About the management of the empire. "On the Administration of the Empire". Constantin vii purplish. "Russian" names of thresholds at Konstantin Porphyrogenitus

Constantinople, as once, under Justinian I, became again the focus of luxury, splendor and grandeur, unseen in any other capital of Europe. The glory of the "workshop of splendor" returned to him. bloomed again fine Arts. Artistic crafts reached a high level of perfection. New palaces of the nobility and temples were erected, amazing with grace and beauty. Interest in the ancient cultural heritage, renewed half a century ago, deepened. The definition widely used in science today - "Macedonian Renaissance" - is applied primarily to the time of the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the third representative of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1056) on the Byzantine throne.

A bright cultural upsurge was undoubtedly associated with significant shifts in the economy of the empire, its social system, in the internal political life, as well as with the change in the foreign policy situation in the second half of the 9th - the first half of the 10th century. The defining feature of the era of Constantine was the rapid development feudal relations which spontaneously tried to regulate the state. Already at the turn of the IX-X centuries. the central government has established everywhere, both in the countryside and in the city, its constant strict control over economic life countries. The property of the subjects of the emperor was subjected to a scrupulous assessment for taxation. Free villages - communities that became taxable, were bound by mutual responsibility - community members were mutually responsible for paying taxes to the treasury; the peasants were also obliged to serve in the military militia.

Careful regulation was also subjected to craft and trade in the cities, which at that time were experiencing a period of revival and upsurge. Not a single product was sold or bought on the market without being charged by the state with a trade duty. Especially strict was the control of the authorities over the economic and social life townspeople in the capital of the empire, carried out in accordance with the provisions and norms of the legal collection put into practice by the father of Constantine Leo VI - "The Book of the Eparch" (that is, the mayor of Constantinople).

In the first half of the 10th century, the thematic military-administrative system of provincial administration finally became widespread in the empire, which ensured a more perfect organization of the collection of state taxes, the defense of the country, and the recruitment of the thematic peasant militia. At the head of each theme was a strategist appointed by the emperor, who had full military and civil power. By this period, the apparatus of the central government was also significantly expanded, differentiated and streamlined: separate departments (logophies, or secrets) were in charge of foreign relations and mail, collecting taxes and duties, equipping troops and paying salaries to hired soldiers, imperial estates. Many specialized services and offices, large and small, provided for the various needs of the imperial palace. The beginning of the tenth century in Marxist Byzantine studies, the completion of the formation of the Byzantine centralized feudal monarchy is usually dated. Sinklit (senate) - the council under the emperor turned into a decorative institution under the omnipotent monarch in his will. Revoking the right of the synclite and curias (bodies of city self-government) to appoint officials, Leo VI the Wise, father of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, declared their complete uselessness, since "now the emperor takes care of everything."

The emperor relied on a powerful branched bureaucratic system of power. The empire was dominated by a high-ranking, mostly civil nobility, to which the ruling Macedonian dynasty belonged at that time. But at the same time, a landowning provincial aristocracy, which traditionally played a major role in the Byzantine army, was taking shape, rapidly growing stronger. The objective process of stratification and landlessness of the peasants quickly gained momentum. Despite the control over the growth of large land ownership by the state, contrary to the accepted since the 20s of the X century. Government measures aimed at preserving small peasant land ownership, full-scale taxable and military-liable peasant farms, many free peasants became wigs - dependent on private individuals (settlers). This process took place especially rapidly in the 10th century, including the reign of Constantine VII, when a class of feudally dependent peasantry took shape. The growing class of large feudal lords increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with the rule of the civil nobility, who controlled the throne and relied on strengthening centralized forms of exploitation. It was on this basis that the predecessor of Constantine VII, Roman I Lakapin, and then Constantine himself, first of all faced the intrigues of the feudal opposition.

The main conflict between the two factions of the ruling class in the struggle for power falls on a later time (the last quarter of the 10th - the last quarter of the 11th century). In the meantime, in the era of Constantine VII, the empire as a whole was on the rise. The subjugation of the free peasantry to the centralized state, the flourishing of the urban economy, and the establishment of the theme system strengthened the strength of the empire. Byzantium stepped up its foreign policy, moving almost on all its borders from defense to offensive. Already at the end of the 9th century, during the reign of the grandfather of Constantine Basil I the Macedonian, in the new legal collection "Isagoge" instead of the principle "to protect and save" that prevailed in the iconoclastic era in foreign policy, a new one was put forward: "to preserve the existing benefits, return the lost and extract the missing .

The Arab danger was a thing of the past. The fragmented caliphate weakened the onslaught. The troops of the empire in the middle of the tenth century. reappeared on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Armenian and Georgian principalities, freed from Arab dependence, became vassals of the empire. With the death of Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria and the conclusion of a peace treaty in 927, sealed by a dynastic marriage, the Bulgarian danger also disappeared for a long time. The empire consolidated its influence in the Serbo-Croatian lands. She sought to strengthen her position in Italy. The empire vigilantly followed the state of affairs in the northern regions adjoining the Black Sea: its diplomacy tried to neutralize the possible danger to its borders from Old Rus' and the Pechenegs, which were strengthening in this area.

The main foreign policy successes of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty, under which the empire reached the height of its power, did not fall during the reign of Constantine VII. The foundations of this power were laid by Constantine's grandfather Vasily I the Macedonian (867-886), and the grandson of Constantine Vasily II the Bulgar Slayer (976-1025) became famous for his victories and conquests. However, even under Constantine, the empire continued to build up its forces, it did not lose anything acquired by its predecessors, and in the wars with the Arabs at the end of his reign, it managed to push them further south and southeast, opening the way for an offensive into Mesopotamia and Syria.

The personal fate of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was, perhaps, the most difficult in comparison with the circumstances of the life of the rest of the representatives of the Macedonian dynasty. Considered heir to the throne, Constantine - a royal child, then a youth, a young man and a mature man - fully experienced the absence in the political theory and practice of the empire of a firm principle of heredity of imperial power. The very birth of Constantine was accompanied by a major political and social scandal. The son of Leo VI the Wise (886-912) and the beautiful Zoya Karvonopsida (the nickname literally means "Fiery-eyed"), Konstantin was essentially an illegitimate child. The marriages of Leo VI were strikingly unhappy: his wives died one after another. In nine years, from 892 to 901, he buried three wives. The first two left him daughters, and the third died in childbirth, along with a barely born son. The unfortunate emperor did not dare to enter into a fourth marriage - the church resolutely and unconditionally forbade him. Even the third marriage was allowed by the canons in exceptional cases, and Leo VI had to make considerable efforts to get married to Zoya's predecessor Evdokia.

Constantine was born in September 905. The inexpressibly delighted father, who finally found an heir, faced a difficult struggle to achieve the legalization of the rights of his son born out of wedlock. In April 906, the emperor and Zoya were secretly married in the palace by a simple priest. However, the legality of marriage was not recognized by the powerful patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (901-907 and 912-925). Only at the end of the following year, after Leo VI issued a special novel fixing the ban on the fourth marriage by secular legislation (such was the condition of the new patriarch Euthymius: 907-912), the marriage of Leo VI and Zoe was recognized by the church, and Constantine acquired the rights of an imperial son . On May 15, 908, a boy under the age of three was married as co-ruler of his father. However, Constantine was not the only co-emperor of Leo VI. Such was also his uncle Alexander, his father's brother, crowned by Basil I about 30 years ago.

May 11, 912, on a holiday - the day of the founding of Constantinople, traditionally celebrated since 330. Leo VI died, entrusting the care of his son to his brother Alexander, who, according to rumor, not only did not have warm feelings for his nephew, but also intended destroy it physically. As confirmation of this plan, the immediate exile of Constantine's mother Zoe after the accession of Alexander and the disgrace of dignitaries and servants close to Leo VI were regarded. However, Alexander's plans, if he really bore them, were not destined to come true: on May 6, 913, he died suddenly.

Constantine, thus, turned out to be the only crowned person on the throne of the empire. The regency council under the juvenile autocrat (autocrat) included Nikolai Mystik, who again became patriarch under Alexander, and the commander of the imperial fleet (drungarii fleet) Roman Lakapin, and soon also the mother of Konstantin Zoya returned from exile. Protracted heavy wars with Bulgaria, which flared up again in 913, led to an increase in the role of the military at court, including Roman Lekapin, who enjoyed the support of the metropolitan bureaucracy and part of the provincial nobility. Apparently, the patriarch, who transferred his dislike for Leo VI and Zoya to their son, also contributed to his plans. Zoya and Konstantin found themselves in essence in the complete power of the two regents mentioned.

In 919, 14-year-old Constantine married the daughter of Romanus Lekapenos, Elena, and conferred on his father-in-law the high rank of vasileopator ("father of the emperor"), which grants a preferential right among other nobles to participate in the management of the empire. In the autumn of the following year, Constantine married Roman as Caesar (the title was given, as a rule, only to close relatives of the emperor), and at the end of the same year - as his co-ruler. Regent, father-in-law and co-ruler. Roman I Lecapenus (920-944) essentially seized the reins of government from the young Constantine for the coming quarter of a century, revealing great organizational skills and the ability to achieve the main goal through skillful compromises.

true intentions Roman I, who, upon his appointment as regent, took an oath to the synclite not to encroach on royal power, were discovered less than six months later: in May 921, Roman I married his eldest son Christopher as co-ruler. A whole escalation of measures followed, aimed at the gradual deprivation of Constantine VII (and his possible heirs) of the rights to real participation in the affairs of the state. The following year, Roman I found himself in the rank of chief emperor (autocrator), between 922 and 924. Christopher was promoted to second place, immediately after his father, and Constantine was pushed to third; in December 924, two other sons of Roman, Stefan and Constantine, became co-rulers of their father. In 933, finally, any opposition to Roman from the side of the higher clergy was eliminated: his youngest son, 16-year-old Theophylact, took the throne of Patriarch of Constantinople. The position of the representatives of the Lakapen family on the throne seemed unshakable.

Judging by the data of the 51st chapter of the work "On the Management of the Empire", the son-in-law of Roman I and the dowager empress Zoya were not only neglected in the palace: they were kept under vigilant supervision. They were keenly aware of the danger that constantly threatened them. The situation in the family changed, probably after the death of Christopher in 931. The old emperor did not raise Stephen to the rank of a deceased son, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus was in second place. Among the Lacapinids began, apparently, strife. In all likelihood, the forces behind the legitimate heir to the throne also revived. Among the ardent supporters of Constantine VII, who sought to ensure his autocratic power as the immediate successor of Roman I, was Constantine's wife Elena, who was ready to act against her father and brothers for the sake of her husband. Soon he was in their camp and illegitimate son Roman palace eunuch Vasily Nof, who had a sharp mind and indomitable ambition.

Of course, the atmosphere in the palace heated up even more after Elena gave birth in 938 to a son, who was named Roman in honor of his grandfather. The concern of the sons of Roman I, Stephen and Constantine, for their rights to the throne increased dramatically. There is reason to believe that Constantine VII and the group of courtiers acting in his favor managed to bring the denouement closer, using the circumstances of the conclusion of the Byzantine-Russian treaty in the fall of 944. The fact is that, according to the text preserved in the Russian chronicle, the treaty was signed by the empire Roman, Constantine and Stefan (names are given in that order). It is clear that Constantine here is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who, therefore, from 931 again received the rank of chief among the co-rulers: the son of Roman I Constantine was younger than Stephen and could not be named before him. In this case, Roman's son Konstantin probably angered his father in some way and he was not allowed to sign the contract at all. One way or another, but Constantine VII and his supporters managed to direct the discontent of the sons of Roman against their father, and on December 16, 944, Roman I was deposed by them and exiled to the island of Prot, one of the Princes' Islands near the capital, and after 41 days, On January 27, 945, they were, in turn, freely arrested by order of Constantine VII and sent into exile, into custody. Soon, on Easter, on April 6 of the same year, Constantine married his son Roman as co-ruler.

Listed as emperor from the age of three, Constantine truly became one only at the age of forty. Being removed from the administration of the empire for so long, he apparently filled his leisure time with the study of various sciences, familiarization with the heritage of ancient literature. However, the fame of his learning was greatly exaggerated. He was certainly the most educated among the crowned members of the Macedonian dynasty, surpassing even his father Leo VI in this, not to mention his grandfather, son and grandson, but significantly inferior to such contemporaries as, for example, Patriarch Nicholas Mystic. The education of Constantine VII was not, in all likelihood, systematic. He did not know Latin. His knowledge of history was also relative. In connection with the question of who prevailed in Constantine - a politician or a scientist - assumptions were made in science about various kinds of complexes that seemed to; could not help developing in the mental warehouse of a well-read emperor, consumed by the thought of his great appointment and his miserable role in reality. The texts of the works preserved under the name of Constantine by no means justify, however, such conjectures. They allow us to judge, although also presumably, more important personally for Konstantin, about the relationship that developed between the father (Constantine VII) and the son (Roman II) in the mid-40s - early 50s. The emperor's remarks addressed to his son are filled with care and anxiety not only for him, but also for his ability as a basileus to withstand circumstances.

Until the age of six or seven, Roman, in all likelihood, did not communicate with his father too often: according to the customs of that era, in early age; noble boys were constantly in the female half, in the gynaecium, and only from the age of six or seven did they enter the upbringing of the uncle; with him they were inseparable, and with their father their communication became regular. Of course, until the age of seven, people close to the Lakapins prevailed in Roman's circle, and the father hardly had any influence on his son. However, even after 945, this influence, apparently, did not become decisive: everything that is known about the lifestyle, interests and behavior of Roman II indicates that father and son were spiritually strangers to each other. It is assumed that Vasily Nof was directly involved in the upbringing of Roman. If this is true, it should be concluded that the pious, stingy and stern eunuch aroused the hostility of his nephew: dying, Constantine VII entrusted the care of his son not to Vasily Nof, but to another eunuch, Vasily's enemy, Joseph Vringa. It is no coincidence that Vasily Nof disappeared from the pages of sources reporting the reign of Roman II (959-963). It is no coincidence that, having come to power. Roman II disgraced most of the dignitaries who had influence under Constantine VII. Perhaps, finally, the persistent rumors after the death of Constantine VII that things could not have done without poison given to the father-in-law with the consent of her husband by the wife of Roman II, Theophano, are not accidental. Constantine VII was blamed by his contemporaries mainly for his excessive addiction to wine, and Roman II for his constant revelry and passion for pleasures, indulging in which he lost his health early and died suddenly at the 25th year of his birth. Constantine, in his address to his son, conveys the idea of the nobility of the royal family. It is therefore likely that the marriage of the wayward prince (c. 956) to the daughter of the tavern keeper Anastasia (Theophano) also brought serious grief to the father and mother. Theophano herself, at least, hated the older royal couple, who stood in the way of the young couple's omnipotence. This couple became the center of rallying opposition to Constantine VII from the large landowning nobility, dissatisfied with him. agricultural policy, which, like the policy of Roman I, was aimed at strengthening centralized forms of exploitation and generally met the interests of the civil nobility: it was its well-being that was based primarily on extraditions from the treasury, and not on income from land holdings. As subsequent events showed, young Roman II did not have special filial feelings either for his father, or for his mother, or for his sisters (he tried to remove his mother from the palace after the death of his father, and imprisoned the sisters in a monastery).

