two other peoples with whom Alwang-Oleg w
Francs and the Nokabard, I wish to point out that in the name
in my opinion, it is absolutely inadmissible to see, in this parti
Lombards, as the French translators do, and as the Arab geo
ing with Western Europe call the Lombards. May this distorted
the city of NEp/oyapSd, as it occurs in the De Administran
Constantine Porphyrogenitus? 35
After writing the above passage, Masudi says that the de
tion and the classification of the Slavs, according to his own
not have been discussed in this work; and, a few lines below
the story of all these events would be too long to relate, the
have already told them in detail in our works, The Histori
The Middle History.36 It is a great pity that these two wor
mistaken, have not yet been discovered. At the beginning of th
century, a sheik of Cairo told the British traveler Burckhar
seen a copy of the first work, in twenty odd volumes, at the L
Mosque of St. Sophia, in Constantinople. But this copy so fa
found.37 We may suppose that these two works, which are
contain many new and important data about Slavs and Russi
" See their Variantes et notes, III, p. 448, where p. 64 is not mentione
Egyptian editions of Masudi's work "The Golden Meadows," one published at
(1866), the other in Cairo, in 1313 (1895). I had in my hands the Bulaq
instead of the name Alawang, of the French edition, stands Alafrang, i.e., t
1. 12). In his book Stories (Skazaniya) of the Moslem writers on the Slav
Petersburg, 1870), p. 137, A. Harkavi reproducing Masudi's text in a Russian
the King "King Avandja" and gives variants Arfandja, Ifrandji, Frandji. The
something like "Franc," as in the above Bulaq edition, which has no sense, b
text, a line below, mentions that this king fought the Franks.
" De administrando imperio, 9; Bonn, 74; Moravcsik-Jenkins, p. 56. This
identified with the city of Novgorod. But now, in connection with some re
discoveries and geographical nomenclature, there is an attempt to interpret
city lying on the river Niemen, something like "Niemengrad," which is clo
name NqeoyapSas. See Baron Michel de Taube, Rome et la Russie avant l'invas
I (Paris, 1947), pp. 111-112.
" Macoudi, III, pp. 64-65.
3 V. J. L. Burckhardt, Travels in Nubia, sec. ed. (London, 1822), p.
Byzance et les Arabes, I. La dynastie d'Amorium (Bruxelles, 1935), p. 327. Bu
mann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Erster Supplementband (Leiden
printing (of this work) is planned at Haidarabad (in India). Nothing new in
tion of Brockelmann's Geschichte der arabischen Litterature (Leiden, 1943),

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
180 A. A. VASILIEV
My attempt to discover the name of Oleg in Masudi's w

Meadows" is not a groundless hypothesis. I regard his text as
by a contemporary writer who was well acquainted with
record is direct contemporary evidence, which should p
doubts on the historicity of Oleg's raid on Constantinop
course, to the vain speculation that Oleg as a person never
MARVAZI
Another source which, in my opinion, indubitably has in vi

is the testimony of an Arab geographer, Marvazi, who com
circa A.D. 1120.38 Referring to this writer, Dolley writes: "The
pro-Nestorians can produce is a vague reference in Marvaz
two hundred years later - to the effect that on one occasio
reached Constantinople in spite of the chains of the gulf. Sinc
the gulf seem to have been a permanent feature of the de
stantinople, the reference may just as well be to the attack of
read Marvazi's statement, as it is reproduced by Dolley, the
may seem to be rather plausible. But if we read the entire pass
in the middle of which are found the lines cited by Dolley, ou
be different. The text runs as follows: "The Russians are str
ful men, and go on foot into far regions in order to raid;
boats on the Khazar Sea (i.e., the Caspian Sea), seizing ship
ing goods. They sail to Constantinople in the Sea of Pontus,
chains of the gulf. Once they sailed into the sea of Kha
masters of Barda'a for a time. Their valour and courage are
that any one of them is equal to a number of any other nat
horses and were riders, they would be a great scourge to mank
the Russian raids on Constantinople are mentioned in conn
Russian raids on the Caspian Sea, which started at the beg
tenth century; in other words, it is absolutely permissible to
Russian raids upon Constantinople, or, generally speaking
regions of the Empire, took place also at that time.
It is true that Marvazi compiled his work about 1120; but h
earlier written sources, and among them a source of the highe
the geographical work of the Samanid minister, Abu 'Abda
ben Ahmad Jayhani, in the earlier part of the tenth centu
38 V. Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and
(circa A.D. 1120) with an English translation and commentary (London
Dolley, pp. 113-114.
0 Marvazi, p. 36; the Arab text at the end of the book, p. *23, 15-21.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Bukhara between 892 and 907 (279-285), i.e., he was a contempor

of the Russian raids of that period. His opus magnum is lost, but tr
have survived in many geographical works, especially those w
Khorasan.41
For one reason or another, the beginning of the tenth century

of the military activities of the Russians, whose raids devastated
of the Black Sea in the south, and owing to the weakness and de
the Khazar State, the western shores of the Caspian Sea. Oleg's ra
of the episodes of those military adventures.
The Russian raids in the Caspian Sea were most successful. In
the Russians took possession of Barda'a, the most prosperous ci
western shore of the Caspian Sea, "the Baghdad of the Caucasus,"
to Maqdisi (Muqadassi); a large and very pleasant town where the
king of that province was situated, according to a Persian geographe
end of the tenth century.42 Referring to the same event, the Arme
torian of the tenth century, Moses Kaghankatvatsi, wrote: "At the s
(in 914) a savage and alien people, Ruzik, struck from the north
whirlwind they spread all over the Caspian Sea as far as the
Aghvania, Partave (Barda'a). It was impossible to resist them. Th
tated the city and took possession of all the goods of its reside
ruler of that country), Salar, laid siege to them, but could not i
harm on them, because they were invincible. Then, the women o
using craft began to poison the Ruz; but they being aware of th
pitilessly exterminated women and children, and after staying in
six months utterly devastated it. Then, like cowards, they wen
country with much booty." 43 This was the first appearance of the
"Minorsky, p. 6. W. Barthold, in V. Minorsky, Hudud al-'Alam, "The Regi
World" (London, 1937), pp. 23-24. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen
sec. ed., I (Leiden, 1943), p. 262. According to recent information, there is a Jayh
script in Kabul (Afghanistan). But this is only an abridged translation of the work
from Arabic to Persian. See R. Frye, "New Islamic Sources of the Rus," Byza
(1946-1948), 123-125.
42 On the capture of Barda'a in 912-913, Magoudi, Les Prairies d'Or, texte et tr
par Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courtreille, II (Paris, reprint, 1914), p. 24. On
A. Yakubovsky, "Ibn-Miskaveikh on the Expedition of the Rus to Barda'a in 3
Vizantisky Vremennik, XXIV (1923-1926), 79. V. Minorsky, Hudud al-'Alam.
of the World. A Persian Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D. Translated and expla
Minorsky (London, 1937), p. 143 (? 36, 21). N. K. Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 50-58
3 A History of the Aghvans by Moses Kaghankatvatsi, writer of the tenth centu
lation from Armenian by K. Patkanyan (St. Petersburg, 1861), pp. 275-276 (in Rus
this writer see Manuk Abeghyan, History of the Early Armenian Literature, I (Er
pp. 390-391 (in Russian). The Armenian text of Kaghankatvatsi was published in T
The above Kaghankatvatsi passage has been reproduced in French by B. Dor-Ku

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
182 A. A. VASILIEV
on the shores of the Caspian Sea, and the first seizure of

The second time the Russians took possession of Berda'a
this campaign was described by the Arab historian of the ele
Ibn-Miskaveikh.44
I have lingered over the Russian expeditions in the Cas
they produce interesting parallels to the Russian raids in
help us to understand better the latter as component par
Russian stormy move (Drang) south and southeast in the
tenth century. The seizure of Barda'a in 912-913 was the
like Oleg's raid at the same time, about 907. It was the p
Russians did not act in well organized expeditions, but i
booty and contribution to be paid. Such were the Russian rai
tory of the Byzantine Empire at the outset of the tenth cent
has been connected by the Russian Chronicles with the n
second capture of Barda'a in 943-944 was the result of a ve
military undertaking, whose aim was to penetrate into th
country and to seize the most prosperous town of the Cau
the event contemporary with the expedition of the Rus
which was also a great military undertaking but which e
failure.
In his commentary on Marvazi, Minorsky wrote: "According to the Rus-
sian Chronicle, when the Russians led an attack against Constantinople A.D.
907, the Greeks locked the Gulf and closed up the city. Marvazi possibly
refers to this event of which Jayhani was a contemporary." 46
Memoires de lAcademie Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, VII' s6rie, XXIII

(1877), 286; also p. 2 (in German). There is also the Russian edition of Caspia (1875).
Recently A. Yakubovsky has given this passage in Russian, op. cit., p. 71; and N. K. Chadwick
has repoduced it in English, op. cit., p. 55; the latter author calls the Armenian historian
Moses of Kalankatuk. The attempt of the Barda'a women to poison the Russian invaders
reminds us of the story told in the Russian Annals, how the Greeks brought out poisoned
food and wine to Oleg.
44 The Arab text of Ibn-Miskaveikh in The Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate, ed., translated
and elucidated by H. F. Amedroz and D. S. Margoliouth, II (Oxford, 1921), pp. 62-67; in
English, V (Oxford, 1921), pp. 67-74. In Russian by Yakubovsky, pp. 64-69. The English
reproduced from Margoliouth's translation by N. K. Chadwick, op. cit., appendix I, pp. 138-
144. See F. Westberg, "On the Analysis of Oriental Sources on Eastern Europe," Journal of
the Ministry of Public Instruction, February, 1908, 385-386 (in Russian).
5 See V. Barthold, in Yakubovsky's above-mentioned study, p. 92.
4 Minorsky, Marvazi, p. 120. Vernadsky cites Minorsky's opinion without expressing his
own point of view on the subject. Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), p. 27. Dolley calls
Minorsky's opinion "very guarded" (op. cit., p. 114, n. 3). In his rather negative judgment
concerning Marvazis evidence, Dolley (p. 113) emphasizes the fact that he wrote two hun-
dred years later. But the English writer has overlooked the fact that Marvazis source was
Jayhani, a contemporary of the Russian events.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
We must regard Marvazi's data as a very precious source on th

raids in the Black Sea in the beginning of the tenth century,
quently on the raid of Oleg.
LEO THE WISE
Then there is a contemporary Greek source, which if

preted gives us extremely valuable information on the R
territory of the Byzantine Empire at the very beginning of
it is the TaKITKa written by the Emperor Leo the Wise h
the outset of the tenth century; particularly the section on
(llEp& 0aXar-o-o,/aXia; NavtLaXLKa) is of extreme import
treatise which is addressed to the chief of the navy (6 ocrpar
SvvadEcJ0E) consists of eighty-three paragraphs; paragra
which is particularly interesting for us, runs as follows:
small and large vessels (Spowval) according to the charact
peoples. For, the barbarian Saracens and the so-called no
do not use the same sort of ships. The barbarians (i.e., Sa
and slower vessels (KovUi,8apta) and the Scythians smaller, l
boats (aKarna), because getting into the Black Sea throug
cannot use bigger ships." 48 Of course, under the name of no
Leo meant Russians. A Byzantine general of the end of t
and also the author of a Tactica, Nicephorus Uranus, par
above paragraph, wrote: "Make small and large vessels (d
ing to the character of thy fighting peoples. The Saracens h
fleet; they have larger and slower vessels (Tra68ta);
7 Alphonsus Dain, Naumachica partim adhuc inedita in unum nunc pr

indice auxit A.D. (Paris, 1943). See p. 10: Leo VI wrote one of his Ta
i.e., the nineteenth, IIept ?aXaoarouaxtas, at the beginning of the tenth
that it was written in the summer of 905 (p. 110), only two years befo
supposedly took place. In his study Dolley fails to produce reasons f
dating.
s Dain, Acovros BacnAo)s Nav/jaXKad, C. 78 (p. 32): MIKpovs 8e Kal tLeyadXovs 8pouwVzvas KaTa
TV Trolorlra TWV troAEct2i ~Ovv IOaTa'KCVaolS. Ov yap O av~6s T anroAos rTV 7roosv rV T?
5apaKvwv ftapftapov, Kal r yov ) tyolAWov /ope&iv :xKV06v- Ot1 iv yap KOVt/apLotS XpwVTaL iLCoat
KaL apyOTepOl, OL jpapoL, oL 8e oLOv aKaTLOL EXAaTTOCTL Kat EXAapoTEpoLS Kal TaXLVOLS, OL SKVOaL,
3ta 'rorapuv yap Els Tov EEvcvov 0/1T'T70OVTe TOVOV7 OV SVVaVTaiL LgEOcl xp'aaacat wAotL ot Dain
says (p. 16) that he edits this treatise for the first time (nunc primum edere mihi datur). But
exactly the same text was cited in 1845 by E. Kunik, Die Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen,
II, p. 392. Apparently Kunik used (see p. 381, note) Aeliani et Leonis Imp. Tactica (Lugduni
Batavorum, 1613). I have not seen this edition, which Dain, if I am not mistaken, fails to
mention.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
184 A. A. VASILIEV
('pP&ro-) have smaller, lighter, and faster boats ('aKar

cross the rivers and then enter the Black Sea." 49
Leo's paragraph, written, according to Dolley, in 905, g
picture of Russian raids at the end of the ninth and at
tenth century. One of these raids, led by Oleg, evidently
907, or, if Dolley's dating is correct, between 905 and 907
LEO CHOROSPHAKTES
We might expect to find some indications of Oleg's ra

spondence of Leo Choirosphaktes, an eminent contemporar
at the end of the ninth century and at the very beginning o
been sent by the Emperor Leo VI on three successful mis
of Bulgaria, and later, in the winter of 904-905, was charged
to the Caliph in Baghdad, where he remained two years. O
Constantinople he fell into disgrace and was exiled to the dist
Petra. Unfortunately we are not certain of the exact date of
exile. Since there is no evidence of Oleg's raid in his letters, w
that he was already in exile in 907. In his correspondence I
only one mention of the Russians, whom he calls by the u
period, Scythians. In his letter XXI (XVI) addressed, about
to the Emperor, he complained how badly he was treated
saying that some of them were more Scythian than the north
It is very probable that Choirosphaktes used these words as a
of that period associated with the Russian cruelty in gen
might have been a certain repercussion of Oleg's raid wh
panied with much cruelty and violence.
CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENITUS
Further indirect evidence in favor of the historicity of Oleg's raid co

