The end of peace period. “Deep” Russian-Byzantine world 907 - 911. existed until 941 Exactly 30 years later, a new Russian-Byzantine war began.
Of course, it is not at all necessary that military confrontation begin after the expiration of the treaty; the agreement could have been extended, renegotiated, etc., but this did not happen. The contradictions did not escalate immediately. They grew gradually. Back in the mid-30s. Russian soldiers took part in the expedition of the Greek fleet to the Italian and French shores, but then relations went wrong.
By this time, the position of Byzantium had become more secure. Under the new emperor Roman I Lecapinus, a strong army was created. After the death of Tsar Simeon, Bulgaria became increasingly weaker, it was torn apart by feudal unrest, and pro-Byzantine sentiments prevailed in the Bulgarian leadership. Rus' was losing an old and reliable friend in the person of new Bulgaria. The borders with the Arab Caliphate were stabilized. The Greeks managed to stop the advance of the Arabs in Asia Minor.
Strengthening its military and political power, Byzantium apparently sought to expand its spheres of influence in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region and completely isolate Khazaria. In this area, the interests of Rus' and the empire would inevitably collide.
Battle of Igor's troops with the Byzantines
A study of the subsequent Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944 shows us the main reasons for the confrontation between the two countries. And the first of them is the most acute contradictions in the Northern Black Sea region. According to this agreement, Rus' pledged to “not have a volost,” that is, not to seize land in this area, not to interfere with the inhabitants of Chersonesus in fishing at the mouth of the Dnieper, not to spend the winter at the Dnieper mouth on Beloberezhye, and after the onset of autumn to return “to their homes.” our own in Rus'." In the middle of the 10th century. Eastern authors began to call the Black Sea the Russian Sea; in a number of Byzantine sources of the same time, the Cimmerian Bosporus, i.e., the Kerch Strait, is also mentioned as a Russian possession.
All this taken together suggests that Rus' in the 20-30s. explored the Northern Black Sea region.
In the face of renewed strife and quarrels, Byzantium stopped paying annual tribute to Rus' and, probably unilaterally, abolished the right of Russian merchants to duty-free trade in Byzantium. The main provisions of the thirty-year Russian-Byzantine treaty of 907 collapsed. The fact that the payment of tribute was stopped is evidenced by the fact that after disastrous battles and a long military confrontation, peace negotiations between the parties began precisely with the question of Byzantium resuming the payment of tribute to Rus'. When Igor, after the first defeats in 941, organized a second campaign against Constantinople in 944, he was met on the Danube by the imperial embassy and declared on behalf of Roman I: “Do not go, but take the tribute that Oleg gave, and I will add more to that tribute." The Greeks proposed returning to the main point of the 907 treaty.
Rus' did not enter the military confrontation alone. If Byzantium enjoyed the support of Bulgaria, and in the North Caucasus its allies were the Alans, then Rus' also had allies.
Her longtime friends, the Hungarians, came out with Russia. This is evidenced by their attack on Constantinople in 943, at the height of the Russian-Byzantine war. During his second campaign against Byzantium, Igor led, in addition to the Russian army, also allies - the Varangians and Pechenegs - “Pechenegs naa” (hired - A.S). In this war, Igor also relied on the benevolent neutrality of Khazaria, which was sharply at odds with Byzantium at that time.
Events unfolded rapidly. In 941, the Bulgarians and the Chersonese strateg, whose military posts always closely monitored the movements of Russian troops along the Dnieper and the Black Sea, reported to Constantinople that “Rus' will march to Constantinople, skedii (ships. - A.S.) 10 thousand."
And this time the Russians, apparently having carried out a thorough reconnaissance, attacked the Byzantine capital at the moment when the Greek fleet went to fight the Arabs in the Mediterranean Sea, and the best armies were in Thrace, Macedonia and Asia Minor. But there was no sudden attack: the Greeks were warned about the invasion in advance.
The first battle took place near Constantinople near the town of Hieron. It was a naval battle. The Greeks used their “fire”, causing horror among the Russians.
The prominent Greek commander and diplomat Patrick Theophanes led the Byzantine fleet in this battle. Igor’s fleet was defeated, and here the Russian army split: some of the ships retreated to the East, to the shores of Asia Minor, while others, led by Igor, turned back to their homeland, obviously believing that the remaining ships had perished in the depths of the sea.
The Russian fleet, which had retreated towards Asia Minor, was still a formidable force. Byzantine and Russian sources report that the Russians went to war across the territory of Byzantium from Pontus, i.e., the Bosphorus, to Paphlagonia, reminding the Greeks of their invasion of these same places back in the 9th century. The Russians, the Tale of Bygone Years reports, seized enormous wealth, many prisoners, and burned monasteries, churches, and villages that came their way. The scale and fury of this invasion, even despite the defeat of the Russians in the first battle, is also evidenced by the great efforts of the Greeks to organize resistance to the Russians. The army of the Domestic Pamphira, numbering 40 thousand people, arrived from the East, and the legions of Patrikius Phocas and Stratieg Theodore, located in Macedonia and Thrace, arrived. And only by September 941 the Russians were driven out of Asia Minor, but this required several more land battles and one sea battle. In the last battle off the Asia Minor coast, the Russian fleet was once again attacked by fiery Greek ships and defeated; the remnants of the Russian army returned to their homeland.
And while the Russians terrified Byzantium for more than three months, Igor was already preparing for a new campaign. He sent his people to the Varangians, asking them for help.
Hiring Varangians overseas
By the spring of 944, a new army was assembled, and Igor, together with his allies, moved to the Danube. The foot army traveled in boats by water, and the cavalry moved along the shore. News of the approaching danger came to Constantinople from all sides: the Chersonesos strategus again reported alarming news; The Bulgarians sent messengers with the news that the hired Pecheneg cavalry was coming with the Russians. And the Greeks decided not to tempt fate a second time. An imperial embassy was sent to meet him, which was supposed to stop Igor and conclude a truce with him.
The Greeks proposed continuing to pay tribute to Rus' and convening an ambassadorial conference to develop a new Russian-Byzantine treaty.
At the same time, they sent their ambassadors to the Pecheneg camp and presented the Pecheneg khans with gold and expensive fabrics. Their goal was clear - to tear the Pechenegs away from Igor and thereby strengthen their position in negotiations with the Russian prince.
Byzantine ambassadors ask for peace
Igor called his squad together. The warriors told the prince: it would be much better to receive tribute without fighting. The chronicler in such poetic words conveys the thoughts of the warriors: “When someone knows; who can overcome, us or them? Who is bright with the sea? We are not walking on earth, but in the depths of the sea: we mean death for everyone.” It was decided to make peace. But at the same time, the Russians negotiated with the Pechenegs. Igor suggested that the Pechenegs strike Bulgaria, which was hostile to Rus', and the Pechenegs set off on a campaign: Byzantium failed to split the Russian-Pecheneg alliance; Apparently, the raid on Bulgaria cost Byzantine gold.
And the Russians won another small diplomatic victory on the Danube: it was here, apparently, that it was agreed that the first ambassadorial meeting regarding the development of a new peace treaty would take place not, as usual, in Constantinople, but in the Russian capital. This is evident from the fact that soon after the return of the Russian army to their homeland, ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor Roman I Lekapinus arrived in Kiev to “build the first world,” that is, to restore the basic norms of the agreement of 907. This was a new step in Russian diplomacy, bringing Rus' closer to complete equal relations with the great empire.
Igor received the Byzantine ambassadors and, as the chronicle testifies, “verb” (said - A.S.) with them about peace. It was here that the fundamental provisions of the new treaty were developed. The Kiev meeting was the preliminary conference where his project was developed. Then the Russian embassy moved to Constantinople to develop the final text of the treaty. Looking ahead, let's say that after its approval by the Byzantine emperor, a new Byzantine embassy appeared in Kyiv in order to attend the approval of the treaty by the Grand Duke and take Igor to the oath of allegiance to the treaty. All this was unheard of: twice the imperial ambassadors appeared in the Russian capital; In Byzantium, Romanos I Lekapin swore allegiance to the treaty in the presence of Russian ambassadors. This was already an equal level of international diplomatic procedures of the highest rank.
The Russian embassy arrived in Constantinople with 51 people, not counting the guards, rowers, and servants. This was a larger mission than any before. This fact alone indicates that the embassy was entrusted with important tasks, emphasizes the increased power and international prestige of the ancient Russian state, the deepening and development of relations between the two countries.
At the head of the embassy, as before, was the chief, first ambassador. He is presented in the agreement as the ambassador of the “Grand Duke of Russia.” The rest are “obchii ate”, i.e. ordinary, ordinary ambassadors. But they each have a great title that connects them with the great people of the Russian state. The second mentioned is Vuefast, the ambassador of Svyatoslav, the son of Igor, the heir to the Russian throne, the third is Iskusevi, the ambassador of Igor’s wife, Grand Duchess Olga, etc. In addition to the ambassadors, the mission included 26 merchants, which emphasizes the increased role of the Russian merchants in the international affairs of their state and indicates the economic nature of the upcoming negotiations.
Conclusion of a peace treaty
The mission's representation sounds in a new way in the document. She calls herself envoys “from Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from every prince and from all the people of the Russian land.” And more than once in the agreement the concepts “Rus”, “Russian land”, “Russian country” are used. The embassy thus acts on behalf of the state of Rus' and, moreover, on behalf of the entire Russian people. This already shows the desire of the feudal elite to identify their interests with the interests of the entire land.
