Simon Malmenvall Pilgrimage and Polemics: Early Reception of Latin Christendom in Kievan Rus’ between Byzantine Normativity and Practical Decisions 1 Romanje in polemika: zgodnja recepcija latinskega krščanstva v Kijevski Rusiji med bizantinsko normativnostjo in praktičnimi odločitvami Abstract: This article analyses the main traits of reception of Latin (Roman Catholic) Christendom in Kievan Rus’, drawing from the notion of its confessional »otherness« in re- lation to the Eastern Orthodox norm. The mentioned reception is studied according to the East Slavic narrative sources written at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, i.e., directly after the »Great Schism« (1054) between Constantinople and Rome. The author of this article accentuates the complexity of the Rus’ attitude towards Latin Christians on various levels: 1) upholding the official Orthodoxy, following the Byzantine doctrinal themes as adopted in Church Slavic polemical literature, while, simultaneously, 2) respecting practical considerations of dynastic ties between the East Slavic political elite and ruling fam- ilies of the neighbouring Latin world, 3) and venerating particular Latin saints. In this respect, special consideration is given to the travel diary on the Holy Land titled Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, the Hegumen of the Land of Rus’, serving as a prime example of encountering confessional differences. Daniel’s Pilgrimage is placed within the political and cultural con- text after the First Crusade during the Frankish rule over Palestine; it brings some valuable testimonies about the »Latin-Greek« relations in the Kingdom of Jerusalem as perceived by an educated ecclesiastical traveller, himself originating from an Eastern Orthodox environment. Daniel’s thematization of his confessional »other« in the Holy Land reveals a similar ambi- guity in the case of Rus’ itself: on a declarative level, the polemical writings of the Kievan metropolitans testify about a negative position on the »Latin heresies«; on the other hand, common veneration of particular saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney, and decisions of the East Slavic princes confirm the permanence of intercultural contacts and pragmatic willingness to cooperate with the neighbouring Catholic polities (Sweden, Poland, Hungary) in forming dynastic marriages and military alliances. 1 This article was written as a result of work within the research program »Religion, Ethics, Education, and Challenges of the Contemporary Society (P6-0269)« which was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. Edinost in dialog Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 Izvirni znanstveni članek Original scientific paper (1.01) Besedilo prejeto Received: 25. 4. 2023; Sprejeto Accepted: 4. 7. 2023 UDK UDC: 271-9(47)"653" DOI: 10.34291/Edinost/78/01/Malmenvall © 2023 Malmenvall CC BY 4.0 44 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL Keywords: Kievan Rus’, interconfessional relations, intercultural contacts, Kingdom of Jerusalem, hegumen Daniel, pilgrimages, hagiography Izvleček: Članek analizira glavne značilnosti recepcije latinskega (rimskokatoliškega) krščan- stva v Kijevski Rusiji, pri čemer se opira na predstavo o konfesionalni »drugosti« v razmerju do pravoslavne norme. Omenjena recepcija je proučena v skladu z vzhodnoslovanskimi pripovednimi viri, sestavljenimi ob koncu 11. in na začetku 12. stoletja, to je neposredno po »velikem razkolu« (1054) med Konstantinoplom in Rimom. Avtor članka poudarja večplastnost staroruskega 2 odnosa do latinskih kristjanov na različnih ravneh: 1. podpira- nje uradne pravovernosti, sledeč bizantinskim doktrinarnim temam, ki jih prevzema cer- kvenoslovanska polemična literatura; 2. istočasno upoštevanje praktičnih premislekov pri sklepanju dinastičnih vezi med vzhodnoslovansko politično elito in vladajočimi rodbinami sosednjega latinskega sveta; 3. čaščenje določenih latinskih svetnikov. V tem pogledu je poseb- ne pozornosti deležen potopis po sveti deželi Življenje in romanje Danijela, igumana z Ruske zemlje, ki služi kot reprezentativen primer srečevanja konfesionalnih razlik. Danijelovo Romanje se umešča v politični in kulturni kontekst po prvi križarski vojni med frankovsko vladavino nad Palestino; prinaša nekaj dragocenih pričevanj o »latinsko-grških« odnosih v Jeruzalemskem kraljestvu, kakor jih je razumel izobraženi cerkveni popotnik iz pravo- slavnega okolja. Danijelova tematizacija svojega konfesionalnega »drugega« v Sveti deželi razkriva podobno dvoumnost v stari Rusiji sami: na deklarativni ravni spisi kijevskih metro- politov pričujejo o negativnem stališču do »latinskih herezij«; po drugi strani skupno čaščenje določenih svetnikov, na primer Olafa Norveškega ali Magnusa Orkneyskega, in odločitve vzhodnoslovanskih knezov potrjujejo stalnost medkulturnih stikov in pragmatično voljo po sodelovanju s sosednjimi katoliškimi političnimi tvorbami (Švedsko, Poljsko, Ogrsko) pri sklepanju dinastičnih porok in vojaških zavezništev. Ključne besede: Kijevska Rusija, medkonfesionalni odnosi, medkulturni stiki, Jeruzalemsko kraljestvo, iguman Daniel, romanja, hagiografije Introduction This article aims to explain the main traits of reception of Latin (Roman Catholic) Christendom in Old Rus’ (of the Kievan period) drawing from the notion of its confessional »otherness« related to the Eastern Orthodox norm. The mentioned reception is studied according to the East Slavic narrative sources written at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, i.e., directly after the »Great Schism« (1054) between 2 Poimenovanje Stara Rusija predstavlja slovensko priredbo samostalnika ženskega spola Rus' (csl. Русь). Ime Kijevska Rusija sledi poimenovanju v ruski in zahodni historiografiji, s katerim se označuje najstarejša etapa državnosti v kontekstu srednjeveškega in zgodnjenovoveškega pojava Stare Rusije. Rus' zaobjema različne politične entitete v vzhodnoslovanskem prostoru, obenem pa tudi nekda- njo etnično skupino, ki jo je mogoče šteti za nekakšno predhodnico današnjih Rusov, Ukrajincev in Belorusov (Malmenvall 2016, 548). Ker je odločitev za tovrstno poimenovanje z jezikovnega in zgodovinskega vidika relativna, je vredno omeniti drugo možnost, ki se v zadnjem času pojavlja v slovenskem zgodovinopisju – gre za samostalnik Rutenija oziroma pridevnik rutenski (prav tako izpeljan iz Rus'), prevzet po latinski obliki poimenovanja za vzhodnoslovanski prostor. Prednost druge možnosti je v izogibanju morebitnemu nesporazumu o moderni Rusiji kot edini ali neposredni naslednici srednjeveške kijevske politične tvorbe. (Maver 2023, 17–21) 45 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... Constantinople and Rome. The author of this article accentuates the com- plexity of the Rus’ attitude towards Latin Christians on several, at a first glance contradictory, levels: upholding the official Eastern Orthodoxy, following the Byzantine doctrinal themes as adopted in Church Slavic polemical literature, while, simultaneously, respecting practical consid- erations of dynastic ties between the East Slavic political elite and ruling families of the neighboring Latin world. Here, a special case is recognized in venerating particular Latin saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney. In this context, a particular consideration is given to the travel diary on the Holy Land titled Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, Hegumen of the Land of Rus’ (Житье и хоженье Даниила, русьскыя земли игумена) from the first decade of the twelfth century serving as a basis and prime example of encountering confessional differences in a culturally diverse environment. 3 Daniel’s Pilgrimage belongs to the time of the early period of Frankish (Latin) rule over Palestine while simultaneously represent- ing the oldest known travel diary in East Slavic medieval literature. This source brings some valuable testimonies about the »Latin-Greek« relations in the Kingdom of Jerusalem as perceived by an educated ecclesiastical traveller, himself originating from an Eastern Orthodox environment. 