The rus’-byzantine treaty of 971: the authentic byzantine act or the chronicler’s mystification

Abstract

This contribution attempts to analyze these arguments versus authenticity of document of 971 and presents a survey of the different kind of hypotheses encountered within the recent historiography. The article reveals important details about the some readings of the manuscripts, form and structure of the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: (1) identification of the synkellos Theophilos, (2) identification of the Sveneld, (3) the ‘construction’ of the treaty. The attention is paid to the sources of two Byzantine narratives (the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes) about the role of synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos in the Byzantine diplomacy, including the agreement with the Rus’. A thorough analysis of the evidence found in the History of Leo the Diacon and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes leads us to conclude that the synkellos Theophilos mentioned in PVL is not identical to synkellos Philotheos / Theophilos. Rejecting the identity of Theophilus from the agreement with the Rus’ in PVL with Philoteus/Theophilus it makes unnecessary to search for a ‘common source’ between PVL and a Synopsis of John Skylitzes or that the chronicler read a certain Byzantine chronicle where he found the archbishop Theophilus. Our rejection of the identity of synkellos Theophilos with Philoteus/Theophilus has methodological advantages, because it allows us not to create unnecessary superstructures or purely hypothetical entities. It also identifies that George Monachus Continuatus’s chronicle with addition to 1130 was not a source for the PVL. There is no reason to assume that the author of PVL could use thus ‘common source’. Thus, all proposed arguments in favor of the inauthenticity of the treaty 971 in PVL have significant flaws. They create redundant entities such as ‘common sources’ or a completely imaginary Byzantine chronicle. However, it is not possible to prove the reality of these hypothetical constructions as sources of the PVL. Summarizing presented counterarguments author concludes that the idea surrounding the inauthenticity of the 971 agreement does not find its confirmation. This paper engages with recent discussion on the Rus’-Byzantine treaty of 971 while also contributing to the renewed interest in the reception of the Byzantine documents in the Rus’.