Byzantine Studies in Russia, Past and Present
Author(s): Alexander A. Vasiliev
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Apr., 1927), pp. 539-545
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1837746
Accessed: 04-04-2015 19:28 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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 [email protected].
Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Historical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES
BYZANTINE
STUDIES
AND SUGGESTIONS
IN RUSSIA,
PAST AND PRESENT 1
a long time Russia lived and developed under the political,
social,and commercialinfluenceof the ByzantineEmpire. Like the
Byzantineemperor,the Russian sovereignof Kiev, and laterof Moscow, was thehead and protectorof the OrthodoxChurch. Afterthe
conquestof Constantinopleby the Turks in 1453, Orthodox peoples
began to considerthe Russian sovereignas the unique protectorand
defenderof the whole Orthodox world. As the ByzantineEmpire
was a directcontinuationof the Roman Empire,and the new capital
was very oftencalled the
of the ByzantineEmpire, Constantinople,
secondRome, so Moscow, the capitalof the Russian state,was called
and of the beby some Russian writersof the end of the fifteenth
ginningof the sixteenthcenturiesthe thirdRome. Under Peter the
Great we may observea reactionagainstthe Byzantineinfluenceand
the Byzantine ideals, and a plainly expressed predilectionfor the
West and the Westernculture. It is only fromthe beginningof the
centurythatwe can see the firsteffortsin the domain of
nineteenth
Byzantine history. Among those Germans who having come to
Russia remainedthere and devoted their whole lives to studies in
Russia, two namesmaybe mentioned,Philip Krug and Ernst Kunik;
the latterdied in I899, almostoctogenarian. Both scholars,pointing
out the great importanceof Byzantinestudies for ancient Russian
history,treatedmostlythe questionswhich,havinga connectionwith
the old Russian life, mightmore or less elucidate Russian history.
century,we can not speak
But untilthe secondhalf of the nineteenth
of seriousand systematicstudiesin Russia on our subject.
A reallysolid foundationfor the systematicstudyof Byzantine
historyin Russia was laid by V. G. Vasilievski,professorin the Universityof Petrogradand memberof the Academy of Sciences (d.
I899). Superior to all historiansof his time by his accurate and
varied knowledgeand his criticalsagacity,he gave us a series of the
most importantworks in differentsections of Byzantology. Byzantiumand the West, especiallybeforethe firstcrusade,Byzantium
and ancientRussia, lives of saints as historicalsources,accounts of
the Orientalsourcesfor Byzantineand old Russian history,were the
favoritetopicsof thisgreatRussian Byzantinist. He broughtto light
FOR
1 Paper read at the meetingof the American Historical Association at Ann
Arbor, December, I925.
(539)
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
540
Notes and Suggestionts
and tried to elucidatesome of the social and economicproblemsof
Byzantinehistory,and he was thefirsteditorof theRussian Byzantine
review (the VizanitiiskiVremtennik),
publishedby the Academy of
Sciences at Petrogradfrom 1894 on.
Simultaneouslywith Vasilievski Baron V. Rosen, professorof
Arabic in the Universityof Petrogradand memberof the Academy
of Sciences, translatedinto Russian many Arabic texts concerning
Byzantineand old Russian historyand showed the importanceof
these texts in such studies. The works of Vasilievski and Rosen
were very soon used by European writers,who fullyacknowledged
the resultsattainedby these two Russian scholars.
At the same timeV. I. Lamanski,professorin the Universityof
Petrograd,verywell known in Russia and in all Slavonic countries,
was one of the first-classmen in the fieldof Slavonic historyand
Slavonic internationalrelations. As the history of the southern
Slavonic peoples was closely connectedwith that of the Byzantine
Empire,the greaterpart of Lamanski's works is very importantfor
Byzantinehistory: for example, his book about the Slavs in Asia
Minor, North Africa, and Spain, as well as his investigationson
Cyriland Methodius,the famousmissionariesto the Slavonic tribes
in the ninthcentury,throwa brightlightupon the Slavonic problem
in Byzantium,whichhad a great part in the political,religious,and
economiclife of the ByzantineEmpire.
Moreover,manyof the Russian professorsof classics,at the end
of the nineteenthand at the beginningof the twentiethcenturies,
gradually began to treat Byzantine subjects and study Byzantine
texts-for instance,V. Ernstedt,P. Nikitin,and V. Latyshev.
Simultaneouslywith Vasilievski, Rosen, and Lamanski rose the
giganticfigureof N. P. Kondakov,who,bornin i844, died at Prague
an octogenarian,February i6, 1925.