from Constantine Porphyrogenitus' valuable work, the De administ
imperio, which was written and compiled, as we know from interna
dence, between the years 948 and 952.51 At that time the author, bo
905 and crowned on June 9, 911, was between forty-three and forty
49 A. Dain, Naumachica, Nicephori Urani Tacticae caput 54, c. 70 (pp. 86-87). On Nice
orus Uranus and his paraphrase of Leo's Tactica, see A. Dain, La "Tactique" de Nice
Ouranos (Paris, 1937), pp. 40-46; 133-144.
0 Kat ol tEv p/opelwv fapf3cdpv 7rdvrTW (OCKUVOLITpoL. Georges Kolias, Leon Choerosp
magistre, proconsul et patrice (Athens, 1939), p. 103. The Scythians mentioned in the
XIX (XXV) are Bulgarians (p. 95). S. G. Mercati, "Intorno all'autore del carme et
IIv0ioto & ep (Leone Magistro Choirosphaktes)," Rivista degli studi orientali, X (Rome,
1925), p. 223. Cf. R. H. Dolley, Oleg's Mythical Campaign Against Constantinople, p. 11
1 J. B. Bury, "The Treatise De administrando imperio," Byz. Zeitschrift, XV (
522-523.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
years old. The work is a sort of political testament, a manual of

addressed to his youthful son Romanus, "the Emperor crowned
born in the purple." It contains a precious mine of information for
foreign policy, diplomacy, history, geography, and the general str
the Empire. It is not to be forgotten that the treatise is a con
source for the Russo-Byzantine relations in the tenth century.
For us the opening chapters of the work are of extraordinary si
They deal with the nomadic people of Turkish origin Pechenegs
and with the Russians. For the first time we realize how impor
for both Byzantium and Russia to be at peace with the Pecheneg
perial author writes: "I perceive that it is always greatly to the adv
the emperor of the Romans to be minded to keep the peace with
of the Pechenegs and to conclude conventions and treaties of f
with them and to send every year to them from our side a diplom
(aroKpLta-apLov) with presents befitting and suitable to that nat
take from their side sureties, that is, hostages (O6,upovs, 7rTOt 6t
diplomatic agent, who shall come, together with the competent mi
this city protected of God, and shall enjoy all imperial benefits
suitable for the emperor to bestow." 52
Then, after explaining the importance of the peaceful relations
Pechenegs for Byzantium, the author turns to the relations be
Pechenegs and the Russians. He writes: "The Russians are also m
cerned to keep the peace with the Pechenegs. For they buy of th
cattle and horses and sheep, whereby they live more easily
fortably, since none of the aforesaid animals is found in Russia.
the Russians are quite unable to set out for wars beyond their bord
they are at peace with the Pechenegs, because while they are a
their homes, they may come upon them and destroy and outrage t
erty. And so the Russians, both to avoid being harmed by them
of the strength of that nation, are the more concerned always t
ance with them and to have them for support, so as both to be r
enmity and to enjoy the advantage of their assistance." 53 Then
passage which refers to our question: "Nor can the Russians co
imperial city of the Romans, either for war or for trade, unless th
peace with the Pechenegs." 54
3 De administrando imperio, I, 1; Bonn, 67-68; a new edition by Moravc

English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), pp. 48-49. I am u
Jenkins' fine translation.
3 De adm. imp., I, 2; Bonn, 69-70; Moravcsik-Jenkins, 48-51.
4 De adm. imp., I, 2; Bonn, 69; Moravcsik-Jenkins, 51.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
186 A. A. VASILIEV
Then, in my opinion, the most important chapter for our

"Of the Pechenegs and Russians and Turks," runs as foll
the emperor of the Romans is at peace with the Pechenegs,
nor Turks can come upon the Roman dominions by force
they exact from the Romans large and inflated sums in mon
the price of peace, for they fear the strength of the nati
peror can turn against them while they are campaigning aga
For the Pechenegs, if they are leagued in friendship with
won over by him through letters and gifts, can easily com
try both of the Russians and of the Turks, and enslave
children and ravage their country." 55
The above texts clearly show that the Russian raids on
the Byzantine Empire in the tenth century entirely depe
tions of Russia with the Pechenegs; if the Russians were a
dangerous and harassing neighbor, their raids in the sou
and effective; they did not aim at conquests or occupation
territory; but ravage and booty were the characteristic feat
raids. When Constantine Porphyrogenitus writes that th
come to the imperial city, either for war or for trade, u
peace with the Pechenegs, he does not write here about h
speculations but he means that, when the Russians were
Pechenegs, they did come to the imperial city either for
When the imperial author says in the last-named text th
emperor is at peace with the Pechenegs, the Russians cann
Roman dominions by force of arms, nor can they exact f
large and inflated sums in money and goods as the price of
in those lines to cruel realities when the Russians did come u
ion by force of arms and did exact from the Romans large a
in money and goods as the price of peace. These texts are
confirmation of the Russian raids in the beginning of the t
"the large and inflated sums in money and goods exacte
peace," mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, per
Oleg's exorbitant demands which are indicated in the Ru
not surprising that Oleg's name is not given by the Byza
This earlier ruler of the young Russian Principality was e
by name, among the population of the Empire, just as As
leaders of the first attack on Constantinople in 860, had
name at that time. According to the Russian annals, Ole
5 De adm. imp., I, 4; Bonn, 70; Moravcsik-Jenkins, 50-53.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
corded in the Slavonic version of his treaty with the Emperors; this
of course, that his name occurred also in the Greek text of the d
which has not been preserved. But such official documents were kep
offices of the department of Foreign Affairs and were inaccessi
population as a whole. The modern Russian historian, B. D. Grek
citing the text of the De administrando imperio, rightly conclude
a picture of real life. One has here in view not one or another cam
Russia upon Byzantium, but the whole system of the Russo-Byz
Pecheneg interrelations." 56
In another work compiled under the supervision of Constant
phyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis aulae byzantinae there is a text whi
opinion, refers to Oleg's treaty. This compilation gives a detailed
tion of the composition of the great maritime expedition which w
ized against Crete, Cyprus, and the coast of Syria, in 910, under
mand of Himerius. For us it is extremely interesting to learn th
many other members of this expedition, there were 700 Russians
connected the appearance of the Russians in the Byzantine fleet in 9
the provision of the treaty of 911, owing to which the Russians had
of being enlisted in the imperial army; in my opinion, this provisio
have been fixed in the previous agreement of 907 and was include
the treaty of 911. If my speculations are correct, the Russian detach
the expedition of Himerius made its appearance only because of t
mentioned provision of the treaty, which was the direct result
campaign against Constantinople. In 1939, G. Ostrogorsky, referr
study, wrote that the Ceremonial Book, which mentions the Russian
in the Byzantine army in 910, confirms in indubitable manner the i
tion of the Russian chronicle.57
THE RHOS (ROS) - DROMITAI
Now we shall consider the famous passage in the chronicle of

Symeon which has been translated and interpreted many times,
seventeenth century, when Combefis appended his Latin translati
Greek text of the above chronicle, down to the year 1949, when
Jenkins published his brief but stimulating article. In spite of the e
so many scholars of various countries, the above passage, in its m
"B. D. Grekov, Kievan Russia, 4th edition (Moscow-Leningrad, 1944),
Russian).
"A. Vasiliev, Byzantium and the Arabs in the time of the Macedonian Dynasty, I (St.
Petersburg, 1902), pp. 166-167 (in Russian). G. Ostrogorsky, "L'expedition du prince Oleg
contre Constantinople en 907," Annales de l'Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum),
XI (1939), 53-54.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
188 A. A. VASILIEV
tion, still remains an undecipherable enigma; but the rest

very clear and must be taken into serious consideration by a
interesed in Oleg's raid. It is to be remembered that the m
is inserted in the Chronicle just in the place where the autho
chronological order of events, i.e., the time from 904 to 907
lated or at least mentioned Oleg's raid. Vasilievsky wrote t
to the fact that the Byzantines had information about Ole
be seen only in the chronicle of Symeon Magister (wh
Pseudo-Symeon), in the above passage.58
Here follows the passage from Pseudo-Symeon's chronicle:
Xp7)oaEvv V{ nvoTroOrK f 0EOKXvrTtia TvrOS KaL VTTEpcaOVTrV arov

Apo/lzrac 8c d7ro rTO o E'(Wo rpeXe aVTros Trpooreyevero. EK YEV
KaCTia,TavTaL59
The obscure part of this passage begins with the word 8

ends with the words v67TEpo-6ovrwv avTrov.
Here is the Latin translation of the seventeenth ce
Combefis for the Greek text of the chronicle; it fails to h
understanding of the text: "Russi, qui et congruo rei n
nuncupantur, a Ros quodam viro forti, cum sive monitu
divino quodam afflatu ac oraculo, pro potestate illis utent
iorum, iniurias noxamque evasissent, dicti sunt." 60
In 1741, after criticizing Combefis' translation, T. S. Bay
Latin translation which is not very clear either: "Rossi (iid
vocabulo dicti sunt, quod ortum habet a Ros, id est, grav
"V. Vasilievsky, The Life of St. George of Amastris, Works, III (St
p. cxxviii, n. 1. The former edition of this Life was published by Vasilie
Vasilievsky, Laehr (see below); Grushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus
p. 386, n. 1 (in Ukrainian). Stritter cites this text under the year 884. "M
olim ad Danubium, Pontum Euxinum, Paludem Maeotidem, Caucasum
inde magis ad Septentriones Incolentium, e Scriptoribus Historiae B
digestae" a Ioanne Gotthilf Strittero, II (Petropoli, 1774), pp. 966-967.
59 Symeon Magister, Bonn, p. 707. Here I wish to reproduce the ident
tinuer of Theophanes and the Continuer of George Hamartolus, telling t
campaign on Constantinople in 941: ol 'P,s KaTar KowravTwvoTroA'Xec; p
SEKa, ol Kat Apo/ulrat Xcyo/LevoL, ol (K c VOvS TOWV 'apcyywv Ka6ilTaVTau
(p. 423). Cont. Hamartoli, ed. Muralt, p. 841; Istrin, The Chronicle of Ge
a Slavo-Russian translation, II (Petrograd, 1922), p. 60 (Greek text). The w
pdpayywv are translated into Old Russian: from the Varangian nation (ot
middle section of the above passage has been omitted in these texts,
different, earlier period.
' Pseudo-Symeon, p. 707.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
sono, quem sive ex condicto, sive jussu aliquo deorum edunt con
cum superior bello est." 61
In 1845, Ernst Kunik published his German translation of th
full of interrogation points, which shows that the above pass
clear to him. Here is Kunik's translation: "Die Ros, welche auc
heissen, haben ihren Namen von einem gewaltigen (?) Ros erh
dem (weil?) sie den Feindseligkeiten (? wortlich den Misshi
derer entgangen waren, welche einen Gotterspruch (?) oder
eingeholt (?? sich zu Nutze gemacht ???) und iiber sie ein Uebe
erlangt (sie besiegt?) hatten." 62
At the very end of this book, in the additional note to this passa
referring to the words 'Pcs (o-oSpo3s, remarked: "One may thi
Oleg, because since his time the region of Kiev, which was pa
known to the Greeks, received the name Rus." 63
In 1862, a Russian historian, S. A. Gedeonov, one of the stron

nents of the theory of the Norman origin of Russia, gave his own
of the above text, which as we see at once, does not corresp
original Greek. We read: "The Russians, who are also Dromitai
called by their name after a certain valiant Rus, after they had su
saving themselves from the yoke of the people, who had taken pos
them and oppressed them, through the will or predestination of t
Despite the obscurity of the middle part of the passage under c
tion, it is clear that it fails to deal with the Russians, who were to
from the yoke of the people, who possessed and oppressed the
idea does not occur in the Greek text. Gedeonov rejects Kunik's
adjust this text to the story of the calling of the Varangians from
sea, from Scandinavia, as we read in the Russian Annals. From
point of view, this story which bears the triple character of m
moteness, and marvel, cannot be referred to an historical, almost c
rary event. The identification of the people-oppressor, the liber
61 T. S. Bayer, "Origines Russicae," Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petr

VIII, ad annum MDCCXXXVI (Petropoli, 1741), 405-406. Idem, De Varagis,
historiam antiquam, chronologiam, geographiam, et rem numariam spectantia: e
Adolphus Klotzius (Halle, 1770), pp. 353-354.
" E. Kunik, Die Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen, II (St. Petersburg, 18
413.
Op. cit., p. 496 (the last page of the book).