Even on the eve of the deposition of Roman I Lecapenus, Constantine VII, in a letter to Theodore, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, with whom the emperor was friends until the end of his life, complaining of loneliness, wrote, quoting the 37th psalm, about insincere friends and alienation of relatives. It is unlikely that family relations have changed for the better a decade after this letter. The birth at the beginning of 958 of Roman II and Theophano's son, the grandson of Kbnstantin VII - Vasily (the future Bulgar Slayer) did not correct them either.

By the time the work on the work "On the Management of the Empire" was completed, Roman was 14 years old - an age sufficient for those around him to objectively assess his shortcomings and merits as a person and future autocrat. The fact that Constantine VII was able to soberly judge people by their deeds, not guided only by personal likes and dislikes, is evidenced by his ability to use the experience and knowledge of prominent civil and military dignitaries. This is also evidenced by some of the remarks of the emperor in his work considered here regarding Romanus Lecapenus, and by the very policy of Constantine, which, by and large, was only a continuation of the policy of his father-in-law.

Apparently, R. Jenkins is right in believing that Roman II grew up weak and vicious, not justifying his father's hopes and causing Constantine's growing concern for the fate of his son. Perhaps the conclusion is logical that Roman was by no means zealous in the study of science, and this greatly upset his father. Therefore, Constantine VII hurried with the compilation of teachings-guides for Roman - on how to "rule and lead the world ship."

Constantine VII was engaged in state affairs, in any case, from January 945 until the end of his life. To what extent Roman P was involved in them at the end of the 50s, the sources are completely silent. It is likely that this participation was minimal. In September 959, the senior emperor went to Olympus (in Asia Minor), where his friend Theodore of Cyzicus took monastic vows in one of the monasteries. The official purpose of the trip was the preparation for a campaign against the Arabs, the real intention was supposedly the desire of Constantine to consult with a friend about the measures that should be taken to depose the patriarch Polyeuctus, who was secretly intriguing against the emperor. On the way back Konstantin caught a cold and died in November. The day of his death (November 9.15 or 19) is the subject of scientific discussion. The funeral of Constantine VII, as once the deposition of the Lacapinides by him in January 945, showed that the learned emperor was popular with the people of Constantinople. They were satisfied with his policy of favors and benefits for the inhabitants of the capital, traditional for the basileus of the Macedonian dynasty. Impressed by the people of Constantinople and the very representative appearance of the king: he was tall, slender, blue-eyed, handsome.

Until recently, historiography was dominated by a point of view based on an uncritical reading of the sources, according to which Constantine VII was more of a scientist and writer than an emperor, that he was mainly engaged in the sciences, and not in the affairs of the state, which he allegedly entrusted to his wife Helen, parakimomena Vasily Nof, etheriarch Vasily Petin, eparch Theophilus and Sacellarius Joseph Vringu, and if sometimes Konstantin took on the affairs of the empire, he preferred the easiest of them, namely the court, which he did without mercy. IN last years, however, this view was seriously shaken: Constantine is now portrayed in scientific literature as an experienced politician, a skilled diplomat, a sober organizer who knew people well and knew how to rely on capable and energetic assistants. Contradictory testimonies of sources on this account are not so much contradictions in Constantine's policy itself, but rather a reflection of the latent struggle in his time in the circles of the nobility, related to the assessment of the political heritage of Roman I Lecapenus and the determination of the fate of the throne (the right of Roman II to the throne as a son " illegitimate", did not seem to be indisputable to parts of the highest nobility; before the death in exile of Roman I in July 948, several conspiracies against Constantine himself were uncovered, and later the supporters of the Lacapinids did not leave their intrigues).

Of course, the situation both inside the empire and on its borders was calmer during the reign of Constantine VII than during the reign of his grandfather, father and father-in-law. Of course, Constantine VII had the opportunity to build on the successes achieved by his predecessors. But the opposition of Constantine VII to Roman I as an impractical theoretician and an outstanding energetic practitioner is based in historiography mainly on the fact of Constantine's sharp condemnation of his father-in-law in his work On the Administration of the Empire. Indeed, the feeling of hatred of Constantine VII for Roman I, who deprived the "legitimate" basileus for 25 years and the shadow of power, is indisputable. However, the situation here was not so simple. Constantine was guided in compiling the work under consideration by several main ideas, trying to justify, first of all, the inviolability of the rights of his dynasty to the imperial throne. To do this, it seemed absolutely necessary to discredit the rule of the basileus of the Amorian dynasty (820-867), overthrown by his grandfather Basil I, and to cast a shadow on the politics and the very personality of his father-in-law - essentially a usurper. He accuses the emperors of the Amorian dynasty, especially Michael II Travl (820-829), that "the kingdom of the Romans, due to the negligence and inexperience of the rulers at that time, sank almost to insignificance." As for Roman, Konstantin repeatedly makes sharp, venomous remarks about him. Two examples will suffice to judge them. In the 13th chapter, Constantine calls Roman an ignoramus, who ruled arbitrarily and not in accordance with Roman customs, arrogantly and arbitrarily, a violator of the usual and legal orders, hated during his lifetime by both the synclite, and the people, and the church, reviled by everyone even after death, so that, the author emphasizes in conclusion, the end that befell Roman Lecapenus (dethronement and exile) is a fair punishment for his arbitrariness. In the 51st chapter, talking about the measures taken by Roman to isolate Constantine VII and his mother in the palace, Constantine notes that he did all this "when ... he entered the palace and found himself, I don’t know how to put it, the owner of the kingdom ".

Constantine's tirade about the nobility of the royal family and high education as an integral quality of the basileus is also aimed against the illiterate Roman I, who comes from "ordinary" people, because the ignorance of the ruler is the cause of disasters and humiliation for Romania. Constantine persistently advises his son to master the knowledge necessary for a monarch, especially in the administrative and military history of the empire - in this, the basileus is obliged to excel others, i.e. courtiers and officials, since only then will his authority among his subjects be great. The ignoramus has no role model before his eyes, creates inappropriate things, cancels what was well established by his predecessors, reveals an inability to counteract a sudden change of circumstances, introduces innovations. A “non-scientist” who has not comprehended the Roman order from childhood and does not know how they developed will not achieve success, while a basileus who has studied the science of government will be desirable for his subjects, will be revered by them as wise among the reasonable and reasonable among the wise. It is himself and Roman II that Constantine has in mind, in contrast to Roman Lakapin, saying that the hereditary order of gaining power is essentially sanctioned by God, "because he (God) chose you and uprooted you from your mother's womb and gave you his kingdom as best of all" and since he is more able to rule "who has been brought up in royal palaces from childhood ... who has followed Roman customs from the very beginning." The Emperor, wrote Konstantin in his other work, is "Christ among the Apostles", the role of Roman I, according to Konstantin, is absolutely inaccessible.

Despite all these statements, Constantine VII essentially continued both the domestic and foreign policy of Roman I, which on the whole met the interests of the civil nobility, which they both represented. The novels of Constantine VII on the agrarian issue corresponded to the decrees of Roman I on this matter: Constantine confirmed the orders of his predecessor, having made only one concession to large landowners under pressure from the dinats and the patriarch (he abolished the right of the poorest peasants to return their plots from the hands of the dinats free of charge), but he still tightened measures against the dynats, who encroached on the military allotments of the peasant militias, declaring these allotments inalienable in general. Like Roman I, Constantine sought to eradicate the corruption of the bureaucratic apparatus, displaced compromised tax collectors. Like Roman I in his time, who flirted with the plebs of Constantinople (he paid off all the debts of the Constantinopolitans to the owners for renting apartments, built temporary shelters from the cold for the capital's beggars), Constantine improved the hospitals and took care of their supply. His patronage of science and the arts was popular.

The continuity between the policies of Roman I and Constantine VII is most clearly seen in foreign affairs. Konstantin apparently followed the course of Roman in relations with the Arabs, the countries of the West, the Serbs and Croats, the Pechenegs, the ancient dews, the principalities of the Caucasus. Possibly cooler than under Roman I were the relations of the empire with Bulgaria, where the son-in-law of Roman I Lakapin by granddaughter (daughter of Christopher) Peter, who received from Roman I the title "Vasileus of the Bulgarians", ruled. With regard to the Bulgarians, Constantine VII maintains a generally hostile tone in his work "On the Administration of the Empire". Concessions from his father-in-law to Peter, he considers completely unacceptable. It is noteworthy that in the chapters devoted to the Serbs and Croats, and especially to relations with the Armenian and Georgian principalities (ch. 43-46), the name of Roman Lekapin is repeatedly mentioned in a positive sense. His policy in these regions finds, in fact, the approval of Constantine and is recognized as successful. It turns out that Roman I followed the Roman customs, and did not cancel the decisions of those who reigned before (in particular, Leo VI, father of Constantine), and sometimes fulfilled requests "out of his kindness" (ch. 43). Of course, an objection is possible: the noted traces of sympathy for Roman I arose under the pen not of Constantine VII himself, but of officials who selected material for him, in particular, those who were related to Eastern affairs and were probably Armenians by origin (as an Armenian was also Romanus Lacapinus). In addition, the chapters devoted to relations with the Armenian and Georgian princes were apparently subjected to the least processing by Constantine, since they were prepared from the very beginning more carefully than other parts, and by more competent people. However, the same motive for approving the policy of Roman I is also characteristic of the chapters on the Serbs, where the hand of Konstantin the editor is much more visible. In other words, Constantine's attacks on his father-in-law do not give grounds for the conclusion that he completely condemned the political course of Roman I, while the obvious differences between the characters and passions of Roman I and Constantine VII are still insufficient grounds for concluding that the directions in their politics were just as different. and the results of their activities. Indeed, in essence, Constantine VII suffered only one major failure - the death of the empire's navy on an expedition against the Cretan Arabs in 949. But Roman I also lost almost all of Calabria for seven years (from 927 to 934), captured, robbed and taxed Arabs of Africa.

It is impossible to substantiate the thesis about the inability of Constantine VII to govern the empire and references to the extreme "impracticality", isolation from the realities of his time, written by Constantine or composed under his editorship. Firstly, when assessing the degree of originality (and "practicality") of the works of medieval authors, one should, it seems, proceed from those accepted in that era, and not from modern criteria: a tendency to anachronisms and blind trust in primary sources were at that time the usual position of the writer , and not a special property inherent only to Constantine. Secondly, the preference for outdated information, poor suitability for the political practice of the tenth century. only the work of Constantine "On Themes" differed, which was abundantly equipped with data from the 6th century (when themes did not exist at all) and which was the author's youthful work on the geography and administrative structure of the empire. Legendary messages, fantastic news, fairy-tale motifs and anachronisms are found on the pages of his other works, but in general, the book "On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court" (a ritualist regulating the order of receptions, ceremonies and all kinds of festivities and processions), and the work "On Management empire" fully corresponded to their contemporary practical goals. The first served as a guide used in Everyday life the imperial palace, the second - a mirror for the young ruler of the state. R. Jenkins showed that some incredible statements and distortions of real facts by Constantine are in fact a conscious "diplomatic fiction", calculated on the ignorance and gullibility of the "barbarians", who were not only not forbidden, but supposed - in the interests of the empire - to mislead . As for other errors and inaccuracies in the work "On the Management of the Empire", then, according to the observations of P. Yiannopoulos, they should be attributed to gaps in knowledge, as well as the author's prejudices, which he was not alien to as a son of his time.

Basically, the information compiled by Konstantin for his heir, both on domestic and foreign policy issues, is quite instructive and relevant. Even the 53rd chapter, which is usually considered in historiography as accidentally included in the work and not intended for publication, treats the legendary events of the 1st century BC. BC. - IV century. AD, was prepared to explain the urgent problem in the era of Constantine - the reasons for the constant readiness of the Kherson theme in Crimea to secede from the empire due to the vitality of the ancient polis traditions of self-government in this remote province and local polis patriotism. Traces of undoubted intervention (it is usually preceded by a remark - "Know") Konstantin in the text of the materials he edited are found in almost all chapters. Of course, far from all the maxims and ideas were expressed by the emperor himself, the authorship of many of them belongs to his anonymous co-authors, who prepared the relevant references for the book; nevertheless, it is important to state that Constantine preserved the materials collected for him in the final text of the book insofar as their content as a whole, in all likelihood, corresponded to the emperor's own ideas.

Not everything is known about the truly colossal literary and authorial, and especially the organizational activities of Constantine VII. It is believed that the emperor set a goal to prepare reference books of an encyclopedic nature in almost all branches of knowledge that existed then: agronomy, zoology and veterinary medicine, medicine, jurisprudence, military tactics, administrative unit, diplomacy, the system of titles, the organization of palace ceremonies, etc. Under the leadership of Constantine, up to 53 collections were compiled, most of which have been irretrievably lost. The surviving ones brought us, albeit in abbreviations or extracts, a lot of lost works, including the works of Priscus of Panius and Menander Protector, devoted to the description of the peoples that the empire encountered in the 5th-6th centuries, and diplomatic contacts with them. The "diplomatic" collection has not come down to us in its entirety. It is quite possible that its compilation preceded the writing of the work "On the Governance of the Empire" and its materials were involved by Constantine in at least one of the sections of the work, designated as the section "On the peoples" (see more about this below).

The following works are attributed directly to the pen of Constantine Porphyrogenitus: "The Biography of Basil" (the author's grandfather), the mentioned works "On Themes" and "On Ceremonies" and, finally, "On the Management of the Empire." The greatest degree of authorship of Constantine is recognized for the first two works. The characterization of Konstantin's work as a whole is not, however, the task of this Introduction. In accordance with our main task, we will dwell only on the last work of Constantine, which is of direct interest to us, On the Administration of the Empire. Let us make the reservation that in a brief review it is impossible to complete characteristic the work of its sources, composition, author's position, etc. All these Questions are covered in the Commentary. Here we will focus on such problems as the concept of work, the method of working on it, and its main political and ideological orientation.

