Чтение онлайн

The intricate details of Christian missions to Sudan in the 6 th century show that the only goal of their organizers was to overcome their Monophysite (and, vice versa, Chalcedonite) competitors. Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, who supported rival religious parties, sent missions to Sudan racing one another (as is brilliantly described by John of Ephesos) and their primary goal was to persuade «barbarians» to turn down rival preachers. The only success of Constantinopolitan imperial missions to Africa was the temporary conversion of the Sudanese princedom of Makurrah to Chalcedonian creed. This princedom must be accredited as the only state outside historical boundaries of the Roman Empire which embraced Byzantine Christianity — except Rus’. Whereas the religious influence of Byzantium on Africa was meagre, its political image remained important there for five hundred years after Egypt had been conquered by Islam and all ties with it had been broken. For example, Nubian officials named themselves with Byzantine titles.

Imperial Byzantine mission made some progress in converting Persian aristocracy by the end of the 6 th century. Our sources on this matter are numerous, both Persian and Latin, narrative and fabulous. If we bring them all together and single out the historical core, we will see that this short-lived success was the result of a typical political intrigue and did not involve active preaching. The first quarter of the 7 th century witnessed impressive victories of emperor Heraclius in the Middle East and considerable spread of Byzantine Christianity — but it resembled a Crusade rather than a mission. Byzantines initiated the concept of «holy war», and all the conversions were made by force (a little later strong disgust at Greeks and their religion facilitated mass conversion to Islam in the Middle East). More interesting to us is the peaceful success among Christian princes of the Caucasus and Azerbaijan: as in Africa, political appeal of the Empire turns out to be more significant than the religious one.

The propagation of Christianity in India, Central Asia and China was carried out by Nestorian missionaries who had nothing in common with Byzantium and were regarded as heretics by the imperial church. Arabic Christianity had no Greek roots, but when persecutions began, local Christians turned to Constantinople for help. Interestingly, Byzantium did not intervene but asked the Ethiopian king to do so. The source to which the author pays special attention is Vita of St. Grigentius, apostle of Himyarites (Southern Arabians). This text is of later origin, but it reflects some genuine facts and some general ideas, spread among Byzantines, of what a missionary should be like.

Summing up, the Early Byzantine period witnessed the birth of a very special kind of mission: very rarely it was the initiative of individuals or groups of monks or even local churches — usually it was a political undertaking carried out by government envoys of religious character. In most cases, such missions were invited by «barbaric» rulers, who visited Constantinople personally and got baptism at the hands of the Emperor. Leaders of primordial «barbaric states» regarded Christianity as a pass to the community of «normal» states, whereas developed political entities tried to reject the excessive Byzantine claims of global tutelage. If we outline all the missionary endeavors of Constantinople implemented outside the imperial borders without any provoking instigation from outside, we will see that they extended to the Crimea, Abkhazia, and Sudan, that is, territories which could be regarded as potential fields of political conquest.

Middle Byzantine period began with catastrophic defeats of the Empire both in Asia (from Arabs) and in Europe (from Bulgars). Greek Christianity outside Byzantium declined as well. But even before the Empire began to recover, Byzantines resumed missionary efforts. There was even more space for individual initiative than before. The first preacher of the new epoch was Stephen (8 th C.), bishop of Sugdaia in the Crimea, which belonged to Khazars. Stephen was ardently christianizing Khazars on his own account, without any support from Constantinople, governed by an iconoclastic emperor hostile to Stephen. However, the real revitalization of mission came with the general renaissance of the Empire in the 9 th century. This renewed interest in mission can be traced in the renewal of the cult of St. Andrew, proverbial preacher to «barbarians». His new Vita, which was written in the 1 half of the 9 lh century, depicts an ideal missionary. The pivot of this trend is the appearance of Cyril and Methodius, «apostles» of Slavs. Hundreds of books were written about them and the author has no intention to go into any details. What is important is that Thessaloniki brothers mattered more to their converts than to the Empire. Constantinople did not care about the fates of the brothers, did not help them — here lies the reason why Byzantine sources never mentioned Cyril and Methodius.

The conversion of Bulgaria in the 860s already bears all the birthmarks of the «political mission run by the state», known to us from Early Byzantium. Greeks’ conduct was so unscrupulous, the spiritual instruction was so ruthlessly superseded with the imposition of Greek customs and habits, the religious aspect was so strongly overshadowed by the political one, that Bulgars abhorred it and for a short while defected to the side of Rome. Thanks to this, we have a precious source — questions put by Bulgars to the Pope concerning the missionary practice of the Byzantines. From this document we learn how inflexible and arrogant Greek missionaries were. And we know that it nearly cost them a defeat. The responses of the Pope Nicholas I to these questions show drastic differences between Western and Eastern approaches to mission. By the way, the same intransigence was shown by Methodius and his disciples in Moravia. The final defeat of Cyrillo-Methodian mission there (not backed by Byzantine government anyway) was caused by the narrow-minded position of the Orthodox clergy, who did not condescend to the immaturity of Moravian Christianity and demanded from Slavic neophytes to observe the most severe Byzantine rites. On the other hand, competing Latin clergy showed a great deal of tolerance and won the upper hand. The same period saw the first attempt to baptize Rus’ — most probably, abortive. Patriarch Photius, a great literatus and churchman of the 9 th century, who is believed to be the mastermind of Byzantine missionary efforts of this period, shows great contempt for «barbarians». From his point of view, the only way for them to become Christians was to bow to the Christian Empire.