S. A. Gedeonov, Fragments from the Studies on the Varangian Question. Appendix
(Prilojeniye) to the first volume of the Accounts (Zapiski) of the Academy of Sciences (St.
Petersburg, 1862), No. 3, p. 78. In 1876, there was published an individual edition, in 2 vols.,
under the title Varangians and Rus. An Historical Study, II, p. 479. On Gedeonov see V. A.
Moshin, "Varyago-Russian Question," Slavia, X (Prague, 1931), 361-363 (in Russian).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
190 A. A. VASILIEV
Ros, and the period to which the mysterious tradition refe

to discover, but there is no doubt that the passage fails to
Oleg. Perhaps to the Avar yoke? Or to a certain very o
absolutely unknown to us? In any case the tradition
brought in to the Greeks in the time of Oleg, and perhaps
of Askold, has derived the name of the people of Rus (
of the country of Rus not from the Swedish Rodsi, who
from the local Slavonic name of Rus.65
The most detailed discussion on the above text of Ps
longs to the noted Russian byzantinist, F. I. Uspensky whos
in Russian in 1890, is practically unknown outside Russia
I wish to enlarge upon his study in some detail. According
passage about the Ros in the Chronicle of Symeon Magis
tion with his writing and, consequently, is an insertion.
liarity of this insertion consists in the fact that it is de
character and has two distinguishing qualities: (a) the e
nation of the names and places involved, and (b) the m
niscences which serve in addition to the etymology. Since t
the word Ros has been settled in a very simple manner
mighty Ros), and the classical mythology failed to produ
this new name, the author of the passage under considerat
old popular legendary traditions which contained supern
lous elements, with which Byzantium was amply supplie
that the passage about Ros, which we read with Symeon
explanation in the reminiscences which have not been
Byzantine Annals. Traces of such reminiscences are seem
popular tradition about the magician, the sorcerer who
the unclean spirits, and possessed supernatural qualities
John the Grammarian (832-842), who was accused of ha
self to the study of the forbidden sciences. And after men
of the Patriarch John, Uspensky says that he is rather
association of the story of John's charms with Symeon'
Ros is not a fruitless guess, because the passage involved
Gedeonov, op. cit., pp. 77-79.
F. Uspensky, "Patriarch John VII the Grammarian and the Rus-Dro
Magister," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, 1890, Janua
this article is included in Uspensky's later study, "The First Pages of
Byzantine Vagrant Legends," Accounts (Zapiski) of the Odessa Socie
tiquities, XXXII (Odessa, 1914), 199-228. I used also an offprint of
pagination. See also his History of the Byzantine Empire, II, 1 (Len
323.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
be explained, may have a satisfactory meaning, if, for its interpreta

start not with the idea of the material domination of certain people
(Russia) but with the action of supernatural forces.
After giving a brief biography of Patriarch John, Uspensky r
our passage. Giving in a Russian translation the thirteenth c
Symeon Magister (pp. 705-707), which contains a long list of plac
including the passage about the Ros, Uspensky concludes that th
must not and cannot be explained from Symeon's text because it
belong to him. Uspensky takes our passage without any changes, as i
in the printed text, and confines himself to the explanation of i
words, which, as he says, cannot be found even in the best Gree
aries. He takes the word arnX77jara in the sense of reaction, in
Turning to the word XpracraJEva (airwqx7jcara rTv Xp7)ora,tevov),
says that this word meaning an oracle must be replaced by some ter
the Christian conception of the writer who, in speaking about the R
a pagan term. So the writer using this term must have meant a "m
tion of some supernatural power, - divine or demoniac." Then t
VtTro0rK77, in our passage, means magic, sorcery brought in by the
spirits, and OEoK)XVTia, admission of some disaster through the will
with the help of the name of God.67 The author of the passage does
ascribe the disaster to one or the other influence; consequently
reminiscence, which was in his mind, there were no clear indication
participation of the will of God; in other words, Rus escaped such
as were not directly connected with religious ideas. As to the last
the passage, vreprpXovrwv avror, which remained unclear to Ku
more correct not to think of the material domination of someo
Russia, but to hold to the abstract ideas of the Greek original and to
these words from the same admission of disasters or charms of
have spoken above. The disasters which had been inflicted upon R
the will of God or by sorcery affected her; they cost her some p
which are indicated in the last words of the text.
Russia escaped and we must understand this in the literal sen
she left the arena, where the power which had affected her could
and hurriedly changed her place; therefore she was called drom
here Uspensky gives his own tentative translation: "Rus, the
Dromitai, are called after a certain mighty Ros, having escaped th
87 On 0EOKAvTia see E. A. 1eatoirovoov "'A9luaavpLrTot Aetv,"B Bvyavris, II, 1 (At
1912), 130: 0eoKAvrTa, auditio Dei, vox divina, with reference to Oecumenius in A
Cramer. Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum edidit J. A. Cramer,
(Oxford, 1844), 208.13; 218.19.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
192 A. A. VASILIEV
(disasters) which had been allowed by God, or sent by the u

and which possessed her." 68
The reason why this passage has remained unique in liter
not been repeated either by the writers contemporary with Sy
or by those who used him later may be explained by the interp
of the passage, which had not been included in all the versio
chronicle, or by the fact that other writers were not aware
which served as a foundation for Symeon's speculations con
I put aside here Uspensky's attempt to connect our passa
tradition about Patriarch John VII the Grammarian, who w
practicing sorcery and magic, and see in these legends traces
tine tradition about the pre-Rurik Russia.
I have dwelled rather long on Uspensky's study becaus
unknown outside Russia, although it fails to deal directly with
of Oleg's campaign. In other words, his lengthy and rather v
on the mysterious passage does not clarify the latter from the
the history of the outset of the tenth century. And it is not t
that in criticizing Kunik's tentative translation, Uspensky
additional note at the end of his work, which I have noted abov
the 'PJs o'oSp6o5 one may think of Oleg.
In 1949, R. J. H. Jenkins published a brief but very impo
the evidence of Pseudo-Symeon concerning the question of
Dromitai.9 It is the first attempt to study attentively the long
places mentioned by Pseudo-Symeon, in connection with th
first years of the tenth century. The first part of the list, hav
passage in the account of the Continuer of Theophanes, refers
attack conducted by Leo of Tripoli, who in 904 sacked The
this list, Pseudo-Symeon gives only the names of the places an
tory comments upon them, without showing how they fit int
Leo of Tripoli's attempt on the capital. In other words he g
mings without the story. But immediately following the list o
connected with the Saracen attack, Pseudo-Symeon append
of place-names, "again with archaeological or explanatory
again without a story." This second list, which has come d
Patriarch John VII the Grammarian and Rus-Dromitai, 23. The First
sian Annals and Byzantine Vagrant Legends, 206-207; offprint, 10-11.
"9 R. J. H. Jenkins, "The Supposed Russian Attack on Constantinople in
the Pseudo-Symeon," Speculum, XXIV (July, 1949), 403-406. He does no
above-mentioned Studies.
70 Symeon Magister, 705-706. Cont. Theophan., 367.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Pseudo-Symeon's chronicle only, contains the above passage in

Ros (Russians), also called Dromitai. This string of place name
ing to Jenkins, the story of a Russian voyage to Constantinop
probably, a raid on that city. It therefore looks quite conceivab
supposed raid of 907 has been meant in this passage. His ow
rendering of the passage runs as follows: "The Russians . . .
rused the oracular sayings, given either in the way of counsel or f
inspiration, of those who had got the mastery over them. . ."
Greek of this passage is far from clear, its rendering into any oth
cannot be clear either. Jenkins asks: "What were these 'divine
oracles' of the Russian chiefs? Is this not possibly a reference to t
of divination of Oleg the Wise? Is the 'P&o rT; croSpos Oleg him
same hypothesis had been advanced in 1845 by Kunik: "one may
of Oleg." 71 I myself may advance the same hypothesis in 1951.
The study of the "Russian" list of place names by Jenkins is a v
tial step forward in the clarification of Oleg's raid; he gives a n
tion for proving that Oleg's raid is not a fairy tale or saga but a r
cal fact, which has left a trace at least in one of the Byzantine chr
THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM DROMITAI
The reason why Russians were called Dromitai is, of course, ne

cause they can run fast, as it is indicated in Pseudo-Symeon's C
(707), nor because they hurriedly left the arena where they coul
affected by some mysterious powers, according to F. Uspensky's rat
speculations (see above, p. 191). Their designation as Dromita
from the name of a place which was situated at the mouth of t
Dnieper, whence Russians were setting out on their piratical inro
Black Sea. This was a long narrow stretch of land or rather of sho
has been known from ancient times as the 'AXLXX&fo 8pto'o, or
race course.
Full information about the sources on and the history of the 'AXLXXE
SpoP6o is found in an old detailed and very fine monograph publish
French in 1826 by the Russian academician, H. K. E. Koehler, under
title "Memoire sur les iles et la course consacrees a Achille dans le Po
Euxin." 72
71 E. Kunik, Die Berufung der schwedischen Rodsen, in the additional chapter to this book
(495), which as we know has been overlooked by Uspensky as well as by Jenkins.
" Memoires de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences, s6rie V, tome X (St. Petersburg, 1826),
531-819; text, 531-716; notes and citations, 717-819. On Koehler's work and publications see
H. K. E. Kohler's Gesammelte Schriften, ed. by L. Stephani, VI (St. Petersburg, 1853),

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
194 A. A. VASILIEV
It is very interesting to note that the cult of one of

heroes of Greek mythology, Achilles, as the sea deity
widespread along the shores of the Black Sea. In addition
Spo6uo; the most celebrated of his local cults was connect
shrine in the island of Leuke (White Island or Achilles'
the mouth of the Danube. Achilles' chief temple was situ
Olbia, at the mouth of the river Hypanis (now Bug). Som
the basin of the Black Sea connected with the name of A
indicated by ancient writers and carefully studied by Ko
mentioned monograph.73
For this study the record of the Byzantine geographer,
tius, is of great value. This in all probability was writt
Justinian the Great, in the sixth century; among other
referring to Achilles, Stephanus Byzantius specifies 'AXLXX
he erroneously calls an island; but he supplies us with ex
information: that the name for one who inhabits the 'AxtX
'AXLXXeLoSpo/ur,.74
The stretch of the 'AXLXXCE'w 8po41o being very low an
to inundations, in all probability, has never been inhabit
ing to Koehler, the 'AXLXXecoSpo,uL'ra of Stephanus Byzan
habitants who had established themselves on the terra
shore opposite the drome.75
According to legendary traditions, this place has rece
pp. v-viii. See Tomaschek's brief articles 'AXLtAXXe Spo'/Los and 'ALAX
Real-Encyclopiidie, I (Stuttgart, 1894), col. 221. J. Kulakovsky, The
(Kiev, 1914), 10 (in Russian). Both writers fail to mention Koehler's
3 Professor F. Bruun, of Odessa, rejected Koehler's opinion that, in t
Borysthenis, now Berezan, at the mouth of the Dnieper, he had discover
remains connected with Achilles. See F. Bruun, "On the Site of Tyr
of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, III (Odessa, 1853), 64.
A Collection of the Studies on the Historical Geography of South
(Zapiski) of the University of Novorossiya, XXVIII (Odessa, 1879),
See Koehler, pp. 633-634.
"4 Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt: 'AXL'AAXos Spodtos, vi7j
o.. EvLKove 'AXLXXEATr's Kat 'AXtdF v* S avTat elvaL Ka 'AXLMtLOPO
three editions the text is identical. Ed. A. Berkelii et Th. de Pinedo, I (
99; ed. A. Westermann (Leipzig, 1839), 68; ed. A. Meineke, I (Berlin
study on Stephanus Byzantius (Byzantinus) is that of E. Honigmann
Encyclopddie, Zweite Reihe, III, A (Stuttgart, 1929), coll. 2369-239
Great, col. 2372). See also W. von Christ-W. Schmid-O. Stahlin, Geschic
Litteratur, 6 ed.; II, 2 (Miinchen, 1924), 1084-1085, ? 836 (in the sixth
bacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, sec. ed. (Miinche
in the fifth century).
76 Koehler, op. cit., p. 554; 619.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
the Sp6/o0, because Achilles, seeking for his beloved Iphigenia in

had passed this stretch of land; or as Pliny says, this place was c
Race-course of Achilles," because it was his exercising ground.76
I think that the name of 'AxtXXELoSpo,utr7 pointed out by S
Byzantius gives us the right solution to the origin of the term Ros
who started their piratical raids in the Black Sea from the mou
Dnieper.77
FALSE RUMOR ABOUT A CONSTANTINOPOLITAN INSCRIPTION
In 1875, Vasilievsky wrote that in one of the issues of the Gr

published in Constantinople, '0 Ev Kcovrr-avrtvwovwr6X 'EXXrjvtK3q
vAXXoyoo, he had read an interesting account that, on the wall
nople, there had recently been discovered an inscription refe
campaign. And then Vasilievsky added: "An acquaintance with
tion would perhaps be profitable both for those who conside
paign a fairy tale, as well as for those who are indignant ove
fringement upon the Russian Annals." 78 Of course, this was
rumor without any foundation, and Vasilievsky has never m
again.
OLEG'S CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE
POSITIVE ARGUMENT: OLEG S CAMPAIGN IS AN HISTORICAL FACT
Historians of Russia. The great majority of Russian scholars

Oleg's campaign as an historical fact. Here I wish to give the names of
of them beginning with the eighteenth century. As it is to be expecte
" Koehler, op. cit., p. 552-553. See Pliny, Natural history, IV, 12, 83: "exer
ejusdem (i.e., Achilles) cognominata Dromos Achilleos." The Loeb Library, II, 180
7 Long ago, Vasilievsky and Tomaschek had been of the same opinion. V. Vas
The Life of George of Amastris, Works, III (Petrograd, 1915), CCLXXX-CCLX
first edition of this study was published in 1878). Tomaschek, 'AXLXXME'o SpoLos,
Real-Encyclopddie, I (Stuttgart, 1894), col. 221. In 1930, G. Laehr was also of thi
(see below). By oversight, in his edition of an Old-Russian version of the chronicle o
Hamartolus and his Continuer as well as in the Greek text of the latter, V. M. Istrin
with Igor's attack on Constantinople, referred the word dromitai not to the Ros bu
7rXooa - ships; so that in his Greco-Slavic and Slavo-Greek vocabularies the word Spo
identified with the Old-Russian word skedi, which is the Greek word aXeSla (aKeS8a
raft, float. V. Istrin, The Chronicle of George Hamartolus in an Old-Slavo-Russian V
III (Leningrad, 1930), p. 57, 318.
'8V. Vasilievsky, "The Varangian-Russian and Varangian-English Company (d
in Constantinople," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, part CLXXV
p. 440, n. 1. This note has been reproduced in its entirety in the new and revised ed
his works, I (St. Petersburg, 1908), 277, n. Of course, nothing like this can be found
Landmauer von Konstantinopel. Zweiter Teil. Aufnahme, Beschreibung und Geschich
B. Meyer-Plath und A. M. Schneider (Berlin, 1943). Archiologisches Institut des D
Reiches. Denkmaler antiker Architektur, Band 8.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
196 A. A. VASILIEV
of them tell the story as it is related in the Russian A

supply, not very often, however, with their personal rema
osov (1711-1765), after narrating the story of the campa
contents of the treaties, concluded: "So both sides estab
hanging his shield on the gates of Tsargrad as a sign of
to Russia, with much booty. The simple and superstitiou
a magician, because his deeds were regarded as impossibl
V. N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), who published his vol
History under Catherine the Great (1762-1796), telling
the campaign remarked: "The Greeks, as a people more c
took into their minds to do evil and sent Oleg and his troo
He accepts the two treaties: preliminary and final.80
Prince M. M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790), in his Russia
telling the story and discussing the treaties, wrote: "Be
back to Kiev, Oleg, taking his shield, upon which a r
represented, hung it on the gates of Galata, in Constantino
memory of his victory." 81
In her Accounts Concerning Russian History, the Emp
Great (1762-1796), narrating Oleg's campaign "on th
(derjava)" in 907, wrote: "He had taken many cities;
proached Constantinople, its inhabitants spread the
across the Bosphorus and closed the passage. . . After t
treaty, Oleg had a meeting with the Constaninopolitan E
sides confirmed the peace by oath. Writers relate that at h
left in Tsargrad as a memory the shield of Igor (sic), up
warrior was represented; and this shield, as they say, may
on the gates of Galata in Constantinople." The treaty wa
day, September 15, 912.82
The leading Russian historian of the first half of the nin
N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826), dealing with the questio
paign, reveals his acquaintance with Byzantine historio
79 M. Lomonosov, Early Russian History from the Beginning of the
Death of the Grand Prince Yaroslav the First or to the Year 1054
pp. 62-64.
V. N. Tatishchev, Russian History from the Earliest Times, II (Moscow, 1773),
pp. 18-24.
8 Prince M. Shcherbatov, Russian History from the Earliest Times, I (St. Petersburg,
1901), pp. 281-294. This is a reprint of the original edition of 1771. The author makes refer-
ences to his sources; one of them was the above-mentioned Polish historian Stryjkowski.
Catherine the Second, Accounts (Zapiski) concerning Russian History. Works of the
Empress Catherine the Second, edited by A. N. Pypin, VIII (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. 31-35.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
that in 902 seven hundred Russians, or the Varangians of Kiev, ser