The title of the Russian ruler also sounds new: in the contract he is called “Russian Grand Duke,” that is, as he was called in Rus'. The lowly title of “lordship” is a thing of the past.
In its content, the treaty of 944 stands out sharply not only from among the Russian-Byzantine agreements, but from everything that the early medieval diplomatic world gave. The scale of the treaty, its coverage of various political, economic, legal, military-union subjects, is unique for the 10th century. Its creation reveals the persistent, sophisticated thought of the Byzantines, their knowledge of the subject and wisdom, state outlook, and the political scope of young Russian diplomacy.
The treaty of 944 practically combined the ideas and specific parts of two previous agreements - 907 and 911, however, in addition, they were developed, deepened, and supplemented with new important provisions.
The new agreement is a typical interstate agreement of “peace and love”, which restored the previous peaceful relations between the countries. The treaty returned both states to the “old world” of the past, by which the authors of the agreement meant, of course, the treaty of 907. The treaty confirmed “peace and love” and reproduced all those ideas of friendship and good neighborly relations that were present in the agreements of 907-911 gg. And again it was declared that peace would be established “for the whole summer,” that is, forever.
The agreement confirmed the order of ambassadorial and trade contacts, established back in 907: “And the Russian Grand Duke and his boyars send to the Greeks to the great king to the Greek ships, as much as they want, from the word (with ambassadors. - A.S.) and guests (merchants. - A. S), as they were instructed to eat.” And as you know, this was “established” in detail in 907. Almost without changes, the new treaty included from the previous text about the procedure for the arrival of Russian ambassadors and merchants in Byzantium, their receipt of ambassadorial and merchant salaries, placement near the monastery of St. Mamant, their entry into city. It also says here that when preparing to return, the Russians have the right to receive food and equipment, “as they were ordered to eat before.”
The duties of Byzantine officials were also confirmed to record the list of Russian guests in order to obtain content and identification of their identity and the purpose of their appearance in Byzantium, to bring the Russians into the city without weapons, through one gate, to guard them, to sort out any misunderstandings that arise between the Russians and the Greeks: “Who is from Rus'?” or from the Greek make it crooked and straighten it (makes out. - A.S.) That". They also had to control the nature and scale of trade operations, and certify with their seal on goods the legality of the transactions. As we can see, this part of the treaty of 907 has been significantly expanded and detailed, the duties of the imperial “husbands” are outlined here in more detail, their functions have been expanded.
But innovations also appeared in this part of the agreement, and the first among them was the establishment of a procedure for identifying ambassadors and merchants coming from Rus'. Now they must present to Byzantine officials special letters issued to them by the great Russian prince, or rather by his office, and addressed directly to the Byzantine emperor. These letters should indicate who came to Byzantium and for what purposes. If the Russians appeared without such “certificates” and began to pose as ambassadors and merchants, they were to be taken into custody and reported to Kiev: “If they come without a letter, they will be handed over to us, and we will keep them.” keep it, donde (“not yet.” - A.S.) We will inform your prince.” In case of resistance, the Greeks were even allowed to kill the Russians, and the Russian Grand Duke did not have to punish them for this.
Meal in Kyiv with the participation of ambassadors from the steppes
These new points of the agreement clearly indicate the strengthening of state tendencies in Rus', that the Kiev prince practically takes control of all contacts of Russian people with Byzantium, no matter where they come from - from Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Novgorod, other Russian cities. Of course, to a large extent, these articles protect the class interests of the Russian feudal lords, because now any fugitive from Rus' - a slave or a feudal-dependent peasant, a debtor or an impoverished artisan - had to be immediately detained by the Greeks and sent back to Rus'.
These articles also had one more purpose: now those Russian merchants who went to Byzantium at their own peril and risk, without the prince’s permission, were threatened with severe punishment. These strictures minimized the emergence of new conflicts between the Russians and Greeks.
The treaty of 944 also introduced other restrictions for Russian people in the empire: the Russians did not have the right to spend the winter in their compound in Byzantium. And this meant that both embassy and merchant caravans had to turn around and return to their homeland during the same navigation period. There is no longer a word about the presence of the embassy in Byzantium, “as much as possible,” or the merchants for six months. Now the deadlines became more stringent, and this reflected not only the interests of Byzantium, which by the fall was getting rid of its very significant material costs and the restless Russian neighborhood, but also the interests of the Russian state, which sought to streamline diplomatic and trade contacts with Byzantium, to make them clearer, professional. It is curious that the Greco-Persian treaty of 562 also stated on this matter that ambassadors and messengers of both countries “are obliged to remain for a short time in the land where they come.” But Persia, together with Byzantium, is one of the oldest states where the diplomatic service was well developed.
In the new treaty of 944, it is noticeable that Rus' made some economic concessions. Russian merchants were prohibited from buying expensive silk fabrics worth more than 50 spools in Byzantine markets. One could imagine how many such fabrics the Russians exported before, then selling them at exorbitant prices throughout all their cities, and perhaps even to the northern countries.
But the most significant economic loss for Rus', of course, was the abolition of duty-free trade for Russian merchants in Byzantium. The contract simply does not say a word about this. Snatched at one time from Byzantium by force, it became a burdensome matter for the Byzantine merchants: Russian merchants were placed in a privileged position in the empire, which could not but harm both Greek trade and the trade of other countries. Now this privilege has been abolished, and this can well be seen as a consequence of the military defeat of the Russian army in 941.
The treaty of 944 again formulated the idea of joint protection by both states of the rights to the person and property of serfs and slaves. If a slave flees from Rus' to Byzantium or a slave from Byzantium to Rus', both states must provide each other with all possible assistance in his capture and return to their masters. Articles on this topic have a clearly defined class character.
Punishments for property crimes have been changed. Previously, murder was permitted for theft if the thief was caught on the spot. Now a more moderate punishment has been established, in accordance with the “laws” of Greek and Russian, which reflects the development of legal norms both in Byzantium and in Rus'.
The new agreement elaborates in detail the issues of liability for property crimes, battery, and other violations. They are resolved in many ways differently, in accordance with the evolution of legislation in both countries, reflecting the level of social development of both countries.
But the idea of a new Byzantine-Russian military alliance is substantiated in particular detail.
Essentially, Rus' appears here for the first time as an equal ally of Byzantium, and the military-union articles themselves are comprehensive and large-scale in nature. In the second half of the 1st millennium, the Byzantine Empire repeatedly concluded treaties of alliance and mutual assistance with other states, but not one of them was preserved in written form, and even developed in such detail. In this sense, the treaty of 944 was also a unique phenomenon.
"Vacation" of Russian ambassadors from Constantinople
Rus' and Byzantium took on equal obligations to send troops to help each other. Rus' is against those opponents of Byzantium whom the empire points out to it: “If you want to start our kingdom (empire. - A.S.) from you the howl is against us, let us write to your great prince, and send to us, as much as we want.” Byzantium, as noted above, pledged to send its troops to the aid of Rus' in the event that the Russian prince asked for help while fighting in the Northern Black Sea region, in the Korsun country, as Chersonesos and its adjacent possessions were called in Rus'. The enemy is not named, but he is easily guessed - these are Khazaria and its satellites in the Northern Black Sea region, the Azov region and the Volga region.
The military alliance of the two states was based not only on common political and economic interests, but also on the fact that the most acute contradictions between them, including those of a territorial nature, had been resolved.
The Byzantines bring gifts to Igor
Two areas aroused particularly keen interest of Rus' and Byzantium: the Taman Peninsula and the mouth of the Dnieper. The Russians needed Taman to secure strongholds here on the eastern routes - to the Sea of Azov, to the Volga, and the North Caucasus. But the Cimmerian Bosporus has long been a sphere of possession and then influence of Byzantium. Now the Russians are firmly established here. The Greeks, speaking in an agreement on common actions together with the Russians against the “black Bulgarians” living nearby, nomads, vassals of Khazaria, indicated that the Bulgarians were attacking not only the “Korsun country”, i.e. causing damage to Chersonesos and its possessions, but also “they are playing a dirty trick on his country,” that is, the Russian prince. Thus, the Greeks recognized this area as the sphere of influence of Rus', inviting the Russian prince to defend the Byzantine ones along with his possessions.
The mouth of the Dnieper, Beloberezhye, and the island of St. Elferius were an important military-strategic area: from here the Russians entered the Black Sea during their rapid sea campaigns, and Byzantine and Chersonese outposts were located here. And when the Chersonese strategist sent news about the beginning of the Russian army’s campaign against Constantinople, the first information was brought to him by scouts whose posts were located in the Dnieper delta. The Russians sought to remove the Greeks from here and create their own settlements here, but the Greeks also stubbornly fought to retain this area.
In the new agreement, the parties got along with each other. Byzantium ensured that the Russians were forbidden to “do evil” to the Chersonesos fishermen and expel them from these places. This meant that the Greeks retained the opportunity for their intelligence to continue to be present in the area. But this at the same time meant the recognition by the Greeks of the mouth of the Dnieper as a sphere of influence of Rus'. This becomes especially obvious from the words of the agreement prohibiting Russians from wintering at the Dnieper mouth. The rest of the time, their appearance in these places is considered legitimate. Moreover, no punishments are provided for the fact that the Russians will stay here for the winter or prevent the Chersonesos from fishing in the Dnieper waters. The article on this matter is only a good wish.
