him into a close touch with the Byzantines. The second of these expeditions (944) resulted in a trade treaty, in which we find the earliest definite reference to Christianity in Russia. In this genuinely official document-no mere paraphrase of the chronicler—the Rus are spoken of as forming two groups, the unbaptized and the baptized, and this distinction is affirmed several times in the document. One of these passages reads: "If any Russians who have received baptism try to disturb the friendship, let them be punished by Almighty God." The Christian Varangians confirmed the treaty apart from their pagan brethren, by an oath administered in the Church of St. Elias (Il'a), and the chronicler adds: "Many of the Varangians were Christians." This is a most significant detail, for it must be borne in mind that officially the government of Igor was pagan, and this amazingly considerate treatment of the Rus Christians shows that they not only formed a large community, but possessed a preponderating influence at the court, as well as moral ascendancy over it.

But if that be a fact, then it would appear probable that even the grand-prince Igor was on their side; for were he a determined pagan, it would have been unusual, to say the least, to allow the Christians such moral ascendancy. Golubinskii, therefore, regards it more than probable that Igor, especially during the latter part of his reign, was at least inwardly a Christian. But why then had he never become a professing Christian? Reasons determining that would not be difficult to find. After all, the Scandinavian dynasty was of but recent origin, and Igor did not feel himself established on his throne firmly enough to contemplate such an important step as the change of faith, which would imply a policy of conversion of the nation to Christianity, as was the case with Vladimir. It was a consideration of political expediency which prevented him from professing himself openly a Christian.

The Varangian Christian community must have wielded a considerable influence in Kiev. Their church is spoken of in the chronicles as the "sbornaia tserkov," which may mean two different things: if it is no more than a translation of the Greek καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, then it would imply nothing more than a parish church, in distinction from private house chapels. But if the word is to be taken in its later signification, then it would indicate a leading church (in fact, now often the cathedral church) among other smaller or subordinate churches; one in which the divine services are performed daily. In the latter case it would imply a really considerable Christian community. As for priests, they could readily be secured from the Varangian Christian community in Constantinople.

The preponderating influence of this Kievan Christian community is seen from the fact that it was able to secure a woman of such unusual mental gifts and commanding personality as was the wife of Igor, Princess Olga. This remarkable woman became a professing Christian a number of years after her husband's death, but that does not preclude a possibility of her having been a non-professing one—just like her husband-long before her baptism. The same reasons which operated in Igor's case would effectually operate in her own: as long as she was a reigning princess, considerations of political expediency would deter her from taking the decisive step of changing her religious profession. After her husband's death, she assumed the regency during the minority of her infant son, Sviatoslav, who was three years old at his father's death. As such she again found it impossible to take the step, and it seems most probable that she accepted baptism after she finally divested herself of the official tenure of regency.

It has been generally held that Olga was baptized in Constantinople in 955, at the hands of the patriarch, while the emperor stood her sponsor. This, indeed, is the account of the Chronicle. But we learn from the pages of Constantine

Porphyrogenitus that Olga visited Constantinople in 957. Sometimes these two reports have been combined, and on the strength of this combination historians have asserted that Olga went to Constantinople in 957 for the purpose of being baptized. But there are serious difficulties in the way of this interpretation. Constantine Porphyrogenitus (905959), who is referred to in the Chronicle as having stood sponsor for Olga (as he really was the reigning emperor at the time of Olga's visit), is the same person who describes, with sickening minute details, her reception at the Byzantine court; but he does not suggest by a single word or allusion that any baptism of Olga, especially such in which the patriarch and he himself would be concerned, took place on that occasion. If Olga had been baptized in Constantinople at that time, it would seem absolutely impossible for Constantine to omit a mention of it. But on the contrary, he intimates that she came as a baptized Christian, for her priest, Gregory, is named among her retinue."

If, then, she came as a baptized Christian, where and when had she been baptized? Since she was not baptized at Constantinople, obviously, she must have been baptized in Kiev. As for the year of her baptism, as already suggested, she may have delayed as long as she was officially connected with the government. Indeed, we have actual documentary evidence regarding the date: monk Jacob, whose Eulogy is possibly the most reliable historical account of those early events, tells us that Olga had been a professing Christian for fifteen years prior to her death. She died in 969; therefore, her baptism took place in 954, when Sviatoslav was twelve years old. She probably felt that she could then lay down her official regency, although of course she remained more or less

* A reprint of pertinent passages from Constantine's De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae, lib. II, cap. 15, is found in Golubinskïí, op. cit., Vol. I, Part I, pp. 99–100. "Ibid., p. 101.

'See "Jacob's Eulogy," in Golubinskïï, op. cit., Vol. I, Part I, p. 242.

influential in directing her young son's policy. Therefore, at the time of her visit to Constantinople she had been baptized for three years.

During Olga's regency, there of course is no reason to presume that the number of Christians in Kiev decreased; on the contrary, her favor of Christianity would tend in all probability to increase their forces. And even after Olga divested herself of the official functions as regent, she would exercise a considerable power on account of the youth of her son. The chronicler says that Sviatoslav did not assume full and independent rule until in 964, when he was twenty-two years old; up to that time at least, Christianity was safe under the protection of Olga.

Sviatoslav was a soul naturally pagan. He was a warrior, thirsting to emulate the deeds of glory and of prowess such as made his Viking relatives famous in Western history. As such, he assumed Nietsche's attitude toward Christianityregarding it as a religion of and for the weak and the downtrodden, the religion of slaves, but not fit for such supermen as he. He did not, however, persecute Christianity, tolerating it in a half-indulgent, half-contemptuous manner of one who has no apprehensions on its account. The chronicler represents him as saying: "If anyone wishes to be baptized, I do not restrain him, but I laugh at it." Sviatoslav's life, in keeping with his ideals, was one of constant warfare; in one of these periodic expeditions he lost his life (972). But during his reign nothing occurred which would exterminate the Russian Christianity.

Sviatoslav was succeeded by his eldest son, Taropolk (972-78); but we have no information of a reliable kind regarding his rule, especially as far as his relation to Christianity was concerned. He was brought up by his grandmother, Olga; and we may affirm that there was at least no overt persecution of Christianity during the six years of his reign.

He was killed by his younger brother, Vladimir, who thus gained the Kievan throne.

It is evident from the foregoing that Christianity was a factor potent in the public life of Russia before the time of Vladimir as far back as the days of Igor, and that from that time on it survived as the private religion of many influential members of the ruling class, the Varangians, although it might not have as yet penetrated to the Slavic subject classes.

And now we come to the real heart of the subject, the conversion of Vladimir, and adoption of Christianity as the religion of the Russian state. We can never hope to disentangle the mutually and hopelessly contradictory sources so as to establish beyond the least shadow of doubt every detail of the story; but this, at least, is indubitably gained, that the least reliable source, that of the Chronicle, which is now generally conceded to be a legend and a myth, shall no longer serve as the exclusive source of information regarding the event. Harmonizing as far as possible all the available sources of information, we gain quite a different story from the one to be found in the Chronicle. All those who desire a full treatment of the grounds upon which the traditional account of the Chronicle is rejected will find a treatment of it in English in Professor Klíuchevskii's standard History, and a much fuller treatment in Russian in the often named work of Golubinskii.

9

Fortunately, we are not restricted to this dubious source; there are sources older and more historical than the Chronicle. Metropolitan Hilarion, a contemporary of Taroslav, wrote concerning the conversion of Russia between the years

8

* Op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 12-13. Also cf. Cambridge Med. History, Vol. IV, chap. viiA in loco.

* The account of Vladimir's conversion as given in the Chronicle is printed in Golubinski, Vol. I, Part I, p. 225-38. Also see Louis Leger, Chronique dite de Nestor (Paris, 1884).