NOTES AND SUGGESTIONS

BYZANTINE STUDIES IN RUSSIA, PAST AND PRESENT 1

For a long time Russia lived and developed under the political, social, and commercial influence of the Byzantine Empire. Like the Byzantine emperor, the Russian sovereign of Kiev, and later of Moscow, was the head and protector of the Orthodox Church. After the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, Orthodox peoples began to consider the Russian sovereign as the unique protector and defender of the whole Orthodox world. As the Byzantine Empire was a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, and the new capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, was very often called the second Rome, so Moscow, the capital of the Russian state, was called by some Russian writers of the end of the fifteenth and of the beginning of the sixteenth centuries the third Rome. Under Peter the Great we may observe a reaction against the Byzantine influence and the Byzantine ideals, and a plainly expressed predilection for the West and the Western culture. It is only from the beginning of the nineteenth century that we can see the first efforts in the domain of Byzantine history. Among those Germans who having come to Russia remained there and devoted their whole lives to studies in Russia, two names may be mentioned, Philip Krug and Ernst Kunik; the latter died in 1899, almost octogenarian. Both scholars, pointing out the great importance of Byzantine studies for ancient Russian history, treated mostly the questions which, having a connection with the old Russian life, might more or less elucidate Russian history. But until the second half of the nineteenth century, we can not speak of serious and systematic studies in Russia on our subject.

A really solid foundation for the systematic study of Byzantine history in Russia was laid by V. G. Vasilievski, professor in the University of Petrograd and member of the Academy of Sciences (d. 1899). Superior to all historians of his time by his accurate and varied knowledge and his critical sagacity, he gave us a series of the most important works in different sections of Byzantology. Byzantium and the West, especially before the first crusade, Byzantium and ancient Russia, lives of saints as historical sources, accounts of the Oriental sources for Byzantine and old Russian history, were the favorite topics of this great Russian Byzantinist. He brought to light

1 Paper read at the meeting of the American Historical Association at Ann Arbor, December, 1925.

and tried to elucidate some of the social and economic problems of Byzantine history, and he was the first editor of the Russian Byzantine review (the Vizantiski Vremennik), published by the Academy of Sciences at Petrograd from 1894 on.

Simultaneously with Vasilievski Baron V. Rosen, professor of Arabic in the University of Petrograd and member of the Academy of Sciences, translated into Russian many Arabic texts concerning Byzantine and old Russian history and showed the importance of these texts in such studies. The works of Vasilievski and Rosen were very soon used by European writers, who fully acknowledged the results attained by these two Russian scholars.

At the same time V. I. Lamanski, professor in the University of Petrograd, very well known in Russia and in all Slavonic countries, was one of the first-class men in the field of Slavonic history and Slavonic international relations. As the history of the southern Slavonic peoples was closely connected with that of the Byzantine Empire, the greater part of Lamanski's works is very important for Byzantine history: for example, his book about the Slavs in Asia Minor, North Africa, and Spain, as well as his investigations on Cyril and Methodius, the famous missionaries to the Slavonic tribes in the ninth century, throw a bright light upon the Slavonic problem in Byzantium, which had a great part in the political, religious, and economic life of the Byzantine Empire.

Moreover, many of the Russian professors of classics, at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth centuries, gradually began to treat Byzantine subjects and study Byzantine texts-for instance, V. Ernstedt, P. Nikitin, and V. Latyshev.

Simultaneously with Vasilievski, Rosen, and Lamanski rose the gigantic figure of N. P. Kondakov, who, born in 1844, died at Prague an octogenarian, February 16, 1925. Everyone who takes a serious interest in Byzantine archaeology and art is well acquainted with the works, or, at least, with the name and chief ideas of this outstanding scholar. A great many of the questions and problems in the domain of the general history of art, archaeology, and culture were treated in the standard works of Kondakov-questions and problems of classical art, of Hellenistic and early Christian art, of the art of the nomadic peoples of the second to tenth centuries, especially in Southern Russia and Eastern Europe, of Byzantine art, of WestEuropean art of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and of Slavonic and Russian art.

What is the chief idea of Kondakov on the significance of Byzantine art? That Byzantium was a concentration of all elements of the history of art in the sixth to twelfth centuries. Byzantium,

گر

having inherited the ancient culture, adapted at a later time, but still first among European countries, the art of many nomad peoples that passed through the great plains of Southern Russia or stayed there for a certain time. Adapting this peculiar art Byzantium transformed it, added to it new forms and motives, and transmitted it in such a new form to the peoples of Western Europe. These are the titles of his most important works: "The History of Byzantine Art and Iconography, based on the Miniatures of Greek Manuscripts "; "The Byzantine Enamels"; "The Monuments of the Christian Art of Mount Athos "; " The Iconography of Our Lord" and " The Iconography of the Holy Virgin"; "The Mosaics of the Mosque of Kahrie-Djami in Constantinople"; his "Archaeological Journeys through Syria and Macedonia"; "The Russian Treasures"; and the six volumes of Russian antiquities (with I. Tolstoi). In these two latter works has been collected a great mass of material on Byzantine art affecting the problem of the connections between ancient Russian. art and that of Byzantium.

The influence of Kondakov's works and his ideas spread far beyond the limits of Russia. He created in Russia a group of real scholars. Among the foreign scholars, Minns in England, Millet in France, Muñoz in Italy say that they belong to Kondakov's school.