Thus the dispute was resolved, but... only for a while. It is quite obvious that the contradictions between Rus' and Byzantium in the disputed areas were not eliminated, and it is obvious that their solution was postponed to the future; in the meantime, peace and a military alliance were needed.
And soon the Russian army set out on a new campaign to the East, to the city of Berdaa. Like the 911 Treaty, the new agreement was formalized according to all the highest standards of international diplomacy. The agreement was drawn up in two copies - in Greek and Russian. Each party took an oath of allegiance to the agreement in its own text. The Russian ambassadors, as follows from the chronicle, “led the essence of the tsar ... to the company,” that is, they took an oath of allegiance to the 944 treaty of Roman I Lekapin and his sons. Then a huge caravan, consisting of Russian and Byzantine embassies, headed to Rus'. The Russians returned to their homeland, and the Greeks went to Kyiv in order to take the oath of Igor, his boyars and warriors at the treaty.
And now a solemn day has come in the Russian capital. In the morning, Igor called the Byzantine ambassadors to him and went with them to the hill where the statue of the main god of Rus', Perun, stood; The Russians laid down their weapons, shields, and gold at his feet. This was not only a Russian custom: many pagan peoples of Eastern Europe swore an oath on weapons and gold. In this sense, Rus' followed the international tradition.
Here Igor and his people took the oath. Prominent Russian boyars and warriors, who were Christians, went with the ambassadors to the Church of St. Elijah and there took an oath on the cross.
Then there was a ceremonial reception of the Byzantine embassy by the great Russian prince: the ambassadors were richly gifted with furs, servants, and wax - traditional items of Russian export to Byzantium.
The Russian original of the agreement went with the ambassadors to the empire, and a copy of this text and the Greek original of the agreement went into the Grand Duke's repository.
Conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Byzantium
Diplomacy of Princess Olga
Renewal of relations with Byzantium. The stormy 40s of the 10th century have passed. After this, great changes took place in Rus': Prince Igor died in the Drevlyan forests, power passed to his wife, Princess Olga, since the heir to the throne, Prince Svyatoslav, was still small. Changes also occurred on the Byzantine throne: one after another, after coups d'état, Romanos I Lecapinus and his sons went into exile, until finally in 945 the throne was taken by the son of Leo VI, who had previously kept in the shadows - Constantine VII, who, while still a boy, was mentioned among the Byzantine emperors along with his father and uncle in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The faces changed, but the policy remained the same; the treaty of 944 was in force in relations between the two states. In fulfillment of allied obligations, Russian soldiers participated in the second half of the 40s. X century in the expedition of the Greek fleet against the Cretan corsairs; Russian garrisons were stationed in fortresses bordering the Arab Caliphate, creating a barrier against Arab pressure on the possessions of Byzantium from the southeast. But new diplomatic initiatives
Rus' did not undertake any activities for a long time, its embassies to the empire were not noted, its voice fell silent in the East. And this is understandable: the second half of the 40s. marked in Rus' by an acute socio-political crisis. The Drevlyans rose up, speaking out against the arbitrary, disorderly collection of tribute by the Russian elite. Igor was killed, and the Drevlyan land was separated from Kyiv. And although Olga brutally suppressed the uprising of the Drevlyans and imposed a “heavy tribute” on them, she was nevertheless forced to carry out the first tax reform in the history of Rus' on Russian lands. Throughout the Russian land - along the Dnieper, among the Drevlyans, the Novgorod Slovenes - she established fixed taxes and tributes.
All this took months, if not years. And only in 955 the chronicle records that Princess Olga visited Constantinople. This information is confirmed in other sources - the writings of her contemporary, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who received Olga in the Byzantine capital, Greek and German chronicles. Constantine VII, however, provides information that allows us to talk about a different date for her visit to Byzantium - 957.
By the mid-50s. Russian foreign policy faced new challenges. Rus' regularly fulfilled its allied obligations in the east, west, and southeast of the Byzantine borders; from the political turmoil of the 40s. she came out stronger, more powerful, more united. Its socio-economic and political development required new foreign policy initiatives, the establishment of new external relations, the expansion and strengthening of trade routes, and the elevation of the international prestige of the ancient Russian state. And for its allied assistance, Rus' had the right to demand new political privileges from Byzantium.
Rus', in turn, at this time was needed by Byzantium as a counterweight against Khazaria, as a supplier of allied troops in the fight against the Arabs.
The problem of Christianization arose more and more acutely for Russia. Most of the leading countries in Europe have already accepted baptism. The new religion significantly strengthened the position of the growing class of feudal lords and raised the international prestige of Christianized states. Rus' has already repeatedly tried Christianity into its state experience, but the pagan opposition each time threw it away. And yet Christianity made its way. Byzantium also sought to baptize Rus', thereby trying to neutralize its dangerous neighbor and tie it to its policy, since the Byzantine patriarch was considered the head of the entire Christian church in the region.
Under these conditions, the parties needed negotiations, filling the 944 agreement with new specific content. Therefore, the trip of the Russian Grand Duchess to Byzantium was a timely and completely justified political step.
For the first time in the history of relations between the two countries, a high Russian ruler was preparing for a visit to Constantinople.
Arrival of the Russian Princess Olga in Constantinople
In the summer of 957, a huge Russian embassy headed by the Grand Duchess moved to Constantinople. The composition of the embassy, not counting the guards, shipmen, and servants, exceeded one hundred. The princess's retinue included her closest relative - Anepsy, as the Greeks called him, who occupied second place in the embassy after Olga, 8 of her close associates - noble boyars or relatives, 22 noble Russians, members of the embassy, 44 merchants, Svyatoslav's people, priest Gregory, 8 a person from the ambassadors' retinue, 2 translators, as well as close women of the princess. Rus' had never sent such a magnificent, such a representative embassy to Byzantium.
The Russian flotilla arrived in the harbor of Constantinople, and then complications began. The Emperor received Olga for the first time only on September 9, i.e., when Russian caravans were usually preparing to return. The Russians waited for about two months to be received. Later, Olga will remember this in Kyiv, when ambassadors from Byzantium come to her, in anger she will tell them: “...stay with me in Pochaina (in the Kyiv harbor, at the mouth of the Pochaina River, which flows into the Dnieper. - A. C), like I am in the Court (in the harbor of Constantinople. - A.S.)..." The Russian princess did not forget about her long stay in the “Court” even after several months. What's the matter? Why was such disrespect shown to a welcome guest and ally? The answer lies in the order of the two receptions of the Russian princess in the imperial palace - September 9 and October 18, which Constantine VII described in detail in his work “On Ceremonies”. This order went far beyond the usual, had no analogies during meetings with other foreign representatives and did not in any way correspond to the Byzantine ceremonial, to which the Byzantine Empire and especially Constantine VII, the guardian and custodian of centuries-old traditions, sacredly held. Usually, anyone who approached the throne of the Byzantine emperors committed proskynesis - fell prostrate at the imperial feet, but nothing like this happened to Olga: on September 9, she approached the throne unaccompanied, greeted Constantine VII with only a slight bow of her head and stood talking to him. She was then received by the Empress.
Reception of the Byzantine ambassadors to Rus' by the Kyiv princess Olga
After a short break, a meeting between the Russian princess and the imperial family took place, something that foreign ambassadors and rulers had never even claimed. Here Olga had the main conversation with the emperor on all issues of interest to both parties. At the same time, the Russian princess was sitting, which was also unheard of. At the ceremonial dinner, Olga found herself at the same table with members of the imperial family. The same kind of privileges were given to the Russian princess during the second reception.
Of course, all these deviations from the traditions of Byzantine diplomatic ceremonial cannot be considered accidental. The Russians apparently insisted on an exceptionally high level of reception, while the Greeks persisted, trying to maintain a distance between Russia and the great empire. Now Olga’s long wait for the first reception becomes clear: there was an intense diplomatic struggle over ceremonial issues, which in relations between countries were always of a fundamental nature and showed the level of prestige of a particular state, its place among other powers. Rus' demanded, if not equality, then at least greater privileges; the empire persisted. But Byzantium needed Russian help, and the Greeks had to give in.
As one might expect, the issue of Christianization took one of the central places in Olga's negotiations with Constantine VII.
The Russian chronicle says that Olga decided to be baptized in Constantinople, and the emperor supported this idea. To this the princess answered him: “...if you want to baptize me, then baptize me yourself.” This was actually the whole point of the problem. Using the desire of Byzantium to Christianize Rus', Olga sought to receive baptism directly from the hands of the emperor and patriarch. Moreover, the emperor was assigned the role of godfather. The chronicle notes: “And baptize her (her. - A. S.) the king with the patriarch.” At baptism, the Russian princess took the name Helena in honor of the mother of Emperor Constantine the Great, who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Apparently, all this was discussed among the imperial family on September 9, 957.
The baptism of the Russian princess took place in the Church of St. Sophia, the main Christian sanctuary of the empire. As a sign of her stay here, Olga presented the temple with a golden dish decorated with precious stones.
Everything about this ceremony has enormous political significance.