In an emotionally elevated, pompous address to his son in the preamble to the essay, written, no doubt, by Constantine himself, he declares that below two topics will be developed as a science of government mainly: the first is foreign policy, about what constitutes the surrounding empire the peoples with whom she enters into relations, in what ways they can be useful, and in what ways they are harmful to the power of the Romans; the second topic is an internal one, about what innovations, in comparison with the traditional orders, appeared in the empire with the passage of time, how they arose and what is their essence. ""

Contrary to this plan, however, only the first theme was developed in detail in the work, although here, too, the attention paid to various peoples is very different. The second topic is generally covered. in labor only partially. Six relatively private (and on private examples) plots were specially considered: about the uprisings of the Slavs in the Peloponnese against imperial power (ch. 49 and 50), about the reorganization of the device of a number of themes (ch. 50), about the organization of service in the royal fleet (ch. 51), on the procedure for conferring certain titles and paying rugi (ch. 50), on the norms of material compensation for persons liable for military service for refusing to participate in a military campaign (ch. 51, 52) and on the features of the Kherson theme (ch. 53)

Apparently, the main reason for the discrepancy between the idea and its implementation lies in the above-mentioned change in the plan and goals of the work: it was prepared as a reference book-review "On the Peoples" (as for such, the main material was collected), and then was hastily revised (and only partly and without relying on clear criteria) into a mirror teaching (a guide to domestic and foreign policy), presented by the father to his son Roman on his 14th birthday. These questions, as well as the whole problem of composition and sequence of writing various parts of the work, are thoroughly and convincingly investigated and presented by Jenkins in two "General Introductions" (to the publication of the text of the work itself and to the Commentary). Let us therefore only note the most important.

The most thorough alteration was made to the original plan of the work concerning its first part: the introduction (which, according to Jenkins, was written last) and the first 13 chapters. The composition of only this part of the work is comparatively ordered. As for the further text, Jenkins believes that its composition is extremely careless and random. First of all, due to an oversight or haste, raw materials were included in the book that were not intended for publication. These are, in particular, chapters 23-25, 48, which was only material for the 47th chapter, 52, used as a source for the 51st, and 53 almost to the end. All these chapters in terms of content have nothing to do with Constantine's contemporary problems of international and domestic life, and it is no coincidence that none of them is introduced into the text of the book by Constantine's habitual turnover "Know". Accidentally included in the work Jenkins also considers the 9th chapter, which served as the source of the 2nd and essentially has nothing to do with the section that covers ch. 1-12 and treats the question of the position of the empire in relation to the "northern peoples".

Jenkins defines the rest of the work as instructive and informative. Moreover, the next (instructive, or diplomatic) section is formed by one 13th chapter written by Constantine himself, excluding its beginning. The largest section is made up of chapters 14-48, which, in essence, represent the surviving part of the work prepared according to the original plan and corresponding to the name proposed in the manuscript - "On the Peoples". The final section is chapters 49-53 dealing with internal affairs.

It is likely that not all the plots were collected and included in the book in a timely manner. Thus, the absence of a special chapter on Bulgaria and the Bulgarians and the extremely one-sided aspect of the story about the ancient dews are striking.

Undoubtedly, many people participated in the collection of material. In the distribution of tasks between them, only the most general wishes about the nature of the required materials were probably expressed. Each performer understood his task to the best of his own understanding and competence. Some went along, as is clear from the variety of genres and the content of the chapters, along the easiest path: to select what was more accessible or more suited to their own tastes. Thus, authentic documents (or extracts from them) and legends, linguistic interpretations and excerpts from the chronicles, geographical descriptions and oral testimonies, etc. turned out to be brought together. R. Jenkins and D. Moravchik believe that the titles of the chapters were originally on the margins of one of the lists from which the surviving manuscript was copied; these marginal notes were made many years after the writing of the work in order to facilitate its reading, and then, when preparing a new list, they were transferred to the text. The strongest argument in favor of this is the fact that a number of titles are inserted into the text in the wrong place, "late" or "ahead" of the titled plot (see ch. 1, 2, 13, 39, etc.). However, there are cases of a different kind, when the text is essentially a continuation of the narrative already begun in the title (see ch. 9, 22, 40, etc.). Therefore, Jenkins admits that some of the headings were already on the sheets, which, as materials, lay on Konstantin's desk. We would dare to assume that a number of titles generally preceded the texts themselves, representing a brief record of the tasks that the collectors of the material had to perform. If we accept this hypothesis, then we should think that the more detailed the heading of the chapter, the more concrete and thorough information Konstantin wanted to get (see ch. 1, 8, 9, 16, 22, 42, 44, 48-52 ).

Jenkins's conclusion is convincing that later than all other sections, chapters 1-13 were processed, bearing especially numerous traces of Konstantin's editorial corrections. There is also no doubt that he was the only arranger (metrane page) of the work, who gave it the composition in which it has come down to us. In this case, the order in which Constantine arranged the material is of interest. It seems obvious that the emperor singled out and put in the first place the chapters on the Pechenegs (1-8), as well as on the Hungarians (ch. 3, 4), dews (ch. 2), Bulgarians (ch. 5), Khazars, Alans, bonds and black Bulgars (Ch. 10-12), i.e. about the peoples living near the northern borders of the empire, because for the time of writing the work he considered the relations of the empire with these peoples to be especially important. One of the most important chapters of the work (13th) also deals only with the "northern peoples" named above.

Despite the brevity of the presentation, the information of the first chapters is quite extensive, and preparatory materials for this part, in all likelihood, several people were selected. As for the rest of the chapters in the section "On the Peoples," one should apparently take into account the groups of chapters clearly distinguished here, relating to one region or one people. Such, for example, are the chapters concerning Franco-Italian plots (chaps. 26-28), telling about Serbo-Croatian history (chaps. 29-36) and telling about the Armenian and Georgian principalities (chaps. 43-46). It is possible that the materials for each of these groups of chapters were prepared by a limited number of people (from one to two or three). Undoubtedly, already at the preparatory stage, the materials of chapters 43-46 favorably differed from the materials of the previous ones both in saturation with facts, and in composition, and in clarity of presentation. Judging by the transcription of personal names and toponyms, as well as by the use of several Armenian and Georgian technical terms, the materials of chapters 43-46 were selected by people who were competent both in the intricacies of Byzantine diplomacy and in the complexities of local political life. The informers, of course, are Byzantine officials of the department of foreign relations or palace offices, but they are natives of the Armenian-Georgian region, who ended up in the imperial service.

As for the order of the chapters in the section "On the Peoples", it seems, at first glance, to be devoid of any logic: the transition from chapter to chapter or from a group of chapters to another group seems to be accidental or carried out according to purely external associative links. Both the publishers and the authors of the commentary specifically pay attention to this circumstance. However, some pattern, although sometimes formal, in the composition of the section "On the peoples", in our opinion, is still traceable. The vast majority of chapters follow each other, as it were, in a circle, from the point of view of an observer located in its center (Constantinople), in the direction from north to east, then to south, west and again to north and east. Indeed, chapters 1-13 cover the northern borders of the empire, chapters 14-22 describe the Arab world (east), chapters 23-28 are devoted to the countries of the West (Spain, Italy, Venice), chapters 29-36 tell about Serbo-Croatian region, chapters 37-42 return the reader again to the "northern peoples", up to the Caucasian limits (Moravans, Pechenegs, Magyars, Khazars, Alans and Zikhs), and, finally, chapters 43-46 interpret again about the eastern, Armenian and Georgian lands.

In addition to this superficial relationship between groups of chapters, one can also point to a number of natural associative transitions: from the eastern possessions of the Arabs - in the course of their conquests - to the southern (African) and western (Spanish, and then Italian); from Western countries(Italy and Venice) - to the Balkan Peninsula - Serbo-Croatian lands, subjected, like the Italian ones, to Arab raids; the transition from the northern region to the eastern (Armenian-Georgian) is also natural, in accordance with the itinerary of the 42nd chapter, "bringing" the path from the Western Black Sea region to Avasgia.

The political position of Constantine VII in relation to the countries and peoples described in the work "On the Management of the Empire" is entirely based on the imperial ideological doctrine, in the development and propaganda of which in this era they took Active participation the basileus themselves, including the grandfather and father of Constantine VII. However, it was the activity of Constantine Porphyrogenitus that was especially fruitful in this respect. The empire, in his view, is a "world ship", the emperor is an unlimited ruler, endowed with the highest virtues("Christ among the Apostles"), Constantinople - "the queen of cities and the whole world (??? ???)". The cult of serving the empire, the only and divine, is the main moral principle that determines the behavior of the Romans, whether they are "from commanding or from subordinate." The ideas developed by Constantine Porphyrogenitus are not only a political doctrine and the doctrine of imperial power, but also a theory of the moral values of a loyal Byzantine and a catechism of his behavior.

The peoples surrounding the empire are considered from the point of view of this doctrine only as "useful" or "harmful" to the empire. E. Arweiler notes that the position of Constantine is an expression of extreme imperial egoism, which is limited only by the physical, armed rebuff that the empire met with neighboring peoples, that Constantine revived the universalist Greco-Roman idea of the right of the "chosen people" to command the ecumene, acting as apologist sui generis "Romean racism"

The "Roman" dispensation seems to Constantine natural, and therefore ideal. God Himself guards the empire, and its capital is under the special protection of the Mother of God herself. The empire does not know the fragmentation of power, and therefore does not know internal strife and bloody anarchy. It is characteristic that Constantine associates unanimity and firm order within the empire with the dominance of unanimity, i.e. the culture of the empire is conceived by him, in all likelihood, primarily as a Greek-speaking culture.

Admiration and obedience of foreigners to the empire are portrayed by Constantine as the norm in international relations: the empire does not enter into friendship with other countries and peoples, but bestows it; he who has made peace with her thus acquires security guarantees; all "barbarian" peoples (Christian and pagan), ever with the permission of the emperor or arbitrarily settled on the lands of the empire, especially those who paid the empire a "pact" (tribute) or received baptism from it, are obliged to obey it now and continue to be her "slaves". This is the position of the royal author in relation to the Armenians and Georgians, and in relation to the Serbs and Croats, even in relation to the Bulgarians, although in the memory of Constantine it was Bulgaria that threatened the very existence of the Byzantine Empire as a European power. According to the suggestions of the emperor, ignorant "barbarians" are not only allowed, but also should openly lie, arguing that both the insignia of power (crowns and mantles) and the Greek fire were transferred by God through an angel directly to Constantine the Great himself, that this Equal-to-the-Apostles emperor forbade entering into kinship between members of the ruling dynasty in the empire with representatives of the families of sovereigns of other countries (both non-Christian and Christian), making an exception only for the Franks, since "he himself was descended from those lands."

In the vast majority of chapters, no matter in what form (old legend, documentary evidence or oral story) the information about this or that people is presented, the political idea dominating in them comes through quite clearly. Thus, in the group of chapters on Italy and Venice, the rights of the empire to possess these lands are affirmed (undermined by the Frankish intervention from the middle of the 8th century), the idea is suggested that it was the empire that provided the inhabitants here with the greatest benefits, protected them from enemies more reliably than the Franks, and is capable of protect now from the Arabs. The main idea of the Serbo-Croatian partition is the assertion that both Serbs and Croats were settled on the land granted to them by Heraclius in the 7th century. land and since then have been loyal to the empire, while the Bulgarians, and even more so the Franks, have no rights to these territories. The dominant thesis of the passage about Armenian and Georgian lands amounts to roughly the same conclusion; the difference, however, was that the rights of the empire to the territory of settlement of Serbs and Croats have not yet been fully realized by the empire (Bulgaria competes with it in this respect), while in the Caucasus the sovereignty of the empire has already been largely established.

As for the northern region, here Constantine, as already noted in historiography, makes the main bet on the allied empires ("friends") of the Pechenegs, whose military power can be used against the Ross, and against the Hungarians, as well as against the Khazars and Bulgarians. Against the Khazars, according to Constantine, the empire can also send the Uzes, Alans and Black Bulgars. Provides Konstantin and the possibility of breaking the alliance with the Pechenegs. In this case, their worthy opponent could be, if not the Hungarians, then the bonds.

Unusual in this strategic doctrine of Constantine Porphyrogenitus is the complete absence of even the slightest hint of the allied relations of the empire with Kievan Rus, while, according to chapter 9, the agreement with them remained in force even at the time of writing the work "On the Administration of the Empire". Therefore, two assumptions can be made: either another special chapter on the dews was not included in the book (or was lost), where appropriate recommendations were given in this regard, or the articles of the agreement on military assistance to the dews of the Kherson theme were not implemented in the period described, as it turned out incompatible with the military agreement of the empire with the Pechenegs, who were preferred as allies by the Byzantine government under Constantine VII.

It also seems quite probable to us that, for some reason, the special chapter on Bulgaria and the Bulgarians was not included in the work, or subsequently was lost. Moravchik's thesis that there was no need to write such a chapter in view of the long-term friendly treaty of the empire with Bulgaria concluded in 927 (Konstantin did not foresee the danger from this side) is not convincing. Firstly, the danger from the Bulgarians (competition for the lands of the Serbs) Constantine nevertheless provided for and even recommended the use of the Pechenegs against Bulgaria; secondly, contrary to the treaty of 927, the royal author maintains everywhere a consistently hostile tone towards the Bulgarians and in the 13th chapter speaks unequivocally against the conditions on which Roman I concluded an agreement with Tsar Peter in 927;

Be that as it may, to confine oneself in assessing what Konstantin has done to modern criteria of systematization, consistency, and consistency would mean moving away from penetrating into the specifics of the work of a medieval author. Almost any of the Byzantine writings, built on the material of their predecessors, could contain and often contained information and points of view that contradicted each other. It may be that a modern researcher brings modern accents to the characterization of the goals that led to the birth of numerous encyclopedic collections of Constantine. If we evaluate the literary heritage of Constantine in terms of its compliance with those general cultural and literary trends that prevailed in the empire with the coming to power of the Macedonian dynasty, then it should be noted: the literary activity of the erudite emperor reflected his time with the same degree of adequacy with which he did, for example, in his work, Patriarch Photius.

In recent decades, in Russian historiography, less attention has been paid to the reports of the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" on the history of the peoples of our country than this information deserves. Let's hope that this publication will increase interest in the writings of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and initiate a new stage of in-depth source study of these monuments that are precious to us.

G. G. Litavrin

Notes

1. History of Byzantium. T. 2. S. 115-210; Litavrin G.G. Byzantine society. pp. 77-81, 127-155, 177-179, 186-187, 230-233.

2. Litavrin G. G. Byzantine society. S. 178.

3. Zepos J „ Zepos P. lus Graeco-Romanum: Vbl.ll. P. 240--241. 12

4. Oikonomides N. Leo VI "s Legislation of 907 Forbidding Fourth Marriages. An Interpolation in the Procheiros Nomos (IV, 25-27) // DOP. 1976. Vol. 30. P. 175-193.