Another octogenarian scholar, who is fortunately still alive, is Th. I. Uspenski. He has remained in Russia during the whole period of revolution, and is continuing his work at Petrograd. Uspenski concentrated his chief interest on various problems of the internal history of Byzantium, especially on problems of social and economic life. Quite a new page in his life began in 1894, when the Russian Archaeological Institute was created in Constantinople. Uspenski was appointed the director of this important institution, which existed till the Great War. After Turkey had entered into the war on the side of Germany, he left Constantinople for Russia.

During his directorship, Uspenski organized many archaeological expeditions to Asia Minor, Syria, Bulgaria, Trebizond, and Serbia. In most of these expeditions he took part personally. From the point of view of archaeology the results of his activity in Constantinople were very important, especially the excavations directed by him on the site of the ancient capital of the first Bulgarian state in the Balkan Peninsula. The sixteen volumes of the publications of the Russian Institute, containing a great deal of archaeological and historical material, are a very solid monument to the activity of the Russian and, in some cases, foreign scholars, who had worked under the direction of Uspenski. Since the war this important archaeological institution has no longer existed.

Many interesting papers and books were printed in the publications of the various spiritual academies of Russia (a kind of high divinity schools), for instance, those of Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev, and Kazan.

In 1917 the revolution broke out in Russia. Then came the years 1919-1921-years of famine, of cold, of darkness; communication from one place to another was almost completely interrupted. Printing, especially of scientific papers, became almost impossible. Of the small group of Russian Byzantinists, a certain number could not bear the privations and sufferings of such severe conditions of life and died. Then died the eminent archaeologist I. Smirnov, beloved pupil of Kondakov; Chr. Loparev, connoisseur of Byzantine lives of saints; P. Bezobrazov, fine investigator of complicated and difficult problems of the internal history of Byzantium; B. Pantchenko, author of an interesting book on the Byzantine peasantry and of the catalogue of the Byzantine seals in the Museum of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople; I. Kulakovski, author of the first general history of Byzantium (to A. D. 717) written in Russian; N. Skabalanovitch, high authority on the problems of the history of the Byzantine Church; Latyshev, excellent scholar in the field of Byzantine texts and Greek inscriptions; finally, Szepuro, quite a young man, who, studying Caucasian languages, Armenian, and Georgian, and knowing Greek and Latin well, promised to become later an eminent scholar.

The Russian Byzantine review (the Vizantiiski Vremennik) ceased to appear. The spiritual academies having been closed, their publications were also suppressed.

At the present time I can mention the following names of Russian scholars in Petrograd, who are interested in Byzantine studies and are known in scientific circles: D. Aïnalov, V. Beneshevitch, A. Dmitriievski, N. Likhatchev, N. Malizki, A. Smirnov, I. Sokolov, N. Sytchev, Th. Schmitt, Th. Uspenski, V. Valdenberg; in Moscow and other places, N. Protasov, Nekrasov, A. Rudakov, E. Tchernousov. Some of these scholars spent the hardest years not in Petrograd, but outside, mostly in various cities of Southern Russia, where conditions of living seemed to be better than in Petrograd. Aïnalov came to Petrograd from the Crimea, Dmitriievski from Astrakhan, Sokolov and Schmitt from Kiev.

While the Russian Byzantinists, exhausted by the severe conditions of daily living and separated one from another, were working as well as was possible, individually, there was created in 1918, in Petrograd, the Academy for the History of Material Culture. As a matter of fact, it was the former Archaeological Commission, very

well known in Russia and abroad, which was enlarged and transformed into the Academy under the new name just mentioned. The new Academy was divided into three departments: ethnography, archaeology, and art, its general object being to study all three in all times and among all countries and peoples. The department of archaeology was subdivided into sections, one of which took the name of the section of Early Christian and Byzantine Archaeology. I was elected chairman of the latter section.

My chief object was at first to concentrate in my section some of the scattered scientific forces by introducing into it, as well as I might, young men and young women who had already begun to work, but during the first years of the revolution had been dispersed and deprived of the possibility of working systematically. For one small group of participants I chose the topic of the historical and archaeological study of the medieval Crimea, long a province in the Byzantine Empire, and of the adjacent places. The monuments of the Middle Ages in the Crimea-Greek, Roman, Gothic, Byzantine, Italian (Genoese and Venetian)-have not yet been systematically studied. This small group consisted of Mr. A. Smirnov and of three young women: the Misses N. Izmailova, H. Skrzynskaya, and M. Tikhanova. I myself took up the study of the Gothic problem in the Crimea and of the flourishing medieval Venetian colony of Tana at the mouth of the Don. Smirnov began to collect material for the history and archaeology of the peninsula of Tmutarakan (Taman), east of the Crimea; Miss Izmailova studied the monuments of the city of Cherson (Korsun), where the Russian prince Vladimir was converted to Christianity; Miss Skrzynskaya the Italian, especially Genoese, monuments of Sudak and Theodosia, two small cities on the southern shore of the Crimea; and Miss Tikhanova the history and the archaeological tradition of the city of Kertch (Bosphorus), opposite to the peninsula of Tmutarakan. It was during all those years a great consolation and encouragement to me to come to our cold room and to see that these young persons, in spite of famine and cold, were working strenuously and willingly. Under such circumstances all available material has been collected, and in 1924, two of the members of my group could at last, for the first time from the beginning of their work, go to the Crimea and study on the spot the archaeological remains of the Crimean Middle Ages. In 1925 three members of my sections went to the Crimea. Miss Skrzynskaya has measured all the Genoese fortifications of Sudak and made new copies of all Italian inscriptions, which will be published in Genoa in the Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria. Misses Izmailova and