3 In this article, the synonymous use of terms Latin or Catholic, on the one hand, and Greek, Byzantine, Orthodox on the other, follows the historical accuracy, which prefers the expressions »Latin« and »Greek«. In the context of the discussed time and space, the term of Orthodoxy does not denote sharpened doctrinal and other differences between the (future) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity – namely, in the long-term, the significant split between the western (Roman, »Latin«) and eastern (Byzantine, »Greek«) halves of the once unified Christian Church took place no sooner than in 1054; furthermore, as additionally elaborated in the following parts of this article, it did not show its consequences clearly until the beginning of the thirteenth century, i.e., after the Fourth Crusade and pillage of Constantinople. Even in theological terms, including the Filioque controversy, the disputes were not irreconcilable, as shown by general consensus of the Christian writers of the first millennium, i.e., the Church Fathers (Bogataj 2016). Nevertheless, the reasonableness of the use of the term Eastern Orthodoxy is justified by two reasons. Firstly, in the light of the Church Slavonic sources of the time, the Orthodoxy or Orthodox Christianity appears as a historical denomination with which members of the Rus’ elite denoted their own religious affiliation. In this sense, the he- gumen Daniel calls members of his own religious community »those of true faith« (Church Slavonic: прав овѣрьнии) or Orthodox (Church Slavonic: прав о славнии), and his confessional »Other« »Latins« (Church Slavonic: ла тинянѣ) or »Franks« (Church Slavonic: фрязи) (Prohorov 2007a, 116.126.128). Secondly, in the mentioned sources, Orthodoxy is linked to its original meaning in context, i.e. Orthodoxy (Greek: ορθοδοξία), the »correct opinion« or true belief of those who identified themselves with this denomination. The use of this terminology has historically been multilayered – including the terminology in Daniel’s Pilgrimage – which is confirmed by the overlapping of confessional and ethnic-linguistic characterizations (e.g. equating of Latins or Franks with Catholics and Greeks with the Orthodox). In case of this article, the least appropriate solution would be the one calling (future) Catholics as Western Christians and the Orthodox as Eastern Christians. Namely, the latter expression is too wide: Eastern Christians also include different »Monophysite« (pre-Chalcedon) communities (e.g. Armenian, Jacobite, Ethiopic Churches), which cannot be assigned among the (future) Orthodox Church and communities deriving from the Byzantine (Constantinople) theolo- gical tradition. On such terminological problems and their conditioned resolving, see: Meyendorff 1983, 97–99.212–213; Chadwick 2003, 233–237; Siecienski 2013, 3–15; Malmenvall 2019a, 234–235. 46 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL Daniel’s Pilgrimage is supplemented by the comparison with the political and cultural circumstances in Kievan Rus’, which conditioned the attitude of the East Slavic elite towards the Catholic Church. The theoretical framework, to which the author of this work agrees, stems from the belief about the situationally conditioned establishment of con- fessional, ethnic, and other identity categories in medieval narrative texts. It is a mechanism of forming ideas about oneself and the world, i.e. the domestic and foreign environment, which in the case of a medieval writer arises based on an »encounter« with the »other«. This can be paralleled with the fundamental principle of the Russian semiotic culturological school and its main representative Yuri Lotman (1922–1993), the successor of the original linguistic structuralist paradigm, which brings the concepts of re- lation and comparison to the centre of its theory (2002; 2006). According to this paradigm, the recognition and evaluation of any cultural element, from the philosophical systems and social identity categories to an indi- vidual artwork, is always performed in relation to »other«; every element of culture acquires its existence only in the »encounter« with it, because without it, it cannot perceive itself as something independent, something that differs from the »other«. This is confirmed by the conclusions of a German historian Hagen Schulze (1943–2014), who in the field of the study of ethnic categories in the Middle Ages believes that, on the one hand, these did not have a decisive significance in the formation of under- standing reality at the time, while on the other hand, they are noticeable in historical sources when certain individuals or groups were subject to »encountering« (either peaceful or hostile) with the »other«. Ethnic catego- ries thus make situationally aware or newly create the collective »independ- ence« based on linguistic, tribal, or territorial proximity of the members of a certain group. (2003, 13–100) A significant part of post-modern the- ology, which brings to the forefront concepts such as »(intercultural) dia- logue« and »encounter with the other«, reasons in a similar direction and understands God as the foundation of every genuine dialogue, as the »Other« with a capital letter. 4 4 For referential works on this subject, see: Buber 1984; Volf 1996; Isherwood and Harris 2013. A similar theoretical starting point can be noticed in several works of contemporary Slovenian theologians: Bogataj 2018, 960–961.967–968; Osredkar 2018; Malmenvall 2019b. 47 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... 1 Palestine and the pilgrimage literature of Rus’ As a noticeable social phenomenon, pilgrimages to Palestine developed in the fourth century, at a time when Christianity was on the rise in the Roman Empire. The greatest standstill in the visitations to sacred places linked to the life of Biblical personages and Christian saints can be ob- served from 1071, when Palestine was under the rule of Seljuk Turks who tightened the policy towards local Christians and prevented pilgrimages from the European lands. The elimination of this »Seljuk obstacle« was the main goal of the First Crusade (1096–1099). 5 Pilgrimages into the home- land of Jesus Christ reached their greatest span in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in the period of the Frankish (Latin) kingdoms in the Eastern Mediterranean lands. At that time, many churches were constructed or ren- ovated, and a network of inns welcoming pilgrims was established. Even though many members of the clergy and nobility from western Europe can be noticed in pilgrimage flows of the time, they nevertheless included rep- resentatives of the Christian East and all strata of European inhabitants – from monarchs and bishops to townspeople and, to a lesser extent, even peasants. (Senyk 1993, 313–314; Nazarenko 2001, 626–627.631; Maleto 2005, 4.53; Riley-Smith 2005, 26; Gardzaniti 2007, 271.275.322; Prohorov 2007a, 8; Malmenvall 2019a, 235–236) Thus, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the culture of pilgrimages contributed to the spiritual connectedness be- tween different confessional and social groups on the level of the entire European continent and Mediterranean world. During the early period of active western European intervention in the political and cultural cir- cumstances of the Eastern Mediterranean, King Baldwin I (1100–1118) stood out among Catholic military leaders who mostly originated from the territory of present-day France. The time of his rule over the Kingdom of Jerusalem was decisively marked by the following factors: successful warfare against the Seljuk emirs of Syria in the east and Fatimid caliphs of Egypt to the south, intense construction works in Christian sacred plac- es, the revival of pilgrimage flows, and the settlement of Catholic colo- nists from western Europe. Baldwin occupied the position of an unofficial 5 About the reasons for the First Crusade and its religious aspect, see: Riley-Smith 2005, 1–81. 48 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL leader of the Latin polities, 6 which stretched along the long coastal area from Antioch in the north to the Red Sea in the south. (Runciman 1990, 4.6–7.9–13.30.67–68.70–72.88–93.98–99.107.126.134; Riley-Smith 2005, 26.30.42–44.50–55.61.82–84.90–91.94–95.101–102.107–109; MacEvitt 2008, 5–7; Malmenvall 2019a, 236) The majority of town and countryside inhabitants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was composed of the Arabic, Syriac, or Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, also called Melkites; 7 among the local Christian population, a significant part was constituted of »Monophysite« Eastern Christians, especially the so-called Syrian Jacobites and Armenians (MacEvitt 2008, 7–9.110). 8 On the one hand, the politics of Baldwin I to- wards the non-Catholic Christians was defined by the awarding of higher legal status to the Latin Church and, on the other, by the tolerance towards other Christians who were allowed to keep their bishops, live by their tradi- tions, and receive royal funds for the renovation of the old and construction of new churches. 9 If in the later decades occasional disputes arose between Latin and Eastern Christians 10 and pressures of Catholic rulers on Eastern 6 These were (from north towards south): County of Edessa, Principality of Antioch, County of Tripoli, and Kingdom of Jerusalem. 7 The term Melkite originates from the Syriac word »malkoyo« ( ܐܝܟܠܡ) and the Arabic word »malki« ( يكلم), which literally means »royal« or »imperial people«. It relates to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Constantinople Patriarchate and denotes those Orthodox communities in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt that came after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and tried to resolve the Monophysite dispute, remaining loyal to Constantinople in the canonical and theological sense. (Dick 2004, 9–10) 8 About the origin and development of the Monophysite version of Eastern Christianity – which accen- tuated Christ’s divine nature and lessened the significance of his human nature – as the consequence of non-recognition of dogmatic definitions adopted at the Council of Chalcedon, see: Frend 1972; Parinello 2014. 