Firstly, the very fact of the baptism of the Russian princess. Given the presence of a strong pagan opposition in Rus', led by the young Svyatoslav, who relied on a pagan squad, the question of the baptism of the entire country was still premature; it could cause discontent both among the Russian elite and among the people. But there was already experience in Western European countries, when the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish kings at one time were baptized with the participation of representatives of the Pope without converting all Franks or Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Shortly before Olga's appearance in Byzantium, the Hungarian leaders Bulchu and Gyula were personally baptized in Constantinople, although all of Hungary adopted Christianity only at the turn of the 10th - 11th centuries. This path was more painless and gradual. Judging by Igor’s treaty with the Greeks in 944, there were already many Christians in Rus'; the Church of St. Elijah stood in Kyiv. Now the baptism of the Russian princess, of course, greatly strengthened the position of Russian Christians and made the Christianization of the entire country only a matter of time. In this case, Rus' used examples from other large early feudal monarchies in Europe.
Secondly, the act of Olga’s baptism by the highest representatives of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of the empire extremely elevated both her personal prestige and the political prestige of Rus'.
Thirdly, the political resonance of the baptism was also facilitated by the fact that Olga took the Christian name of Helen, a well-known figure in the empire, and also received the title of “daughter” of the emperor.
But not only issues of baptism were discussed during the first conversation with the emperor. They also talked about the dynastic marriage of the young Svyatoslav and the young daughter of Constantine VII, Theodora.
To become related to the Byzantine imperial house was an honor for any state, any dynasty, but Byzantium carefully guarded this privilege, granting it either to very famous and strong European monarchies, say the Frankish Empire, and later to the German Kingdom, or agreed to such marriages under the influence of circumstances. So, needing in the 7th century. In order to help the Khazars against the onslaught of the Persians and Avars, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius promised the Khazar Khagan to give his daughter Eudokia as a wife if he would send him 40 thousand horsemen. In the 20s In the 10th century, in an effort to pacify Bulgaria, Roman I Lekapin gave his granddaughter Maria to Tsar Peter. Subsequently, Constantine VII in his writings assessed these facts as a disgrace to the empire.
There is no doubt that Olga, with her prestigious claims, could raise the question of a dynastic marriage in Constantinople, especially since the emperor asked her, as the chronicle reports, “howl for help.” This is also indicated by the presence in Olga’s retinue of a mysterious relative, who could well be the young Svyatoslav.
But if negotiations about the marriage of Svyatoslav with the Byzantine princess took place, they ended in nothing: the Greeks did not yet consider Rus' worthy of dynastic ties. This also could not help but offend the Russian princess and her son, who, as is known, later became one of the most stubborn and dangerous opponents of Byzantium.
Olga and Constantine VII, despite certain differences, confirmed the validity of the 944 treaty, in particular with regard to the military alliance. This is evident from the fact that after some time the Byzantine embassy came to Kyiv with a request to send Russian soldiers to Byzantium. The Russian detachment again came to the aid of the empire in its fight against the Arabs.
Under Olga, the scope of Rus''s diplomatic efforts expanded significantly. Thus, for the first time since 839, the Russian embassy was sent to the West, to the lands of the German kingdom. Information about this is available in a German chronicle written by a certain anonymous successor to the chronicle of Abbot Reginon. Under 959, he reported that “ambassadors of Helen, Queen of the Rugians,” who was baptized in Constantinople, came to Frankfurt, where the German king was celebrating Christmas, with a request “feignedly, as it later turned out,” to “establish... a bishop and presbyters for their people.” . The request was granted, and monk Adalbert was sent to Rus'. Under 962, the same author wrote: “Adalbert, ordained bishop for the Russians, having failed to succeed in anything for which he was sent, and seeing his work in vain, returned back. On the way back, some of his companions were killed and he himself barely escaped with great difficulty.” This is how the attempt of the German baptizers of Rus' ended unsuccessfully.
In this whole story, the purpose of the Russian embassy, as stated by the German chronicler, seems implausible. It is difficult to imagine that Olga, having serious pagan opposition in Rus' led by her son Svyatoslav, who herself had recently been baptized according to the Constantinople model, turned to the Germanic king Otto I, closely associated with papal Rome, with a request for the baptism of all Rus'.
Subsequent events confirmed this. This is also indicated by the words of the author of the chronicle, that the Russians “feignedly” made this request, i.e. they had no serious intention to baptize Rus' with the hands of the German bishop in Kyiv.
The meaning of events lies elsewhere. Rus' at that time actively continued to seek international contacts. It was already connected with all the surrounding countries by diplomatic relations. Only the German kingdom, a strong European state, has so far been outside the attention of Russian politicians. The long-standing and unsuccessful embassy of 839 to Ingelheim had already been forgotten, and now Rus' tried to enter into traditional relations of “peace and friendship” with Germany, which usually included an exchange of embassies and assistance in the development of trade between the two countries. Under these conditions, the Russian government could agree to admit German missionaries to Russian lands. Adalbert, who considered himself truly the head of the Christian church in Rus' and tried to introduce a new religion among the peoples, failed in his intentions. The people of Kiev rebelled against him, and he was expelled in disgrace.
Nevertheless, the friendly relations established by Olga’s government with Germany were no longer interrupted.
PreparationsUnder 944, “The Tale of Bygone Years” tells about Igor’s second campaign against Constantinople. Extensive military preparations are reported: “Igor gathered together many: Varangians, Rus and Polyans, and Slovenes, and Krivichi, Vyatichi and Tivertsy”; it also talks about hiring Pechenegs and taking hostages from them - to ensure their loyalty. It is characteristic that the list of Igor’s “wars” does not include Chud, Merya, Northerners, Radimichi, Croats and Dulebs, whom the chronicler had previously sent to Constantinople along with the prophetic Oleg. These data are objectively correct in the sense that Igor really did not have military resources. However, the motley ethnic composition of Igor’s army, in the form in which it is presented in the chronicle, does not correspond to the truth. The East Slavic tribes were included by the chronicler in Igor’s “voi” arbitrarily. Thus, the Vyatichi could not be participants in the campaign for the simple reason that they were not tributaries of Kyiv - they had to be “tortured,” according to the chronicle itself, only by Svyatoslav; ethnic “ghosts” also turn out to be Slovenes (Ilmen), Krivichi and Tivertsy, since neither Novgorod, nor Polotsk, nor any other East Slavic tribal center was included in the text of the treaty of 944.
And on the contrary, the presence of a single ethnic group in it - "Rus", coupled with three cities of the Middle Dnieper - Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl - to which trade benefits were extended, convincingly indicates that in 944 "the attack on the Greeks in Lodia" alone “Russian” militia of the Kyiv land. Wed. Olga’s preparations for the campaign against the “Drevlyans”: “Olga and her son Svyatoslav have gathered many and are brave.” The forces of the Rus here are not limited to one princely squad, and yet in the “Russian” army of Igor’s wife there are no “Slovenians” or other East Slavic tribes, which undoubtedly reflects the real state of affairs. It is characteristic that, according to the treaty of 944, a Rusyn who was captured and put up for sale on any slave market of the empire was subject to immediate ransom and release, while a similar condition was not stipulated for the Slavs.
The Archangel-City Chronicle preserved information that in 941 the Rus from under the walls of Constantinople returned “to their homeland without success” and only “in the third summer they came to Kyiv” - therefore, they spent two years somewhere else. According to Leo the Deacon, the Russian army defeated near Constantinople wintered in the cities and settlements of Black Sea-Azov Rus' - on the “Cimmerian Bosporus”. Apparently, it remained there for the next two years, preparing for a new campaign.
What caused the two-year stay of Russian squads on the shores of the “Cimmerian Bosporus”? According to the Cambridge document, H-l-go (that is, in this case, Igor), having fled from near Constantinople, “was ashamed to return to his land.” From a psychological point of view it sounds quite plausible. However, it was not just the upset feelings of the young prince that mattered. Igor delayed returning to Kyiv because of a well-founded fear of a bad reception there. In the pagan understanding holiness(including the holiness of the leader-priest, which presupposes, among other things, his “luck”, as a whole set of outstanding psychophysical properties: strength, intelligence, dexterity, etc.) one of the main components was the concept of integrity, integrity, integrity, not only suffering any kind of derogation, but, on the contrary, constantly increasing its fruitful and powerful potential ( Petrukhin V.Ya. Towards the pre-Christian origins of the ancient Russian princely cult // POLYTROPON. To the 70th anniversary of V. N. Toporov. M., 1998. P. 888). Therefore, a military defeat caused serious damage to the sacred and political authority of the leader; it meant that the gods turned away from him, and with him from the entire society (tribe, clan, etc.). For a warrior, there was, in fact, only one way out of the state of being abandoned by God - death with weapons in hand. Ideally, in the event of an unsuccessful outcome of the battle, the leader should not have survived his shame, and the squad should not have survived their leader. Thus, Tacitus wrote about the Germans that their “leaders fight for victory, the warriors fight for their leader.” Svyatoslav reminded his soldiers of this same pagan code of honor when he called on them: “Let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with that bone, for we are dead because we have no rubbish.” In 941, the “heavenly lightning” of the Greeks turned out to be stronger than the military happiness and magical abilities of the Russian prince. He fled the battlefield and did not receive even a symbolic tribute. The gods no longer patronized him. Igor needed to restore his reputation as a successful leader, which was established for him after the conquest of the Uglich and “Drevlyans” and the expulsion of Oleg II from Kyiv.
The Black Sea Russes did not support Igor this time. In Arabic sources, 943/944 is marked by another attack of the Rus on the city of Berdaa in Transcaucasia, which excludes the participation of this detachment in the campaign against the Greeks. The Treaty of 944, in turn, does not defend the interests of anyone other than the princely family and “guests” from the three cities of the Middle Dnieper region.