It was a deadlock for mission: in order to convince people in whatever, you have to please them. Byzantines learned their lesson: it becomes obvious from our scrutiny of another crucial source, insufficiently used by scholars in this respect — letters of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos (1 half of the 10 th C.). He instructs his missionaries to make tactical concessions to «barbaric» rulers — quite opposite to what Patriarch Photios insisted on in the previous century. The first success of the 10 th century was the conversion of Alania in the Northern Caucasus. Although it turned out to be not decisive and Alanian Christianity was uprooted soon for several decades, although a great role in this conversion was played by Abkhazian Orthodox church (a replay of the situation of Arabia — Ethiopia in the 6 th C.), still it is hard to overestimate the fact that Constantinopolitan Patriarchate finally won over this, absolutely «barbaric» area for itself for the next five hundred years.

In the middle of the 10 th century one more area was converted to Byzantine Christianity — Hungary. At the first stage, Magyar princes visited Constantinople for baptism and imperial gifts (we know this routine from the Early Byzantine period); at the second stage Greek clergy went there for everyday work. In the Hungarian case we have many archeological evidence which facilitate our understanding of the details of this work. Another source of our information is Christian vocabulary of Hungarian language. The majority of this vocabulary is of Slavic origin, which means that Greeks did not interfere much with the local population, relying more on the help of local Christian Slavs. Finally, Hungary defected from the Constantinopolitan realm to the Roman one.

The main success of Byzantine missionary activities and Byzantine foreign policy in general was the conversion of Rus’. It turns out that the Greeks did not pay a slightest attention to this event which enlarged the domain of Orthodoxy twofold! In analyzing missionary practices of Greeks in Rus’ the author draws on some sources, rarely used by Byzatine scholars — the Old Russian Vita of Leontius, bishop of Rostov, the answers of John, the Greek metropolitan of Rus’ in the 11 th century, to the questions of the inferior missionaries. John tries to be tolerant — but he cannot. He insists on stringent observation of all Byzantine rites («as in the State of Romans, i. e. Byzantines»). The only concession he makes concerns severe Russian frosts: he lets priests put fur clothes under their liturgical garments.

The author also deals with a question of relations between Byzantium and the world of Islam. Arabic captives were being baptized by force rather than by preaching. Very few cases when Greek monks were visiting Caliphate and converting Moslems are collected from Byzantine hagiography. Promises of Byzantine emperors to spread Christianity to the Arabic world look more like crusading rather than missionary plans.

In the book a survey is made of Byzantine efforts to convert nomads. Greek sources here are numerous. For centuries Byzantines regarded nomads as essentially unlawful people whose conversion to Christianity demanded that they fully reject their basic ways of life. For example, the missionaries were trying to forbid Tatars to drink «koumys» (horse milk). But such rigidity gradually gave way to more sober approach: as the Empire was declining, its demands became less strict. It can be proved by the marginal notes in the «Sugdaian Synaxarion» and by such outstanding and largely overlooked source as the questions of Theognoste, the Greek bishop of Saray (capital of Tatars), addressed to Constantinopolitan patriarch John Bekkos, and the answers of the latter about the sense and the formalities of missionary practices. This is a document of real religious wisdom and tolerance. It proves that Greeks preached to nomads in difficult circumstances, and showed great courage in doing this. They simplified the rite, adjusted the teaching and tried hard to disseminate not the Byzantine way of life, but the most general concepts of Christianity. Interestingly, the Patriarch approves of all the innovations suggested by the bishop with the only exception: he insists on the excommunication of a priest who happened to kill somebody during his missionary service.

The author also deals with Alanian Christianity. He compiled all medieval Greek inscriptions from Northern Caucasus, scattered through archeological accounts of the past hundred years. Several dozens religious inscriptions (sometimes in broken Greek, sometimes in Ossetian or Kabardine languages but in Greek characters) prove that Byzantines did not have any regular clergy there for any considerable time; they converted Northern Caucasus but failed to organize normal local church, although Alanic bishop is constantly mentioned in official Byzantine documents. The big part of the chapter is dedicated to the analysis of a first-class source, which has never been used properly: the verbose letter of Theodore, Byzantine bishop of Alania (13 lh C.), to the Patriarch, with the complaints on barbarity and rudeness of his flock. Theodore, like Theognoste, tries to condescend to the spiritual weakness of «barbarians» — however, he cannot but abhor their proneness to paganism. Difficult to understand, overloaded with biblical allusions, this personal document is still the best evidence of the psychology of a Byzantine cleric surrounded by «savages».