9 Eastern Christians could celebrate their liturgy daily in the Jerusalem Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ, which was officially in the hands of the Catholics. The confirmation of such diversity was a novelty by the Franks. Namely, in the time of the Muslim authority, prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, only the Melkites could hold their rites in the Basilica of Christ’s Resurrection, and not the Jacobites, Armenians, or Latins. Consequently, the Franks turned this church into a true meeting point of the entire Christian world – both in their attitude towards the local confessional circumstances and foreign pilgrims. (MacEvitt 2008, 120; Malmenvall 2019a, 237) 10 Such disputes were the reflection of occasional interventions of Catholic political authority for the preservation of wider social peace; those never turned into systematic attacks on individual Eastern Christian communities, but solely on its (socially more significant) individuals and smaller groups. In this respect, the mainly tolerant coexistence of different confessional branches of Christian inha- bitants of Palestine – with the (declaratively) superior position of Catholics – cannot be compared to legally hierarchical organization of the dhimmi, i.e., Jews and various branches of Christianity, which in the Islamic world meant precisely delimited groups of tolerated, yet legally second-class inhabitants paying higher financial duties. (MacEvitt 2008, 23–25) 49 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... Christians to accept the union and join the Catholic Church with respect to eastern liturgical and organizational peculiarities took place, 11 this can- not be stated for the period of Baldwin I. (Runciman 1990, 4.86–87.100–101; Riley-Smith 2005, 53–55.61–63.66–69.72.75.83; MacEvitt 2008, 21.134; Malmenvall 2019a, 132–133.135) The tolerance between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians was all the more obvious in the case of pilgrims who fared to Palestine from different European and Mediterranean lands – in comparison to Catholics, the Eastern Christian pilgrims were not treated unequally. The Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, Hegumen of the Land of Rus’, composed in the first decade of the twelfth century, is considered the oldest and, in the following centuries, the most frequently transcribed pilgrim travel diary of the Kievan period of the East Slavic medieval culture. (Seemann 1970; VII.IX.XXXI.XLI–XLIV; Podskal’ski 1996, 318.321; Gardzaniti 2007, 274; Prohorov 2007b, 10.12) Based on a passage in the first lines of the trav- el diary (Prohorov 2007a, 16), it can be concluded that Daniel’s travels through the Holy Land lasted sixteen months. In his Pilgrimage, Daniel never explicitly states the year of the beginning or conclusion of his jour- ney; however, circumstantial mentions make it clear that it was made in the time of Frankish invasions into Syrian territory between 1104 and 1108, under the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin I (Ščapov 2003, 85; Prohorov 2007a, 92; Malmenvall 2019b, 716). What is known of Daniel is found only in his travel diary (Seemann 1970, VII; Garzaniti 1991, 19). The Pilgrimage reveals only that Daniel was a hegumen of an unnamed monastery on the territory of Rus’; based on indirect references (e.g. the comparison of the river Jordan with the river Snov, the mention of Prince Oleg Sviatoslavich), it is assumed that Daniel originated from the town of Chernigov or its surroundings north-east of Kiev (Prohorov 2007a, 20.137; 2009b, 10; Malmenvall 2019b, 716–717). In the East Slavic medieval literature, works of historical character pre- vailed, mostly among the chronicle and hagiographic genres. Pilgrim travel diaries, which usually discuss Palestine, the monastic Mount Athos, 11 The largest and to this day preserved Uniate community in the Eastern Mediterranean is the Maronite Church with its core on the territory of present-day Lebanon, which came under the auspices of the Catholic Church in 1181. An overview of the Maronite Church history: Mouawad 2009. 50 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL or Constantinople, belong to the same group dedicated to historical and theological aspects of reality. (Seemann 1976, 11–13.76–77.139.144.191; Podskal’ski 1996, 318) First and foremost, Pilgrimage is the personal testi- mony of a writer thrilled about Palestine and simultaneously spiritually edi- fying reading for those who might never visit the Holy Land (Seemann 1976, 37–38.45; Podskal’ski 1996, 324; Gardzaniti 2007; 323–324.327). The most space in Daniel’s travel diary is dedicated to Jerusalem, the entire discus- sion of the Holy Land begins and ends in this place – it serves as a centre around which the entire journey revolves. The core of the Pilgrimage is composed of the precise description of sacred places, various buildings (primarily churches), and relics, accompanied by the author’s first-per- son comments and summaries of Biblical and legendary-apocryphal tales pertaining to the described sacred places. (Seemann 1970, XII.XVIII; Garzaniti 1991, 21–24.30–31; Malmenvall 2019b, 717) When Daniel writes about the Holy Land, he states almost nothing about the life of local inhab- itants, nor is he especially interested in the local socio-political situation. It is interesting in this context that among all the inhabitants of Palestine, with the exception of King Baldwin, he never mentions anybody by name. Daniel is primarily interested in the verbalization of his own participation in the »sacred space«, testifying to the »power of God«, which is revealed through history. In accordance with the discussed travel diary, all historical periods prove to be sacred – from the creation of the world and the first man Adam, the skull of whom, according to the Pilgrimage, lies at the foot of Golgotha (Prohorov 2007a, 30), to Daniel’s contemporariness, when, according to the »grace of God«, in the name of the entire Land of Rus’, he managed to place a lamp on Christ’s grave (122.124). In the Pilgrimage the tale dissolves into two chronological levels. The first level is formed of linear time, subject to the earthly laws of changing and passing. The level of linear time is, for example, reflected through mentions of looting attacks of Muslim neighbors (24.72.82.96.112.118) on pilgrims and Christian inhabitants. The second chronological level is presented by personal testimonies which emphasize the physical pres- ence of Daniel and his companions within a certain reality of the history of salvation. Here, the following excerpt should be highlighted: »The source springs from this rock and this bath is miraculous, it appeared on its own for it was created by God. Christ himself bathed in this bath with his dis- ciples. The spot where Christ sat on a stone is known until this day. This 51 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... is where us, unworthy sinners, bathed too.« (96.98) Thus, at first glance, the literal earthly testimony of bathing at the spring becomes a testimo- ny of the »supernatural« reality, in this case, the reliving of Christ’s life. When Daniel’s word touches upon sacred places, earthly time loses its inevitable power, while an individual holy place retains its symbolic con- tinuity. Hence, Daniel’s testimony becomes »mobile« or reaches »beyond time« – it traverses into the past and from the past into eternity, from where it returns to its own time. Therefore, Daniel does not move only in the physical sense of the journey but also »travels« in time and touches eternity. (Malmenvall 2019b, 717–718) 2 Hegumen Daniel and the Latin »otherness« The Pilgrimage opens the topic of the relationship between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity both in the context of Frankish Palestine and Kievan Rus’. This topic is discussed primarily since the hegumen from the Orthodox Rus’ was in Palestine in the time of the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem and could thus establish a relationship towards Catholicism in an environment where this was the leading social force. (Malmenvall 2019a, 242) The hegumen depicts King Baldwin I in a distinct- ly positive light. The latter differentiates his travel diary from the Byzantine pilgrim travel diaries, the so-called proskynitarions (προσκυνιταριον), which never have a positive attitude towards Catholics. (Garzaniti 1991, 38; Gardzaniti 2007, 321) Namely, the Pilgrimage writes that Baldwin »knew him very well« and »liked him very much« (Prohorov 2007a, 122). He is also denoted as a »virtuous man and very humble and not conceit- ed in the least« (122). In Daniel’s testimony, Baldwin’s favour and virtue was most strongly expressed when he and his companions were »joy- fully summoned to come along with him« to Lake Tiberias (92). Hence, the hegumen’s group managed to travel through those »horrid places«, which were frequently subject to invasions of Muslim robbers and armies from Syria, »without fear and crime« with the protection of Baldwin’s army (92). Safe passage to Lake Tiberias enabled Daniel and his fellow travellers to visit holy places connected to Christ’s earthly life, such as Nazareth, Mount Tabor, and Cana of Galilee (9). The possibility of King Baldwin riding with his army to the Jordan just for Daniel’s sake is very slim. Thus, it seems possible to connect the meeting between Daniel and the King 52 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL of Jerusalem with Baldwin’s campaign against Toghtekin (1104–1128), the Seljuk emir of Damascus, which was carried out in 1106. While trav- elling, Daniel encountered Baldwin unexpectedly during this campaign and the king took him as the ecclesiastical representative (hegumen) and pilgrim