Everyonewho takes a serious
interestin Byzantinearchaeologyand art is well acquainted with
theworks,or, at least,witlhthe name and chiefideas of thisoutstanding scholar. A great many of the questions and problemsin the
domain of the generalhistoryof art, archaeology,and culturewere
treatedin the standardworksof Kondakov-questions and problems
of classical art, of Hellenisticand early Christianart, of the art of
the nomadic peoples of the second to tenthcenturies,especiallyin
SouthernRussia and Eastern Europe, of Byzantineart, of WestEuropean art of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and of
Slavonic and Russian art.
What is the chief idea of Kondakov on the significanceof Byof all elementsof
zantineart? That Byzantiumwas a concentration
in
to
the sixth
twelfthcenturies. Byzantium,
the historyof art
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vasiliev: Byzan tine Studies in Russia
54I
havinginheritedthe ancientculture,adapted at a later time,but still
firstamong European countries,the art of manynomad peoples that
passed throughthe great plains of SouthernRussia or stayedthere
for a certain time. Adapting this peculiar art Byzantiumtransformedit, added to it new formsand motives,and transmitted
it in
such a new form'to the peoples of WVestern
Europe. These are the
titlesof his mostimportantworks: " The Historyof ByzantineArt
and Iconography,based on the Miniaturesof Greek Manuscripts";
" The ByzantineEnamels "; " The Monumentsof the ChristianArt
of MountAthos "; " The Iconographyof Our Lord " and " The Iconographyof the Holy Virgin"; " The Mosaics of the Mosque of
Kahrie-Djami in Constantinople
"; his " Archaeological Journeys
throughSyria and Macedonia "; " The Russian Treasures"; and the
six volumesof Russian antiquities(with I. Tolstoi). In these two
latterworkshas been collecteda greatmass of materialon Byzantine
art affecting
the problemof the connectionsbetweenancientRussian
art and thatof Byzantium.
The influenceof Kondakov's works and his ideas spread far
beyondthe limitsof Russia. He createdin Russia a group of real
scholars. Among the foreignscholars,Minns in England, Millet in
France, Mufioz in Italy say that they belong to Kondakov's school.
Anotheroctogenarianscholar,who is fortunately
stillalive, is Th.
I. Uspenski. He has remainedin Russia duringthe whole periodof
revolution,and is continuinghis work at Petrograd. Uspenski concentratedhis chiefintereston variousproblemsof the internalhistory
of Byzantium,especially on problemsof social and economic life.
Quite a new page in his life began in i894, whenthe Russian Archaeological Institutewas created in Constantinople. Uspenski was appointedthe directorof this importantinstitution,
which existed till
the Great WVar. AfterTurkeyhad enteredinto the war on the side
of Germany,he leftConstantinoplefor Russia.
During his directorship,
Uspenski organizedmany archaeological
expeditionsto Asia Minor, Syria, Bulgaria, Trebizond,and Serbia.
In mostof theseexpeditionshe tookpartpersonally. From the point
of view of archaeologythe resultsof his activityin Constantinople
were very important,especiallythe excavationsdirectedby him on
the site of the ancient capital of the firstBulgarian state in the
Balkan Peninsula. The sixteen volumes of the publicationsof the
Russian Institute,containinga great deal of archaeologicaland historical material,are a very solid monumentto the activityof the
Russian and, in some cases, foreignscholars,who had workedunder
thedirectionof Uspenski. Since the war thisimportantarchaeological institutionhas no longer existed.
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
542
Notes and Suggestions
Many interestingpapers and books were printedin the publications of the various spiritualacademies of Russia (a kind of high
divinityschools), for instance,those of Petrograd,Moscow, Kiev,
and Kazan.
In I9I7 the revolutionbrokeout in Russia. Then came the years
of famine,of cold, of darkness; communication
i9ig-i92i-years
fromone place to anotherwas almostcompletelyinterrupted. Printpapers,becamealmostimpossible. Of the
ing,especiallyof scientific
a certainnumbercould not bear
small groupof Russian Byzantinists,
the privationsand sufferingsof such severe conditionsof life and
died. Then died the eminentarchaeologistI. Smirnov,belovedpupil
of Kondakov; Chr. Loparev, connoisseur of Byzantine lives of
saints; P. Bezobrazov, fineinvestigatorof complicatedand difficult
problemsof theinternalhistoryof Byzantium;B. Pantchenko,author
book on theByzantinepeasantryand of thecatalogue
of an interesting
of the Byzantineseals in the Museum of the Russian Archaeological
Institutein Constantinople;I. Kulakovski,authorof the firstgeneral
historyof Byzantium(to A. D. 7I7) writtenin Russian; N. Skabalanovitch,high authorityon the problemsof the historyof the ByzantineChurch; Latyshev,excellentscholarin the fieldof Byzantine
texts and Greek inscriptions;finally,Szepuro, quite a young man,
who, studyingCaucasian languages, Armenian,and Georgian, and
knowingGreek and Latin well, promisedto become later an eminent
scholar.
