The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification
This contribution attempts to analyze these arguments versus authenticity of document of 971 and presents a survey of the different kind of hypotheses encountered within the recent historiography. The article reveals important details about the some readings of the manuscripts, form and structure o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Історія |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hj.chnu.edu.ua/index.php/hj/article/view/203 |
| _version_ | 1827892628853620736 |
|---|---|
| author | Oleksandr Fylypchuk |
| author_facet | Oleksandr Fylypchuk |
| author_sort | Oleksandr Fylypchuk |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
This contribution attempts to analyze these arguments versus authenticity of document of 971 and presents a survey of the different kind of hypotheses encountered within the recent historiography. The article reveals important details about the some readings of the manuscripts, form and structure of the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: (1) identification of the synkellos Theophilos, (2) identification of the Sveneld, (3) the ‘construction’ of the treaty. The attention is paid to the sources of two Byzantine narratives (the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes) about the role of synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos in the Byzantine diplomacy, including the agreement with the Rus’. A thorough analysis of the evidence found in the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes leads us to conclude that the synkellos Theophilos mentioned in PVL is not identical to synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos. Rejecting the identity of Theophilus from the agreement with the Rus’ in PVL with Philoteus/Theophilus it makes unnecessary to search for a ‘common source’ between PVL and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes or that the chronicler read a certain Byzantine chronicle where he found the archbishop Theophilus. Our rejection of the identity of synkellos Theophilos with Philoteus/Theophilus has methodological advantages, because it allows us not to create unnecessary superstructures or purely hypothetical entities. It also identifies that George Monachus Continuatus’s chronicle with addition to 1130 was not a source for the PVL. There is no reason to assume that the author of PVL could use thus ‘common source’. Thus, all proposed arguments in favor of the inauthenticity of the treaty 971 in PVL have significant flaws. They create redundant entities such as ‘common sources’ or a completely imaginary Byzantine chronicle. However, it is not possible to prove the reality of these hypothetical constructions as sources of the PVL. Summarizing presented counterarguments author concludes that the idea surrounding the inauthenticity of the 971 agreement does not find its confirmation. This paper engages with recent discussion on the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971 while also contributing to the renewed interest in the reception of the Byzantine documents in the Rus’.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:41:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ea9a08b3d3cc44c5804a5b3d6c34a4d6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2414-9012 2616-8766 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:41:53Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Історія |
| spelling | doaj.art-ea9a08b3d3cc44c5804a5b3d6c34a4d62023-07-26T18:48:13ZdeuYuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National UniversityНауковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Історія2414-90122616-87662022-12-015610.31861/hj2022.56.6-17The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystificationOleksandr Fylypchuk0Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University This contribution attempts to analyze these arguments versus authenticity of document of 971 and presents a survey of the different kind of hypotheses encountered within the recent historiography. The article reveals important details about the some readings of the manuscripts, form and structure of the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: (1) identification of the synkellos Theophilos, (2) identification of the Sveneld, (3) the ‘construction’ of the treaty. The attention is paid to the sources of two Byzantine narratives (the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes) about the role of synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos in the Byzantine diplomacy, including the agreement with the Rus’. A thorough analysis of the evidence found in the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes leads us to conclude that the synkellos Theophilos mentioned in PVL is not identical to synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos. Rejecting the identity of Theophilus from the agreement with the Rus’ in PVL with Philoteus/Theophilus it makes unnecessary to search for a ‘common source’ between PVL and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes or that the chronicler read a certain Byzantine chronicle where he found the archbishop Theophilus. Our rejection of the identity of synkellos Theophilos with Philoteus/Theophilus has methodological advantages, because it allows us not to create unnecessary superstructures or purely hypothetical entities. It also identifies that George Monachus Continuatus’s chronicle with addition to 1130 was not a source for the PVL. There is no reason to assume that the author of PVL could use thus ‘common source’. Thus, all proposed arguments in favor of the inauthenticity of the treaty 971 in PVL have significant flaws. They create redundant entities such as ‘common sources’ or a completely imaginary Byzantine chronicle. However, it is not possible to prove the reality of these hypothetical constructions as sources of the PVL. Summarizing presented counterarguments author concludes that the idea surrounding the inauthenticity of the 971 agreement does not find its confirmation. This paper engages with recent discussion on the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971 while also contributing to the renewed interest in the reception of the Byzantine documents in the Rus’. https://hj.chnu.edu.ua/index.php/hj/article/view/203Rus’ByzantiumRus’-Byzantine treatySvjatoslav the GloriousJohn I Tzimisces |
| spellingShingle | Oleksandr Fylypchuk The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Історія Rus’ Byzantium Rus’-Byzantine treaty Svjatoslav the Glorious John I Tzimisces |
| title | The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification |
| title_full | The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification |
| title_fullStr | The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification |
| title_full_unstemmed | The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification |
| title_short | The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification |
| title_sort | rus byzantine treaty of 971 the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler s mystification |
| topic | Rus’ Byzantium Rus’-Byzantine treaty Svjatoslav the Glorious John I Tzimisces |
| url | https://hj.chnu.edu.ua/index.php/hj/article/view/203 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT oleksandrfylypchuk therusbyzantinetreatyof971theauthenticbyzantineactorthechroniclersmystification AT oleksandrfylypchuk rusbyzantinetreatyof971theauthenticbyzantineactorthechroniclersmystification |