from a faraway land under his own patronage and left him at Lake Tiberias on his way to Damascus. The campaign on Damascus was soon halted due to the news of a simultaneous invasion of Fatimid troops from Egypt that occupied the town of Jaffa. (Runciman 1990, 72.88–91) The reason for the »joyful« encounter between Daniel and Baldwin could also be sought in the direction of widespread dynastic ties of the Rus’ ruling family of Riurikids with Catholic magnates: the hero of the First Crusade Hugo (1057–1101) from the family of Capetians, Count of the Vermandois region in today’s northern France, was the son of the French king Henry I (1031–1060) and Anna Yaroslavna, the daughter of Kievan Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise (1019–1054) (Malmenvall 2019, 245). Thus, Baldwin could have warmly greeted the ecclesiastical representative from a distant land who was nevertheless linked to his own Frankish territory. The passage about Daniel’s visit to Nazareth is written in a similar manner of mutual favour, the town where, together with his companions, he visited the remains of the house of St Joseph, Mary’s husband. When the traveller describes these events, he unambiguously praises the hospitality of the Catholic community – here, he denotes it with the expression »Franks« ( фрязи) – and its care for the mentioned sacred place. And here [in Nazareth] was Joseph’s house, where this holy cave lies. […] And here is the church, built over this holy cave, dedicated to the holy annunciation. This place was once abandoned, but now it was restored by the Franks and arranged well. And here is a Latin bishop, very rich, who rules over this holy place. And they have honoured us with delicious food and drink and everything [else]. And in this town, we spent one night. And when we had rested well and got up in the morning, we went to this church and bowed to this sacred place. (Prohorov 2007a, 116) The most apparent expression of tolerant relationships between the Catholic and Orthodox community in the Palestinian territory in the time of Daniel’s journey is the testimony about the joint celebration of the 53 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... greatest Christian holiday, Easter, at the commonly acknowledged holiest place, i.e., in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher, with the presence of the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin (Malmenvall 2019a, 245–246). Here, the au- thor again emphasizes Baldwin’s kindness for he let him put the lamp on God’s Sepulcher and sent him to a good spot during the vigil, to one of the choir lofts right above the door to God’s Sepulcher, from where he had an unobstructed view of the celebration (Prohorov 2007a, 126.128). Then I, weak and unworthy, on that [Good] Friday, at the first hour of the day, went to that Prince Baldwin and bowed before him to the ground. He saw me, the weak one, and summoned me to him with love saying: »What do you desire, the hegumen of Rus’?« For he knew me well and liked me very much, he is a virtuous man and very humble and not the least conceited. And I replied: »My prince, my lord! I ask of you: for the sake of God and Rus’ princes, allow me to place my own lamp on the holy Sepulcher in the name of the entire Land of Rus’!« […] And with my sinful hands I placed [the lamp] at the feet where the cleanest feet of our Lord Jesus Christ laid. For a Greek lamp is placed at the head, while at His chest there was a lamp of the [Laura of] saint Sabbas and all monasteries. […] And then [at the Vigil on Saturday evening] these three lamps were lit. (122.124) Despite the joint celebration of the Easter Vigil, Daniel clearly introduces the difference between the »Latins« (ла тинянѣ) on the one hand, and the Orthodox, on the other, who he addresses with the term »of the true faith« ( прав овѣрьнии), emphasizing that true Christian faith is not (completely) preserved in the Catholic, but only in the Orthodox Church. The difference between those of »the true faith« and »Latins« is additionally supported with a remark ridiculing the singing of Catholic priests. He states that Orthodox priests and monks »sang« vespers while »Latins« at the grand altar »shrieked« (в ереща ли). (Malmenvall 2019a, 246) The differences in the religious doctrine and practice between the Catholic and Orthodox Christians are stressed only twice in the travel diary. The first occurs in the context of the spiritual interpretation of the signifi- cance of Mount Tabor, where a hidden polemical point can be found directed against the Catholic liturgical practice. It is a criticism of the use 54 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL of unleavened bread during the Eucharist, which confirms the correct- ness of the Orthodox practice that commands the use of leavened bread. (Gardzaniti 2007, 293; Prohorov 2007a, 112.158) Secondly, differences are emphasized in the context of the miracle with »the heavenly fire« at the Easter Vigil in the Basilica of Christ’s Resurrection. Despite positive de- pictions of Baldwin and the Franks, Daniel makes it clear in his travel diary that for him, the Orthodox faith is the only true faith. Indeed, in his narration of the annual miracle of spontaneous lighting of the fire dur- ing the Easter Vigil in the Basilica of Christ’s Resurrection, he once again praises Baldwin for letting him hang and light the lamp by the Sepulcher of God (Prohorov 2007a, 122); however, simultaneously, he stresses that he witnessed with his own eyes that Greek lamps and with them the lamp he placed there in the name of the entire Rus’ were lit at the Sepulcher of Christ, while Catholic (Frankish) lamps remained extinguished (124). According to Daniel’s belief, this is the miraculous confirmation of the true faith of the Orthodox Church and the testimony of the partiality of the Catholic. Thus, the author establishes a tension between two types of defence of Christian holy sites – the direct defence of Palestine, per- formed by the Catholic Crusaders, and the spiritual defence of the pu- rity of the Christian faith, performed solely by the Orthodox Church. (Malmenvall 2019a, 247) From the liturgical and simultaneously socio-political aspect, the most noticeable issue in Daniel’s testimony is the supremacy of Catholic clergy in the Jerusalem Basilica. On the evening of Holy Saturday, only »Latin« priests were gathered around the main altar. The ritual at the Holy Sepulcher, during which a miracle was supposed to happen, was also performed by a »Latin« bishop, while all the events took place under the auspices of King Baldwin. In such circumstances, when the socio-political life in Palestine and church life at the holiest spot upon the main holiday were controlled by the Catholics, Daniel’s testimony about the miracle of the »heavenly fire«, which happened with the lighting of three Orthodox lamps over the Holy Sepulcher – the »Greek«, Palestinian, and Rus’ – gained strong symbolical meaning. The lighting of the »heavenly fire« in Orthodox lamps functions as a supernatural sign of confirmation of Orthodoxy and consequently godliness of the Orthodox Church, which – despite the Catholic political supremacy over the Holy Land – should have had a spiritual right to claim the protection of the Holy Sepulcher. (247) 55 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... In the context of relations with the Catholic side, Daniel’s travel diary reveals a certain characteristic that brings him closer to the writing of lit- erary texts of the time – such as the Chronicles of the Jacobite patriarch Michael from the end of the twelfth century (Weltecke 2020) – created in the Eastern Christian (Orthodox, Jacobite, Armenian) cultural centres on the territory of Palestine and other lands of the Eastern Mediterranean under the Latin rule. The same as in these literary texts, Daniel, in his Pilgrimage, does not avoid mentioning doctrinal and liturgical differenc- es between his own community and the ruling Catholics, and defending the orthodoxy of his side without hesitation. On the other hand, the same as in the majority of local Eastern Christian texts of the time, he does not deal with the operation of the »Latin« authorities; furthermore, he does not directly speak about socio-political relations between the Catholics and Eastern Christians (in this case the Orthodox). (MacEvitt 2008, 22–23; Malmenvall 2019a, 248) 12 Outside the confessional considerations, he even praises Baldwin’s hospitality and care of the »Latin« for common holy plac- es of Christianity. Based on everything presented here, it seems sensible to conclude the following: Daniel’s personal experience, previous Rus’ interactions with the Catholic Church, genre limitation of the pilgrim travel diary, and disposition of intellectuals from the ranks of Palestinian Eastern Christians towards the Latin authorities shaped the hegumen’s testimony into a text, in which the Catholic community could not be presented in the negative light; nevertheless, he wrote about it as of his »other«, establishing a value difference between »us« (Orthodox, of the true faith) and »them« (Latin, non-orthodox). (Malmenvall 2019a, 248) Tolerance towards Catholics expressed by hegumen in the Pilgrimage can be compared with the attitude towards the Orthodox and other Eastern Christians attested by the Latin texts (travel diaries, chronicles, royal and ecclesiastial charters) created in the twelfth century on the territory of the 12 In this respect, another interesting text is the Chronicle by the Armenian abbot Matthew of Edessa (today Urfa in the south-east of Turkey) written in the mid-twelfth century. In historiography, Matthew is generally considered as the opponent of both the Byzantine Empire and all Frankish polities. Even though the author discerns the confessional »otherness« of the Catholic Church in his chronicle and even mentions individual events, e.g. attacks of Crusade armies and Catholic colonists from western Europe on the Armenian community in the Principality of Antioch, he never disputes the legitima- cy of the Frankish rule as such. For the conceptual foundation of his chronicles is not a particular political position but rather the highlighting of the (spiritual) fight between good and evil in the light of »Divine providence« which is supposed to be revealed though history. About the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, see: MacEvitt 2007. 56 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL Kingdom of Jerusalem. Frankish sources never explicitly denote local Eastern Christians as heretics (MacEvitt 2008, 100–112), they only empha- size linguistic differences which, from the terminological standpoint, are multilayered and ambiguous. (22) Namely, local Eastern Christians are gen- erally called Greek (Graeci), Syrians (Suriani), and Armenians (Armeni); Greeks thus signify Christians who speak or perform the liturgy in Greek, Syrians in Arabic or Syriac, and Armenians in Armenian. This division according to the linguistic key is, among others, also used by priest John of Würzburg, the author of one of the most famous Latin medieval pilgrim travel diaries (Descriptio terrae sanctae), written around 1165. From the theological point of view, the presented expressions are insufficient. The greatest unclarity is found in the expression Syriac – it denotes an Arabic or Syriac speaking Christian who could have belonged to an Orthodox (Melkite), Jacobite, or Maronite (Uniate) Church. 13 Similarly, Greeks could be Arabic or Syriac speaking Melkites who attended ceremonies in churches with Greek liturgical language. (Huygens 1994, 111.136.138; Pahlitzsch 2001, 181–188; Gardzaniti 2007, 322–323) The presented termi- nological imprecision cannot allow for the conclusion that in everyday life the Palestinian Frankish elite was not aware of theological differences and other relationships between various Christian communities, but tes- tifies to the fact that it did not want to accentuate such differences on the textual level and thus, in the spirit of tolerant coexistence and simultane- ously maintenance of their own authority for the sake of social peace, con- sciously avoided direct discussion on the »true« and »heretic« Christians. (MacEvitt 2008, 101–102.105) Hegumen Daniel follows similar restraint: the Catholic-Orthodox relations do not occupy the core of his travel diary; yet when he does speak of them, he mostly portrays the Catholic side positively, even though it is simultaneously perceived as his »other«. This does not mean that Daniel, when highlighting Catholic-Orthodox relations, directly modelled any of the »Latin« sources; instead, during his pilgrim- age, Daniel created an image about the complexity of confessional cir- cumstances and internalized the atmosphere of (at least external) tolerant coexistence between Christian communities in preserving the memory 13 Overviews of the ambiguity of the term Syrian in the context of the Crusades in the Eastern Mediterranean: Nasrallah 1974; Weltecke 2010; Monferrer 2013. 57 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... of places connected to the life of Jesus Christ, which did not need clear terminological and theological delimitations. (Malmenvall 2019a, 249) 3 Kievan Christianity and Byzantine confessional normativity To a considerable extent, the fond attitude towards the Catholic com- munity, as expressed in Daniel’s Pilgrimage, should not be understood as an isolated example. It is justified to compare it to the political and cultural circumstances in Rus’ at the time, which conditioned the attitude of the Rus’ elite towards the Catholic Church. At the end of the tenth cen- tury, Christianity was asserted among Eastern Christians as a state reli- gion with the help of Byzantine mediation. The Kievan Metropolitanate, which included the entire territory of Rus’, was subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. According to its size and income, this metropolitan see occupied first position among all territorial units of the Church of Constantinople; the position of its metropolitan bishop was usually held by members of the highest strata of Byzantine society from the cir- cles close to the emperor or the patriarch, which testifies to the fact that Kiev was highly significant to Constantinople. (Malmenvall 2018, 29–30; Senyk 1993, 298–301; Tachiaos 1988–1989, 430.432–433) Despite the subsequent general domination of the Byzantine confessional and cultural model in Rus’, the members of its political elite (initially) rec- ognized the importance of Latin ecclesiastical structures as well. During the second half of the tenth century, the East Slavic territories saw regular missions from the Archbishopric of Magdeburg (on the east of present-day Germany, established in 962) and fostered diplomatic contacts with the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, including the meeting between the em- issaries of the Kievan Princess Olga (945–960) and Otto I (961–973) in 959. Various Latin annals of the German-speaking lands written between the mid-tenth and early eleventh century testify to the fact that ecclesiastical dignitaries and rulers of the Holy Roman Empire saw the Archbishopric of Magdeburg as a missionary centre in relation to the vast Slavic territories in the east, including Rus’. (Kuznecova 2002, 44–48.53–56; Golovko 2012; Kardaš 2018) Furthermore, at the beginning of the eleventh century, the so-called »baptism of Rus’« did not bring a sudden jurisdictional shift to- wards the Church of Constantinople as attested by Vladimir’s diplomatic 58 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL mission to the Roman Pontiff in 1000/1001 and the activity of two Latin missionary bishops, Bruno (Bonifatius) of Querfurt in Saxony with his two visits at the Kievan princely court and Reinbern of Kolobrzeg in Poland visiting Sviatopolk (died in 1019), Vladimir’s son and Prince of Turov. A stable episcopal network under the Metropolitan of Kiev within the Patriarchate of Constantinople was established not before the mid-elev- enth century during the rule of Yaroslav Vladimirovich. (Kostromin 2015, 60.64.70; 2013, 96–101; Nazarenko 2010, 58.61) Despite its incorporation into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Rus’ territory still bordered the Catholic world in the north and west, and had been in constant contact with it since the mid-eleventh century. The Rus’ declarative attitude towards Catholic Christianity was prevalently shaped by Kievan metropolitan bishops who, until the mid-thirteenth century, were almost exclusively of Greek origin and represented views and spread hab- its of the Constantinople Church. (Tachiaos 1988–1989, 431.434.440–442) In their care for the preservation of the true faith, in the second half of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth century, i.e. immediately after the »great schism« between Rome and Constantinople in 1054, 14 they devel- oped a special literary genre of polemical writings against different ritual and disciplinary practices and doctrinal positions (»heresies«), asserted in the Catholic Church of the time. 15 The anti-Latin polemical writings, orig- inally composed in Greek and some of them later translated into Church Slavonic, comprise one of the socially most important legacies of Rus’ liter- ature. Their main compositional characteristic, which can be noticed in the proven to be the oldest text of this kind, i.e. the treatise of the Kievan met- ropolitan bishop Ephraim (around 1055–1062) composed soon after 1054, represents the content which in compilation and authorship is non-inde- pendent. (Kostromin 2013b, 5.9–10.12; Čičurov 1997) Among repeated reproaches to the »Latin« side, mainly assumed after the letters of Patriarchs Fotios (857–867, 877–886) and Michael I Keroularios (1043–1059), the following prevail: dogmatic definition of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the »Father and Son« (Filioque), celebration of the Eucharist with 14 A comprehensive study about doctrinal and other differences as well as the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches through history: Chadwick 2003. 15 The majority of such writings is collected and commented upon in the still referential work: Popov 1875. 59 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... unleavened bread, mandatory celibacy for lower clergy, and wearing of the ring as a symbol of a bishop’s service. These and similar reproaches are joined by a warning against socializing and entering into marriage with the »Latins«. (Danilevskij 2018, 118–120.123–124; Malmenvall 2019b, 721–722) The diplomatic mission of the Kievan prince Iziaslav Yaroslavich (1054–1073, 1076–1078), the husband of Gertrude, the daughter of the Polish king Mieszko II (1025–1034), is illustrative in the context of ten- sions between the normative (ecclesiastical) and actual (political) situ- ation. Between 1073 and 1075, during the time in which he was exiled to the Holy Roman Empire, Iziaslav sent his son Yaropolk to Rome to see Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) and gain his support in the reoccupa- tion of the Kievan throne. He gained the Pope’s support, conquered the Kievan throne with his army in 1077, but died the next year. Despite the Pope’s support, the preserved sources do not reveal that Iziaslav would have to officially convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Based on this, it can be assumed that the Prince of Kiev was led by pragmatical and not spiritual-confessional reasons. Considering the Catholic self-understanding of Papal authority at the time, it can be presumed that Gregory VII con- sidered the Kievan Metropolitanate his symbolic subordinate regardless of the actual ecclesiastical and political circumstances, since he considered himself the leader of the universal Christian Church. From his support to Iziaslav, he might have anticipated – despite it never actually being realized – the penetration of the Latin Church to the East Slavic territo- ry. (Raffensperger 2012, 306–308; Malmenvall 2019b, 722–723) Similarly illustrative is the example of the Kievan metropolitan bishop John II (1077–1089), the author of the letter to Anti-Pope Clement III (1080–1099), as an answer to the letter in which he proposes to John a unification of the Catholic and Rus’ Orthodox Church under the patronage of Rome. The Kievan metropolitan declined Clement’s proposal and stated various reasons for the »heresy« of the Catholic Church. In his letter to Clement, he expressed his disapproval over some of the non-named Rus’ princes. He reproached them for marrying women from Catholic dynasties and therefore their religious tepidness for he was afraid that political contacts and alliances with Catholic polities could cause the crumbling of ecclesias- tical ties with Constantinople and, in time, also subordination to the Pope. (Levčenko 1956, 420–421; Senyk 1993, 317–319; Podskal’ski 1996, 285–289) Within the Rus’ practice of marrying members of the Catholic dynasties, 60 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL the correspondence between the Kievan prince Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125) and Kievan metropolitan bishop Nicephorus I (1104–1121) was created. The prince asked the bishop about the content of discords causing the schism between the eastern and western Church, and the met- ropolitan explained the twenty »guilts« of the Catholic side. (Senyk 1993, 319; Podskal’ski 1996, 290–292) 4 Contacts with the Latin polities and interconfessional reality In the field of ecclesiastical affairs, the Kievan polity remained faithful to the Orthodox religion, while the political decisions of Rus’ princes, such as entering into dynastic marriages and military alliances, indicat- ed their pragmatic will for collaboration with Catholic states, first and foremost with neighbouring Sweden, Poland, and Hungary (Senyk 1993, 298–301.306). The absence of a centralized system of secular authority and the need for missionary strengthening of faith among the people on the solely declaratively Christianized territory brought Rus’ much closer in the general social sense to the North and Central European state forma- tions of the time than with the centralized and culturally well-developed Byzantine Empire. Hence, it is understandable that, in a certain respect, the life of the Rus’ Church imitated western patterns, such as duties in the form of a tithe, which was probably assumed after the model in Poland. (Senyk 1993, 301; Malmenvall 2019b, 721–722) Furthermore, it is not pos- sible to neglect the fact that the great majority (around three quarters) of dynastic marriages attested in the preserved historical sources, includ- ing members of the ruling Rus’ family of Rurikids, between the mid-tenth and mid-twelfth century, was concluded with the Catholic polities west of the Kievan state: primarily with Poland, Hungary, and Sweden, but also with Norway, Denmark, the Holy Roman Empire, France, and England. With its diplomatic, dynastic, and military means, Rus’ actively co-shaped the political image of Northern and Central Europe of the time; due to the geographic vicinity, the liveliest ties were formed between the East Slavic territory and Poland. (Raffensperger 2012, 47–48.51–53) This makes it clear that the unity in the Orthodox religion between Rus’ and the Byzantine Empire was not automatically reflected in their political entanglement. This can also be explained with the Rus’ princes’ way of life that greatly dif- fered from the situation in Byzantium. Members of the Byzantine imperial 61 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... court lived in Constantinople and only rarely embarked on travels and they were surrounded by servants and officials, while the Rus’ princes enforced their rule through family members, their network of officials was poorly developed, and they were frequent travellers along with their military es- cort – at least until the mid-twelfth century this was also true for the polities in Northern and Central Europe. Furthermore, in the eyes of Byzantine diplomacy, dynastic ties with recently Christianized »Northerners«, which also included the East Slavic territory, were far from respected and there- fore very rare. (Raffensperger 2012, 51–53; Malmenvall 2019b, 722) Based on the presented circumstances, the »anti-Latin« polemical writings should be understood not only as a learned expression of the Orthodox teaching defence but also as the consequence of disharmony between the desired and real situation, i.e. as a contradiction to a certain aspect of behaviour by the Rus’ political elite who, in the opinion of the Kiev metropolitan bishops, were in danger of spiritually confessional indiffer- ence (Danilevskij 2018, 126–128; Colucci 1988–1989, 586–588). The three examples given above, pertaining to the relationship between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, testify especially well to the fact that the secular authorities of the Rus’ society functioned pragmatically and were not hindered by religious differences when entering into politically useful (dynastic) ties with Catholic monarchical families. On the basis of the fact that the ecclesiastical expectations regarding religious »purity« were not fulfilled, it can be furthermore concluded that the Orthodox Church’s in- fluence in Old Rus’, despite its significant social role, was not unlimited. (Malmenvall 2019b, 723) Confessional differences after the schism between the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches in 1054 did not play a major role in the context of political and economic contacts between Rus’ and other Latin lands, particularly Scandinavia (Malmenvall 2021, 102). 16 In addition, an increasing majority of contemporary historians claim that the crucial turning point concerning the cultural and political tensions between the 16 Regarding the international relations of Old Rus’, see: Nazarenko 2001; Kostromin 2013a. For a funda- mental overview of the image of Byzantium and Orthodox Christianity among Scandinavia’s (secular and ecclesiastical) elite until the early thirteenth century in terms of a (still) united Christianity with common roots, see: Jakobson 2008. 62 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL »Latin« and »Greek« Churches, along with their psychological alienation, occurred after the pillage of Constantinople in 1204 during the Forth Crusade (Hussey 1986, 136; Chadwick 2003, 277; Nyberg 1983). In this context, an interesting observation by Tatjana N. Jackson (2011) is worth pointing out: the religious differences between Scandinavia and Rus’ were of little importance even for the Icelandic saga writers or compilers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, just as they were of little importance for the ruling dynasties in both Rus’ and Scandinavian polities from the elev- enth to the mid-twelfth centuries. The only unambiguous mention of the schism of 1054 in medieval Icelandic sources is preserved in the Icelandic saga of Arni, bishop of Skálhot (1271–1298) (Árni Saga Biskups), from the late thirteenth century. This mention is set within the story of the Council of Lyon (1274), where the »Greeks« reached a temporary unification with the Catholic Church under Pope Gregory X (1271–1276). (Jakobsson 2008, 175) Furthermore, on the territory of Rus’, the veneration of royal or princely Scandinavian saints, such as Olaf II of Norway (1015–1028), Canute IV of Denmark (1080–1086), and Magnus Erlendsson of Orkney (1106–1115), the latter two being ruler martyrs, was clearly present. Veneration of the Scandinavian ruler saints in Rus’ presents a curious instance of Christian interaction at a time when Eastern and Western Christianity, at least in gen- eral terms, were supposed to have drifted apart. As already explained, the effects of the schism in 1054 varied from region to region, depend- ing on the distance from and frequency of contact with its two focal points, Rome and Constantinople. (Malmenvall 2021, 103–104) 17 In this context, one can mention two interesting examples: the existence of the so-called »Varangian« or »Latin« church for the Scandinavian merchants in twelfth-century Novgorod, dedicated to Saint Olaf (Jackson 2010, 147.157–161), 18 and a particular Rus’ liturgical source from the mid-twelfth century, found in a fifteenth-century manuscript (Lind 1990, 16–17; Jackson 2011, 166–167), conventionally called Prayer to the Holy Trinity 17 For the Rus’-Scandinavian (cultural) relations in the twelfth century, see: Lind 1990; 2017. 18 For a comparative overview of Olaf’s cult in the medieval Eastern Orthodox Church, see: Mel’nikova 1996. In addition, Olaf himself, according to the sagas, had spent about two years of his exile, approxi- mately between 1027 and 1029, in Rus’ at the court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Skórzewska 2011, 339.344; Jackson 2011, 153–154; Jackson 2010, 153–154; Jónsson 1914, 201). 63 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... (Rus. М о литв а Св ят ой Т рои це). 19 This text is attributed to the hieromonk, renown orator and later bishop, Kiril of Turov (1130–1182), and contains a litany of both Eastern and Western Christian saints from various histor- ical periods – from the first decades of Christianity to the twelfth century (Arhangelskij 1884, 12–14). While several writings are attributed to Kiril of Turov with reasonable certainty, many more have been ascribed to him on insufficient grounds by medieval scribes and modern scholars alike. In this context, the original authorship is not important: the prayer, with its list of saints, is significant for its demonstration that a Rus’ ecclesiastical writer, monk, or cleric, most probably working in the mid-twelfth century, still found it acceptable to include a number of Western saints in his litany. (Lind 1990, 19–20) Among Western saints, one can find names from the late antiquity, such as Martin and Victor, and early Roman pontiffs, such as Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and Leo; additionally, the prayer lists Western ruler saints from a relatively recent past, such as Wenceslaus I of Bohemia (921–935), Magnus, and Olaf – those names are listed alongside Rus’ ruler martyrs, Boris and Gleb (died in 1015). Magnus, placed just before the Norwegian king Olaf, the most famous of the Scandinavian ruler saints, can hardly be any other than Magnus Erlendsson. (2.4–9) Consequently, the author or compiler of the above-mentioned prayer did not only include a particular Western saint, along with many other saints from the Christian West, into an Eastern ecclesiastical context, but also connected the native martyred princes Boris and Gleb with their Western counterparts, such as Wenceslaus and Magnus. By doing this, he indirectly acknowledged ruler martyrs on the periphery of Europe of the time as a special (sub) category of common Christian saints. (Malmenvall 2021, 105) Conclusion According to the preserved East Slavic narrative sources concerning the period after the »Great Schism« in 1054, the attitude of the elite of Old Rus’ (of the Kievan period) towards Latin Christendom can be defined as am- biguous and manifold. In this context, the travel diary (Pilgrimage) on the Holy Land by Hegumen Daniel serves as a prime example of encountering 19 This source was published in its entirety in the late nineteenth century: Arhangelskij 1884. 64 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL confessional differences. In the traveller’s perception of »otherness« two aspects stand out: a fond attitude towards King Baldwin and praise of the Frankish care for holy places. Furthermore, on one hand, the division be- tween those »of true faith« and »Latins« is apparent, while on the other, the tolerant coexistence in the preservation of places connected to Biblical events is noticeable. The most apparent expression of tolerant relations be- tween the Catholic and Orthodox communities in the territory of Palestine in the time of Daniel’s journey is the testimony of the joint celebration of Easter in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher. Simultaneously, the heg- umen’s report of the lighting of the »heavenly fire« in orthodox lamps functions as a supernatural sign of the confirmation of his Church being of the true faith which is supposed to have the spiritual right to claim the protection of the Holy Sepulcher, for which, in the military sense, Latin Crusaders were responsible. The hegumen’s travel diary cannot be considered an isolated testimony, since it reflects in a unique manner the political and cultural circumstance of Rus’ of the time, which conditioned the attitude of the Rus’ elite towards the Catholic Church. It should be stressed that the Kievan Metropolitanate, which covered the entire territory of Rus’ from the mid-eleventh century, was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and among juris- dictions of the Constantinople Church it was the first in terms of size and income. On a declarative level, the polemical writings of the Kievan met- ropolitan bishops testify about a negative position on the »Latin heresies«. However, common veneration of particular saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney, and decisions of the East Slavic princes confirms the permanence of intercultural contacts and pragmatic willingness to coop- erate with the neighbouring Catholic polities (Sweden, Poland, Hungary) in forming military alliances. The ambiguous attitude towards the Latin variant of Christianity was also influenced by the absence of a centralized system of the secular authority and the need for missionary strengthening of faith among people in the solely declaratively Christianized area. In the general social sense, this brough Old Rus’ much closer to northern and central European polities of the time than to the centralized and cultur- ally well-developed Byzantine Empire. Hence, it becomes clear why the vast majority (about two thirds) of dynastic marriages, which – between the mid-tenth and mid-twelfth centuries – included representatives of the ruling family of Rurikids, was concluded with Catholic polities. Since the 65 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... expectations of the Church regarding religious »purity« were not realized, it can, among other findings, be concluded that, despite its significant so- cial role, the Orthodox Church in Rus’ did not have the unlimited influence and that the unity in the Orthodox religion between Rus’ and the Byzantine Empire was not automatically reflected in their political entanglement. 66 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL References Arhangelskij, Aleksandr S. 1884. Ljubopytnyj pamjatnik russkoj pis’mennosti XV veka. Pamjatniki drevnej pis’mennosti 50: 1–19. Bogataj, Jan D. 2016. Consensus Patrum kot temelj za reševanje vprašanja Filioque: Od Pisma Marinu Maksima Spoznavalca do Notule Roberta Grossetesta. Edinost in dialog 71: 117–129. – – –. 2018. Neopatristična sinteza in res- sourcement: med tradicijo in post- moderno. Bogoslovni vestnik 78/4: 957–969. Buber, Martin. 1984. Das dialogische Prinzip. Heidelberg: L. Schneider. Chabot, Jean B., ed. 1963. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Brussels: Culture et Civilisation. Chadwick, Henry. 2003. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Colucci, Monica. 1988–1989. The Image of Western Christianity in the Culture of Kievan Rus’. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12/13: 576–586. Čičurov, Igor’ S. 1997. Shizma 1054 g. i anti- latinskaja polemika v Kieve (seredina XI – načalo XII v.). Russia mediaevalis 9: 43–53. Danilevskij, Igor’ N. 2018. Antilatinskaja polemika na Rusi v XI–XII vekah. In: Vitaliy Nagirnyy, ed. Colloquia Russica: Religions and Beliefs of Rus’ (9th–16th Centuries), 115–129. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Dick, Ignatios. 2004. Melkites: Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics of the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Boston: Sophia Press. Frend, William H. C. 1972. Rise of Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garzaniti, Marcello, ed. 1991. Itinerario in Terra santa. Rome: Città Nuova Editrice. Gardzaniti, Marčelo. 2007. U istočnikov pa- lomničeskoj literatury Drevnej Rusi: »Hoženie« igumena Daniila v Svjatuju Zemlju. In: Gelian M. Prohorov, ed. »Hoženie« igumena Daniila v Svjatuju Zemlju v načale XII v., 270–338. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Olega Abyshko. Golovko Oleksandr B. 2012. Poširennja hry- styjanstva u slovjan Shidnoji Évropy i formuvannja hrystyjans’koji cerkovno- ji organizaciji na Rusi (VIII–XI st.). Drinovs’kyj zbirnyk 5: 179–189. Hussey, Joan M. 1986. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huygens, Robert B. C., ed. 1994. Peregrinationes tres: Saewulf, John of Würzburg, Theodericus. Turnhout: Brepols. Isherwood, Lisa, and David Harris. 2013. Radical Otherness: Sociological and Theological Approaches. London: Routledge. Jackson, Tat’jana N. 2010. The Cult of St Olaf and Early Novgorod. In: Haki Antonsson and Ildar H. Garipzanov, eds. Saints and their Lives on the Periphery: Veneration of Saints in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe (c. 1000–1200), 147–167. Turnhout: Brepols. – – –. 2011. Rus’ and Scandinavia: The Orthodox-Latin Division in Old Norse- Icelandic Literature and in Reality. In: Ildar Garipzanov and Oleksiy Tolochko, eds. Early Christianity on the Way from the Varangians to the Greeks, 120–132. Kiev: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Jakobsson, Sverrir. 