Greek fleet (see above, p. 187). In 906, it was not only a mariti
tion; Oleg also took the infantry and cavalry. And here Kar
whether the inhabitants of Bessarabia and the strong Bulgari
pass through in a friendly manner. The Russian Annalist does
about this. After telling the usual story, Karamzin concludes: "
Nestor describes the happy and glorious campaign, with w
crowned his military deeds. Greek historians are silent as to th
event." And in note 316, referring to the text just mentioned, he
Leo the Grammarian, Symeon Lagothete, the Continuer of Co
George the Monk, Cedrenus, Zonaras, the same sources which te
Russian attack in 866 and 941, say nothing about Oleg's campa
it to be concluded, asks Karamzin, that the event which they f
scribe must have been an invention? No. (1) The Byzantine histo
813 to 959, as Bayer remarks, are not detailed; (2) not all Byzan
clers have come down to us; (3) what is lacking in the chronicle
known to us, may be found in those which are lost; (4) Skylitze
Zonaras call Saint Vladimir the brother-in-law of Basil and Cons
they do not say anything as to when and how the Russian Prin
Anne. Could the annalist, who lived in the eleventh century, in
currence of the tenth century, which was still fresh in popula
Could he daringly assure his contemporaries of the authentic
event, were it not guaranteed by general tradition? Some det
fictitious; but the chief fact that Oleg went to Tsargrad and re
success seems to be authentic.83
Karamzin was the first historian who thought that the sile
Byzantine sources on Oleg's campaign could not be regarded
proof that his campaign did not take place at all, and that the
was invented by the Russian chronicler.
In 1838 in Moscow the first volume of The History of Russia
vanie o Rossii) was published, compiled by N. S. Artsybashev (
whose work as a collection of historical materials has not lost its s
even to our own day. After relating the campaign according to
Chronicle, he wrote: "We cannot dare to reject this event; but
confirm it either: (1) through the complete silence about it of all
and other chroniclers; (2) through the incredible timidity of
3 N. M. Karamzin, History of the Russian Empire, I, chapter V. There are sev

Karamzin's work has been translated into French and German but, if I am not
into English.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
198 A. A. VASILIEV
who, at that time, were rather strong; (3) through the e

lousness in the description of the above event which looks
tale instead of the truth; (4) because in the treaty ment
city Pereyaslavl, which was built later, by the Great Pri
finally, (5) through the inconsistency of the provisions
the humiliation, which the Greeks showed when asking
treaty was ratified in 911.84
In the first half of the nineteenth century there was
History of the Russian People by Nicholas Polevoy (1
his rather elevated style wished to imitate "the immortal w
its new French edition with notes by Guizot." He consi
activities of Oleg from the point of view of the general hi
in Eastern Europe. Polevoy begins his narrative with a p
istic of Oleg. He writes: "The most recent historians
murder of Askold and Dir the stain on his glory, seeing
robbery. But his contemporaries considered Oleg's activi
we cannot judge, according to our own conception, the a
lived nine centuries earlier, who thought differently, an
cumstances unknown to us. A Varangian, seeking for booty
his hands and crossing the seas for plunder and destruction
tries, cannot be accused like a citizen of a well organized
imagine Oleg as he was not, i.e., a hero according to
the murderer of the valiant possessors of Kiev, is he mo
plunderer of the innocent inhabitants of Greece? If, for h
the success justifies the means, Oleg's character is not st
of Askold and Dir." 85
Polevoy points out that the very dangerous moment for
at the end of the ninth century, the Magyars or Ugrian
their advance westwards, passed through the territory o
this cloud which threatened Oleg had rolled away, the time
portant events came for him" (p. 114). Then turning to
tween Simeon Tsar of Bulgaria and Byzantium, Polevoy
time Oleg could have been urged by Simeon to make w
and supported by the Bulgarian force he could hope to
the two valiant enemies began to menace Tsargrad by la
and Oleg (p. 115). "The contemporaries have recorded O
" N. Artsybashev, Povestvovanie o Rossii, I (Moscow, 1838), pp. 2

6 N. Polevoy, A History of the Russian People, I, 104. I use the secon
work (Moscow, 1930).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
poetical form. The poems of the Scalds, who perhaps accomp

towards Tsargrad, have been clearly inserted in our Annals" (p.
after describing the campaign according to the Annals, Polevoy
us put aside inventions of poetry and satisfy ourselves with th
truth. Oleg's campaign has remained in the memory of the descend
ticularly, perhaps, for the reason that it was the first incursion of
ern Russians,86 and the only successful campaign of the Russian
grad. . . Therefore Oleg's campaign, successful and daring, has
imagination of the Russians (p. 118). But was this Oleg's campaig
tic? There is a very serious doubt, because the Byzantine chron
nothing about it. But from the beginning of the tenth century and
its half, Byzantine history is not complete. We have no right to
tale of the chronicler, who could not invent an occurrence, which
place only a hundred years before him; his story may be more
because he transmits it to us with all sorts of fanciful additions.
reject the authenticity of Oleg's treaty, 911" (pp. 118-119). The
ships is exaggerated (pp. 119-121).87
Polevoy's discussion is a very fine example of dealing critically
question of Oleg's raid.
In his text book on Russian History which came out in the fir
the nineteenth century and had several editions, N. Ustryalov (
devotes a few pages to Oleg's campaign. He writes: "Oleg looked
richest gifts and inspired by his adventurous spirit decided
(potrevozhitj) the Greeks. The fanciful circumstances with whic
has adorned Oleg's Greek campaign in spite of the silence of
writers most decidedly testify to the success of the Russian raid
tium: otherwise the contemporaries would have had no reason
either silky sails or the wheels upon which the Russian boat
Tsargrad, when the wind was favorable. . . The close alliance
Greeks was the last deed of Oleg, the unforgettable hero in our his
In his twenty-nine volume History of Russia from the Most
Times the noted Russian historian, S. M. Solovyov (1820-187
only a few words to Oleg's raid. After telling the annalistic story, h
"Such is the tradition about Oleg: history has no right whatever
this tradition." 89
In his Ancient Russian History down to the Mongol Yoke

' This statement of Polevoy may seem rather misleading.
87 The whole discussion, Polevoy, I, pp. 104-133.
N. Ustryalov, Russian History, 5th ed. (St. Petersburg, 1855), pp. 40-43.
S . Solovyov, History of Russia, I, 4th ed. (Moscow, 1866), p. 130.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25ff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
200 A. A. VASILIEV
Pogodin (1800-1875) wrote a few pages on Oleg's

artificial style he asks: "What more did Oleg want? Tsar
the avid looks and intimate thoughts of all the Varangians
trated on this point; there they had hoped to get for th
glory and richest booty. And Oleg thought of such a camp
giving the usual story, Pogodin makes an amazing state
cording to the testimony of the Byzantine chronicles, t
asked the Russian Prince for peace on any conditions, in o
to bloodshed and destruction." 90 It is almost incredible
historian like Pogodin did not know that the Byzant
mention Oleg's campaign.
In 1872, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1829-1897), in the
his Russian History, has dealt with "the famous Oleg's
grad, the legendary traditions of which have been inserted
The two treaties are the most ancient monuments of the Russian Law.
Oleg's deeds have become the object of songs, a nucleus of which has been
preserved in the tales of the chronicler about his campaign upon Tsargrad
and about his death. Therefore it is clear that Oleg was one of those person-
alities who, appearing at the beginning of the history of each people, mark
their borders, indicate their problems, and define for a long time their
political structure." 91
In 1873 N. P. Lambin, who died in 1882, refuting the theory of Ilovaisky,
who denied the historicity of Oleg's campaign and of whom we shall speak
later, asserted that Oleg's campaign was not a fairy tale, not an invention of a
writer, but a popular legend describing under fanciful cover an historical
fact; and that the peace treaty with the Greeks in 6415 is not a later fairy
tale but a contemporary and absolutely authentic document of the begin-
ning of the tenth century.92
The noted church historian E. Golubinsky (1834-1912) wrote that,
after Oleg's envoys had made peace with the Greeks in 911, the Emperor
Leo, according to our Annals, honored them with gifts of gold, palls, robes,
etc. (see above). And then Golubinsky proceeds: "Comparing this informa-
tion of our annals with the Greek records concerning the reception of foreign
envoys in Constantinople, we must conclude that both the riches of the
90 M. Pogodin, The Ancient Russian History down to the Mongol Yoke, I (Moscow, 1871),
pp. 10-12.
1 K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, The Russian History, I (St. Petersburg, 1872), pp. 100-101.
9 N. P. Lambin, "Was Oleg's Campaign upon Tsargrad Really a Fairy Tale?," Journal of
the Ministry of Public Instruction, July, 1873 (part CLXVIII), 119-121; the whole article,
115-127.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
imperial palace and the beauty of the churches (particularly

were shown to our envoys not so much to teach them the Chri
the chronicler says, but to boast in their presence and to p
pression upon them; the absolutely identical treatment whic
describes in regard to the Russian envoys, we find with Con
phyrogenitus regarding the Saracen (Arab) envoys." 93
In 1903, in several articles, V. I. Lamansky (1833-1914) de
attention to Oleg's campaign and his discussion is not deprive
tion and even of certain fantasy. "The annalistic story of the c
trustworthy, because the Byzantine sources fail to mention
fairy tale details and boastful exaggerations of Scandinav
mention of the cavalry in the campaign refers, doubtless, t
and to another period. We cannot reject the campaign, but w
it in the form in which it is presented in the annalistic traditi
paign did take place, but it is impossible to say with certain
was in 907 or some earlier or later year." After these rather us
Lamansky proceeds: "According to the treaties made with th
and 911), in his campaign Oleg already pursued other aims
and Dir, who wanted only to steal and plunder. He equipped
sailed to Constantinople in order to occupy and divert his su
as well as his own and their companies (druzhina), perhaps
and settle a part of the Varangians in Greece, to take from Byz
gifts for his future friendship, for the promise not to allow h
plunder henceforth the imperial regions; finally, he wante
increase in payment for the hired service of the Russians b
amelioration of the position of the Russian merchants in G
velopment of commercial relations with her. Finally, th
wanted to see Byzantium and its organization himself. It is
his konungs and jarls (earls) missed no opportunity to steal
wherever it was possible. According to the testimony of the
situation of Byzantium in 907-911 was entirely different fro
at least, Oleg himself does not attribute to his campaign
piratical significance as was true in the case of the campaig
and Dir." 94
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Ukraini

Michael Grushevsky, mentions Oleg's successful campaign w
" E. Golubinsky, History of the Russian Church, sec. ed., I, 1 (Moscow, 19
9 V. Lamansky, The Slavonic Life of St. Cyril as a Religious-epic Work an
Source (Petrograd, 1915), pp. 147-150; 153-154. Originally this study was
1904 as several articles in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
202 A. A. VASILIEV
detail thoroughly legendary, and adds that the comple