The Russian Byzantine review (the Vizantiiski Vremennik)
ceased to appear. The spiritualacademies havingbeen closed, their
publicationswere also suppressed.
At thepresenttimeI can mentionthe followingnamesof Russian
scholars in Petrograd,who are interestedin Byzantinestudies and
are known in scientificcircles: D. Ainalov, V. Beneshevitch,A.
Dmitriievski,N. Likhatchev,N. Malizki, A. Smirnov,I. Sokolov, N.
Sytchev,Th. Schmitt,Th. Uspenski,V. Valdenberg; in Moscow and
otherplaces, N. Protasov, Nekrasov, A. Rudakov, E. Tchernousov.
Some of thesescholarsspentthe hardestyearsnot in Petrograd,but
outside,mostlyin variouscitiesof SouthernRussia, whereconditions
of living seemed to be betterthan in Petrograd. Ainalov came to
Petrogradfromthe Crimea,DmitriievskifromAstrakhan,Sokolov
and SchmittfromKiev.
While the Russian Byzantinists,exhausted by the severe conditions of daily livingand separatedone fromanother,were working
as well as was possible,individually,there was created in I9I8, in
Petrograd,the Academyfor the Historyof Material Culture. As a
matterof fact,it was the formerArchaeologicalCommission,very
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vasiliev: ByzantineStudies in Russia
543
well known in Russia and abroad, which was enlarged and transformedintothe Academyunderthe new name just mentioned. The
new Academy was divided into three departments:ethnography,
archaeology,and art, its generalobject being to studyall threein all
times and among all countriesand peoples. The departmentof
archaeologywas subdivided into sections,one of which took the
name of the sectionof Early Christianand ByzantineArchaeology.
I was electedchairmanof the lattersection.
My chiefobject was at firstto concentratein my sectionsome of
the scatteredscientificforces by introducinginto it, as well as I
might,young men and young women who had already begun to
work,but duringthe firstyears of the revolutionhad been dispersed
and deprivedof the possibilityof workingsystematically.For one
small group of participantsI chose the topic of the historicaland
archaeologicalstudyof the medieval Crimea,long a provincein the
ByzantineEmpire,and of the adjacent places. The monumentsof
the Middle Ages in the Crimea-Greek, Roman, Gothic,Byzantine,
Italian (Genoese and Venetian)-have not yet been systematically
studied. This smallgroupconsistedof Mr. A. Smirnovand of three
young women: the Misses N. Izmailova, H. Skrzynskaya,and M.
Tikhanova. I myselftook up the studyof the Gothicproblemin the
Crimea and of the flourishing
medievalVenetian colonyof Tana at
the mouthof the Don. Smirnov began to collect materialfor the
historyand archaeologyof the peninsulaof Tmutarakan (Taman),
east of the Crimea; Miss Izmailova studiedthe monumentsof the
cityof Cherson (Korsun), where the Russian princeVladimir was
convertedto Christianity;Miss Skrzynskayathe Italian, especially
Genoese,monumentsof Sudak and Theodosia,two smallcitieson the
southernshore of the Crimea; and Miss Tikhanova the historyand
the archaeological traditionof the city of Kertch (Bosphorus),
opposite to the peninsulaof Tmutarakan. It was duringall those
years a great consolationand encouragementto me to come to our
cold room and to see that these young persons,in spite of famine
and cold, were workingstrenuouslyand willingly. Under such circumstancesall available materialhas been collected,and in I924, two
of the membersof mygroup could at last, forthe firsttimefromthe
beginningof theirwork,go to the Crimea and studyon the spot the
archaeologicalremainsof the CrimeanMiddle Ages. In I925 three
membersof mysectionswentto the Crimea. Miss Skrzynskayahas
measuredall theGenoese fortifications
of Sudak and made new copies
of all Italian inscriptions,which will be publishedin Genoa in the
Atti della Societa Ligure di Storia Patria. Misses Izmailova and
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
544
Notes and Suggestions
Tikhanova have also broughttogethervery interestingmaterialson
Chersonand Kertch.
Summarizingall achievementsof my section,I can say thatsome
of the materialis now ready for publication. The firstpart of my
book on the Gothsin the Crimeahas appeared in the Publicationsof
the Academy for the History of Material Culture (vol. I., I92I);
but the secondand thirdpartsof it, completelyreadyfor publication,
can not be printedfor want of means. It was unexpectedlyfortunate forme to have thesecondand last volumeof myGeneralHistory
of Byzantiumpublishedin Petrograd (I923-I925).