It was the small number of his own army that forced Igor to resort to hiring the Pechenegs, who, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, “being free and seemingly independent... never perform any service without payment.” Russian embassies to the Pechenegs probably had many similarities with the execution of similar orders by imperial officials, whose mode of action is well known from the description of the same Constantine. The main role in the successful completion of the embassy was played by gifts, which the Pechenegs sought by hook or by crook. Arriving in Kherson, the emperor’s ambassador (“vasilik”) was supposed to “immediately send [a messenger] to Pachinakia and demand hostages and guards from them. When they arrive, leave the hostages in custody in the Kherson fortress, and go with the guards to Pachinakia and carry out the assignment. These same pachinakites, being insatiable and extremely greedy for their rare things, shamelessly demand large gifts: the hostages seek one for themselves and another for their wives, the guards - one for their labors, and another for the fatigue of their horses. Then, when the basileus enters their country, they demand first of all the gifts of the basileus, and again, when they have pleased their people, they ask for gifts for their wives and their parents. Moreover, those who, for the sake of protecting the basilica returning to Kherson, come with him, ask him to reward the work of themselves and their horses.”
Another way to contact the Pechenegs was that the basil, accompanied by a small flotilla, entered the mouth of the Dnieper or Dniester and, having discovered the Pechenegs, sent a messenger to them. The Russians most likely did just that. Then the story repeated itself: “The Pachinakites come to him [the ambassador], and when they come together, the basilik gives them his people as hostages, but he himself receives their hostages from the Pachinakites and keeps them in Hellandia. And then he negotiates with the Pachinakites. And when the pachinakites bring oaths to the basilica for their “zakanam” [laws]*, he gives them royal gifts and receives as many “friends” [allies] from among them as he wants, and then returns.”
* Konstantin’s curious use of a Slavic word in relation to Pecheneg customs is evidence that “this very concept, and perhaps the rules of law, were borrowed by the Pechenegs from the Slavs” (Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire(text, translation, commentary) / Ed. G.G. Litavrin and A.P. Novoseltseva. M., 1989. P. 290, note. 5).
The existence of an alliance agreement between Igor and the Pecheneg khans follows, among other things, from the very fact that the Rus in 941 managed to pass the Dnieper rapids without hindrance. After all, as the same writer testifies, “in this royal city of the Romans [Constantinople], if the dews are not at peace with the Pachinakites, they cannot appear, neither for the sake of war, nor for the sake of trade, for when the dews with boats come to the river rapids and they cannot pass them otherwise than by pulling their boats out of the river and crossing them, carrying them on their shoulders, then the people of this Pachinakit people attack them and easily - the dew cannot resist two labors - they win and carry out a massacre.” Apparently, in 944, Igor managed to convince the Pecheneg khans that military booty would be incomparably richer than imperial gifts.
Interrupted hike
The details of the 944 campaign are known only from chronicles. Probably, Igor and his squad went from the eastern Crimea to the Danube mouth, meeting here with the militia of the Kyiv land, who were placed in boats, and the Pechenegs who arrived in time. “The Tale of Bygone Years” says that this time the Kherson strategist did not make a mistake and was the first to let Constantinople know about the approach of the enemy: “sending to the Tsar Roman, saying: “Behold, Rus' is coming without a number of ships, the ships have covered the sea.” Likewise, the Bulgarians sent the message, saying: “Rus' is coming, and the Pechenegs have taken over.”
Igor's army was supposed to reach the Danube mouth somewhere in late July or early August. On the Danube he was met by imperial ambassadors. Roman I Lekapin proposed to end the matter peacefully and expressed his readiness to pay the Kyiv prince a large tribute, “as Oleg paid,” and to conclude an alliance treaty. Individual gifts—“lots of pavolok and gold”—were intended for the Pechenegs. Igor called the squad for a council. The squad, mindful, spoke out in favor of accepting peace proposals: “If the king says so, then what more do we need? Without fighting, let's take the gold, and the pavoloks, and the silver! How else do we know who will win - us or them? And does anyone have any advice about the sea? We do not walk on earth, but in the depths of the sea, and in it there is only death for everyone.”* Igor must have thought in a similar way, especially since the retreat this time did not lower his honor, for the Greeks gave him “tribute” (compare with the reflections of Svyatoslav and his squad on the proposal of Emperor John Tzimiskes to make peace. Having received imperial gifts, the prince reasoned: “the Greeks gave us tribute, and then be content with us” - we can return home with honor). Having accepted the gifts, he sailed to Kyiv. The Pechenegs, not satisfied with the gifts, went to rob the Bulgarians.
By the way, the fear of the Igor's Russes of the sea, together with the habit of feeling solid ground under their feet, is very noteworthy - as evidence that they were not natural seafarers. Meanwhile, the Normans persistently assure us that these cautious speeches belong to the Vikings, for whom the ship was their home and the sea their native element. For the Kievan Rus - more likely to be "rivermen" than sailors - such a "fear of hydrophobia" is quite natural.
The reliability of the chronicle news about the campaign of 944.
Since the campaign of 944 is mentioned only in ancient Russian monuments, its historical reality has sometimes been questioned. Of course, the chronicle story about the campaign of 944, based on squad legends, does not fully correspond to the true events: it contains outright fabrications, such as, for example, Igor’s “copulation” of “many warriors” from the Slavic lands, and literary processing of historical facts - self-deprecating behavior of the Greeks, etc. However, there are also details there that do not contradict historical accuracy - the vigilance of the Chersonesos, in contrast to their oversight in 941, the hiring of the Pechenegs and their raid on Bulgaria - which will be repeated during the Bulgarian wars Svyatoslav, the message from the Archangel-City Chronicle about Igor’s three-year absence in Kyiv, etc. Moreover, the role of the Pechenegs as allies of Igor and enemies of Bulgaria and Byzantium, which is assigned to them in the chronicle, is indirectly confirmed by other evidence. In the city of Kalfa (in the southern part of the Prut-Dniester interfluve, which was part of the First Bulgarian Kingdom), archaeologists discovered traces of destruction that date back to approximately the middle of the 10th century. ( Nikolaev V.D. On the history of Bulgarian-Russian relations in the early 40s of the 10th century // Soviet Slavic Studies. 1982. No. 6. P. 51). And Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, in his diplomatic instructions, advises his son, in order to protect Constantinople from attacks by the Rus, to always be on good terms with the Pechenegs. This political instruction is especially significant because, according to all sources, Russian and foreign, the Pechenegs did not take part in Igor’s first sea campaign in 941. This means that Konstantin was concerned about some other case of Russian-Pecheneg military cooperation that created a threat to the capital of the empire. This place in his work is fully consistent with the chronicle news of the Russian-Byzantine conflict of 944.
Some not immediately discernible traces of this event can be found in the text of the treaty of 944. One of its articles contains a reference to the preliminary agreement of its terms: if the slave who fled from Rus' to Greece is not found, it is said there, then the Russians must swear that he really fled to Greece. Greece, and then they will receive the price of a slave - two pavoloks, “as it was decreed to eat before,” that is, as decreed before. When before? this article does not exist - there the Russians receive for an escaped slave his “per day” price, that is, his current market value. Nothing is known about any negotiations between the Rus and the Greeks after the defeat of 941. This means that the preliminary terms of the treaty were discussed during Igor’s second campaign “against the Greeks,” in the summer of 944, when, according to the chronicler, ambassadors from Romanus arrived in the Russian camp on the Danube with peace proposals.
In general, the treaty of 944 does not give the impression of a document that crowned the crushing defeat of Rus' in 941. The respectful tone towards Igor is nowhere violated; full equality of rights between the Rus and the Greeks is declared; all the interests of the Kyiv prince were recognized as legitimate - both trade, in the Constantinople market, and geopolitical, in the Northern Black Sea region; The Russians were proclaimed political and military allies of the emperor. Unlike the treaty of 911, which contains an indication of the military conflict immediately preceding its conclusion (“at the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks”), the peace agreement of 944 vaguely mentions only certain machinations of the “enemious devil,” which wording removes the personal responsibility of the parties for what they did, placing it on the enemy of the human race; Thus, the Russian-Byzantine “dislikers” appear as an annoying misunderstanding that took place somewhere in the past, which is quite consistent with the situation of the conclusion of the treaty in 944, three years after the raid of 941, since in 944 before the open conflict and there was no new triumph for the devil.
The strongest argument against the reliability of the entire chronicle article for 944, perhaps, can be considered Igor’s secondary intention to go against the Greeks “in Lodia” - the horror of the Rus attested by the chronicler before the “fire of fire”, it would seem, should completely exclude this very idea. But it seems that Igor had no intention of undertaking a new naval siege of Constantinople. The concentration of Russian troops in 944 at the mouth of the Danube, where they united with the Pechenegs, is surprisingly reminiscent of the actions of Prince Svyatoslav during his Bulgarian wars. It is possible that, having traveled from Crimea to the Danube on boats, Igor intended to further advance to Constantinople by land route through Thrace. Subsequently, Svyatoslav brought this failed strategic plan of his father to life.
Conclusion of peace
One can only guess what caused the compliance of Roman I. His position on the throne was already precarious: his sons-co-rulers Stefan and Constantine were intriguing against him (on December 16 of the same 944, they removed Roman from power and sent him into exile).