Byzantine sources would be very incredible, had Oleg re
Tsargrad itself; it is more probable that, at the outset of t
Oleg attacked the Byzantine regions in general, and fai
Tsargrad itself; in this case the Byzantine chroniclers m
tioned such an event.95
In 1908 V. Ikonnikov wrote that if Oleg's embellishe
not noted by the Byzantine chroniclers, its confirmat
official documents - in the treaties and in the later referen
V. O. Klyuchevsky is interested in the activities of O
mentions his treaties along with those of Igor and Svyat
book S. F. Platonov writes: "Oleg made a raid on Byzanti
the walls of Constantinople (907), ravaged the surround
laid siege to the city." 98 D. Bagaley only says that the
Byzantium are closely connected with the commercial lin
The campaigns of Oleg and Igor ended with the commer
In 1925, the Russian economist Joseph Kulischer, in h
tory of Russia published in German, wrote that, after the
Oleg endeavored to carry into effect his most ardent de
gold and precious cloths. In 907 he made a treaty betw
tries, and this treaty was succeeded by a new agreement of
there is an interesting discussion about the treaties.100
In 1948 G. Vernadsky, in his book written in English
says that, according to the Book of Annals, Oleg's campa
tion of a cavalry raid across Bulgaria and naval opera
direct mention of this campaign in Byzantine sources an
has expressed his doubt about the authenticity of the R
ever, the majority of students of both Russian and Byz
consider the story reliable on the whole. In my opinion th
authenticity of the story is the contents of the Russo-Byz
may also be pointed out that in the Arabic work by Mar
5 M. Grushevsky, History of Ukraine-Russia, I (Lwow, 1904), pp. 385
6 V. C. Ikonnikov, Essay on the Russian Historiography, II, 1 (Kiev,
" V. Klyuchevsky, A Course in Russian History, 5th ed., I (Mosco
187-189. English translation by C. J. Hogarth, I (London-New York
8 S. F. Platonov, History of Russia, transl. by E. Aronsberg, ed.
York, 1925), p. 25. See his Lectures in Russian History, ed. by Iv. Blino
1917), pp. 67-68.
D. I. Bagaley, Russian History, I (Moscow, 1914), p. 192.
0 Josef Kulischer, Russische Wirtschaftsgeschichte, I (Jena, 192
Russian book History of the Russian Trade (Leningrad, 1923).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
1120; see above) the Russians are said to have reached Constant
spite of the chains in the gulf." As Minorsky suggests, this is
reference to Oleg's campaign of 907.101
Recently historians in'Soviet Russia have devoted some att
Oleg's campaign. In 1939 one of the writers in the History of U.S.S
was compiled by a group of historians, wrote: "If we trust the
narrative, full of fairy tale details, Oleg made a campaign upon
nople. There are no direct indications of this campaign in Byz
West European sources, but there is confirmation of the annalis
some remarks of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and in Oleg's treaty
Greeks, which as Marx says, includes "conditions of peace ignom
the dignity of the Eastern Roman Empire," and which was appar
soon after the victory of the Russian troops over the Greeks." 102
Another Russian historian, B. D. Grekov, deals with our pro
more detail. After giving the story as it occurs in the Annals, G
ceeds: "In our science there is no doubt that the treaty with the Gr
concluded by Oleg; there is no doubt that this treaty was fa
Russia. It would seem to be the simplest way to explain these ad
the result of Oleg's successful campaign upon Tsargrad. But sev
historians doubt whether this campaign took place in reality. S.
shin, for instance, calls it 'fantastic.' M. Grushevsky considers
(907) and the details legendary but, at the same time, admits t
were certain Russian campaigns in the Byzantine regions at the
of the tenth century, and perhaps more than one, advantageous
which have supplied popular fantasy with the occasion of em
them, and forced Byzantium to pay ransom and to make the ne
very favorable to Russia. A. A. Shakhmatov and A. E. Presnyak
deny the fact of the campaign itself, but express very understanda
of its annalistic dating and other details which are indicated in t
In order to disentangle this question, we have: (1) the dated tr
the Greeks on September 2, 911; (2) the contents of the treaty whi
undoubtedly of the military successes obtained by Russia; (3) the
944 which has brought changes in the preceding treaty - the chang
were not in favor of Russia comparatively with the treaty of 911,
11 G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), pp. 26-27. See also his
in Russian, A Sketch of Russian History (Prague, 1927), p. 37: Oleg's treaty was p
Kiev, down to the eleventh century, and then was inserted in the Annals.
a Istoriya U.S.S.R., vol. I, from very ancient times to the end of the eighteent
under redaction of V. I. Lebedev, B. D. Grekov, S. V. Bakhrushin (Moscow, 1
The remarks of Constantine Porphyrogenitus are not specified.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
204 A. A. VASILIEV
be connected with Igor's not very successful campaigns. Hence it is clear

that the campaign was not mere fantasy. Consequently we have complete
right to draw the conclusion that the treaty of 911 is the result of a success-
ful campaign upon Byzantium." And then, for further proof, Grekov ad-
duces the passage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus' work De adminis-
trando imperior, which we have discussed above. "This is a picture of
reality," Grekov continues, "Here the author has in view not one particular
campaign of Russia upon Byzantium, but the entire system of Russo-
Byzantino-Pecheneg relations." 103
In 1947 Baron Michael de Taube published the first volume of his book
written in French Rome and Russia before the Invasion of the Tatars. Al-
though this volume deals with the earlier period of Russian history (856-
882), so that, as the author says, the rule of Oleg is to be discussed in the
second volume, which, so far as I know, has not yet been published (p. 18,
n. 1), we nevertheless see from this first volume that the author accepts the
historicity of the campaign, the chronology of the Russian Annals, and the
authenticity of the treaties. "The regime of peace which had been estab-
lished at last in 874 between Constantinople and Kiev and which was to
last down to Oleg's renewed attacks in about 907-911, opened an era of
military assistance of the Russians to their new coreligionaries of Byzan-
tium." 104
In 1948, in the History of Culture of Ancient Russia, which was compiled

by several writers, we read the following brief notice: "Oleg made a victori-
ous campaign to the walls of Tsargrad-Constantinople. The Greeks asked
for peace, paid ransom and were forced to conclude a treaty with Oleg
which was extremely important for the Russian merchants and for Russia
in general. This treaty is attributed to the year 911.105
Russian Byzantinists. The Russian byzantinists recognize the authentic-
ity of Oleg's campaign. In the years 1917-1946, A. Vasiliev connected it
with the Arabo-Byzantine relations in the beginning of the tenth century,
accepted the theory of the two treaties, the first oral in 907 and the second
formal treaty in 911, and explained the participation of the Russians in the
103 B. V. Grekov, Kievan Russia, 4th ed. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1944), p. 260-261. See above.
" Baron Michel de Taube, Rome et la Russie avant linvasion des Tatars (IX'-XIII?
siOcles). I. Le Prince Askold, L'origine de rltat de Kiev et la premiere conversion des Russes
(856-882). Paris, 1947, pp. 18, 22, 30, 43, 96.
106 History (Istoriya) of the Culture of Ancient Russia. The Pre-Mongol Period, I. Under
the general redaction of B. V. Grekov and M. I. Artamonov, I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1948),
p. 12.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Byzantine navy in 910 from the provisions of the first treaty; we h

cussed this question above.'06
In 1916 M. Sozyumov writes that Leo the Deacon was well acq
with Russian affairs; so that we may surmise that he knew abo
campaign. Then citing Leo's passage of the violation of the sworn tre
Igor, which we have discussed above, Sozyumov remarks: "Oleg
behalf of Igor; therefore by his campaign Igor violated as if
oath. . . Why, however, do all the Byzantine chronicles, without
silence Oleg's victory? In all probability, there was no victory w
Oleg advanced towards Tsargrad; but the matter did not come t
conflict; the Greeks had paid off, and the treaty was concluded. Chr
could have passed in silence such an insignificant event." 107
The most detailed and well documented study in favor of the hist
of Oleg's campaign (published in Belgrad, Yugoslavia, in 1939) is
Professor G. A. Ostrogorsky. He decidedly rejects the theories of H.
S. Runciman, N. Brian-Chaninov, G. Laehr, Mrs. G. da Costa-Lou
N. de Baumgarten, who deny the authenticity of Oleg's camp
whose studies we shall discuss below. Ostrogorsky is perfectly r
stating that, when we say that all the Byzantine chronicles are si
his campaign, we forget that we are dealing with only one chro
Symeon Logothete, whose complete original Greek text has not
published, but whose complete Old Slavonic version was edited
The other chroniclers of the tenth century, Leo the Grammarian, Th
of Melitene, the anonymous Continuer of George Hamartolus, an
called Pseudo-Symeon Magister, are not original writers; but th
copyists, abbreviators, or revisers of the above Chronicle of
Logothete. All the details of the Russian Annals, including the f
Oleg's shield or the shields of the Russian warriors upon the gate
stantinople, may be explained by Scandinavian and West European
customs. His conclusion is that the narrative of the Russian Chronicl
a later apocrypha, but it rests upon a very old source, perhaps, upon
contemporary with the event itself. "So we come to the conclusion t
1 A. Vasiliev, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Time of the Macedonian Dyn
Petersburg, 1902), pp. 166-167 (in Russian). Idem, History of the Byzantine
(Madison, Wisconsin, 1928), pp. 389-390; French ed. I (Paris, 1932), p. 424; Tur
(Ankara, 1943), pp. 405-406; Spanish ed. I (Barcelona, 1946), pp. 396-397. In t
Russian edition, I (Petrograd, 1917), p. 294 (without references). In this stu
changed my opinion about the treaties.
1'o M. Sozyumov, "On the Sources of Leo the Deacon and Scylitzes," Vizantiy
renie, II (Yuryev, 1916), p. 165 (in Russian).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
206 A. A. VASILIEV
not only did exist, but he also attacked Constantinople, and actually did fix
his shield on the gate of Tsargrad." 108
Oleg's campaign should have been discussed by F. I. Uspensky in the
second part of the second volume of his History of the Byzantine Empire.
The first part of this volume which contains the iconoclastic period and the
problem of the Slavonic apostles, Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius in
the middle of the ninth century, breaks off in the middle of a phrase. But
this second part has not been published, although the third volume, contain-
ing the later period of the Empire down to its fall, came out in Moscow-
Leningrad in 1948.109
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT: OLEG'S CAMPAIGN IS NOT AN HISTORICAL FACT
Although the great majority of Russian scholars consider Oleg's cam-

paign an historical fact, there are several who regard it as a legend, a myth,
which has nothing to do with history. Their special reasons for this negative
point of view may stem partly from the complete absence of Byzantine
evidence on the campaign and partly from the fact that they do not want to
recognize in the story as recounted in the Russian Annals any kernel of his-
torical truth, since they see in it nothing but a fable, invented by the
chronicler. The names of some Russian historians holding this point of view
follow.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, N. I. Kostomarov (1817-1885)
was, if I am not mistaken, the first to deny the historicity of Oleg's expedi-
tion. According to him, "Oleg's personality appears in our primary annals
entirely as a personality of tradition but not of history. Except for our chron-
icle, we find no allusion anywhere to his existence; and the chronicler him-
self evidently had only one written source which announced to him that in
Russia there had once lived a prince with such a name: it was the treaty
with the Greeks." After telling the story as it is narrated in the Annals, Kos-
tomarov concludes that "without any doubt, it belongs to tradition, or, more
exactly, to song." The boats on wheels remind him of a Russian proverb
whose equivalent I could not find in English, and which means in English
something like this: "If thou dislikest, do not listen to it; but do not prevent
lying" (Ne Ijubo ne slushay, a Igatj ne meshay); in other words, this episode
is a complete falsehood.
108 G. Ostrogorsky, "L'expedition du Prince Oleg contre Constantinople en 907," Annales de
l'Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum), XI (1939), 47-61; conclusion, 61; note
additionelle, p. 62 (on Baumgarten's monograph). See also his Geschichte des Byzantinischen
Staates (Munchen, 1940), p. 182.
19 The manuscript of the second volume, part two, has been left by Uspensky with so
many omissions that it could not be printed. See the preface to the third volume, p. 6.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
In his campaign upon Tsargrad Oleg represents an ideal hero (boga

of popular songs, whose traces can be found in the Russian epic poe
From the treaty we cannot say that before its conclusion any war took
there is no allusion to the campaign in the Greek sources. But there is O
name in popular fantasy, and another fantastic Oleg has survived do
our day in the popular epic poems (byliny) under the name of Volg
attack of this epic Volga against the Turkish land, as it is narrated in th
sian popular ballads, corresponds to Oleg's annalistic attack on Byzant
In all probability under the influence of Kostomarov's theory, D. I
sky (1832-1920) also denied the'historicity of Oleg's campaign.
earlier book Studies on the History of Russia, he narrated how Oleg gath
an enormous army from all the peoples who were his subjects, and u
took his campaign upon Tsargrad on a vast scale; the campaign was
successful, if it were authentic. We may put aside Oleg's campaign
the Byzantines fail to mention. In the first volume of his other work, Hi
of Russia, Ilovaisky, after discussing the treaties, which are a precious s
for the earlier history of Russia, writes: "Adducing Oleg's treaties,
aside our annalistic traditions about this prince . . . and about his mi
lous campaign upon Byzantium, because these tales are not confirm
any trustworthy sources, and have fully the character of fables. Byz
historians, for instance, know nothing about the siege of Constantinople
Oleg, and some scholars have attempted to explain their silence by
national pride. This is incredible. But according to the tale itself of
annals Oleg only laid siege to Tsargrad but failed to capture it." 1l
In 1906, K. Tiander remarks in passing that we have nothing wh
would speak in favor of the fact that the conclusion of the treaty w
result of Oleg's campaign. From this treaty it is not even clear that
preceded it. "Finally, Byzantine chroniclers know nothing of any de
tion (razgrom) of Tsargrad under the leadership of Oleg. Therefore it
to me that Oleg's campaign has been invented by the Russian annalist." 1
In 1924, A. Lyaschenko wrote that in the legendary narrative of the
0 N. I. Kostomarov, Traditions of the Primary Russian Annals, VII, Traditions about

Collection of N. I. Kostomarov's works. Historical monographs and studies, vol. X
Petersburg, 1904), pp. 321-330. The whole section on Oleg, pp. 321-336.
1. D. Ilovaisky, Studies on the Origin of Russia, sec. ed. (Moscow, 1882), p. 6. Th
edition of this book came out in Moscow, in 1876. History of Russia, I. The Kievan
(Moscow, 1876), pp. 23-24 and note 6; p. 289. This is the edition I have used. The
edition, 1900.
2 K. Tiander, The Voyages of the Scandinavians to the White Sea (St. Petersburg, 19
p. 405.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
208 A. A. VASILIEV
sian Chronicle about Oleg's successful attack on Tsargr

tradition enlarged by the annalist's speculations and comm
In 1930-1931 H. Rydzevski published an article in Germ
Huno Saga," in which she calls Oleg's campaign unhis
torisch) .114
In 1936, in his review of B. D. Grekov's book The Feudal Relations in
the Kievan State (see above), S. Bakhrushin wrote that it would be better
not to include in this essay the historical facts whose authenticity is more
than problematic; such are, among some other episodes, Oleg's first treaty
and his fantastic campaign upon Constantinople. As to the Russian cam-
paigns upon Constantinople, in spite of many doubts expressed concerning
the tale of the Laurentian Chronicle, its scheme continues to affect scholarly
conceptions and, in particular, the conception of Grekov. If we compare the
Laurentian Chronicle with the First Novgorod Chronicle, which has pre-
served a more archaic version, we shall see that originally, in the Tale of
Bygone Years, there was recorded only one victorious campaign of Oleg
upon Constantinople, which is not mentioned by any Greek or West Euro-
pean sources; but the legend has preserved memories of many inroads of
Rus upon the shores of the Black Sea. Only later, from the Greek sources,
were the accounts of the historical campaigns of 860 and 941 inserted in the
annalistic versions. Bakhrushin accepts Shakhmatov's theory that the treaty
of 907 is not a trustworthy or authentic document.15
OLEG'S CAMPAIGN IN FOREIGN LITERATURE

POSITIVE ARGUMENT: OLEG'S CAMPAIGN IS AN HISTORICAL FACT
Foreign writers, as it is to be expected, devote little attention to

raid, and show only a rather casual interest in it. Only recently, in co
with a wave of hypercriticism which has swept over the minds of
"1A. Lyaschenko, "The Annalistic Tales about the Death of Oleg the Wise," I
Otdeleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk, XXIX (
254-255.
"' Helene Rydzevski, "Die danische Huno Sage und eine Episode aus der altrussischen
Chronik," Acta Philologica Scandinavica. Tidsskrift for nordisk Sprogforskning, V (Copen-
hagen, 1930-1931), p. 34; the whole article, pp. 34-40. In her Russian article published in
1932, H. Rydzevski remarks that Oleg's campaign itself and his treaty are debatable as his-
torical facts. "About the annalistic tradition of the expedition of Rus on Tsargrad in 907,"
Izvestiya (Accounts) of the Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R. Section of the Social Sciences,
1932, p. 472.
1 S. Bakhrushin, in the magazine Istorik Marxist, III (1937), 165-175. See A. Shakhmatov,
"Some Remarks upon the Treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks," Accounts (Zapiski) of
the Neophilological Society at the University of Saint Petersburg, VII (St. Petereburg, 1914),
400. About this article I shall speak below. Against Shakhmatov's theory see Ostrogorsky,
L'Expedition du Prince Oleg, p. 53, n. 17.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
few West European scholars, as to early Russian history and th

Primary Chronicle, there have come out several studies or artic
reject the historicity of Oleg's campaign and even of Oleg himself.
Herein I give first the names of a few foreign (not Russian) writ
accept the historicity of Oleg's campaign.
In 1781 a French work in several volumes, Histoire de Russie,
lished by Pierre Charles Levesque. The author, after mention
victories over several Slavonic tribes, wrote that all this had bee
but preparation for his ambitious aims. It was towards Constantin
his desires were directed. Then he tells the story of the expedi
stands in the Chronicle. "The Emperor Leo, who was called the Ph
because he devoted his time to vain studies instead of fulfilling
of a sovereign, reigned at that time in Constantinople." The auth
that the Greek historians fail to mention Oleg's expedition. But he s
this silence may not be sufficient ground for rejecting the narrativ
ancient chronographer. It inspires some doubt about the exactn
story of the expedition, which was not as important as the annalist
He lived about two centuries after Oleg's administration and co
been misled by exaggerated tradition. The treaties are authenti
documents."6 Levesque was close to the correct interpretation o
campaign.
In 1783-1784 in France the Histoire physique, morale, civile et politique
de la Russie ancienne was published, whose author, Le Clerc, devotes a fair
amount of attention to Oleg's rule and his campaign against Constantinople.
Oleg, "after rejoicing over the assassination of Ascold and Dir, which made
him master of Kiof (Kiev)," concentrated his mind on Constantinople.
"The thought and desire of riches excite him and show him in perspective a
new fortune: the capture of Constantinople becomes the object of his wishes,
and soon the Bosphorus becomes the bloody theater of his exploits. But how
will he be able to reach the strait over which is the city of the Caesars which
the Russians call Tsargrad? How? The energy of the pirates is capable of
undertaking everything and effecting everything. Cupidity is their tactic,
lust for booty feeds their vigor . . . does one need anything more for the
execution of things which fail to seem even possible? The Russians could
reach Constantinople only through greater and more real labors than those
of Hercules." After many perils they reach Constantinople. "The strong
chains closing the entrance of the strait which Constantinople dominates,
"" P.-Ch. Levesque, Histoire de Russie. New edition, I (Hamburg and Brunswick, 1800),
pp. 70-81. The first edition came out in 1781.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
210 A. A. VASILIEV
insurmountable obstacles for other men but not for the

effectual against the Russians. They disembark, beac
wheels which they adapt: all this seems incredible, and
But what is impossible to believe is what the chronicle add
was favorable, their ships spreading the sails arrive un
Constantinople,' i.e., they sail on dry land . . . When the
ing rags decided to cover themselves with gold and to enjo
into blood and voluptuousness which shock one's natur
more cruel than that exercised over the inhabitants of the
then, after describing more cruelty and violence of the in
says: "Let us throw a veil upon so much horror, and sa
appeased these exterminators." In the same style Le Cl
and mentions the two treaties, "Here is the treaty rec
which Lomonofof (for Lomonosof) copied in his A
Russia." 117
In 1876 a French historian, A. Couret, published a long article Russia in
Constantinople. First Attempts of the Russians against the Greek Empire.ll
He writes that, according to the Russian Annals, about the year 906, Oleg
levied a powerful army, an army of various peoples, like that of Attila, and
reminding one of the ancient barbarian invasions which had destroyed the
old Roman Empire. The Emperor Leo the Philosopher, plunging into astro-
logical calculations, studying the stars from the height of the towers of his
palace, was not ready to resist. The enormous iron chain was used across the
Golden Horn to stop Oleg, and the latter, with his frail barques, did not
attempt to break the obstacle which Byzantine pusillanimity had set against
him. After telling the episode of the shield fixed at the gates of Byzantium,
Couret remarks: "and this deceiving image will perpetually incite the Rus-
sians to the conquest of Constantinople." But the narrative of Nestor, if dis-
engaged from the fabulous or rather legendary element, gives a natural and
sensible picture. Couret is acquainted with Lambin's article which we have
discussed above. In conclusion Couret says that we must admit that Oleg,
at the head of a coalition of the barbarian tribes, made an expedition against
Byzantium, and perhaps, by a bold stroke (coup de main), as the Bulgarians
" Le Clerc, Histoire physique, morale, civile et politique de la Russie ancienne, I (Paris,
1783), pp. 102-116. Le Clerc's full name is Nicolas Gabriel Clerc, called Le Clerc. For a very
interesting comment on this book in two volumes compiled by a Russian writer, I. N. Boltin
(1735-1792), an official of the War Collegium, see A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on Con-
stantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1946), pp. 121-122.
s Alphonse Couret, "La Russie a Constantinople, Premieres tentatives des Russes contre
l'Empire Grec 865-1116," Revue des questions historiques, XIX (1876), ? 3. "La 16gende
d'Oleg, 906-907," pp. 84-90; the whole article, pp. 69-129.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
in 712, as the rebel Thomas in 822, penetrated as far as the port

this to become master of Constantinople, there is a world of differ
a false rumor, however, did exist, and popular songs have avidly
this provocative falsehood; the Greeks, on the contrary, have rema
thinking to hide from history the semisuccess of this presumptuou
and through this silence they have left room for legend.
In 1938 an American writer of Scandinavian origin, G. Bie
published an interesting book Stories of the East-Vikings. Since t
very little known in America and particularly in Europe, I will trea
rative of Oleg's expedition in some detail; his presentation of the st
free from some exaggeration and errors. He writes: "Equipped
tachment of cavalry but above all with some 2000 boats, sugge
army of more than 80,000 troops, Oleg sailed for Byzantium (90
behind him at Kiev young Igor, whom he had safely married t
Helga, a Varing princess of charm and wit from Pskov (on Lake Pei
Izborsk). The Greeks promptly took steps to meet the fresh danger
ing the 'Sud,' Nestor's version of the old Nordic sund, i.e., in th
strait which led from the lower Bosphorus into the Golden Horn
tinople's inner harbor. For such a bar or boom they used iron chain
on pontoons across the narrow fiord. Undaunted Oleg ordered h
be beached, put on rollers, and aided by wind, horsepower a
'sailed' across the neck of land which separated the Bosphorus
upper reach of the Golden Horn. Such tactics, familiar to the No
their river-faring, had been employed at Byzantium by the Avars m
two centuries earlier. Then, somehow, the Byzantines had manag
holes in the boats, which thus were rendered useless."9 Oleg pro
circumspect than the Khagan of the Avars, and Byzantium
mercy. . . Oleg hung up his shield on the Adrianople gate, not i
victory, as claimed by Nestor and numerous critics, but as a sign
and started for home. . .The Rus were masters of the situation
treaty plainly shows it. . . As a matter of fact, the ostensible
Oleg's expedition was the acquisition for the Rus of the same c
privileges as provisionally slaked the appetite of foreign nations rep
in Constantinople (Chersonese, Amalfites, Pisans, Venetians
Arabs of Spain, Khazars). . For all we know, the Rus may have
pleased, as they pretended to be, with the results derived from the
119 So far I do not know what source Ravndal had for this particular informatio
in view the siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 626. See A. Pernice, L'lmpera
(Florence, 1905), pp. 142-147. J. Kulakovsky, History of Byzantium, III (Kiev
76-85 (in Russian).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
212 A. A. VASILIEV
sive, although the size of the armed forces under their

ulterior motive beyond extorting 'Danegelt' and a treat
To the Byzantine empire of that period Bulgars and Sara
stituted a far more serious danger than the incipien
Dnieper. But this qualification does not exclude the poss
councils of the 'great army' of the Vikings, perhaps the m
factor of its time, plans may have been mapped out for
nople, cardinal attraction of the Christian world." 12 Of
essential exaggeration of Ravndal is the idea of Oleg's c
pedition on a very large scale pursuing vast political obje
In 1946 at Cambridge (England) there was publishe
little book (174 pages) by Mrs. N. K. Chadwick, The Begi
History: an Enquiry into Sources, which we have mentio
times. The author is inclined to accept the historicity
some reserve. We read: "It would, I think, be a mistake t
of Oleg as mythical on the ground that it has not hither
identify him with any of the more prominent men kno
Scandinavian sagas. Even the story of his raid on Byzan
dismissed as 'apocryphal' on the ground that no referen
Greek sources. . . It seems to me extremely probable
Oleg's attack on Byzantium, and of his treaty with the Gre
tain historical facts, though these facts have become di
medium through which they have passed" (p. 25). Mrs.
that according to the Povest (i.e., The Russian Primary
expedition against the Greeks took place in 904 (sic) and
make no direct mention of it (p. 47).
In 1947 the Greek historian, K. I. Amantos, aware of
viewpoints of Gregoire and Ostrogorsky, says that the sile
tine sources may be explained by the fact that Oleg's raid
in Constantinople itself: "the raid easily ended in an agr
Russians, as Europeans, were merchants; they were not e
warriors like the nomads, Arabs, Avars, and other Hunnic
passage seems not to be very clear.
In the same year, 1947, the noted French historian, L. B
Gregoire's drastic criticism and following Ostrogorsky'
"only three years after the disaster of Thessalonica, at
I G. Bie Ravndal, Stories of the East-Vikings (Minneapolis, Minn

194; 198; 200.
12 Ktwvaravrtvov I. 'Alavirov 'Irropta Tro Bvgavrtvov Kparovg, II (A

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Leo VI was preparing his revenge against the Arabs, a new attac
Russians, conducted by Oleg, Rurik's brother and successor, came
Constantinople. After devastating the environs of the city, Oleg f
VI to grant him an interview and conclude a treaty which was re
911, and which contained the commercial clauses advantageou
colony of the Russian merchants who were established at the su
Saint-Mamas." 122 As we see, Brehier mentions the personal inte
tween Oleg and Leo VI, which cannot be confirmed by any eviden
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT: OLEG S CAMPAIGN IS NOT AN HISTORICAL FACT
Among West European scholars, the tendency of refuting the historicity

of Oleg's campaign may be noted as early as the eighteenth century. I wish
to give here some examples.
J. Pray, a Hungarian historian (1723-1801), published in Latin, His-
torico-critical Dissertations on the Ancient Annals of the Huns, Avars, and
Hungarians, where he wrote that, while the Magyars (Hungarians) were
fighting against Kiev, Oleg, Igor's tutor, ruling there, was excessively glori-
fied by the Russian annalist, Nestor, for his military successes. According to
his record, he with an enormous number of horses and with a thousand ships
filled with warriors (militibus refertas) moved to Constantinople and forced
the Greeks to pay ransom to him. Since Greek and Russian writers fail to
mention his expedition, it is difficult to believe in it as well as in the great
power of Oleg, who was vanquished by the Magyars and forced to pay them
annual tribute.123
Another Hungarian historian of the eighteenth and the beginning of the

nineteenth century, Stephanus (Istvan) Katona (1732-1811), writing al-
most entirely on the basis of Pray's work and reproducing long excerpts
from it, raises the question as to whether at that time (in the ninth-tenth
century) Russians were as powerful as Nestor describes. The Greek writers,
Theophanes' Continuators (sic, in plural), who chronologically were much
closer to the events than Nestor, fail to mention Oleg's expedition. His power
has been extremely exaggerated by Nestor. Katona writes: "I have carefully
examined Nestor's narrative comparing it with the Greek writers whose
authority must be more important than his; and I have found that they dis-
agree." Nestor may have confused Oleg's expedition with that of 941; but at
that time Oleg was already dead. As a result we must admit that either the
'2 Louis Brehier, Vie et Mort de Byzance (Paris, 1947), pp. 150-151.
12 Dissertationes historico-criticae in annales veteres Hunnorum, Avarum et Hungarorum
auctore Georgio Pray (Vindobonae, 1774), Dissertatio IV, 77 (? viii).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
214 A. A. VASILIEV
power of the Russians has been exaggerated beyond meas

or the chronology has been confused.124
Gibbon, who knew Catona's work, remarks: "On Oleg,
advantage to disprove this Russian victory, which would c
Kiev by the Hungarians." 125 On the expedition proper, G
"the silence of the Greeks may inspire some doubts of the t
of the importance, of the second attempt of Oleg, the gu
of Rurik." 126
In 1829 a German historian, F. Wilken, whose name we
above, published a very substantial monograph On the R
the Russians and the Byzantine Empire from the Ninth to th
tury. He devotes five pages to Oleg's campaign against C
According to Wilken, if we take into consideration all t
tails of the expedition which are described in the Russian
plete silence of Byzantine historians about the campaign
lutely impossible to understand. The annalistic story cont
mythical tradition, and Wilken, without any hesitation, e
the field of true history, and regards the story given in the
as a fable. But Wilken's final conclusion is not as decisiv
pected, when he says that the tradition of the Russian Anna
groundless, or else describes a very insignificant occurrence
arbitrary embellishment and boastful exaggeration, has
wonderful event (pp. 95-97).
If, from the nineteenth century we pass to the twentieth
once that, among West European scholars, the tendency o
campaign has been particularly marked in recent years, be
twenties. I can give a considerable list of the scholars who
icity of the campaign and sometimes even the historicity of
a person.
In 1925 and 1929, a Russian writer living in West
Chaninov, in his studies written in French, proclaims that t
12 Historia critica primorum Hungariae Ducum ex fide domesticorum