2008. The Schism that Never Was: Old Norse Views on Byzantium and Russia. Byzantinoslavica – Revue interna- tionale des Études Byzantines 66/1–2: 173–188. Jónsson, Finnur, ed. 1914. Den Norsk- Islandske Skjaldedigtning. København: Nordisk forlag. 67 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... Kardaš, Ostap. 2018. Problema pošyrennja cerkovnoji jurisdikciji Magdeburz’kogo arhiépiskopstva na zemli Rjurikovyčiv u drugy polovyni X stolittja u svitli nimec’kyh latynomovnyh hronik i an- naliv. In: Vitaliy Nagirnyy, ed. Colloquia Russica: Religions and Beliefs of Rus’ (9th–16th Centuries), 47–58. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Kostromin, Konstantin A. 2013a. Cerkovnye svjazi Drevnej Rusi s Zapadnoj Evropoj (do serediny XII v.): Stranicy istorii mežkonfessional’nyh otnošenij. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. – – –. 2013b. Razvitie antilatinskoj polemiki v Kievskoj Rusi (XI – se- redina XII v.): Stranicy istorii mežcerkovnyh otnošenij. Saarbrücken: Akademikerverlag. – – –. 2015. Konfessional’naja poli- kul’turnost’ Kievskoj Rusi načala XI veka. Drevnjaja Rus’: vo vremeni, v ličnostjah, v idejah 2/3: 48–75. Kuznecova, Anna M. 2002. Missii latinskoj cerkvi. Opyt hristianskogo Zapada i Central’naja i Jugo-Vostočnaja Evropa na rubeže vtorogo tysjačiletija. In: Boris N. Florja, ed. Hristianstvo v stranah Vostočnoj, Jugo-Vostočnoj i Central’noj Evropy na poroge vtorogo tysjačiletija, 35–59. Moscow: Yazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. Levčenko, Mitrofan V. 1956. Očerki po istorii russko-vizantijskih otnošenij. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR. Lind, John H. 2017. »Varangian Christianity« and the Veneration of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Saints in Early Rus’. In: Johan Callmer, Ingrid Gustin, and Mats Roslund, ed. Identity Formation and Diversity in the Early Medieval Baltic and Beyond, 107–135. Leiden: Brill. – – –. 1990. The Martyria of Odense and a Twelfth Century Russian Prayer. To the Question of Bohemian Influence on Russian Religious Literature. Slavonic and East European Review 68/1: 1–21. Lotman, Jurij M. 2006. Znotraj mislečih svetov: Človek – tekst – semios- fera – zgodovina. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis. – – –. 2002. Istorija i tipologija russkoj kul’tu- ry. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB. MacEvitt, Christopher H. 2008. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. – – –. 2007. The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade and the Armenian Diaspora. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61: 157–181. Maleto, Elena I. 2005. Antologija hoždenij russkih putešestvennikov XII–XV vv. Moscow: Nauka. Malmenvall, Simon. 2016. Razvoj cerkvene or- ganizacije v Kijevski Rusiji do sredine 12. stoletja. Bogoslovni vestnik 76/3–4: 547–558. – – –. 2018. Pravna in ekonomska ureditev pravoslavne Cerkve v Kijevski Rusiji. Res novae 3/1: 25–43. – – –. 2019a. »Latinsko–grški« (katoliško–pra- voslavni) odnosi v jeruzalemskem kral- jestvu: primer potopisa staroruskega igumana Danijela. Acta Histriae 27/2: 233–254. – – –. 2019b. Onkraj geografskih in kulturnih meja: podoba »drugega« v staroruskem potopisu na ozadju katoliško-pravo- slavnih odnosov. Bogoslovni vestnik 79/3: 713–725. Https://doi.org/10.34291/ bv2019/03/malmenvall. – – –. 2021. Ruler Martyrs on the Periphery of Medieval Europe: Boris and Gleb of Kievan Rus’, Jovan Vladimir of Dioclea, and Magnus Erlendsson of Orkney. Belgrade: Faculty of Orthodox Theology. Maver, Aleš. 2023. Ukrajina: od igre prestolov do vojne za samostojnost. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. Mel’nikova, Elena A. 1996. Kul’t Sv. Olava v Novgorode i Konstantinopole. Vizantijskij vremennik 56: 92–106. Meyendorff, John. 1983. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press. 68 Edinost in dialog 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 SIMON MALMENVALL Monferrer, Juan P. 2013. Between Hellenism and Arabicization: On the Formation of an Ethnolinguistic Identity of the Melkite Communities in the Heart of Muslim Rule. Al-Qanṭara 33/2: 445–473. Https://doi.org/10.3989/ alqantara.2011.017. Mouawad, Ray J. 2009. Les Maronites: Chrétiens du Liban. Turnhout: Brepols. Nasrallah, Joseph. 1974. Syriens et Suriens. In: Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, ed. Symposium Syriacum 1972, 487–503. Rome: Pontificium institutum orientali- um studiorum. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. 2001. Drevnjaja Rus’ na meždunarodnyh putjah: Meždisciplinarnye očerki kul’turnyh, torgovyh, političeskih svjazej IX–XII vekov. Moscow: Yazyki russkoj kul’tury. – – –. 2009. U istokov russkogo palom- ničestva (istoričeskie, bogoslovskie, disciplinarnye i pravovye aspekty). In: Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, Drevnjaja Rus’ i slavjane, 284–297. Moscow: Russkij fond sodejstvija obrazovaniju i nauke. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V., ed. 2010. Drevnjaja Rus’ v svete zarubežnyh istočnikov. Hrestomatija. Moscow: Russkij fond sodejstvija obrazovaniju i nauke. Nyberg, Tore. 1983. Deutsche, dä- nische und schwedische Christianisierungsversuche östlich der Ostsee im Geiste des 2. und 3. Kreuzzuges. In: Zenon H. Nowak, ed. Die Rolle der Ritterorden in der Christianisierung und Kolonisierung des Ostseegebietes, 93–114. Toruń: Universytet Mikołaja Kopernika. Osredkar, Mari J. 2018. V začetku je bil dia- log. Bogoslovni vestnik 78/1: 17–31. Pahlitzsch, Johannes. 2001. Graeci und Suriani im Palästina der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Parrinello, Rosa M. 2014. Concilio di Calcedonia (451). In: Onorato Bucci and Pierantonio Piatti, eds. Storia dei concili ecumenici: attori, canoni eredità, 113–133. Rome: Città nuova editrice. Podskal’ski, Gerhard. 1996. Hristianstvo i bogoslovskaja literatura v Kievskoj Rusi (988–1237 gg.). Saint Petersburg: Vizantinorossika. Popov, Aleksandr N. 1875. Istoriko- literaturnyj obzor drevnerusskih polemičeskih sočinenij protiv latinjan XI–XV vekov. Moscow: Tipografija T. Ris. Prohorov, Gelian M., ed. 2007a. »Hoženie« igumena Daniila v Svjatuju Zemlju v načale XII veka. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel‘stvo Olega Abyško. – – –. 2007b. Igumen Daniil i ego »Hoženie« v Svjatuju Zemlju. In: Gelian M. Prohorov, ed. »Hoženie« igumena Daniila v Svjatuju Zemlju v načale XII veka, 5–13. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Olega Abyško. Raffensperger, Christian. 2012. Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Riley-Smith, John. 2005. The Crusades: A History. London: Continuum. Runciman, Steven. 1990. A History of the Crusades: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100–1187. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Schulze, Hagen. 2003. Država in nacija v evropski zgodovini. Ljubljana: Založba *cf. Seemann, Klaus D., ed. 1970. Igumen Daniil. Hoženie. Abt Daniil. Wallfahrtsbericht. München: Fink. Seemann, Klaus D. 1976. Die altrussische Wallfahrtsliteratur: Theorie und Geschichte eines literarischen Genres. München: Fink. Senyk, Sophia. 1993. A History of the Church in Ukraine: To the End of the Thirteenth Century. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Siecienski, Edward A. 2013. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. 69 Unity and Dialogue 78 (2023) 1: 43–69 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... Skórzewska, Joanna A. 2011. Family Matters? The Cultus of the Scandinavian Royal Martyrs. In: Gro Steinsland, Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Jan Erik Rekdal, and Ian B. Beuermann, eds. Ideology and Power in the Viking and Middle Ages: Scandinavia, Iceland, Ireland, Orkney and the Faeroes, 329–365. Leiden: Brill. Ščapov, Jaroslav N. 2003. Pis’mennye pam- jatniki istorii Drevnej Rusi. Moscow: Russko-Baltijskij informacionnyj centr BLIC. Tachiaos, Anthony E. N. 1988/1989. The Greek Metropolitans of Kievan Rus’: An Evaluation of Their Spiritual and Cultural Activity. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12/13: 430–445. Volf, Miroslav. 1996. Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon. Weltecke, Dorothea. 2020. Michael the Great. In: Alex Mallett, ed. Franks and Crusades in Medieval Eastern Christian Historiography, 213–242. Turnhout: Brepols. – – –. 2010. Michael The Syrian and Syriac Orthodox Identity. In: Bas T. H. Romeny, ed. Religious Origins of Nations?, 115–125. Leiden: Brill. Znanstvena knjižnica 58 Christian Gostečnik Bolečina ločenosti Ko razpade odnos, ko odide dekle, ko se fant ne javi več, lahko vse to gro- zovito boli. Še bolj pa boli izdajstvo, prevara, ko partner odide drugam. Ni ga hujšega čustvenega razcepa in žrela, ki srka nedolžne žrtve, otroška srca, kakor je razpad družine. Tedaj ni več varnosti, je samo še krik bole- čine, ki se razlega po opustošenih poljanah družinskih sag. Otrok že po naravi hrepeni po pripadnosti in sprejetosti, zdaj pa se mu to hrepenenje izjalovi. A tudi tu je in mora biti pot naprej, pot, ki jo omogoča milostni poseg od Zgoraj. Ljubljana: TEOF, ZBF in FDI, 2018. 344 str. ISBN 9789616844611, 19 € Knjigo lahko naročite na naslovu: TEOF-ZALOŽBA, Poljanska 4, 1000 Ljubljana; e-naslov: zalozba@teof.uni-lj.si