5. Sevcenko I. Poems. P. 187-228.

6. Ostrogorsky G. Geschichte. S. 225.

7. Brokkaar W. G. Basil Lecapcnus. Byzantium in the Tenth Century / / Studia byzantina et neohellenica. Leiden, 1972. P. 199-224.

9. Compare: Toynbee A. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. P. 1-14.

10. Brokkaar W.G. Basil Lecapenus. P. 213, 215-217.

11. Marropulo A. ??? // ???. ???, 1981. T. 4. 2;. 34-95.

12 Scyl. P.246.

13. Darrouzes J. Epistoliers byzantins du X-e siecle. P., 1960. P. 324. 17-19.

14. Oikonomides N. La cronologia dell "incoronazione dell" imperatore bizantino Costantino VIII (962) // Studi Salentini. 1965. Vol. 19. P. 172-175; Sevcenko I. Poems. P. 211.

15.DAI. P. 8-9; Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. bd. I. S. 361-362.

16 Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. bd. I. S. 365; DAI. P. 11; II. 3.8.

17. Compare: Ostrogorsky G. Geschichte. S. 236; Zakythenos D. Byzantinische Geschichte. S. 134; Jenkins R.J.H. The Chronogical Accuracy of the "Logothete" for the Years a.d. 867-919 // DOP. 1965 Vol. 19. P. 109; DAI. P. 9; Marropulo A. ??? c. 95.

18. Ostrogorsky G. Geschichte. S. 232; Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. bd. I. S. 358; Lemerle P. L "encyclopedisme. P. 603; Idem. Le premier humanisme. P. 268; DAI. , P. 7-8.

19. Gregory T.E. The political program. P. 122-190; Ripoche J.-P. Constantin VII Porphyrogenete. P. 1-12.

20 Scyl. p. 238.43-239. 58; 244-247.

21. Gregory T.E. The political program. P. 128.

22.DAI. 29.58-61.

23.DAI. 13. 149-175.

24.DAI. 51. 162-163.

26. D.A.I. 13. 151-152.

27 Const. Porp. De cerem. P. 638.

28. History of Byzantium. T. 2. S. 207.

29. Litaarin G.G. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus.

30 Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. bd. I. S. 367.

31.DAI. II. P. 63-65.

32. Yannopoulos P.A. Histoire et legende chez Constantin VII // The I7th International Byzantine Congress. Abstracts of Short Papers. Washington. 1986. P. 390-391.

33. See: Chichurov I.S. Tradition. pp. 95-100; He is. Theory and practice of Byzantine imperial propaganda (teachings of Basil I and the epitaph of Leo VI) // VV. 1988. T. 49.

35. Ibid. P. 2-4; Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturcica. bd. L.S. 364-365.

36. DAl. 11. P. 2-4.

38. Compare: Semenovker B.A. Encyclopedias of Constantine Porphyrogenitus: bibliographic apparatus and problems of attribution // VV. 1984. T. 45. S. 246.

39.DAI. II. R. 7-8.

41 Moravcsik Gy. Byzantinoturdca. bd. I. S. 365.

42. Const. Porph. De them. P. 84.

43.DAI. 13.90.

44. Ahrweiler H. L "ideologic politiquc. P. 35-36, 393.

45. D.A.I. 13.118.

46. Lounghis T. Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation dcs etat "barbares Jusqu" aux Croisades (407-1096). Athencs, 1980, pp. 179-211; Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou M. Constantinople center dc pouvoir et d "autorite // Byzantiaka. 1985. T. 5. P. 21-32.

47. Moravcsik Gy.ByzantinOturcica. bd. I. S. 357, 363-364.

gg. in instruction to the heir of Constantine - Roman II. As G. G. Litavrin notes,

It is difficult to name any other work among the Byzantine written monuments of the early Middle Ages that would be distinguished by such a broad author's intention, the same abundance of plots, and a variety of genres.

The treatise was written in a confidential manner, it was not intended for publication and remained unknown to contemporaries. The text has been preserved in three manuscripts, two of which are in Paris, and the third is in the Vatican Library. This is an invaluable source on the history of Rus', Armenians, Georgians, Pechenegs, Hungarians (called "Turks" in the text), Khazars and a number of other peoples. The work carries the idea that all foreigners are obliged to meekly submit to the God-chosen people of the Romans:

The empire, in his view, is a “world ship”, the emperor is an unlimited ruler endowed with the highest virtues (“Christ among the apostles”), Constantinople is “the queen of cities and the whole world”.

The information about the Russian lands that Constantine cites is obviously drawn from the story of a Varangian merchant who traveled along the Dnieper. Many of these pieces of information are unique: a different name for Kyiv has been given ( Kyoav or Kiev according to Konstantin) as Samvatas, the reign of the young Svyatoslav Igorevich in Novgorod is reported, polyudya is described. This is the first written source in which Smolensk is mentioned. The treatise is the only Western source that separately describes the people of Rus' and their pactiots(tributaries) - eastern tribes of the Slavs.

In Russian historiography, a great discussion unfolded regarding the list of names of the Dnieper rapids given by the author simultaneously in the languages of the Rus (Varangians) and Slavs (see Norman theory).

The treatise consists of 53 chapters. The first eight chapters (as well as chapter 37) are devoted to the description of the allies of Byzantium Pachinakites(Pechenegs) and neighboring peoples: Turk(Ugrians), Russ (Ch. 2,4, 9 - and for the first time he uses the word Russia: Greek. Ρωσία ) and the Khazars (Ch. 10, 12). Part of the book describes the history of the Arabs (ch. 14-22). Constantine also writes about the countries of the European Mediterranean: about Spain (ch. 23-24), Italy (ch. 26-27) and Dalmatia (ch. 29-36). The Byzantine author pays special attention to the history of the Caucasus (ch. 42-46).

Source

Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. About the management of the empire. M. Science, 1991

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "On the management of an empire" is in other dictionaries:

- (the most commonly used Latin is De Administrando Imperio, the original Greek name is Πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν Ρωμανόν to my son Roman) a historical and geographical treatise by Constantine Porphyrogenitus with a description of the peoples and neighbors of the Byzantine Empire, ... ... Wikipedia

German nation lat. Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ German. Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation Empire ... Wikipedia

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. PART II- Law and the Church Reception of Roman Law in Byzantium. The concept of Byzantine law Legal culture V. and. from the beginning of its history until the fall of the K field was based on the reception of classical Roman law. Roman sources. Rights are divided into... Orthodox Encyclopedia

Territory of the Holy Roman Empire in 962 1806 Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Latin Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Teutonicae, German Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation) public education, which has existed since 962 ... Wikipedia

Territory of the Holy Roman Empire in 962 1806 The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (lat. Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Teutonicae, German Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation) is a state entity that has existed since 962 ... Wikipedia

Books

Universal way of thinking. Introduction to the "Book of Changes" (book + case), Vinogrodsky B.B.. “The universal way of thinking. Introduction to the Book of Changes" allows you to learn the language of the "Book of Changes" - the great treasure of Chinese wisdom. Knowing this language, the reader gets the opportunity ...

4. FROM THE TREATMENT “ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPIRE” by KONSTANTIN BAGRYANORODNY

Attributed to the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (908-959), the essay “On the Administration of the Empire” was compiled in 948-952. It was created for the young heir to the throne, the future Emperor Roman II (r. 959-963), and was intended for his personal use. Its text is heterogeneous, several people worked on it. Initially, it was prepared as a reference book “On the peoples”, but then it was hastily reworked into a kind of teaching for the 14-year-old son of Konstantin (see: Litavrin G.G. Introduction // Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire. M., 1989, p. .24-25). The 9th chapter, devoted to the description of the path of the Ross to Constantinople, is divided into two sections, written different people: the actual story about the path of the Ross to Constantinople and the story about polyudye. The compiler of the first section, according to scientists, used various sources. Therefore, several parts are also distinguished in it: 1) a description of the preparation of monoxyl for navigation, 2) a description of the Dnieper rapids, 3) the path from about. St. Etherius to Mesemvria (see: Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. About management ... P.291-293). The text is printed according to the edition: Konstantin Porphyrogenitus ... p. 45-51 (with partial use of the comments of this edition).

[Let it be known] that those who come from external Russia (18) to Constantinople, monoxyls are one from Nemogard (19), in which Sfendoslav (20), the son of Ingor (21), archon (22) of Russia, sat, and others from the fortress of Miliniski (23), from Teliuza (24), Chernigoga (25) and from Vusegrad (26). So, they all descend by the Dnieper River and converge in the fortress of Kioava, called Samvatas (27). The Slavs, their pactiotes (28), namely: Kriviteins (29), Lendzanins (30) and other Slavins - cut monoxyls in their mountains during the winter and, having equipped them, with the onset of spring, when the ice melts, they introduce them into the nearby water bodies. Since these [reservoirs] flow into the Dnieper River, they also enter this very river from there [places] and go to Kiev. They are pulled out for [rigging] and sold to dews. The dews, having bought these dugouts alone and dismantled their old monoxyls, transfer from those to these oars, oarlocks and other decorations ... they equip them. And in the month of June, moving along the Dnieper River, they descend to Viticheva, which is a paktio fortress of the Ross, and, having gathered there for two or three days, until all monoxyls are united, then they set off and descend along the named river Dnieper. First of all, they come to the first threshold (31), called Essupi (32), which means in Russian and Slavonic “Don't sleep”. The threshold [this] is as narrow as the space of cycanistry (33), and in the middle of it there are steep high rocks sticking out like islands. Therefore, the water flowing and flowing towards them, rushing down from there, emits a loud and terrible rumble. In view of this, the dews do not dare to pass between the rocks, but, mooring nearby and disembarking people on land, and leaving other things in monoxyls, then naked, feeling with their feet [the bottom, they drag them], so as not to bump into any stone. So they do, some at the bow, others in the middle, and still others at the stern, pushing [it] with poles, and with extreme care they pass this first threshold along a bend near the river bank. When they pass this first threshold, then again, having taken the rest from the land, they set sail and come to another threshold, called in Russian Ulvorsi (34), and in Slavonic Ostrovuniprakh, which means “Island of the Threshold”. It is similar to the first, heavy and difficult to pass. And again, after disembarking people, they conduct monoxyls, as before. In the same way, they pass the third threshold, called Gelandri, which in Slavonic means “Noise of the Threshold”, and then in the same way - the fourth threshold, huge, called in Russian Aifor, in Slavic Neasit, since in the stones of the threshold they nest pelicans. So, at this threshold, everyone moored to the ground with their noses forward, the men appointed to carry the guards came out with them and retired. They are vigilantly guarding because of the pachinakits. And the rest, taking the things that they had in monoxyls, lead the slaves in chains overland for six miles until they pass the threshold. Then, also, some dragging, others on their shoulders, having crossed their monoxyls on this side of the threshold, pushing them into the river and carrying a load, enter themselves and again set sail. Having approached the fifth threshold, called in Russian Varuforos, and in Slavic Vulniprakh, for it forms a large backwater, and having again crossed their monoxyls along the bends of the river, as on the first and second threshold, they reach the sixth threshold, called in Russian Leandi, and in Slavic Veruchi, which means “Water boiling”, and overcome it in a similar way. From it they sail to the seventh threshold, called Strukun in Russian, and Naprezi in Slavic, which translates as “Small threshold”. Then they reach the so-called Kraria crossing, through which the Khersonites cross, [coming] from Russia, and the Pachinakites on the way to Kherson. This crossing has the width of the hippodrome, and the length, from the bottom to the [place] where the underwater rocks protrude, is as far as the arrow of the one who shot it from here to there will fly. In view of what the Pachinakites descend to this place and fight against the dews. After passing through this place, they reach an island called St. Gregory (35). On this island they perform their sacrifices, because there is a huge oak tree: they sacrifice living roosters, they strengthen and arrows around [the oak], and others - pieces of bread, meat and what everyone has, as their custom dictates. They also cast lots for roosters: either slaughter them, or eat them, or let them go alive. From this island, dews are not afraid of pachinakit until they find themselves in the Selina River. Then, advancing in this way from [this island] for up to four days, they sail until they reach the bay of the river, which is the mouth in which lies the island of St. Etherius (36). When they reach this island, they rest there for up to two or three days. And again they re-equip their monoxyls with everything they need, what they lack: sails, masts, helms, which they brought [with them]. Since the mouth of this river is, as has been said, a gulf and extends all the way to the sea, and the island of St. Etherius lies in the sea, from there they go to the river Dniester and, finding refuge there, rest there again. When the weather is favorable, they set sail and come to the river called Aspros, and having rested there in a similar way, they set off again and come to Selina, in the so-called branch of the Danube river. Until they pass the Selina River, the Pachinakites follow next to them. And if the sea, as often happens, throws the monoxil onto land, then all [others] moor to stand together against the Pachinakites. From Selina, they are not afraid of anyone, but, having entered the land of Bulgaria, they enter the mouth of the Danube. From the Danube they arrive at Konopa, and from Konopa - to Constantia ... to the Varna River; from Varna they come to the river Dichina. All this refers to the land of Bulgaria. From Dichina they reach Mesemvria - those places where their painful and terrible, unbearable and difficult voyage ends. The winter and harsh way of life of those same dews is as follows. When the month of November comes, immediately their archons leave with all the dews from Kiava and go to polyudia, which is called “circling”, namely, in Slavinia, the Vervians (37), Druguvites, Krivichi, Severii and other Slavs, who are pactiotes of the dews. Feeding there throughout the winter, they again, starting in April, when the ice on the Dnieper River melts, return to Kiav. Then, just as it was told, taking their monoxyls, they equip [them] and go to Romagna.

[Know] that bonds can fight the Pachinakites.

Integration into the society of Kievan Rus. Chapter 4 Practical use WRC materials in school course history of Russia 4.1 Argumentation of the expediency of using the materials of the WRC theme International relations of Kievan Rus X-XII centuries. as a separate topic for study in school curriculum not presented. In order to determine at which lessons or stages of the lesson you can use this ...

And the systematization of previous laws, according to their addition and partial change, which testified to the further both political and socio-economic development of Ancient Rus' and to the more active influence of the state on law. And now, after a brief introduction, let me go directly to the text of the PP, to begin the analysis of articles on crime and punishment, i.e. ...

Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire

Foreword (G.G. Litavrin and A.P. Novoseltsev)
Introduction (G.G. Litavrin)

FOREWORD

It is difficult to name any other work among the Byzantine written monuments of the early Middle Ages that would be distinguished by such a broad author's intention, the same abundance of plots, and a variety of genres, as the essay “On the Administration of the Empire” attributed to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (908-959), compiled by in 948-952 It is not easy to point out any other work of Byzantine historiography of the heyday of the empire, which would remain equally little known to its contemporaries. Created as a confidential guide to the management of the empire for the young heir to the throne, the future Roman II (959-963), Constantine's work was obviously not intended even for the educated elite of Byzantine society. Too much in the book, in the opinion of the author, contained confidential advice and recommendations in the field of diplomacy and leadership internal affairs of the state, too frankly, a personal attitude towards some representatives of the imperial family was expressed in order to be able to make the contents of the treatise-lecture widely publicized,
We do not even know whether and to what extent the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus had practical significance. In any case, it is least likely that it was used by the one for whom it was primarily intended - the son of Constantine Roman.
An attentive reader and a grateful researcher, the essay “On the Management of an Empire” was found only in modern times, more than half a millennium after it was written. Hardly any written monument of Byzantium in the tenth century. received much attention in the scientific literature. The works devoted to its analysis far outnumber even the so-called "Procopian" (literature about the works of Procopius of Caesarea, who wrote in the era of Justinian I in the middle of the 6th century and among whose works there were also those intended only for confidential acquaintance of a narrow circle of friends and relatives) .
For Soviet readers, this book is of particular interest also because it contains most of the information on the very early history Ancient Rus', preserved in the writings of foreign authors of that era.
Complete Russian edition monument was carried out by G. Laskin at the very end of the last century. A quarter of a century later, it became a bibliographic rarity, but both Laskin's translation, made from still non-critical editions of the Greek original, and the commentary are hopelessly outdated. Separate fragments of the treatise "On the Management of the Empire" were subsequently published several times with various explanatory notes or without them at all. The most famous and thorough among these publications is the translation by V.V. Latysheva and N.V. Malitsky. A few years ago, a new translation of the work, made by G. G. Litavrin, saw the light of day. However, as stated in the introductory note to the translation, it can only be regarded as preliminary. It does not cover the entire text of the original (almost the entire most extensive chapter is excluded - the 53rd), is devoid of commentary, published without the Greek original of the monument. In addition, there are a number of inaccuracies and oversights in the then translation, which are corrected in this edition.
Work on it was started more than 10 years ago on the initiative of V.T. Pashuto and G. G. Litavrina as employees of the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for the ongoing publication " Ancient sources on the history of the peoples of the USSR.
Briefly about the goals and principles of publication. It was carried out on the basis of a critical edition of the monument, which was prepared by the Hungarian Byzantine scholar D. Moravczyk and was published for the first time in 1949 with an English translation by R.J. Jenkins. In 1962, a London commentary on the text of the treatise “On the Management of an Empire” was published, compiled by famous scientists (Byzantinists, Orientalists and Slavists), among whom, in addition to D. Moravchik and R. Jenkins, were D. Obolensky, B. Lewis, F. Janitor, St. Runciman. In 1967, the original with the translation was republished, and all the conjectures, emendations and corrections proposed in the scientific literature over the past almost 20 years after the first edition were carefully collected and given, including in numerous reviews of the 1949 publication.
We reprint here the Greek text from the latest Washington edition of 1967, together with footnotes on the spelling of the manuscripts and on proposed (and partially accepted by the publishers) corrections. In the commentary, we indicate the most important of the conjectures adopted by the publishers and note individual (very rare) cases of disagreement with them. Transliteration of personal names, geographical and ethnic names, technical (untranslatable) terms is as close as possible to their Middle Greek pronunciation. In the translation, words missing in the text of the monument are enclosed in square brackets, which we inserted either instead of the lacunae of the manuscript, or in order to make the text, sometimes lapidary, as understandable as possible. Some gaps (unfilled) are marked in the Greek text and in the translation with a dot and are specified in the commentary. The numbering of references to the commentary, separate for each chapter, is given in the text of the translation to help the reader who does not know the original language.
The Introduction gives an idea of the era when the work of Constantine was written, the author (authors), the sources on which it was based, the organization of work on it, the main ideas carried out in it, and the significance of labor as historical source and monument of literature. Of course, in the Introduction, all these issues are covered very briefly. But they are touched upon many times, sometimes much more fully and specifically, in the Commentary. When analyzing the news of Konstantin, we often focus on other subjects and realities than the authors of the London commentary. Our commentary complements rather than replaces the London one. Thus, we confine ourselves to the briefest notes concerning the countries of the Arab East, Western European countries and the Byzantine Empire itself. The center of gravity of the study and interpretation of the material falls on the chapters of the monument, containing evidence of the Northern Black Sea region, the Caucasus, Eastern and Central Europe and the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (mainly Slavic), i.e. on those plots that (except, perhaps, only chapter 9 on Ancient Rus') were less interested in the compilers of the London commentary.
We do not provide exhaustive literature on a particular topic in the Commentary: it is practically impossible within the framework of one book. Either the most important works or those containing such a relatively complete bibliography are indicated. In order not to clutter up the text of the Commentary, references to the literature used repeatedly are given in the abbreviations disclosed in the bibliographic index at the end of the book.
The chronological table covers only the major events mentioned in Constantine's work. Two maps are attached to the publication - "Geographical nomenclature of the essay" On the management of the empire "" and "The Byzantine Empire in the second half of the 10th century." On the first one are applied contained in the treatise of Constantine geographical names(in the forms accepted in the Russian translation). Three indexes are given to the Greek and Russian texts (personal names, geographical and ethnic names, technical terms).
The Introduction and the Commentary were written by a team of researchers from the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, INION of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and the publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia".
Introduction and translation - G. G. Litavrin.
A comment:
Lemma and Preface - M.V. Bibikov.
Chapters 1-2 - M.V. Bibikov.
Chapter 3 - V. P. Shusharin.
Chapter 4 - M.V. Bibikov, V.P. Shusharin.
Chapters 5-7 - M.V. Bibikov.
Chapter 8 - M.V. Bibikov, V.P. Shusharin.
Chapter 9 - E.A. Melnikova, V.Ya. Petrukhin with the participation of A.A. Zaliznyak (comments 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 29, 33, 35, 40, 42, 43), G.G. Litavrina (comment. 21, 31, 32, 39, 46, 48-50, 53, 56-63), M.V. Bibikov (comment. 1, 76), B.N. Flory (comment. 20).
Chapter 10 - M.V. Bibikov.
Chapter 11 - M.V. Bibikov with the participation of T.M. Kalinina (comment. 2).
Chapter 12 - M.V. Bibikov.
Chapter 13 - G.G. Litavrin with the participation of V.P. Shusharin (comments 3-5, 8).
Chapters 14-21 - A.P. Novoseltsev.
Chapter 22 - A.P. Novoseltsev with the participation of M.V. Bibikov (comment. 29-30).
Chapters 23-24 - S. A. Ivanov.
Chapter 25 - A.P. Novoseltsev, S.A. Ivanov.
Chapter 26 - V.K. Ronin.
Chapter 27 - G.G. Litavrin, V.K. Ronin.
Chapter 28 - V.K. Ronin.
Chapter 29 - O.A. Akimov.
Chapters 30-31 - O.A. Akimov with the participation of B.N. Flory (ch. 30, comments 14-18; ch. 31, comments 18).
Chapter 32 - H.P. Naumov.
Chapter 33 - O.V. Ivanov with the participation of B.N. Flory (comment. 8).
Chapters 34-35 - H.P. Naumov. Chapter 36 - O.V. Ivanova.
Chapter 37 - T.M. Kalinin with the participation of B.N. Flory (comment. 15). Chapters 38-39 - V.P. Shusharin.
Chapter 40 - V.P. Shusharin with the participation of G.G. Timpani (comment 21).
Chapter 41 - B.N. Florya with the participation of V.P. Shusharin (comment. 3).
Chapter 42 - M.V. Bibikov, A.P. Novoseltsev with the participation of T.M. Kalinina (comment. 27).
Chapters 43-46 - V.A. Arutyunova-Fidanyan.
Chapters 47-52 - G.G. Timpani.
Chapter 53 - M.V. Bibikov, L. I. Gratsianskaya.
In a number of cases (chapters 9 and 13), when one commentary is written by several authors, their initials are indicated in italics in the text.
The bibliographic index was compiled by V.K. Ronin, maps - L.I. Gratsianskaya and V.K. Ronin. The indexes were prepared by L.I. Gratsianskaya and V.K. Ronin. Scientific-organizational and scientific-technical work was carried out by V.K. Ronin, L.I. Gratsianskaya, M.N. Peregud.

G.G. Litavrin, A. P. Novoseltsev

1. Laskin G, Works of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus “On the Themes” (De thematibus) and “On the Peoples” (De administrando imperio) // Readings of the OIDR. 1899. Part I.
2. Latyshev V.V., Malitsky N.V. Composition of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus “On the Governance of the State” // Izv. GAIMK. 1934. Issue. 91.
3. Litavrin G.G. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire // The development of ethnic self-consciousness of the Slavic peoples in the early Middle Ages. M., 1982. App.
4. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio. Bp., 1949. 5 Constantine
Porphyrogenitus. dc administrando imperio. L., 1962. Vol. 2.
6. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio. Washington, 1967.
7. Abbreviations adopted by D. Moravczyk: F - Fontes et loci paralleli (sources and parallel places); U - Variae lectiones et coniecturae (discrepancies and conjectures). Lists: P - codex Parisinus gr. 2009; P1 - manus prima; P2-9 - manus recentiores; Px - manus incerta (ante a. 1509); py - manus incerta (post a. 1509); V - codex Vaticanus-Palatinus gr. 126; V1 - manus prima; V2 - manus secunda; F - codex Parisinus gr. 2967; F1 - manus prima; F2 - manus secunda; M - codex Mutinensis gr. 179. Editions: Me - editio Meursiana; Meursius - notae Meursii; Ba - editio Banduriana; Bandurius - animadversiones Bandurii; Be - editio Bekkeriana; Bekker - apparatus criticus Bekkeri; edd. - editiones Me Ba Be; Migne - editio a Migne curata; Bury-editio cap. 29-36 a J. Bury facta.