torum concinnata a Stephano Katona (Pestini, 1778), pp. 75-79.
25 E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empir
J. B. Bury, VI (London, 1902), p. 155, n. 77.
Gibbon-Bury, VI, p. 155. The close of Gibbon's statement is not very
1 F. Wilken, "Ueber die Verhaltnisse der Russen zum Byzantinisch
Zeitraume vom neunten bis zum zwolften Jahrhundert," Abhandlungen
logischen Klasse der K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1829, pp
campaign, pp. 93-98.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
Oleg against Constantinople was entirely invented by the Russian an

and expresses doubts that the treaty was signed during Oleg's rule.'28
In the same year (1929) a British historian, S. Runciman, after men
ing Oleg's "enormous land and sea expedition against Constantino
907," told by Nestor, says that "the expedition, not mentioned elsewhere
probably legendary - a case of imaginative wish - fulfilment - or pe
it was Bulgaria that suffered from it. But the treaty may well be authe
concluded by the Greeks at the news of a projected expedition." The
note to the same page Runciman writes: "The whole of the early pa
Nestor's story has been called mythical, including the lives of Oleg
Igor." 129
Among the West European historians, it was G. Laehr, a German scholar,
who in his book The Origins of the Russian State, published in 1930, devoted
much attention to the question of Oleg's raid, of which he speaks in three
places: (1) in the text itself where he discusses Oleg's treaties with the
Byzantine Emperors; (2) in the notes to this particular section; and (3) in
the special Excursus II entitled "The supposed campaign of Oleg against
Constantinople in the year 907." 130 The first two brief sections, dealing ex-
clusively with the treaties are not interesting; but it is to be pointed out that
the author knew the very important text of Leo the Deacon referring to the
treaties which we have discussed above. In his Excursus, in which he shows
his acquaintance with the Russian literature, he mentions Vasilievsky's words
which we have cited above, that in Pseudo-Symeon's text may be seen per-
haps the only allusion to Oleg's campaign. Laehr decidedly rejects such a
possibility, and states that in the long list of place names given by Pseudo-
Symeon and in their etymological interpretation, there is not a word about
Oleg's campaign, so that it is absolutely impossible to connect this pseudo-
etymological play of words (Spielerei) with Oleg.
The designation of the 'P$c as ol Ka' Apoulrat, which we have also within
the Continuer of Theophanes and Pseudo-Symeon in their description of
Igor's expedition, Laehr connects with the 'AxtXXEox 8po?o<, which we have
discussed above. If we think how accurately the Byzantine sources describe
the assault of the Bulgarian prince Symeon on Constantinople and his nego-
N. Brian-Chaninov, "Les origines de la Russie historique," Revue des questions his-

toriques, 102-103 (1925), 259-316; on Oleg, 312-315. Idem, Histoire de la Russie (Paris,
1929), 18-20. In Russian the author's name is Brianchaninov, without hyphen. On the
mediocre value of his studies, see Ostrogorsky, L'Expedition du Prince Oleg, 49.
Steven Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign (Cambridge,
1929), p. 110 and note 3.
1 G. Laehr, Die Anfiinge des russischen Reiches (Berlin, 1930), pp. 34-5 (text); 130-
131 (notes to this chapter); 95-99 (Excursus II).

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
216 A. A. VASILIEV
tiations with Romanus Lecapenus, we cannot explain the

those sources concerning Oleg's attack. And then, for furth
his point of view, Laehr mentions the book History of
French by N. Brian-Chaninov in 1929, who regards Ole
invention of Russian tradition.13l In Laehr's opinion, the
expedition of 907 as it is found in the Russian Annals was f
ing to the expedition of 860. His conclusion, after careful st
is that Oleg's campaign against Byzantium is to be regard
In 1937 the French article of H. Gregoire was publishe
duced a powerful impression on several historians.'32 The f
which the author advances in his study is that the Russian
existed. He opens his article with the sweeping statemen
accepted, that the majority of the specialists do not admit
the Prince whom the Old Russian Chronicle, the so-c
Nestor, considers as the successor to the Varangian Rurik,
Diviner (le Devin) or the Prophetic "Veschij Oleg" (in ol
the note to the same page (p. 80), referring to the mono
which we have discussed above, and to the German t
Chronicle of Nestor by R. Trautmann (Die Nestor Chron
says that, at the present time, there is complete agreem
nonhistoricity of Oleg's expedition (sur la non-historic
d'Oleg, il n'y a aujourd'hui qu'une voix). Then, a little f
Gregoire writes: "I doubt, as many critics do, that Oleg
what is certain is that he never went to Constantinople."
A long list of Russian historians who believe in the hi
campaign, and who do not even question Oleg's existen
above; and this list clearly shows that Gregoire's above stat
accepted.
Gregoire explains the appearance of the name of Oleg who never existed,
from an inscription on the boundary stone between Byzantium and Bulgaria,
which set the frontier between these two countries in 904. In the fourth line
of this inscription we read: 'ET7r OEo8Opov 6Xyov rpaKavov. Here the Turkish
131 On this book see above, pp. 214-215.

Henri Gregoire, "La legende d'Oleg et l'expedition d'Igor," Bulletin de la classe des
Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques de rAcademie royale de Belgique, XXIII (1937),
pp. 79-80. In his preliminary succinct communication on this subject, which was presented in
Paris, March 19, 1937, rather in the form of an improvisation (en quelque sorte improvisee),
Gregoire remarks: "It is not necessary to tell the byzantinists that the resume of the primitive
Russian history made according to the Chronicle of Nestor contains almost as many errors as
words." Then he gives briefly the contents of his above article, "Miscellania epica et etymo-
logica. I. La legende d'Oleg," Byzantion, XI (1936), 601-604.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
word ulug (now ulu) is the title of Theodorus, a high Bulgarian

meaning "great," the great tarkhan, a very high dignitary in the
officialdom. It would be out of place to explain here in detail Gregoi
plicated speculations as to how this title from the above inscription
into the Russian Annals as the proper name of Oleg.133 It seems t
this hypothesis is too artificial to be accepted and that it is unnecess
cause Oleg did exist. Gregoire's statement that the name of the Russ
Igor is unknown to the Greeks (p. 81) is inexact, because as we h
above, Leo the Deacon mentions his name. The dating of Oleg
treaty is not 912, as Gregoire says (pp. 83, 87), but 911.
In 1939 a French monograph by N. de Baumgarten On the Or
Russia was published.'34 The author belongs to that group of th
who deny the authenticity of early Russian history. He says that tru
history begins only with the year 941, the date of the expedition of
Prince of Kiev, Igor, against Constantinople, and that all that pre
date is mere legend and tradition mixed with fable (p. 5). After such
ing statement we are not surprised to read that the Primary Russian
icle gives us a fabulous and fantastic tale of Oleg's exploits, a popu
intended to flatter the national amour propre (p. 39); he mentio
fantastic expedition (p. 41). He calls the treaty of 907 "a false treaty"
and asserts that the contents of the treaty, which the Russian chron
preserved, decidedly exclude any possibility of a preceding confl
In September, 1936, at the International Congress of Byzantin
in Rome, Mrs. da Costa-Louillet read a paper in French under
"Were There Russian Invasions in the Byzantine Empire before
one-page resume of this paper we read: "As to Oleg's so-called ex
(907), we, along with Mr. St. Runciman, do not consider it histor
if the existence of the treaties of commerce recorded by Nestor is in
able." 135 The next year her article under the same title was printed
introduction written by H. Gregoire.'36 In this article she repeats he
13 Professor F. Uspensky, who in 1898 examined this inscription, mistook the

for the proper name of Oleg saying that the contemporary of the Bulgarian dign
Russian Prince Oleg, bore the same name. F. Uspensky, "The boundary stone betwe
tium and Bulgaria under Symeon," Transactions of the Russian Archaeological
Constantinople, III (1898), 186-187 (in Russian).
'4 N. de Baumgarten, "Aux origines de la Russie," Orientalia Christiana Analecta
(Rome, 1939), p. 88. On this monograph see the additional note of Ostrogorsky, L'E
du Prince Oleg, p. 62.
"3 G. da Costa-Louillet, "Y eut-il des invasions russes dans l'Empire byzantin ava
Studi bizantini e neoellenici, V (Rome, 1939), 85.
1 Germaine da Costa-Louillet, "Y eut-il des invasions russes dans l'Empire byzan
860?" Byzantion, XV (1940-1941), 231-248.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
218 A. A. VASILIEV
statement, and adds that not one Greek source speaks of thi
she affirms that history knows only two Russian attacks on
those of 860 and 941 (235).137
Finally in 1949 there was published a long article b
Oleg's Mythical Campaign against Constantinople.l1 He o
with a reference to the above mentioned paper of Gregoi
the historicity of the Russian attack on Constantinople,
subject so great a reputation, so fundamental a scepticis
arguments as to be generally regarded as the protagonist
who consider the Chronicle of Nestor a source to be used
caution" (p. 106). Dolley's thesis or, as he says himself, hi
gest a compromise: "that we accept the authenticity of
reject absolutely the historicity of the attack which is so ess
patible with their contents. . . These treaties of 907 and 911,
inspired the invention of an attack on Constantinople" (
cussing the question of the silence of the Greek evidence
asks how Symeon Logothetes, "our primary source for an
of Leon's reign, and a fervent admirer of Romanos Lecap
missed "a golden opportunity to be seized with both hand
his powers of rhetoric to describe the scene when the m
peror of New Rome came in person to the gate of his ow
guarded of God, and rendered up tribute to pagan chiefta
scale disaster would have been a godsend to a chronicl
starved of suitable material" (p. 108-109). In this particu
confronted not with the silence of one Greek source alon
spiracy of silence on the part of many" (p. 113). For Dol
others, the silence of the sources is a very important arg
historicity of the campaign.'39 According to him, "Oleg
and wise ruler, an Eastern Canute" (p. 128). Dolley conclu
reconciliation between Kiev and Byzantium was mutually
Oleg deserves our respect for calling off a war very dear to
heart; Leon for consenting to bargain with a prince wh
repelled with contumely" (p. 130).
137 Mrs. da Costa-Louillet has forgotten the fourth Russian attack on

1043.
138 Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques de 'Academie royale
de Belgique, 5th series, XXXV (1949), 106-130.
139 It is interesting to note that in another article of his, Dolley remarks: "argumenta a
silentio" are notoriously fallacious. "A Forgotten Byzantine Conquest of Kypros," Bulletin de
la classe des lettres de r'Academie royale de Belgique, 5th series, XXXIV (1948), 209.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
We see that in his study Dolley does not go as far as Gregoire; he con-
siders Oleg an historical personality, and even has respect for him. He denies
the expedition, which, closely following the Russian Annals, he calls "a full-
scale disaster" and "a catastrophic irruption" (p. 111). Although I entirel
disagree with Dolley concerning the nonhistoricity of Oleg's campaign,
must admit that his paper, as well as Ostrogorsky's above-mentioned study
are the two best contributions to our question, in spite of their diametrically
opposite conclusions.
In 1940 the Soviet historian, M. V. Levchenko, calls Oleg's expedition a
half-legendary campaign.140
SOME REMARKS ON OLEG'S TREATIES
The Russian Chronicle contains the text of the two official docu
the two treaties; a fragment of a treaty under the year 907, and th
under the year 911. The first text has often been regarded as a prel
treaty, and the second text as the final copy of the same treaty. In th
text we read that "it has often been deemed proper to publish and
the amity not merely in words but also in writing and under a firm o
this wording we may see an allusion to the previous treaty, which w
cluded in 907 with the Emperors Leo and Alexander. Shakhmatov's
which he advanced in the later years of his life, that Oleg had mad
one treaty in 6420 (911), and that the Annalist had transferred som
sions from this treaty into that of 6415 (907), cannot be accepted.141
It would be out of place to discuss here in detail the complicated
tion of those two treaties as has been done in relevant literature. A
Istrin says: "As far as the treaties are concerned only one question
no doubts - this is that the treaties have been translated from the Gre
to the rest, there is no unanimity.142
140 M. V. Levchenko, History of Byzantium, A Brief Survey (Moscow-Leningrad,

160. French edition, M. V. Levtchenko, Byzance des origines d 1453. Traduction
Mabille (Paris, 1949), 184.
141 A. Shakhmatov, "Some Remarks on the Treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Gr
Accounts (Zapiski) of the Neophilological Society at the University of St. Peters
(1914), 400. Among the scholars who have accepted this hypothesis, see D. S. Li
The Russian Annals (Letopisi) and Their Cultural-Historical Significance (Moscow-Len
1947), 163. S. Bakhrushin, Review of B. D. Grekov's book, The Feudal Relation
Kievan State, in the magazine Istorik Marxist, III (1937), 173. Ostrogorsky rejects this
esis, L'Expedition du Prince Oleg, p. 53, n. 17. Yet in 1915, D. Meychik called the tre
907 "a preliminary agreement, which should be properly ratified." "The Russo-B
Treaties," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, June, 1915, p. 361.
1 V. Istrin, "The Treaties of the Russians with the Greeks," Izvestiya Otdeleniya R
Yazyka i Slovesnosti, XXIX (Leningrad, 1924), 382-393. According to Istrin, some obs
in the text of the treaties depends upon the fact that the Slavonic translations from

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
220 A. A. VASILIEV
We do not know why the Annalist has not included in

complete text of the treaty of 907 instead of only one fragm
dealing with the Russians coming to Constantinople, ei
merchants coming with merchandise or simple Russian visi
out merchandise. But the same chronicle clearly indicat
contained other provisions, for instance, concerning the
to Oleg upon which the Emperors Leo and Alexander ha
pointed out above, the provision, owing to which the Russi
to be enlisted for service in the imperial army, also w
probability, in this treaty. Then both contracting partie
by oath to make peace and faithfully keep the condition
the Russian Chronicle narrates: "After agreeing upon the t
ally binding themselves by oath, the Emperors Leo and Ale
cross, and invited Oleg and his men to swear an oath lik
the religion of the Russes, the latter swore by their we
god Perun, as well as by Volos, the god of cattle and th
treaty." 143 This was the formal treaty which put an end t
the conclusion of the treaty Oleg immediately returned
All the favorable conditions which were granted Oleg
in 907 may be clearly explained by the general difficu
Empire both in the east, in its relations towards the Arabs
internal life of the Empire. In the east the unfinished neg
Arabs concerning an exchange of the prisoners of war; the
of the very prominent generals, Andronicus Ducas, wh
Arabs in February-March of 907,144 and, following his flig
tions on the eastern border; the maritime expedition of Hi
invaded Cyprus, so that the Byzantine Navy was remove
nople and rather heavily committed in the Mediterrane
strongly preoccupied the attention of the government.
On the other hand, the internal complications connect
copies were made only in the eleventh century, during the time of Yaro
authentic Slavonic texts have disappeared. Referring to this question, S.
appears, in the main, to be very little probability that a translation o
was made into either Norse or Old Russian at the time of their negoti
ence of Bulgarian interpreters in Constantinople during the tenth cen
S. Cross, The Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 104, n. 1.
143 See above, p. 169.
144 According to M. Canard, the beginning of Andronicus Ducas' rebe
autumn of 905. "Deux episodes des relations diplomatiques arabo-by
Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales de lInstitut Franqais de Damas, XIII (
whole article, pp. 51-69.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
tion of Leo's fourth marriage created a very tense atmosphere not on