The empire as a whole was also going through hard times, being pressed on all sides by its neighbors. African Arabs took almost all of Calabria from her, the German king Otto I was eager to go to Southern Italy, the Khazars strengthened themselves in the Crimea and on the Taman Peninsula, skirmishes with emirs took place on the Syrian border every year, and Arab pirates ruled the Aegean Sea.
It was, of course, unwise to increase the number of enemies. In the Northern Black Sea region, Roman I pursued a consistent anti-Khazar policy, building a complex system of military-political pressure on the Kaganate. The main role in this system was played by the allies of Byzantium - the Pechenegs and Alans, who were joined by Roman in 939. Since then I have left the game. But the Russian land of Prince Igor continued to remain an influential force in the region. It was in the interests of the empire to attract her to her side - by the way, as a counterbalance to the Black Bulgars and the same Pechenegs, who sometimes, as Constantine Porphyrogenitus writes, “not being friendly towards us, can oppose Kherson, raid and ruin it and Kherson itself, and the so-called Climates.”
So, a verbal agreement regarding the terms of the peace treaty was reached already on the Danube. At the same time, official negotiations opened. Ambassadors came to Constantinople “from Igor the Grand Duke of Russia” and “from the entire reign, and from all the people of the Russian land” in order to “renew the old world, and destroy the good-hating and hostile devil for many years, and establish love between the Greeks and Russia” . Accepted by “the kings themselves*, and with all the boyars,” they concluded an eternal peace, “until the sun shines and the whole world stands.” The agreement was sealed with a solemn oath. Emperors kissed the cross. The baptized Rus swore that if any of them thought of “destroying such love... let him receive vengeance from God Almighty and condemnation to destruction in this age and in the future”; the pagans threatened the guilty with more tangible troubles: “let them not have help from God, nor from Perun, let them not be protected by their shields, and let them be cut with their swords, and from arrows and from the naked weapons of theirs, and let there be slaves in this age and in future".
* On the Byzantine side, the treaty was signed by Emperor Roman I Lecapinus and his two co-rulers - Constantine and Stephen. Constantine here is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and not the son of Romanus, who bore the same name. Konstantin Lekapin was younger than Stephen and, according to etiquette, could not be mentioned in an official document before his older brother. Consequently, the main co-ruler of Romanos I at that time was Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who took the place of Constantine Lekapin, who at that time was removed from power, probably for disobedience to his father (Constantine Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire. P. 15). The date of the conclusion of the treaty in the Tale of Bygone Years - 945 - is incorrect, since already in December 944 Roman was overthrown from the throne.
Terms of the 944 treaty
The articles of the treaty covered three large sections of Russian-Byzantine relations:
I. Trade relations were preserved in full: “let the Russian Grand Duke and his nobles send ambassadors and guests to the Greeks to the great Greek kings.” But the Greeks were concerned that random people who would commit robbery “in the villages and in our country” would not come along with the merchants from the Russian land. Therefore, the access regime for Russian merchants was changed. If before the identities of Russian ambassadors and guests were certified by seals - gold and silver, now the Greeks demanded that they present a credential issued by the Grand Duke, indicating the exact number of ships and people sent from the Russian land: only then, the document says, the authorities of Constantinople will We are sure that the Russians came in peace. Those who came without a letter were subject to detention until the Kiev prince confirmed their authority. Anyone who resisted arrest could be killed, and the prince had no right to recover from the Greeks for his death; if he still managed to escape and return to Rus', then the Greeks had to write about this to the prince, and he was free to do as he wanted.
Merchants from the Kyiv land continued to enjoy all the benefits provided for the trading “Rus” under the treaty of 911: they were allocated a guest yard near the Church of St. Mamant, where they could live until the onset of cold weather, fully supported by the imperial treasury. Freedom of trade for them (“and let them buy whatever they need”) was constrained only by the restriction on the export of expensive fabrics: Russian merchants did not have the right to buy pavoloks worth more than 50 spools (Liutprand, bishop, also writes about the prohibition for foreigners to export expensive fabrics from Constantinople Cremonsky, from whom customs officers took away five purple cloaks upon leaving Constantinople). This ban was caused by the fact that the Byzantine authorities strictly ensured that the pomp and luxury befitting the godlike basileus of the Romans and the imperial court did not become the property not only of the surrounding barbarians, but also of their own population, who were forbidden to buy silk for more than a certain amount (30 spools). “Royal” fabrics and robes were objects of passionate desire for the leaders of the “savage” peoples surrounding Byzantium. The throne of the ruler of Volga Bulgaria, with whom Ibn Fadlan saw in 921, was covered with Byzantine brocade. The Pechenegs, as Konstantin Porphyrogenitus writes, were ready to sell themselves wholeheartedly for silk fabrics, ribbons, scarves, belts, and “scarlet Parthian skins.” Peace treaties that ended the unsuccessful wars with the barbarians for the empire usually contained the obligation of the Byzantine authorities to give part of the tribute in silk, brocade, dyed leather, etc. This was achieved in 812 by the Bulgarian Khan Krum and in 911 by the “Russian Holy Prince” Oleg . In 944, Igor’s squad expressed the intention to “take pavoloki” - and, in all likelihood, they took it. Control over the export of fabrics from Constantinople was carried out by imperial officials, who stamped the fabric, which served as a pass at customs for Russian merchants.
II. Issues of criminal and property law- the murder of a “Christian Rusyn or a Christian Rusyn”, mutual beatings and thefts, the return of fugitive slaves - were decided “according to Russian and Greek law.” The dissimilarity of Byzantine and Russian legislation, due to ethno-confessional differences, forced the parties to a certain compromise. Thus, for a blow with a “sword, or spear, or other weapon,” a Rusyn paid a fine—“5 liters of silver, according to Russian law”; the thieves were punished “according to Greek law and according to the charter and according to Russian law,” apparently depending on who the criminal was: Greek or Rusyn. A Greek who offended someone in the Russian land should not have been tried in the court of the prince, but was subject to extradition to the Byzantine government for punishment*. Russian owners of escaped slaves were placed in better conditions than Greek ones. Even if the slave who hid from them in Byzantium was not there, they received his full price - two pavoloks; at the same time, for the return of a slave who had committed theft from a Greek master and was caught with stolen goods in Rus', the Russians were entitled to two spools as a reward.
* Comparison of this article of the treaty of 944 with similar articles of other international treaties of Byzantium (XI - XII centuries), close to it in time, in particular with Italian cities, shows that the prohibition of judging a guilty Greek by a pagan court concerned, apparently, only officials of the empire. For other “Greeks” no concessions were made in this regard (Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Rus'.(IX - early XIII century). St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 86).
III. In the field of international politics the parties declared the closest alliance. In the event of a war between Byzantium and a third state, the Grand Duke obliged to provide the emperor with military assistance “as much as he wants: and from then on other countries will see what kind of love the Greeks have with Russia.” Igor also promised not to fight the “country of Korsun” himself and to protect it from the raids (“dirty tricks”) of the Black Bulgars - the empire sought to prevent a repetition. At the same time, this article of the agreement legitimized the presence of Kyiv vigilantes in Crimea. Igor’s military services were paid for by the Byzantine government: “Yes, he will have plenty of ladies.” As is clear from the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire,” the Rus also asked for their service to be supplied with “liquid fire thrown through siphons.” However, they were refused on the pretext that these weapons were sent to the Romans by God himself through an angel, along with the strictest order that they “be made only by Christians and only in the city in which they reign, and in no way in any other place.” , and also that no other people should receive it or be taught how to prepare it.”
The Byzantine authorities showed intransigence on several other issues. In particular, the Rus did not have the right to winter at the mouth of the Dnieper and on the island of Saint Epherius (most often identified with the island of Berezan opposite, the Dnieper delta), and with the onset of autumn they had to go “to their homes, to Rus'” (Archaeological excavations on the island. Berezan revealed the temporary - probably seasonal - nature of the local settlements, which certifies the Rus' fulfillment of the terms of the treaty; see: Gorbunova K.S. On the nature of the settlement on Berezan Island // Problems of Archeology. L., 1979. Issue. II. pp. 170-174). Meanwhile, Kherson fishermen could freely fish in the Dnieper estuary (according to Konstantin Bagryanorodny, somewhere nearby there were also “swamps and bays in which the Khersonites extract salt”). On the other hand, the Rus were no longer obliged, as before, to help the shipwrecked Greek sailors: the Rus were only required not to offend them. Captured Greek Christians who ended up in Rus' were subject to ransom: for a young man or widow they gave 10 spools; for a middle-aged person - 8; for an old man or a baby - 5. A captive Rus at the Constantinople slave market was ransomed for 10 spools, but if his owner swore on the cross that he paid more for him, then they paid as much as he said.
The treaty of 944 was often compared with the treaty of 911, trying to figure out which of them was more consistent with the interests of the Russian land. As a rule, nothing good came of this: in similar articles of both treaties, some details look “better”, others “worse” for the Russians; a number of articles in Igor’s treaty contain innovations that were previously unknown. We will not engage in a comparative analysis of these documents, because we know that they are generally incomparable. The Russian land of Prince Igor was not the legal successor to the Rus of the prophetic Oleg, treaties of 911 and 944. concluded by representatives whose interests did not coincide. But if we talk about Igor, then his benefits were fully respected: he achieved everything he wanted.
In the early autumn of 944, Russian ambassadors and guests returned to Kyiv along with Byzantine diplomats sent by Roman I to monitor the ratification of the treaty. When Igor asked what the emperor ordered them to convey, they, according to the chronicle, answered: “The Tsar sent us, he rejoices in the world and wants to have peace and love with you, the Grand Duke of Russia. Your ambassadors led our kings to the cross, and we were sent to swear you and your husbands.” The ceremony was scheduled for tomorrow. In the morning, Igor, accompanied by Roman’s ambassadors, went to the hill where Perun’s idol stood. Placing shields, naked swords and “gold” around the idol (apparently, these were golden neck hoops - “hryvnia”, mentioned in ancient Russian and foreign sources, in particular by Ibn Ruste: “their [Rus] men wear gold bracelets”) , the unbaptized Rus swore to sacredly abide by the terms of the treaty. Christian Russians kissed the cross on the same one in the Kyiv Cathedral Church of St. Elijah. Then Igor released the ambassadors, giving them furs, slaves and wax.
At this point, the Rus' of the “bright princes” officially ceased to exist. Its place in the East Slavic world and in the system of international relations was taken by a new power - the Russian Land, the Rus' of Prince Igor and his descendants - the Igorevichs.
The second source of law was the Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911, 944 and 971. These are international legal acts that reflect the norms of Byzantine and Old Russian law. They regulated trade relations and determined the rights enjoyed by Russian merchants in Byzantium. The norms of criminal and civil law, certain rights and privileges of feudal lords are recorded here. Treaties also contain rules of oral customary law.
As a result of the campaigns of the Russian princes against Constantinople, Russian-Byzantine treaties were concluded that regulated trade and political relations between the states.
Three treaties with Byzantium 911, 945, 971. were intended to ensure the regulation of trade relations between the two countries. The texts contain rules of Byzantine and Russian law related to international, commercial, procedural and criminal law. They contain references to the “Russian Law,” which was a set of oral norms of customary law. Being international, these treaties in some cases fix interstate norms, but ancient Russian law is clearly reflected in them.
·The agreement of September 2, 911 was concluded after the successful campaign of Prince Oleg’s squad against Byzantium in 907. He restored friendly relations between states, determined the procedure for ransoming prisoners, punishments for criminal offenses committed by Greek and Russian merchants in Byzantium, the rules of litigation and inheritance, created favorable trading conditions for Russians and Greeks, changed coastal law (instead of capture, thrown ashore the owners of the ship and its property were obliged to assist in their rescue).
· The treaty of 945 was concluded after the unsuccessful campaign of Prince Igor’s troops against Byzantium in 941 and a repeated campaign in 944. Confirming the norms of 911 in a slightly modified form, the treaty of 945 obliged Russian ambassadors and merchants to have princely charters in order to use the established benefits, introduced a number of restrictions for Russian merchants. Rus' pledged not to lay claim to the Crimean possessions of Byzantium, not to leave outposts at the mouth of the Dnieper, and to help each other with military forces.
·The July 971 agreement was concluded by Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich with Emperor John Tzimiskes after the defeat of Russian troops in the Bulgarian Dorostol. Compiled in unfavorable conditions for Rus', it contained obligations of Rus' to refrain from attacks on Byzantium. From treaties with Byzantium in the 10th century. it is clear that merchants played a prominent role in the international relations of Rus', when they not only made purchases abroad, but also acted as diplomats who had extensive connections with foreign courts and social elites.
The agreements also mentioned the death penalty, penalties, regulated the right to hire for service, measures to capture fugitive slaves, and registration of certain goods. At the same time, the agreements provided for the implementation of the right of blood feud and other norms of customary law
Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium are an extremely valuable source on the history of the state and law of Ancient Rus', ancient Russian and international law, and Russian-Byzantine relations.
Rich Byzantine culture, which in the X-XI centuries. experienced a renaissance (rebirth) and had a noticeable impact on our state. But it cannot be said that the influence of Byzantine law on Old Russian law was significant. This follows from “Russian Truth”, as a collection of norms of ancient Russian, in particular customary, law. Slavic conservative customs did not accept foreign norms.
The legal system of Kievan Rus at the time of the intensification of its relations with Byzantium was almost formed on the basis of the traditions of its own customary law. A striking feature of the legal system of the Old Russian state were, in particular, sanctions in criminal law (absence of the death penalty, widespread use of monetary penalties, etc.). But Byzantine law was characterized by strict sanctions, including the death penalty and corporal punishment.
It regulated the diplomatic relations of Rus' with Byzantium, their trade relations, and also contained a reference to the “Russian Law”.
The agreement consisted of 15 articles. IN 911 treaty included the norms of two main areas of law - public(regulation of relations between states: military support, the procedure for the ransom of prisoners, the procedure for the return of slaves, the norms of international maritime law are determined - the abolition of coastal law - the right to property and people from a wrecked ship) and international private rights that regulated relations between private individuals of the two states (the procedure for inheriting property, the procedure for trading by Russian merchants in Byzantium, types of punishment for crimes committed by Russians on the territory of Byzantium (court under Russian Law), as well as the responsibility of Greeks for crimes in Rus').
In the 911 treaty, the parties have equal relations, unlike subsequent treaties:
1. Delegations from Rus' - evidence of the system of government of the Russian state.
2. Rus'’s desire for long-term friendship with Byzantium.
3. The procedure for proving a crime (oath).
4. For the murder of a wealthy person, death was replaced by confiscation, for the poor - execution (social division).
5. For a blow with a sword, a fine of 5 liters of silver was established (1 liter = 327.5 grams), but if the person who committed this turns out to be poor, he must give as much as he can and swear that no one can help him, then the trial will be over.
6. You can kill the thief at the time of the crime, but if he surrenders, he must return the stolen property in the 3rd amount.
7. The punishment for forcible appropriation of someone else's property is triple the amount.
8. Help from Russians to Greeks during accidents at sea, and vice versa. Coastal law does not apply.
9. The possibility of returning from captivity.
10. The interest of Byzantium in Russian soldiers is shown.
11. Payment for captured Greeks - 20 gold.
12. The obligation of officials to search for runaway servants, their return is guaranteed (benefit for the upper strata).
13. The existence of inheritance not only by custom, but also by will. If there are no heirs in Byzantium, the inheritance of a Russian subject must be returned to his homeland, thereby prohibiting local authorities from appropriating this property for their own benefit, which existed in Western European law until the 15th century.
13-a. Just the headline: “about Russians carrying out trading operations.”
14. Extradition of criminals who fled from Rus'.
15. Obligations arising from the contract.
Analyzing the criminal law provisions of the contract in general, it should be noted, first of all, that there is no single term to designate a crime. Thus, in various articles such words are mentioned to denote the criminal as “leprosy”, “sin”, “crime”. Obviously, this is due to a not very successful attempt by the drafters of treaties to adjust the designations of criminality given in two different laws - Greek and Russian. Among the types of punishments, in addition to monetary penalties and the death penalty, there is a mention of blood feud.
Treaty of 941. In 941, an unsuccessful campaign for the Russians against Byzantium took place. IN 944 Another campaign took place, although the Russians did not realize their goals, the Greeks hastened to conclude an agreement, it was in favor of the Greek side (unilaterally providing military support in the event of a shipwreck only to the Greeks, infringing on the rights of Russian merchants in Byzantium).
Consisted of 16 articles:
1. Proclamation of the inviolability of peaceful relations; punishment for breaking the peace; The Russian delegation was announced.
2. The Russians have the right to send ships with merchants and ambassadors, but strict control is introduced over those arriving. According to the agreement, a special letter from the Grand Duke was required (previously, only seals could be presented); in the absence of a letter, the Russians could be detained (if they resisted, they could be killed).
2-a. Confirmation of the right to monthly maintenance; measures restricting the rights of Russians: a ban on carrying weapons in the capital, no more than 50 people, accompanied by an official; period of stay in Byzantium - 6 months; limiting the volume of trading operations.
3. Repetition of Article 12 of the 911 treaty on the responsibility of Byzantium for the loss of a Russian servant, but here there is no longer the responsibility of the official and the compulsory procedure for searching for the servant, which was before.
4. Reward for the return of the runaway servant of the Greeks, and the owner’s goods stolen by him - 2 spools
5. On attempted robbery, the punishment is double the value of the loot.
6. Unlike article 6 of the 911 treaty, this article establishes that in the event of theft, the victim receives not its triple value, but the thing itself and its market value (if found) or double the price (if sold). Mention of "Russian Law"
7. Compared to articles 9 and 11 of the 911 treaty, this article reduces the price of a prisoner by at least 2 times (from 20 to 10 and below spools). For the Greeks a proportional scale is established, and for the Russians there is a single price, and the highest of the redemption prices. Another benefit for the Greeks: the redemption price of a Russian could be higher than in Article 7.
8. Refusal of Russian claims to Chersonesos; Byzantium's help brought about the submission of the Chersonesos.
9. The article is directed against crimes against shipwrecked Greeks.
10. A ban on Russian armed detachments to spend the winter at the mouth of the Dnieper (the pretext is to protect the interests of the Chersonesos).
11. An attempt by Byzantium to use Russian military detachments to protect its Crimean possessions.
12. Ban on executing Greeks without a Byzantine court (cancellation of Article 3 of the 911 treaty, which allowed lynching).
13. The procedure for punishing a criminal: it is prohibited to deal with the killer at the scene of the crime, you can only detain. This is Byzantium’s desire to eliminate possible cases of the use of weapons by the Russians.