In additionto the medievalCrimea,my sectionalso took up the
study of conditionsof internal life in Byzantium-customs and
manners,streetlife,the theatre,the Byzantinehouse and its utensils,
churchutensils,costume,and so forth. Well-knownscholars,Ainalov, Likhatchev,Malizki, Th. Schmitt,Th. Uspenski,joined it, each
however also continuinghis special individualwork. Ainalov has
studied the mosaics of the cathedralof Kiev and of some other
churchesand monasteriesof Kiev and of Tchernigov,closely connected with Byzantinemosaics, and has discoveredat Moscow an
extremelyinterestingthirteenth-century
manuscriptof the Greek
chronicleof Georgios Hamartolos withmore than a hundredminiatures,exceedinglyimportantfromthe pointof view of historicaland
archaeologicaldetails. Likhatchevis workingon the historyof Byzantine and Russian seals, Malizki on the Byzantineminiaturesof
the so-calledPsalter of Khludov,Th. Schmitton thearchitecture
and
mosaics of the cathedralof Kiev, Th. Uspenski, the octogenarian
chief of Russian Byzantinism,on the internalhistoryof the Empire
of Trebizond.
Owing to Uspenski's energy,there has been establishedat the
Academyof Sciences the Commissionof ConstantinePorphyrogenitus, the Byzantineemperorof the tenthcentury,in whose time the
empirebecame a real centreof internationallife. The chief object
of this commissionwas to collect all sources of this epoch, literary
and archaeological,to translatethe collectedtexts into Russian, and
so to lay a solid foundationfor the generalinvestigation
of the most
importantand brilliantperiod of Byzantinehistory,particularlyinterestingfor the primitivehistoryof Russia. When, a few years
ago, a movementbegan in XVesternEurope for a new edition,corrected and enlarged, of Ducange's famous dictionaryof medieval
Latin, Uspenski broughtabout at the Academyof Sciences the creation of a Commissionof Ducange, whichshould collectmaterialfor
a new correctedand enlarged edition of Ducange's dictionaryof
medieval Greek. This commissionand the Commission of ConThis content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vasiliev: Byzantine Studies in Russia
545
have been unitedinto one, the Commission
stantinePorphyrogenitus
of Ducange, of whichUspenski is chairman.
For the last six or seven years two Russian scholars,N. Sytchev
and the architectC. Romanov, have made very interestingand importantstudies of Byzantineand West-European influencesin old
Russia, in the churchesof Novgorod and Pskov, where many new
frescoeshave been discovered,photographed,
and studied. V. Beneshevitchis workingon someproblemsof the Byzantinejurisprudence;
A. Dmitriievskion the Byzantineliturgictexts,selectedfromcopies
formerlymade by him from Greek manuscriptsin various monasteriesof the Near East; Valdenbergon the developmentof political
theoriesand thoughtin Byzantium. He has now nearlyfinisheda
book in two volumes on the historyof political literaturein Byzantium.
I know well that the Russian scholars,in recentyears, from a
normalpoint of view, have not achieved very much. But when I
rememberall the difficulties
and all the privationsand complications
of daily life in Russia for the last seven or eight years, I may say
witha feelingof some satisfactionthatthe Russian Byzantinists,
old
and young,have fulfilledtheirmoraldutyand done whattheycould.
Byzantologynow has in Europe the mostflourishing
period of its
existence. There are four special Byzantinereviews: two in Germany-in Munich the ByzantinischeZeitschriftand in Berlin the
Byzantinischeund NeugriechischeJahrbiicher;one in Belgium,Byzantion.,and one in Italy, Bizanzio, the firstvolume of which will
soon be published. Unfortunately,the Russian publications-the
Vizaltiiski Vrelnennikin Petrogradand the memoirsof the Russian
ArchaeologicalInstituteof Constantinople-haveceased; but I may
hope, only for a time,not for ever, and indeed in I926 the twentyfour volume of the VizantiiskiVremennikcame out (the managing
editoris Th. I. Uspeenski).
There is no doubt that, in comparisonwith all that is achieved
elsewhere,the Russian scholarsof recentyears play a rathermodest
part in modernByzantology. But there was a time when foreign
scholarsagreedthatin thehistoryof Byzantineart and in the internal
historyof the Byzantine Empire, Russian scholars held the first
place, and I look forwardhopefullyto a bettertimefor Byzantology
in Russia.
ALEXANDER A. VASILIEV.
This content downloaded from 71.172.219.149 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:28:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions