representative of this people, who sought in Christianity, in the words of Nestor, only “the good wisdom of God,” incompatible with any earthly calculations? And in the brief news of the Western chronicler about Adalbert’s embassy, features are visible from which we can conclude that, in addition to religious ones, there were also political goals of the mission. This idea is already led by the generality and uncertainty of the expression: "not being able to succeed in anything, for what... was sent before* - an expression that seems to indicate several tasks entrusted to the missionary. But this assumption is further confirmed by the further attitude of the emperor towards the failed missionary. Otto turns out to be very supportive of Adalbert, as if in gratitude for the unsuccessful, but conscientious fulfillment of the mission entrusted to him, Adalbert is received by the emperor with love (sagiaiiie), accepted into the imperial chapel - a favor that was awarded only to selected members of the clergy - and subsequently, as we said, he is appointed to one of the most important departments in Germany. Another remark The story of the successor Reginon does not at all give the idea of the dishonest expulsion of Western missionaries from Rus' and about them. persecution here as preachers. The mission failed, the missionaries had to return, but they were not persecuted in Rus'. Already on the way back (ip geDeppeo) they suffered a misfortune, as a result of which some of Adalbert’s companions were killed and he himself barely escaped. This circumstance might not depend on missionary preaching; missionaries could simply be attacked by robbers and, moreover, outside the domain of Grand Duchess Olga.
The first attempt to involve Rus' in the system of the Western Roman Empire was thus unsuccessful. While many Western chronicles of that time definitely note this event, in Russian chronicles we do not find the slightest hint of relations between St. Olga with the West. In subsequent history, one notices the same, only the opposite, discrepancy in the testimony of Western and our sources. As the time of general Christian enlightenment of Rus' approaches, our chronicles more and more often indicate relations between Russian princes and the West in the matter of faith; Westerners, on the contrary, do not mention any kind of relations in a single word. According to our chronicles, the Pope's ambassadors
A. D. VORONOV,
come to Yaronolk around 979; “Germans from Rome” come to Vladimir and offer him their faith around 986. Then, immediately after baptism, when Vladimir was still in Korsun, “ambassadors from Rome came from the pope and brought the relics of the saints to Volodymyr.” Under the year 991, papal ambassadors to Vladimir are again mentioned; under 994 it is said about the ambassadors of Vladimir, “who went to Rome to the pope”; Finally, under the year 1002 it is said: “Vladimir sent his guests afterwards to Rome, and others to Jerusalem and Egypt and Babylon to spy on their lands and their customs.” But in parallel to these testimonies, which apparently show the most lively relations of ancient Rus' with the papacy and the West, we do not find a single indication of such relations in Western sources. Scientific criticism denies the authenticity of even those few indications from Western sources of this time, where only mentions of Rus' are found’). How should we treat this evidence from our chronicles? The silence of Western chronicles, which usually carefully note the religious relations of the empire and papacy to neighboring peoples, represents a serious, but not decisive, objection to the reliability of the evidence of our chronicles. Let us recall, for example, that the Greek chronicles do not say a word about the baptism of Vladimir, that the chronicle of Nestor is silent about the first metropolitans of Kyiv. Western chronicles also sometimes omit very important facts, which, however, does not give the right to reject their reality. But nevertheless, the testimony of our chronicles about relations with the pope and Rome under Saint Vladimir is rightly denied by modern historical criticism *). The only thing is that most of the evidence we have cited belongs to our later chronicles, and that some of this evidence bears clear traces of tendentious exaggeration.
') So eg. Historical criticism denies the authenticity of the bull of Pope John XIII on the establishment of the Prague bishopric in 970, a bull in which the pope prohibits the use of the Russian or Slavic language during worship (Knhiae tei ziaiopisae Iischrme). See LaYaL, Nedesia RoShMsat p. 947.
*) Kostomarov. Ireading the ancient chronicle. Bulletin of Europe 1”73 March.
N Rus' OF Kyiv. 13