14. The article is similar to article 5 of the treaty of 911: for a blow with a sword or spear - a fine of 5 liters of silver (1 liter = 327.5 grams), but if the one who committed this turns out to be poor, he must give as much as he can and swear that no one can help him, then the trial will be over.
15. The duty of the Russians to send regiments to fight the enemies of Byzantium.
16. Oath of non-violation of the terms of the contract.
Treaty of 971.Treaty 971 year included 4 articles, was concluded by Svyatoslav. This agreement was already absolutely in favor of the Greek side (since the Russians were defeated in this campaign).
The introduction talks about the events that preceded the agreement:
1. The inviolability of peace between Russia and Byzantium.
2. There was no such article in previous treaties. The obligation of the Russian prince to refrain from organizing military campaigns against Byzantium and the lands subject to it. The article was dictated by the fear of the Greeks, who were afraid of the Russians.
3. The article is close to Article 15 of the 944 treaty and contained the allied obligations of Prince Svyatoslav.
4. The article contains sanctions in case of violation of the terms of the agreement.
Other written treaties of Rus'. A number of treaties concluded by the principalities (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk) with Denmark, Sweden and the German peoples, members of the Hanseatic League, date back to the 10th century. In these treaties, Russian law seems to be more developed than in the Greek-Russian treaties. The treaty of Novgorod with the Germans (1195) contains norms establishing punishments for the arrest of an ambassador, a merchant “without guilt”, for insult and illegal detention, for violence against a slave (in the Republic of Poland a slave is not an “object of a crime”).
The treaty of Novgorod with the Germans (1270) contains the procedure for resolving disputes between the Novgorodians and the Germans in the civil and criminal spheres. In the agreement of Smolensk with Riga, Gotland and German cities (1220) there are rules on judicial combat (“field”), rules for the transportation of goods, many criminal law rules (on murder, mutilation, adultery) and civil law provisions (loan, debt collection, court decisions).
III. Princely legislation. Charters (cross-kissing and granting) and church statutes (secular legislation). Princely legislation as a source of law appears in the 10th century. Of particular importance are Charters of Vladimir, Yaroslav and Vsevolod, which made changes to the current financial, family and criminal law. The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russian Truth .
The statutes regulated:
Relations between church and state;
Status of church people ( clergy (clergy, monks), persons who feed at the expense of the church, persons living on its land);
Church jurisdiction ( the sphere of marriage and family relations, crimes against the church and faith);
Types of crimes against the church (heresy, paganism, magic, sacrilege, praying by the water, damage to graves); family and morality (incest, insulting a married woman with words, adultery, fornication), types of punishments for committing church crimes.
For serious cases, joint - secular and spiritual - princely-ecclesiastical courts were created (crimes committed by a group of persons, including both secular and ecclesiastical; arson, causing bodily harm). The system of church punishments was borrowed from Byzantium.
In the Russian-Byzantine agreements of the past, which stood among other Byzantine-foreign peace treaties of the second half of the 1st millennium, one of the fundamental conditions was either the restoration or re-establishment of peaceful relations between the two states. The idea of “peace and love” runs like a red thread through the treaties of 907 and 911, and it does not look declarative or abstract, but is directly related to the conclusion of such clauses of the agreements that were vitally important for both parties and in compliance with which these relations “peace and love” really had to be realized.
A similar picture is observed in 944. The Treaty of Igor with the Greeks is a typical interstate agreement of “peace and love”, which restored the previous peaceful relations between countries, returned both sides to the “old peace” of 907, and re-regulated these relations in in accordance with the interests of both sides, new historical conditions.
The idea of “peace” is present in the chronicle entry preceding the treaty. The author of “The Tale of Bygone Years” believed that the Byzantine emperors sent ambassadors to Kyiv “to build the first world” and Igor negotiated with them “about peace.”
The Treaty of 944 combined both the main articles of the “peace” of 907, establishing the general principles of political and economic relations between the two countries, and many specific articles of the “peace series” of 911, regulating and improving the details of these relations.
The charter of 944 confirmed the procedure for ambassadorial and trade contacts established in the treaty of 907. The text from the agreement of 907 on the procedure for the arrival of Russian ambassadors and merchants in Byzantium was included in the treaty of 944 almost unchanged. The treaty of 944 confirmed the obligation of the Byzantine dignitary - the “tsar’s husband” assigned to the embassy, to rewrite the composition of the embassy and, in accordance with this list, to identify the slab for ambassadors and the month for merchants from Kyiv, Chernigov and other cities; bring the Russians into the city through one gate; guard them; to sort out the misunderstandings that arose between the Russians and the Greeks (“and even if someone from Rus' or from a Greek does something crooked, let him straighten it out”); control the nature and scale of trade operations and certify with their seal on the goods the legality of the transaction. But if the agreement of 907 spoke only in passing about the functions of the “tsar’s husband”: he rewrites the composition of the embassy and accompanies him at the entrance to the city, now these functions have been expanded and more clearly defined. It is believed that the agreement of 944 reflected the complication of trade contacts between Rus' and Byzantium and the desire to streamline them.
At the same time, some serious adjustments were made to the articles regulating political and trade relations between the two countries, compared to 907.
Articles of a military nature take on a new aspect in the treaty of 944.
If in 911 there was only one article that spoke of military assistance from Rus' to Byzantium and permission for the Russians to remain in military service in the imperial army as mercenaries, then in the treaty of 944 a whole program of military alliance and mutual assistance was deployed. D. Miller quite rightly noted that Rus' in the treaty of 944 acts as a full ally of Byzantium. In the second half of the 1st millennium, the Byzantine Empire repeatedly concluded treaties of alliance and mutual assistance with other states. The conditions of such alliances were very different and corresponded to the interests of the parties in a given historical period. Several such treaties of alliance and mutual assistance were concluded by the empire in the 6th century.
Analysis of the treaty of 944 and its comparison with early Russian-Byzantine agreements show that its content was fully consistent with the new level of negotiations on its conclusion, the composition of the embassy, and the nature of the diplomatic representation of Rus': it was a completely new comprehensive political agreement. Of course, it confirmed and renewed the relations of “peace and friendship” established between Byzantium and Russia in 907-911, and preserved all those norms of political, trade, international legal relations between countries that turned out to be vital 30 years after the negotiations at the beginning of the 10th century But at the same time, what we have before us is not an addition and development of the agreement of 911, but a completely independent political interstate treaty on peace, friendship and military alliance, which reflected the level of political and economic relations between Byzantium and Russia in the middle of the 10th century. It combined many aspects of the empire’s agreements with other states and included articles of a political, commercial, military, and legal nature; combined the “peace” of 907 with the “peace-next” of 911. Essentially, the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944 not only became a new important step forward in relations between the two countries, but also reflected a major shift in the development of ancient Russian statehood and according to ancient Russian diplomacy.
The history of relations between Byzantium and other neighboring states in the second half of the 1st millennium AD. e. does not know (with the exception of the Greco-Persian treaty of 562) such a large-scale and comprehensive agreement as the treaty of 944, and it is no coincidence that it was a solid basis for relations between the two states for many years.
It is mutually beneficial, just as some of its articles are filled with the spirit of compromise. There is no doubt that Rus' confirmed its political and trade status in Byzantium and, although it lost the important right of duty-free trade, it acquired the position of an ally of the empire, and achieved official recognition by the empire of its influence on the northern shores of the Black Sea, and in particular at the mouth of the Dnieper. In turn, Byzantium, having made important concessions regarding the establishment of Rus' in this area, enlisted its support in protecting its possessions in the Crimea and received a strong ally in the fight against external enemies, and primarily the Arabs.
The principles for drawing up the charters of 911 and 944 are largely similar. In 911, Rus' also takes the floor at the beginning of the charter, where the embassy is introduced, its purpose is stated, an oath of allegiance to the treaty is sworn, and then a statement of the articles follows. In conclusion, as in 944, information is given about the method of drawing up the letter, the method of its approval by both the embassy and the Byzantine emperor, and then there is an oath of the Russian embassy to observe the “established heads of peace and love” and the approval of the letter by the emperor is reported. This scheme was repeated only in a more detailed form, as can be seen, in the treaty of 944.
It should be noted that, in accordance with accepted international practice, Igor arranged for the Byzantine embassy exactly the same official “vacation” with the presentation of gifts that was organized, according to the chronicle text, for the Russian embassy in Constantinople in 911. The ambassadors were presented with traditional Russian goods - furs, wax, servants. But the story of the conclusion of the treaty did not end there: upon returning to their homeland, the Byzantine embassy was received by the emperor and reported to him about the visit to Kiev, about Igor’s “speeches” and, apparently, about the procedure for taking the oath of the Russian Grand Duke and his people.
The original text included in the chronicle was apparently delivered by the Byzantine embassy to the empire, and a copy remained in the Kiev grand ducal archive. In the same way, the original Greek text was to remain in Kyiv, and a copy of the text coming from the Greek side was to be kept in the imperial chancellery.
Thus, for the first time in its history, Rus' concluded a detailed interstate political equal treaty on peace, friendship and military alliance, which is supported by specific articles in other areas of relations between the two countries and the development of which from the moment of initial negotiations to their final stage - approval of the treaty and exchange of agreements letters - took place at the highest level of relations between the Byzantine Empire and a foreign state for that time.