INTRODUCTION

The name of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (or Porphyrogenitus) is so well known to historians that sometimes it is used to designate an entire historical period: Byzantinists often speak of the era of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. What is meant here is by no means the fact that not a single Byzantine emperor, starting with Constantine the Great, i.e. from the 4th to the 10th centuries, did not officially occupy the throne for as long as Constantine Porphyrogenitus (908-959) (his independent reign was short-lived: 945-959), and the special atmosphere in the spiritual life of the empire was the heyday of its culture.
Constantinople, as once, under Justinian I, became again the center of luxury, splendor and grandeur, unseen in any other capital of Europe. The glory of the "workshop of splendor" returned to him. The fine arts flourished again. Artistic crafts reached a high level of perfection. New palaces of the nobility and temples were erected, amazing with grace and beauty. Interest in the ancient cultural heritage, renewed half a century ago, deepened. The definition widely used in science today - "Macedonian Renaissance" - is applied primarily to the time of the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the third representative of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1056) on the Byzantine throne.
The bright cultural upsurge was undoubtedly associated with significant changes in the economy of the empire, its social system, in domestic political life, as well as with changes in the foreign policy situation in the second half of the 9th - first half of the 10th centuries. The defining feature of the era of Constantine was the rapid development of feudal relations, which the state spontaneously tried to regulate. Already at the turn of the IX-X centuries. everywhere, both in the countryside and in the city, the central government established its constant strict control over the economic life of the country. The property of the subjects of the emperor was subjected to a scrupulous assessment for taxation. Free villages - communities that became taxable, were bound by mutual responsibility - community members were mutually responsible for paying taxes to the treasury; the peasants were also obliged to serve in the military militia.
Careful regulation was also subjected to craft and trade in the cities, which at that time were experiencing a period of revival and upsurge. Not a single product was sold or bought on the market without being charged by the state with a trade duty. Especially strict was the control of the authorities over the economic and social life of the townspeople in the capital of the empire, carried out in accordance with the provisions and norms of the legal collection put into practice by the father of Constantine Leo VI - the Book of the Eparch (i.e., the mayor of Constantinople).
In the first half of the 10th century, the thematic military-administrative system of provincial administration finally became widespread in the empire, which ensured a more perfect organization of the collection of state taxes, the defense of the country, and the recruitment of the thematic peasant militia. At the head of each theme was a strategist appointed by the emperor, who possessed the full military and civil authority. By this period, the apparatus of the central government was also significantly expanded, differentiated and streamlined: separate departments (logophies, or secrets) were in charge of foreign relations and mail, collecting taxes and duties, equipping troops and paying salaries to hired soldiers, imperial estates. Many specialized services and offices, large and small, provided for the various needs of the imperial palace. The beginning of the tenth century in Marxist Byzantine studies, the completion of the formation of the Byzantine centralized feudal monarchy is usually dated. Sinklit (senate) - the council under the emperor turned into a decorative institution under the omnipotent monarch in his will. Revoking the right of the synclite and curias (bodies of city self-government) to appoint officials, Leo VI the Wise, father of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, declared their complete uselessness, since "now the emperor takes care of everything."
The emperor relied on a powerful branched bureaucratic system of power. The empire was dominated by a high-ranking, mostly civil nobility, to which the ruling Macedonian dynasty belonged at that time. But at the same time, a landowning provincial aristocracy, which traditionally played a major role in the Byzantine army, was taking shape, rapidly growing stronger. The objective process of stratification and landlessness of the peasants quickly gained momentum. Despite the control over the growth of large land ownership by the state, contrary to the accepted since the 20s of the X century. Government measures aimed at preserving small peasant land ownership, full-scale taxable and military-liable peasant farms, many free peasants became wigs - dependent on private individuals (settlers). This process took place especially rapidly in the 10th century, including the reign of Constantine VII, when a class of feudally dependent peasantry took shape. The growing class of large feudal lords increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with the rule of the civil nobility, who controlled the throne and relied on strengthening centralized forms of exploitation. It was on this basis that the predecessor of Constantine VII, Roman I Lakapin, and then Constantine himself, first of all faced the intrigues of the feudal opposition.
The main conflict between the two factions of the ruling class in the struggle for power falls on a later time (the last quarter of the 10th - the last quarter of the 11th century). In the meantime, in the era of Constantine VII, the empire as a whole was on the rise. The subjugation of the free peasantry to the centralized state, the flourishing of the urban economy, and the establishment of the theme system strengthened the strength of the empire. Byzantium stepped up its foreign policy, moving almost on all its borders from defense to offensive. Already at the end of the 9th century, during the reign of the grandfather of Constantine Basil I the Macedonian, in the new legal collection “Isagoge”, instead of the principle “protect and save”, which dominated in the iconoclastic era in foreign policy, a new one was put forward: “to preserve the existing benefits, return the lost and extract the missing .
The Arab danger was a thing of the past. The fragmented caliphate weakened the onslaught. The troops of the empire in the middle of the tenth century. reappeared on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Armenian and Georgian principalities, freed from Arab dependence, became vassals of the empire. With the death of Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria and the conclusion of a peace treaty in 927, sealed by a dynastic marriage, the Bulgarian danger also disappeared for a long time. The empire consolidated its influence in the Serbo-Croatian lands. She sought to strengthen her position in Italy. The empire vigilantly followed the state of affairs in the northern regions adjoining the Black Sea: its diplomacy tried to neutralize the possible danger to its borders from Old Rus' and the Pechenegs, which were strengthening in this area.
The main foreign policy successes of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty, under which the empire reached the height of its power, did not fall during the reign of Constantine VII. The foundations of this power were laid by Constantine's grandfather Vasily I the Macedonian (867-886), and the grandson of Constantine Vasily II the Bulgar Slayer (976-1025) became famous for his victories and conquests. However, even under Constantine, the empire continued to build up its forces, it did not lose anything acquired by its predecessors, and in the wars with the Arabs at the end of his reign, it managed to push them further south and southeast, opening the way for an offensive into Mesopotamia and Syria.
The personal fate of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was, perhaps, the most difficult in comparison with the circumstances of the life of the rest of the representatives of the Macedonian dynasty. Considered heir to the throne, Constantine - a royal child, then a youth, a young man and a mature man - fully experienced the absence in the political theory and practice of the empire of a firm principle of heredity of imperial power. The very birth of Constantine was accompanied by a major political and social scandal. The son of Leo VI the Wise (886-912) and the beautiful Zoya Karvonopsida (the nickname literally means "Fiery-eyed"), Constantine was in fact an illegitimate child. The marriages of Leo VI were strikingly unhappy: his wives died one after another. In nine years, from 892 to 901, he buried three wives. The first two left him daughters, and the third died in childbirth, along with a barely born son. The unfortunate emperor did not dare to enter into a fourth marriage - the church resolutely and unconditionally forbade him. Even the third marriage was allowed by the canons in exceptional cases, and Leo VI had to make considerable efforts to get married to Zoya's predecessor Evdokia.
Constantine was born in September 905. The inexpressibly delighted father, who finally found an heir, faced a difficult struggle to achieve the legalization of the rights of his son born out of wedlock. In April 906, the emperor and Zoya were secretly married in the palace by a simple priest. However, the legality of marriage was not recognized by the powerful patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (901-907 and 912-925). Only at the end of the following year, after Leo VI issued a special novel fixing the ban on the fourth marriage by secular legislation (such was the condition of the new patriarch Euthymius: 907-912), the marriage of Leo VI and Zoe was recognized by the church, and Constantine acquired the rights of an imperial son . On May 15, 908, a boy under the age of three was married as co-ruler of his father. However, Constantine was not the only co-emperor of Leo VI. Such was also his uncle Alexander, his father's brother, crowned by Basil I about 30 years ago.
May 11, 912, on a holiday - the day of the founding of Constantinople, traditionally celebrated from 330 ... Leo VI died, entrusting the care of his son to his brother Alexander, who, according to rumor, not only did not have warm feelings for his nephew, but also intended to destroy him physically. As confirmation of this plan, the immediate exile of Constantine's mother Zoe after the accession of Alexander and the disgrace of dignitaries and servants close to Leo VI were regarded. However, Alexander's plans, if he really bore them, were not destined to come true: on May 6, 913, he died suddenly.
Constantine, thus, turned out to be the only crowned person on the throne of the empire. The regency council under the juvenile autocrat (autocrat) included Nikolai Mystik, who again became patriarch under Alexander, and the commander of the imperial fleet (drungarii fleet) Roman Lakapin, and soon also the mother of Konstantin Zoya returned from exile. Protracted heavy wars with Bulgaria, which flared up again in 913, led to an increase in the role of the military at court, including Roman Lekapin, who enjoyed the support of the metropolitan bureaucracy and part of the provincial nobility. Apparently, the patriarch, who transferred his dislike for Leo VI and Zoya to their son, also contributed to his plans. Zoya and Konstantin found themselves in essence in the complete power of the two regents mentioned.
In 919, the 14-year-old Constantine married the daughter of Romanus Lekapenos, Elena, and assigned his father-in-law the high rank of Vasileopator ("Emperor's Father"), which grants a preferential right among other nobles to participate in the management of the empire. In the autumn of the following year, Constantine married Roman as Caesar (the title was given , as a rule, only to close relatives of the emperor), and at the end of the same year - as his co-ruler. Regent, father-in-law and co-ruler. Roman I Lacapinus (920-944) essentially seized the reins of government from the young Constantine for the coming quarter of a century, having discovered great organizational skills and the ability to achieve the main goal through skillful compromises.
The true intentions of Roman I, who, upon his appointment as regent, swore an oath to the synclite not to encroach on royal power, were revealed less than six months later: in May 921, Roman I married his eldest son Christopher as co-ruler. A whole escalation of measures followed, aimed at the gradual deprivation of Constantine VII (and his possible heirs) of the rights to real participation in the affairs of the state. The following year, Roman I found himself in the rank of chief emperor (autocrator), between 922 and 924. Christopher was promoted to second place, immediately after his father, and Constantine was pushed to third; in December 924, two other sons of Roman, Stefan and Constantine, became co-rulers of their father. In 933, finally, any opposition to Roman from the side of the higher clergy was eliminated: his youngest son, 16-year-old Theophylact, took the throne of Patriarch of Constantinople. The position of the representatives of the Lakapen family on the throne seemed unshakable.
Judging by the data of the 51st chapter of the work "On the Governance of the Empire", the son-in-law of Roman I and the dowager Empress Zoya were not only neglected in the palace: they were kept under vigilant supervision. They were keenly aware of the danger that constantly threatened them. The situation in the family changed, probably after the death of Christopher in 931. The old emperor did not raise Stephen to the rank of a deceased son, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus was in second place. Among the Lacapinids began, apparently, strife. In all likelihood, the forces behind the legitimate heir to the throne also revived. Among the ardent supporters of Constantine VII, who sought to ensure his autocratic power as the immediate successor of Roman I, was Constantine's wife Elena, who was ready to act against her father and brothers for the sake of her husband. Soon, the illegitimate son of Roman, the palace eunuch Vasily Nof, who had a sharp mind and indomitable ambition, turned out to be in their camp.
Of course, the atmosphere in the palace heated up even more after Elena gave birth in 938 to a son, who was named Roman in honor of his grandfather. The concern of the sons of Roman I, Stephen and Constantine, for their rights to the throne increased dramatically. There is reason to believe that Constantine VII and the group of courtiers acting in his favor managed to bring the denouement closer, using the circumstances of the conclusion of the Byzantine-Russian treaty in the fall of 944. The fact is that, according to the text preserved in the Russian chronicle, the treaty was signed by the empire Roman, Constantine and Stefan (names are given in that order). It is clear that Constantine here is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who, therefore, from 931 again received the rank of chief among the co-rulers: the son of Roman I Constantine was younger than Stephen and could not be named before him. In this case, Roman's son Konstantin probably angered his father in some way and he was not allowed to sign the contract at all. One way or another, but Constantine VII and his supporters managed to direct the discontent of the sons of Roman against their father, and on December 16, 944, Roman I was deposed by them and exiled to the island of Prot, one of the Princes' Islands near the capital, and after 41 days, On January 27, 945, they were, in turn, freely arrested by order of Constantine VII and sent into exile, into custody. Soon, on Easter, on April 6 of the same year, Constantine married his son Roman as co-ruler.
Listed as emperor from the age of three, Constantine truly became one only at the age of forty. Being removed from the administration of the empire for so long, he apparently filled his leisure time with the study of various sciences, familiarization with the heritage of ancient literature. However, the fame of his learning was greatly exaggerated. He was certainly the most educated among the crowned members of the Macedonian dynasty, surpassing even his father Leo VI in this, not to mention his grandfather, son and grandson, but significantly inferior to such contemporaries as, for example, Patriarch Nicholas Mystic. The education of Constantine VII was not, in all likelihood, systematic. He did not know Latin. His knowledge of history was also relative. In connection with the question of who prevailed in Constantine - a politician or a scientist - assumptions were made in science about various kinds of complexes that seemed to; could not help developing in the mental warehouse of a well-read emperor, consumed by the thought of his great appointment and his miserable role in reality. The texts of the works preserved under the name of Constantine by no means justify, however, such conjectures. They allow us to judge, although also presumably, more important personally for Konstantin, about the relationship that developed between the father (Constantine VII) and son (Roman II) in the mid-40s - early 50s. The emperor's remarks addressed to his son are filled with care and anxiety not only for him, but also for his ability as a basileus to withstand circumstances.
Until the age of six or seven, Roman, in all likelihood, did not communicate with his father too often: according to the customs of that era, at an early age; noble boys were constantly in the female half, in the gynaecium, and only from the age of six or seven did they enter the upbringing of the uncle; with him they were inseparable, and with their father their communication became regular. Of course, until the age of seven, people close to the Lakapins prevailed in Roman's circle, and the father hardly had any influence on his son. However, even after 945, this influence, apparently, did not become decisive: everything that is known about the lifestyle, interests and behavior of Roman II indicates that father and son were spiritually strangers to each other. It is assumed that Vasily Nof was directly involved in the upbringing of Roman. If this is true, it should be concluded that the pious, stingy and stern eunuch aroused the hostility of his nephew: dying, Constantine VII entrusted the care of his son not to Vasily Nof, but to another eunuch, Vasily's enemy, Joseph Vringa. It is no coincidence that Vasily Nof disappeared from the pages of sources reporting the reign of Roman II (959-963). It is no coincidence that, having come to power. Roman II disgraced most of the dignitaries who had influence under Constantine VII. Perhaps, finally, the persistent rumors after the death of Constantine VII that things could not have done without poison given to the father-in-law with the consent of her husband by the wife of Roman II, Theophano, are not accidental. Constantine VII was blamed by his contemporaries mainly for his excessive addiction to wine, and Roman II for his constant revelry and passion for pleasures, indulging in which he lost his health early and died suddenly at the 25th year of his birth. Constantine, in his address to his son, conveys the idea of the nobility of the royal family. It is therefore likely that the marriage of the wayward prince (c. 956) to the daughter of the tavern keeper Anastasia (Theophano) also brought serious grief to the father and mother. Theophano herself, at least, hated the older royal couple, who stood in the way of the young couple's omnipotence. This couple became the center of rallying opposition to Constantine VII from the large landowning nobility, dissatisfied with his agrarian policy, which, like the policy of Roman I, was aimed at strengthening centralized forms of exploitation and generally met the interests of the civil nobility: it was their well-being that was based primarily on treasury, and not on income from land holdings. As subsequent events showed, young Roman II did not have special filial feelings either for his father, or for his mother, or for his sisters (he tried to remove his mother from the palace after the death of his father, and imprisoned the sisters in a monastery).
Even on the eve of the deposition of Roman I Lecapenus, Constantine VII, in a letter to Theodore, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, with whom the emperor was friends until the end of his life, complaining of loneliness, wrote, quoting the 37th psalm, about insincere friends and alienation of relatives. It is unlikely that family relations have changed for the better a decade after this letter. The birth at the beginning of 958 of Roman II and Theophano's son, the grandson of Kbnstantin VII - Vasily (the future Bulgar Slayer) did not correct them either.
By the time the work on the work “On the Management of the Empire” was completed, Roman was 14 years old - an age sufficient for those around him to objectively assess his shortcomings and merits as a person and future autocrat. The fact that Constantine VII was able to soberly judge people by their deeds, not guided only by personal likes and dislikes, is evidenced by his ability to use the experience and knowledge of prominent civil and military dignitaries. This is also evidenced by some of the remarks of the emperor in his work considered here regarding Romanus Lecapenus, and by the very policy of Constantine, which, by and large, was only a continuation of the policy of his father-in-law.
Apparently, R. Jenkins is right in believing that Roman II grew up weak and vicious, not justifying his father's hopes and causing Constantine's growing concern for the fate of his son. Perhaps the conclusion is logical that Roman was by no means zealous in the study of science, and this greatly upset his father. Therefore, Constantine VII hastened to compile teachings-guides for Roman - on how to "rule and lead the world ship."
Constantine VII was engaged in state affairs, in any case, from January 945 until the end of his life. To what extent Roman P was involved in them at the end of the 50s, the sources are completely silent. It is likely that this participation was minimal. In September 959, the senior emperor went to Olympus (in Asia Minor), where his friend Theodore of Cyzicus took monastic vows in one of the monasteries. The official purpose of the trip was the preparation for a campaign against the Arabs, the real intention was supposedly the desire of Constantine to consult with a friend about the measures that should be taken to depose the patriarch Polyeuctus, who was secretly intriguing against the emperor. On the way back Konstantin caught a cold and died in November. The day of his death (November 9.15 or 19) is the subject of scientific discussion. The funeral of Constantine VII, as once the deposition of the Lacapinides by him in January 945, showed that the learned emperor was popular with the people of Constantinople. They were satisfied with his policy of favors and benefits for the inhabitants of the capital, traditional for the basileus of the Macedonian dynasty. Impressed by the people of Constantinople and the very representative appearance of the king: he was tall, slender, blue-eyed, handsome.
Until recently, historiography was dominated by a point of view based on an uncritical reading of the sources, according to which Constantine VII was more of a scientist and writer than an emperor, that he was mainly engaged in the sciences, and not in the affairs of the state, which he allegedly entrusted to his wife Helen, parakimomena Vasily Nof, etheriarch Vasily Petin, eparch Theophilus and Sacellarius Joseph Vringu, and if sometimes Konstantin took on the affairs of the empire, he preferred the easiest of them, namely the court, which he did without mercy. In recent years, however, this view has been seriously shaken: Constantine is now portrayed in scientific literature as an experienced politician, a skilled diplomat, a sober organizer who knew people very well and was able to rely on capable and energetic assistants. Contradictory testimonies of sources on this account are not so much contradictions in Constantine's policy itself, but rather a reflection of the ongoing struggle in his time in the circles of the nobility related to the assessment of the political heritage of Roman I Lecapenus and the determination of the fate of the throne (the right of Roman II to the throne as a son " illegitimate”, did not seem to be indisputable to parts of the highest nobility; before the death in exile of Roman I in July 948, several conspiracies against Constantine himself were uncovered, and even later the supporters of the Lacapinids did not leave their intrigues).
Of course, the situation both inside the empire and on its borders was calmer during the reign of Constantine VII than during the reign of his grandfather, father and father-in-law. Of course, Constantine VII had the opportunity to build on the successes achieved by his predecessors. But the opposition of Constantine VII to Roman I as an impractical theorist to an outstanding energetic practitioner is based in historiography mainly on the fact of Constantine's sharp condemnation of his father-in-law in his work "On the Administration of the Empire". Indeed, the feeling of hatred of Constantine VII for Roman I, who deprived the "legitimate" basileus for 25 years and the shadow of power, is indisputable. However, the situation here was not so simple. Constantine was guided in compiling the work under consideration by several main ideas, trying to justify, first of all, the inviolability of the rights of his dynasty to the imperial throne. To do this, it seemed absolutely necessary to discredit the rule of the basileus of the Amorian dynasty (820-867), overthrown by his grandfather Basil I, and to cast a shadow on the politics and the very personality of his father-in-law - essentially a usurper. He accuses the emperors of the Amorian dynasty, especially Michael II Travl (820-829), that "the kingdom of the Romans, due to the negligence and inexperience of the rulers at that time, sank almost to insignificance." As for Roman, Konstantin repeatedly makes sharp, venomous remarks about him. Two examples will suffice to judge them. In the 13th chapter, Constantine calls Roman an ignoramus, who ruled arbitrarily and not in accordance with Roman customs, arrogantly and arbitrarily, a violator of the usual and legal orders, hated during his lifetime by both the synclite, and the people, and the church, reviled by everyone even after death, so that, the author emphasizes in conclusion, the end that befell Roman Lecapenus (dethronement and exile) is a fair punishment for his arbitrariness. In the 51st chapter, talking about the measures taken by Roman to isolate Constantine VII and his mother in the palace, Constantine notes that he did all this “when ... he entered the palace and found himself, I don’t know how to put it, the owner of the kingdom.”
Constantine's tirade about the nobility of the royal family and high education as an integral quality of the basileus is also aimed against the illiterate Roman I, who comes from "ordinary" people, because the ignorance of the ruler is the cause of disasters and humiliation for Romania. Constantine persistently advises his son to master the knowledge necessary for a monarch, especially in the administrative and military history of the empire - in this, the basileus is obliged to excel others, i.e. courtiers and officials, since only then will his authority among his subjects be great. The ignoramus has no role model before his eyes, creates inappropriate things, cancels what was well established by his predecessors, reveals an inability to counteract a sudden change of circumstances, introduces innovations. “No good scientist”, who has not comprehended the Roman order from childhood and does not know how they developed, will not achieve success, while the basileus who has studied the science of government will be desirable for his subjects, will be revered by them as wise among the reasonable and reasonable among the wise. It is himself and Roman II that Constantine has in mind, in contrast to Roman Lakapin, saying that the hereditary order of gaining power is essentially sanctioned by God, “since he (God) chose you and uprooted you from your mother’s womb and gave you his kingdom as the best of all” and since the one who is more capable of ruling is “who has been brought up in the royal palaces from childhood ... who has followed Roman customs from the very beginning.” The Emperor, wrote Konstantin in his other work, is “Christ among the Apostles”, the role of Roman I, according to Konstantin, is absolutely inaccessible.