Constantinople but in the Empire in general. The affair of the tetragamy
Leo to the violent conflict with the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus. In Janua
906, the infant Constantine, the future Emperor Constantine VII Porphyr
genitus, Leo's child by his mistress Zoe Carbonopsina, was baptized i
Sophia, and a few days later Leo, with his own hands, crowned Zoe as
Empress. In February, 907, the unyielding Patriarch was deposed, and
married Zoe. All these circumstances, which took place just during O
raid, made the Emperors Leo and Alexander desire to obtain a sp
peace with the Russians and to see Oleg and his Viking companions de
from Constantinople as soon as possible.
The Chronicle fails to contain the complete text of the second trea
reproducing only a very lengthy excerpt of it dealing with the stipula
concerning various damages and incidents occurring between Russians
Greeks; but apparently some clauses of the treaty of 907 have been includ
in the text of the later treaty, and the Chronicler did not want to repeat
The second treaty which was made by Oleg's envoys is very import
It supplies us with its exact dating, which is indicated not only by the
from Creation, 6420, which might be equivocal, 911 or 912, but is fixed w
absolute certainty by the mention of the month of September, by the in
tion, as well as by the mention of the names of the three Emperors,
Alexander, and Constantine. Since, as we know, Leo VI died on May 1
912, and the child Constantine was crowned on June 9, 911, for the d
of the treaty there remains only September, 911.145
Then this treaty clearly shows that it was concluded after a conflict w
the Russians. We read: "Thus first of all, let us make peace with you Gree
(Po pervomu ubo slovu da umirimsya s vami Greky). In spite of the as
tion of some scholars that there is no trace in the text of any hostilities
ceding this treaty, I am certain that the above statement means tha
145 The Annals state that the treaty was concluded "in the month of September in 2."
of the scholars understood this indication as "the second of September." But see, for ins
F. Dolger, Regesten von 565-1025 (Muinchen-Berlin, 1924), pp. 66-67, No. 556
September 8-14. According to his own calculation, A. Kunik defines the dating of the tr
Sunday, September 22, 911. Letopis of the Works of the Archaeographical Commission,
Years, 1888-1894, XI (St. Petersburg, 1903), 12 b. So far as chronology is concerned
entire Laurential redaction of the Annals, down to the year 6813, is dated by the so-call
March years, i.e., with the years which began with the first of March. See N. V. Stepan
"The Count of Time (Yedinitzy scheta vremeni), down to the Thirteenth Century, accord
to the Laurentian and the First Novgorod Annals," Chteniya of the Moscow Society of Rus
History and Antiquities at the University of Moscow, 1909, no. 4, 65. Idem, "The Calenda
Chronological Reference Book (Spravochnik)," ibidem, 1917, no. 1. The March year seems
have been accepted in the first years of Christianity in Russia.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
222 A. A. VASILIEV
treaty was made shortly after a military conflict, when Ole

Kiev. Since we regard the treaty of 907 as a final treaty wh
Oleg's raid, and the treaty of 911 as another final treaty, w
some violation of the first treaty must have occurred durin
separating the two treaties. In all probability, it was another
cal raid upon one of the coastal regions of the Empire or up
hood of Constantinople.
Since only four years had elapsed after the first treat
Russian raids as piratical incursions failed to have introduced
changes of general character, the Russian envoys were co
as a basis for the text of the new treaty that of the prev
Oleg had concluded with the Emperors Leo and Alexande
Saying this, I deviate a little from the famous study of N
On the Byzantine Element in the Language of the Treatie
with the Greeks (St. Petersburg, 1853), who in the statem
icle "ravno drugogo sveschaniya" has ingeniously discover
word ravno, the Greek word Tor6 rov in the sense of "a copy
of the second treaty was the copy of the agreement of 90
the second treaty was not a copy of the previous agreem
compiled on its basis. Due to a very short time lying
treaties, and due to the uniform character of piratical raids
be many essential changes in the contents of the new tre
clauses of this treaty must have been identical with those of
in other words, they may be called a copy - lcov - of th
ment. But as a whole, the text of the second treaty is a spec
its own.146
Both documents are very reliable evidence for proving the historicity of
Oleg's successful raid on Constantinople.
For us it is a question of secondary importance whether the treaty of
911 was ratified by the Russian Prince or not. Dimitriu writes that in all
16 Surprisingly enough, in his English rendering of the Chronicle, Cross omitted this very
important passage: "glagolya ravno drugogo sveschaniya pri tech je Tsarikh Lva i Alexandra."
Instead of this, he writes, "his envoys thus made declaration" (p. 151). In his French transla-
tion, L. Leger, in my opinion, correctly understood this statement, saying: "Oleg leur recom-
manda de prendre pour base la convention qu'il avait conclue avec les empereurs Leon et
Alexandre." Chronique dite de Nestor, trad. par Louis Leger (Paris, 1884), 25. Publications
de l'Ecole des langues orientales vivantes, IIe serie, vol. XIII. In his German rendering of the
Chronicle, R. Trautmann translates this passage as follows: "Im Jahre 6420 Oleg sandte seine
Mannen, um Frieden zu machen und einen Vertrag zwischen Russen und Griechen abzu-
schliessen und sandte hin, indem er sagen liess: Abschrift des Freundschaftsvertrages, der
unter den Kaisem Leon und Alexandros abgeschlossen wurde," Die altrussische Nestorchronik
(Leipzig, 1931), p. 19.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
probability Oleg had no time to ratify the treaty, because the Russian C
icler tells about Oleg's death immediately after the conclusion of the tre
and that it is very possible that Igor refused to ratify it.147 Accord
Lyaschenko, the treaty of 911 was almost exclusively in favor o
Greeks.148
THE COMET OF 912
Under the year 911 (6419) the Russian Annals have a brief rec
great star appeared in the West in the form of a spear." Accordin
best authorities on the Annals, "the Russian chronicler took this info
from the Continuer of George Hamartolus but he abridged the Gr
which he used in its old Slavonic version. This Greek chronicler sa
ing the time of (the Emperor Alexander) a star wearing a tail
appeared in the west; the men who are versed in this (phenomeno
it spear-shaped (sword-shaped). They said that it foreboded blood
Constantinople." 149
Thus, according to the Greek sources, this comet appeared du
reign of Alexander (May 11, 912-June 6, 913).
It was the famous Halley's comet, named for the English astr
Edmund Halley (1656-1742), who defined the period of its appear
Byzantium this comet was seen in 912, during the reign of the E
Alexander.'5?
14 A. Dimitriu, "Upon the Question of the Treaties of the Russians with the Gre
Vremennik, II (1895), 545. Dolger remarks, referring to Dimitriu's article, tha
analogy with the later privileges granted Venice, Genoa, and others, this is qui
F. Dolger, Regesten, I (Munchen und Berlin, 1924), No. 556 (p. 67).
14 A. Lyaschenko, "The Annalistic Tales about the Death of Oleg the Wise,"
Otdeleniya Russkogo Yazyka i Slovesnosti Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk, XXIX (19
He refers to the above-mentioned articles of Dimitriu and Meychik.
19 'E7rn TOVTOV r aar7p eavvy KOlr7UTls K SvaUTEWO $tLav 86 avrov EKXovv ol 7rEpl TavTa S
atdaTrwv XV(Tv 7rpoar/avalv Ev rv Tr TOEL yEvfaL a caauav. Georgii Monachi Chron
Muralt (St. Petersburg, 1859), 797. V. M. Istrin, The Chronicle of George Hamartolu
Old Slavo-Russian Version, II (Petrograd, 1922), 38, 12-14. The Old Slavonic v
(Petrograd, 1920), 541. See also Theophanes Continuatus, 379. Pseudo-Symeon Magist
(the comet was visible for forty days). Cedrenus, II, 276. Michaelis Glycae Annales,
old Slavonic version gives for olt Sevot the original meaning of the word s8Lv'- - zlii
fearful, dire.
10 See K. Pokrovsky, "The Comets in the Russian Annals," in the magazine Mir B
Petersburg, April, 1903), 238; the whole article, 235-256. D. O. Svyatsky, "The Astr
Phenomena in the Russian Annals from the Scientific-Critical Point of View, chapt
Comets," Izvestiya Otdeleniya Russkaro Yazyka i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, X
(Petrograd, 1915), 198, 202; the whole study, 197-242. A. Lyaschenko, "The A
Tales about the Death of Oleg the Wise," ibidem, XXIX (1924), 255-256; the wh
254-288. I do not know why Shakhmatov positively states that "in reality the come
in 913." "The Chronology of the Oldest Russian Annalistic Redactions," Journal of th
of Public Instruction, April, 1897, p. 472; the whole article, pp. 463-482.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
224 A. A. VASILIEV
If the Russian Annalist took his record from the Byzan

which refer the appearance of the comet to the reign o
913), the question arises why he mentioned it under 911
according to popular superstition, the appearance of a com
some coming evils and misfortunes. We see that, accord
sources, the comet of 912 foreboded bloodshed in Const
fore if we infer that the Annalist knew the time of Alex
may suppose that he inserted the appearance of the come
911 intentionally, having in view the Russian raid which
panied by bloodshed and which had preceded the conclusi
of 911.
CONCLUSION
Oleg's campaign or Oleg's raid is an historical fact; it was not

by the Russian chronicler but was lavishly adorned by him with
trimmings which, for the most part, may be explained and un
through Scandinavian realities. It must be studied and discussed
tion with those harassing attacks to which the northern coasts of
were accustomed in the ninth and tenth centuries, and which a
able to the Viking raids against Western Europe. Owing to Oleg
participation in this particular undertaking, the latter may be
raid on a large scale." But it cannot be designated as "a full-scal
(Dolley, 109), "a catastrophic irruption" (iden, 111), or "a devas
Tsargrad" itself (Tiander, 233). Even the Russian chronicler him
spite of his exaggerations, states that Oleg's soldiers "waged war
city" only, and his ships upon wheels "spread their sails and b
towards the city."
Oleg's raid is to be considered also as one of the episodes of the
Slavonic inroads southwards, to the shores of the Black Sea, and
the decline of the Khazar State, southeast, to the shores of the
which were so spectacular in the tenth century.
Oleg's name was unknown to the Byzantine sources. For the firs
has occurred in the texts of the treaties; but their text, as we kno
vived only in Old-Slavonic. But Masudi knew the name. During
along the shores of the Caspian, he heard Oleg's name from the Vi
Slavs, who at that time were fighting there, and he knew it in th
form "Oleg."
Of course, the conclusion of the scholars who deny the historicity of
Oleg's campaign has nothing to do with its "unpalatability to Russia's mili-

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC
tant imperialism" (Dolley, 100), with "a slander to the genius of

people" (idem, 129), or with "a popular ballad intended to flatt
tional amour propre" (Baumgarten, 39).
Oleg's campaign is a simple historical episode which must be
against the background of general conditions of that time. Stri
imaginary grandeur and brilliancy and deprived of legendary
ments, Oleg's "raid on a large scale" is portrayed by the Russian
in agreement with the actual possibilities and the Viking impu
young Russian State, as well as in full agreement with the gener
tragic situation of that period.

212.252.140.43 on Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:40:23 UTC

The Second Russian Attack On Constantinople

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Second Russian Attack On Constantinople

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Second Russian Attack On Constantinople

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291086

This content downloaded from

Remember now firmly the words of my tongue;

The Lay of the Wise Oleg

* Translation by Thomas B. Shaw, in The Works of Alexander Pushkin, selected and

This content downloaded from

In 1946, in the Foreword to my book The Russian Attack on C

This content downloaded from

Introduction ...... 165

The Historical Evidence on Oleg's Raid ...... 176

Oleg's Campaign in Russian Literature .. . ...... 195

Oleg's Campaign in Foreign Literature .. . ...... 208

Some Remarks on Oleg's Treaties ...... 219

This content downloaded from

URING the Middle Ages there were four Russian attack

Like the first attack of 860, Oleg's campaign was indissolubly

This content downloaded from

in the tenth century, on a number of distant raids, origi

This content downloaded from

In this study I put aside the interesting Jewish med

This content downloaded from

friendly and hostile character. Even in the time of Mich

NARRATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN ANNALS

Here follows the narrative of Oleg's expedition as it is described i

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

"'Our serenity, above all desirous, through God's help

"'First of all, that we make peace with you Greeks (Po

This content downloaded from

to be promulgated and handed to our envoys in the name of the H

Then the Russian annalist describes the treatment of the Russian

This content downloaded from

SOME REMARKS ON THE NARRATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN ANNALS

As we see from the above text, in the imagination of the Russian ch

This content downloaded from

tion and cruelties inflicted by the Russians upon the captured G

E. A. Rydzevski, "About the Annalistic Tradition of the Expedition of Rus on

This content downloaded from

has sent upon us," we may conjecture that this legend m

This content downloaded from

The Chronicler gives correctly the names of the emperors und

This content downloaded from

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON OLEG'S RAID

The most essential ground upon which several scholars deny O

LEO THE DEACON

The most important allusion to Oleg's raid and to the tr

I wish to bring forward here the names of several sch

This content downloaded from

sians, which we have mentioned above, or to an unknown treat

This content downloaded from

Now I wish to turn to an Arab writer, Masudi, whose evidence ref

3 Magoudi, Les Prairies d'Or. Texte et traduction par C. Barbier de Meynard et

This content downloaded from

Alawang we discover the name of the Russian Prince not in the

This content downloaded from

My attempt to discover the name of Oleg in Masudi's w

Another source which, in my opinion, indubitably has in vi

This content downloaded from