Despite all these statements, Constantine VII essentially continued both the domestic and foreign policy of Roman I, which on the whole met the interests of the civil nobility, which they both represented. The novels of Constantine VII on the agrarian issue corresponded to the decrees of Roman I on this matter: Constantine confirmed the orders of his predecessor, having made only one concession to large landowners under pressure from the dinats and the patriarch (he abolished the right of the poorest peasants to return their plots from the hands of the dinats free of charge), but he still tightened measures against the dynats, who encroached on the military allotments of the peasant militias, declaring these allotments inalienable in general. Like Roman I, Constantine sought to eradicate the corruption of the bureaucratic apparatus, displaced compromised tax collectors. Like Roman I in his time, who flirted with the plebs of Constantinople (he paid off all the debts of the Constantinopolitans to the owners for renting apartments, built temporary shelters from the cold for the capital's beggars), Constantine improved the hospitals and took care of their supply. His patronage of science and the arts was popular.
The continuity between the policies of Roman I and Constantine VII is most clearly seen in external affairs. Konstantin apparently followed the course of Roman in relations with the Arabs, the countries of the West, the Serbs and Croats, the Pechenegs, the ancient dews, the principalities of the Caucasus. Possibly cooler than under Roman I were the relations of the empire with Bulgaria, where the son-in-law of Roman I Lakapin by granddaughter (daughter of Christopher) Peter, who received from Roman I the title of "Vasileus of the Bulgarians", ruled. With regard to the Bulgarians, Constantine VII maintains a generally hostile tone in his work On the Administration of the Empire. Concessions from his father-in-law to Peter, he considers completely unacceptable. It is noteworthy that in the chapters devoted to the Serbs and Croats, and especially to relations with the Armenian and Georgian principalities (ch. 43-46), the name of Roman Lekapin is repeatedly mentioned in a positive sense. His policy in these regions finds, in fact, the approval of Constantine and is recognized as successful. It turns out that Roman I followed the Roman customs, and did not cancel the decisions of those who reigned before (in particular, Leo VI, father of Constantine), and sometimes fulfilled requests “out of his kindness” (ch. 43). Of course, an objection is possible: the noted traces of sympathy for Roman I arose under the pen not of Constantine VII himself, but of officials who selected material for him, in particular, those who were related to Eastern affairs and were probably Armenians by origin (as an Armenian was also Romanus Lacapinus). In addition, the chapters devoted to relations with the Armenian and Georgian princes were apparently subjected to the least processing by Constantine, since they were prepared from the very beginning more carefully than other parts, and by more competent people. However, the same motive for approving the policy of Roman I is also characteristic of the chapters on the Serbs, where the hand of Konstantin the editor is much more visible. In other words, Constantine's attacks on his father-in-law do not give grounds for the conclusion that he completely condemned the political course of Roman I, while the obvious differences between the characters and passions of Roman I and Constantine VII are still insufficient grounds for concluding that the directions in their politics were just as different. and the results of their activities. Indeed, in essence, Constantine VII suffered only one major failure - the death of the empire's navy on an expedition against the Cretan Arabs in 949. But Roman I also lost almost all of Calabria for seven years (from 927 to 934), captured, robbed and taxed Arabs of Africa.
It is impossible to substantiate the thesis about the inability of Constantine VII to govern the empire and references to the extreme "impracticality", isolation from the realities of his time, written by Constantine or composed under his editorship. Firstly, when assessing the degree of originality (and “practicality”) of the works of medieval authors, one should, it seems, proceed from the criteria adopted in that era, and not from modern criteria: a penchant for anachronisms and blind trust in primary sources were at that time the usual position of the writer , and not a special property inherent only to Constantine. Secondly, the preference for outdated information, poor suitability for the political practice of the tenth century. only Konstantin's work "On Themes" differed, which was abundantly equipped with data from the 6th century (when themes did not exist at all) and which was the author's youthful work on the geography and administrative structure of the empire. Legendary messages, fantastic news, fairy-tale motifs and anachronisms are found on the pages of his other writings, but in general, the book “On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court” (a ritualist regulating the order of receptions, ceremonies and all kinds of festivities and processions), and the work “On Management empire” fully corresponded to their contemporary practical goals. The first served as a guide used in the daily life of the imperial palace, the second as a mirror for the young ruler of the state. R. Jenkins showed that some incredible statements and distortions of real facts by Constantine are in fact a conscious "diplomatic fiction", calculated on the ignorance and gullibility of the "barbarians", who were not only not forbidden, but supposed - in the interests of the empire - to mislead . As for other errors and inaccuracies in the work “On the Governance of an Empire”, then, according to the observations of P. Yiannopoulos, they should be attributed to gaps in knowledge, as well as the author’s prejudices, which he was not alien to as a son of his time.
Basically, the information compiled by Konstantin for his heir, both on domestic and foreign policy issues, is quite instructive and relevant. Even the 53rd chapter, which is usually considered in historiography as accidentally included in the work and not intended for publication, treats the legendary events of the 1st century BC. BC. - IV century. AD, was prepared to explain the urgent problem in the era of Constantine - the reasons for the constant readiness of the Kherson theme in Crimea to secede from the empire due to the vitality of the ancient polis traditions of self-government in this remote province and local polis patriotism. Traces of undoubted interference (it is usually preceded by a remark - "Know") Konstantin in the text of the materials he edited are found in almost all chapters. Of course, far from all the maxims and ideas were expressed by the emperor himself, the authorship of many of them belongs to his anonymous co-authors, who prepared the relevant references for the book; nevertheless, it is important to state that Constantine preserved the materials collected for him in the final text of the book insofar as their content as a whole, in all likelihood, corresponded to the emperor's own ideas.
Not everything is known about the truly colossal literary and authorial, and especially the organizational activities of Constantine VII. It is believed that the emperor set a goal to prepare reference books of an encyclopedic nature in almost all branches of knowledge that existed at that time: agronomy, zoology and veterinary medicine, medicine, jurisprudence, military tactics, administrative structure, diplomacy, the system of titles, organization of palace ceremonies, etc. Under the leadership of Constantine, up to 53 collections were compiled, most of which have been irretrievably lost. The surviving ones brought us, albeit in abbreviations or extracts, a lot of lost works, including the works of Priscus of Panius and Menander Protector, devoted to the description of the peoples that the empire encountered in the 5th-6th centuries, and diplomatic contacts with them. The “diplomatic” collection has not reached us in its entirety. It is quite possible that its compilation preceded the writing of the work "On the Administration of the Empire" and its materials were involved by Constantine in at least one of the sections of the work, designated as the section "On the peoples" (see more on this below).
The following works are attributed directly to the pen of Constantine Porphyrogenitus: “The Biography of Basil” (the author’s grandfather), the mentioned works “On Themes” and “On Ceremonies” and, finally, “On the Management of the Empire”. The greatest degree of authorship of Constantine is recognized for the first two works. The characterization of Konstantin's work as a whole does not, however, constitute the task this Introduction. In accordance with our main task, we will dwell only on the last work of Constantine, which is of direct interest to us, On the Administration of the Empire. Let us make a reservation that in a brief review it is impossible to give any complete characterization of the work of its sources, composition, author's position, etc. All these Questions are covered in the Commentary. Here we will focus on such problems as the concept of work, the method of working on it, and its main political and ideological orientation.
In an emotionally elevated, pompous address to his son in the preamble to the essay, written, no doubt, by Constantine himself, he declares that below two topics will be developed as a science of government mainly: the first is foreign policy, about what constitutes the surrounding empire the peoples with whom she enters into relations, in what ways they can be useful, and in what ways they are harmful to the power of the Romans; the second topic is an internal one, about what innovations, in comparison with the traditional orders, appeared in the empire with the passage of time, how they arose and what is their essence. ""
Contrary to this plan, however, only the first theme was developed in detail in the work, although here, too, the attention paid to various peoples is very different. The second topic is generally covered. in labor only partially. Six relatively private (and on private examples) plots were specially considered: about the uprisings of the Slavs in the Peloponnese against imperial power (ch. 49 and 50), about the reorganization of the device of a number of themes (ch. 50), about the organization of service in the royal fleet (ch. 51), on the procedure for conferring certain titles and paying rugi (ch. 50), on the norms of material compensation for persons liable for military service for refusing to participate in a military campaign (ch. 51, 52) and on the features of the Kherson theme (ch. 53)
Apparently, the main reason for the discrepancy between the idea and its implementation lies in the above-mentioned change in the plan and goals of the work: it was prepared as a reference book-review "On the Peoples" (as for such, the main material was collected), and then was hastily revised (and only partly and without relying on clear criteria) into a mirror teaching (a guide to domestic and foreign policy), presented by the father to his son Roman on his 14th birthday. These issues, as well as the whole problem of composition and sequence of writing various parts of the work, are thoroughly and convincingly investigated and presented by Jenkins in two "General Introductions" (to the publication of the text of the work itself and to the Commentary). Let us therefore only note the most important.
The most thorough alteration was made to the original plan of the work concerning its first part: the introduction (which, according to Jenkins, was written last) and the first 13 chapters. The composition of only this part of the work is comparatively ordered. As for the further text, Jenkins believes that its composition is extremely careless and random. First of all, due to an oversight or haste, raw materials were included in the book that were not intended for publication. These are, in particular, chapters 23-25, 48, which was only material for the 47th chapter, 52, used as a source for the 51st, and 53 almost to the end. All these chapters in terms of content have nothing to do with the problems of international and domestic life contemporary to Konstantin, and it is no coincidence that none of them is introduced into the text of the book with the phrase “Know” familiar to Konstantin. Accidentally included in the work Jenkins also considers the 9th chapter, which served as the source of the 2nd and essentially has nothing to do with the section that covers ch. 1-12 and treats the question of the position of the empire in relation to the "northern peoples".
Jenkins defines the rest of the work as instructive and informative. Moreover, the next (instructive, or diplomatic) section is formed by one 13th chapter written by Constantine himself, excluding its beginning. The largest section consists of chapters 14-48, which, in essence, represent the surviving part of the work prepared according to the original plan and corresponding to the name proposed in the manuscript - "On the Peoples". The final section is chapters 49-53 dealing with internal affairs.
It is likely that not all the plots were collected and included in the book in a timely manner. Thus, the absence of a special chapter on Bulgaria and the Bulgarians and the extremely one-sided aspect of the story about the ancient dews are striking.
Undoubtedly, many people participated in the collection of material. In the distribution of tasks between them, only the most general wishes about the nature of the required materials were probably expressed. Each performer understood his task to the best of his own understanding and competence. Some went along, as is clear from the variety of genres and the content of the chapters, along the easiest path: to select what was more accessible or more suited to their own tastes. Thus, authentic documents (or extracts from them) and legends, linguistic interpretations and excerpts from the chronicles were brought together. geographical descriptions and oral testimonies, etc. R. Jenkins and D. Moravchik believe that the titles of the chapters were originally on the margins of one of the lists from which the surviving manuscript was copied; these marginal notes were made many years after the writing of the work in order to facilitate its reading, and then, when preparing a new list, they were transferred to the text. The strongest argument in favor of this is the fact that a number of titles are inserted into the text in the wrong place, "late" or "ahead" of the titled plot (see ch. 1, 2, 13, 39, etc.). However, there are cases of a different kind, when the text is essentially a continuation of the narrative already begun in the title (see ch. 9, 22, 40, etc.). Therefore, Jenkins admits that some of the headings were already on the sheets, which, as materials, lay on Konstantin's desk. We would dare to assume that a number of titles generally preceded the texts themselves, representing a brief record of the tasks that the collectors of the material had to perform. If we accept this hypothesis, then we should think that the more detailed the heading of the chapter, the more concrete and thorough information Konstantin wanted to get (see ch. 1, 8, 9, 16, 22, 42, 44, 48-52 ).
Jenkins's conclusion is convincing that later than all other sections, chapters 1-13 were processed, bearing especially numerous traces of Konstantin's editorial corrections. There is also no doubt that he was the only arranger (metrane page) of the work, who gave it the composition in which it has come down to us. In this case, the order in which Constantine arranged the material is of interest. It seems obvious that the emperor singled out and put in the first place the chapters on the Pechenegs (1-8), as well as on the Hungarians (ch. 3, 4), dews (ch. 2), Bulgarians (ch. 5), Khazars, Alans, bonds and black Bulgars (Ch. 10-12), i.e. about the peoples living near the northern borders of the empire, because for the time of writing the work he considered the relations of the empire with these peoples to be especially important. One of the most important chapters of the work (13th) also deals only with the "northern peoples" named above.
Despite the brevity of the presentation, the information of the first chapters is quite extensive, and the preparatory materials for this part were selected, in all likelihood, by several people. As for the rest of the chapters in the section "On the peoples", one should, apparently, take into account the groups of chapters that clearly stand out here, relating to one region or one people. Such, for example, are the chapters concerning Franco-Italian plots (chaps. 26-28), telling about Serbo-Croatian history (chaps. 29-36) and telling about the Armenian and Georgian principalities (chaps. 43-46). It is possible that the materials for each of these groups of chapters were prepared by a limited number of people (from one to two or three). Undoubtedly, already at the preparatory stage, the materials of chapters 43-46 favorably differed from the materials of the previous ones both in saturation with facts, and in composition, and in clarity of presentation. Judging by the transcription of personal names and toponyms, as well as by the use of several Armenian and Georgian technical terms, the materials of chapters 43-46 were selected by people who were competent both in the intricacies of Byzantine diplomacy and in the complexities of local political life. The informers, of course, are Byzantine officials of the department of foreign relations or palace offices, but they are natives of the Armenian-Georgian region, who ended up in the imperial service.
As for the arrangement of the chapters of the section “On the Peoples”, it seems, at first glance, to be devoid of any logic: the transition from chapter to chapter or from a group of chapters to another group seems to be accidental or carried out according to purely external associative links. Both the publishers and the authors of the commentary specifically pay attention to this circumstance. However, some pattern, although sometimes formal, in the composition of the section "On the peoples", in our opinion, is still traceable. The vast majority of chapters follow each other, as it were, in a circle, from the point of view of an observer located in its center (Constantinople), in the direction from north to east, then to south, west and again to north and east. Indeed, chapters 1-13 cover the northern borders of the empire, chapters 14-22 describe the Arab world (east), chapters 23-28 are devoted to the countries of the West (Spain, Italy, Venice), chapters 29-36 tell about Serbo-Croatian region, chapters 37-42 return the reader again to the “northern peoples”, up to the Caucasian limits (Moravans, Pechenegs, Magyars, Khazars, Alans and Zikhs), and, finally, chapters 43-46 interpret again about the eastern, Armenian and Georgian lands.
In addition to this superficial relationship between groups of chapters, one can also point to a number of natural associative transitions: from the eastern possessions of the Arabs - in the course of their conquests - to the southern (African) and western (Spanish, and then Italian); from the western countries (Italy and Venice) - to the Balkan Peninsula - the Serbo-Croatian lands, which, like the Italian ones, were subjected to Arab raids; the transition from the northern region to the eastern (Armenian-Georgian) is also natural, in accordance with the itinerary of the 42nd chapter, “bringing” the path from the Western Black Sea region to Avasgia.
The political position of Constantine VII in relation to the countries and peoples described in the work “On the Governance of the Empire” is entirely based on the imperial ideological doctrine, in the development and promotion of which the basileus themselves took an active part in this era, including the grandfather and father of Constantine VII. However, it was the activity of Constantine Porphyrogenitus that was especially fruitful in this respect. The empire, in his view, is a “world ship”, the emperor is an unlimited ruler endowed with the highest virtues (“Christ among the apostles”), Constantinople is “the queen of cities and the whole world (??? ???)”. The cult of serving the empire, the only and divine, is the main moral principle that determines the behavior of the Romans, whether they are "from commanding or from subordinate." The ideas developed by Constantine Porphyrogenitus are not only a political doctrine and the doctrine of imperial power, but also a theory of the moral values of a loyal Byzantine and a catechism of his behavior.
The peoples surrounding the empire are regarded from the point of view of this doctrine only as "useful" or "harmful" to the empire. E. Arweiler notes that the position of Constantine is an expression of extreme imperial egoism, which is limited only by the physical, armed rebuff that the empire met with neighboring peoples, that Constantine revived the universalist Greco-Roman idea of the right of the "chosen people" to command the ecumene, acting as apologist sui generis "Romean racism"
The "Roman" dispensation seems to Constantine natural, and therefore ideal. God Himself guards the empire, and its capital is under the special protection of the Mother of God herself. The empire does not know the fragmentation of power, and therefore does not know internal strife and bloody anarchy. It is characteristic that Constantine associates unanimity and firm order within the empire with the dominance of unanimity, i.e. the culture of the empire is conceived by him, in all likelihood, primarily as a Greek-speaking culture.
Admiration and obedience of foreigners to the empire are portrayed by Constantine as the norm in international relations: the empire does not enter into friendship with other countries and peoples, but bestows it; he who has made peace with her thus acquires security guarantees; all “barbarian” peoples (Christian and pagan), who ever, with the permission of the emperor or arbitrarily settled on the lands of the empire, especially those who paid the empire a “pact” (tribute) or received baptism from it, are obliged to obey it now and continue to be her "slaves". This is the position of the royal author in relation to the Armenians and Georgians, and in relation to the Serbs and Croats, even in relation to the Bulgarians, although in the memory of Constantine it was Bulgaria that threatened the very existence of the Byzantine Empire as a European power. According to the suggestions of the emperor, it is not only possible, but also necessary, for ignorant "barbarians" to lie frankly, arguing that both the insignia of power themselves (crowns and mantles) and the Greek fire were transferred by God through an angel directly to Constantine the Great himself, that this Equal-to-the-Apostles emperor forbade entering into kinship to members of the ruling dynasty in the empire with representatives of the families of sovereigns of other countries (both non-Christian and Christian), making an exception only for the Franks, since "he himself led a family from those parts."
In the vast majority of chapters, no matter in what form (old legend, documentary evidence or oral story) the information about this or that people is presented, the political idea dominating in them comes through quite clearly. Thus, in the group of chapters on Italy and Venice, the rights of the empire to possess these lands (undermined by Frankish intervention from the middle of the 8th century) are affirmed, the idea is suggested that it was the empire that provided the inhabitants here with the greatest benefits, protected them from enemies more reliably than the Franks, and is capable of protect now from the Arabs. The main idea of the Serbo-Croatian partition is the assertion that both Serbs and Croats were settled on the land granted to them by Heraclius in the 7th century. land and since then have been loyal to the empire, while the Bulgarians, and even more so the Franks, have no rights to these territories. The dominant thesis of the passage about Armenian and Georgian lands amounts to roughly the same conclusion; the difference, however, was that the rights of the empire to the territory of settlement of Serbs and Croats have not yet been fully realized by the empire (Bulgaria competes with it in this respect), while in the Caucasus the sovereignty of the empire has already been largely established.
As for the northern region, here Constantine, as already noted in historiography, makes the main bet on the allied empires (“friends”) of the Pechenegs, whose military power can be used against both the Ross and the Hungarians, as well as against the Khazars and Bulgarians. Against the Khazars, according to Constantine, the empire can also send the Uzes, Alans and Black Bulgars. Provides Konstantin and the possibility of breaking the alliance with the Pechenegs. In this case, their worthy opponent could be, if not the Hungarians, then the bonds.
Unusual in this strategic doctrine of Constantine Porphyrogenitus is the complete absence of even the slightest hint of the allied relations of the empire with Kievan Rus, while, according to chapter 9, the agreement with them remained in force even at the time of writing the work “On the Administration of the Empire”. Therefore, two assumptions can be made: either another special chapter on the dews was not included in the book (or was lost), where appropriate recommendations were given in this regard, or the articles of the agreement on military assistance to the dews of the Kherson theme were not implemented in the period described, as it turned out incompatible with the military agreement of the empire with the Pechenegs, who were preferred as allies by the Byzantine government under Constantine VII.
It also seems quite probable to us that, for some reason, the special chapter on Bulgaria and the Bulgarians was not included in the work, or subsequently was lost. Moravchik's thesis that there was no need to write such a chapter in view of the long-term friendly treaty of the empire with Bulgaria concluded in 927 (Konstantin did not foresee the danger from this side) is not convincing. Firstly, the danger from the Bulgarians (competition for the lands of the Serbs) Constantine nevertheless provided for and even recommended the use of the Pechenegs against Bulgaria; secondly, contrary to the treaty of 927, the royal author maintains everywhere a consistently hostile tone towards the Bulgarians and in the 13th chapter speaks unequivocally against the conditions on which Roman I concluded an agreement with Tsar Peter in 927;
Be that as it may, to confine oneself in assessing what Konstantin has done to modern criteria of systematization, consistency, and consistency would mean moving away from penetrating into the specifics of the work of a medieval author. Almost any of the Byzantine writings, built on the material of their predecessors, could contain and often contained information and points of view that contradicted each other. It may be that a modern researcher brings modern accents to the characterization of the goals that led to the birth of numerous encyclopedic collections of Constantine. If we evaluate the literary heritage of Constantine in terms of its compliance with those general cultural and literary trends that prevailed in the empire with the coming to power of the Macedonian dynasty, then it should be noted: the literary activity of the erudite emperor reflected his time with the same degree of adequacy with which he did, for example, in his work, Patriarch Photius.
In recent decades, in Russian historiography, less attention has been paid to the reports of the treatise "On the Management of the Empire" on the history of the peoples of our country than this information deserves. Let's hope that this publication will increase interest in the writings of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and initiate a new stage of in-depth source study of these monuments that are precious to us.

G. G. Litavrin

1. History of Byzantium. T. 2. S. 115-210; Litavrin G.G. Byzantine society. pp. 77-81, 127-155, 177-179, 186-187, 230-233.
2. Litavrin G. G. Byzantine society. S. 178.
3. Zepos J „ Zepos P. lus Graeco-Romanum: Vbl.ll. P. 240--241. 12

Most of the historical and literary monuments of the X century. to some extent connected with the name of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905-959), who nominally became the ruler in 913 after the death of his father Leo VI in 912 and who took over after him the power of Alexander (912-913). But the period of independent rule of Constant Porphyrogenitus began only in 945 after a long period when the power in the state was controlled by the regents, one of whom, Roman Lecapinus, became the sovereign emperor in 920. For some of the works that have come down to us, the emperor was the inspirer and initiator of historical writings , in other cases, probably, the "editor", in the third - the name of Konstantin claims authorship. The figure of an enlightened monarch, as Constantine Porphyrogenitus is traditionally presented, largely determined the nature and characteristics of the so-called "Macedonian Renaissance" of the late 9th-10th centuries. Vasilevs patronized the Magnavra school, which in our time scientists hastened to call a university; he conceived and implemented a number of encyclopedic projects.

These projects were associated with the task of systematizing the accumulated by the middle of the X century. knowledge - in the field of law (legal code "Vasiliki"), linguistic heritage (lexicon "Court"), agricultural experience ("Geoponics"), military skills (various "Tactics"), hagiography ("Menologies" by Simeon Metaphrastus). These vaults determined the face of the era of "Byzantine encyclopedism", directly related to the name and image of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, although in a number of cases his participation in the preparation of certain monuments was nominal and even legendary.

The most voluminous work of a historiographical nature, which came down under the name of Constantine, was collections of excerpts from ancient and early Byzantine monuments, united thematically into 53 sections and representing not only literary and antiquarian interest, but also practical value. Only a part of the collections has come down to us - "On Embassies", "On Virtue and Vice", "On Conspiracies Against the Vasileus", "On the Art of the Commander", etc. They used rich historiographic material, and a number of texts, for example, by such authors, like Eunapius, Priscus, Malchus, Peter Patricius, Menander, became known only thanks to the compendium of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. On the examples of the texts of the cited monuments, both military-historical or diplomatic problems, as well as issues of ideology, morality, and lifestyle are revealed.

The tasks of classification and systematization also determined the nature of the treatise of Constantine Porphyrogenitus "On Themes", where the origin and structure of the Byzantine administrative-territorial districts are expounded on the materials of the texts of ancient historical and literary-geographical monuments. Along with data that go back to the distant past, there are also information in the work, modern era drafting a treatise.

The authorship of Constantine is attributed to the tradition and the work "Biography of Emperor Basil I" - the grandfather of the purple-born Basil (Vita Basilii). This monument came as part of the Chronicle of Theophan the Successor in the form of its fifth book. Under the name of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, other works have also been preserved - a sermon, a speech on the transfer of the relics of St. John Chrysostom, the Message on the transfer of the remains of Gregory of Nazianzus, liturgical verses, letters, appeals to the army, etc.

The basic writings of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, known under the conditional (as well as authorship!) titles "On the Administration of the Empire", "On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court", as well as three military treatises, are both of a reference-enzymatic and historical-didactic nature. Constantine was a contemporary of numerous major events in international politics in the first half of the 10th century, such as the campaign of Prince Oleg against Byzantium and the campaign of Prince Igor, which resulted in the first Russian-Byzantine treaties known from the Tale of Bygone Years, as well as wars and agreements with Bulgaria the era of Tsar Simeon, wars with the Arab Caliphate, followed by the liberation of the Armenian and Iberian lands from the rule of Islam and the removal of the Byzantine eastern borders to the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. Among the diplomatic actions of the era of the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, an important place was occupied by Russian politics, which culminated in the reception of the embassy of Princess Olga in Constantinople. Many of the events experienced by Konstantin were reflected to one degree or another in the works preserved under his name.

Editions of excerpts and works of Constantine: Excerpta historica iussu nperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta / Ed. U. Ph. Boisevain, C. De Boor, Th. Buttner-Wobst. Berolini, 1903-1910. Vol. 1-4; Costantino Porfirogenito. De Thematibus / Ed. A. Pertusi. Citta del Vaticano, 1952; Tbeophanes Contmuatus, loannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus / Rec. I. Bekkerus. Bonnae, 1838. P. 211-353; Darrouzes J. Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siecle. Paris, 1960. P. 317-322.

Literature: Dain 1953, vol. 12, pp. 64-81; Lemerle 1966. P. 596-616; Lemerle 1971; Toynbee 1973; Wosmak 1973; Hunger 1978. Bd. I. S. 360-367; Moravcsik WT I. S. 356-390; Sevcenko 1992. S. 167-195; Shevchenko 1993. V. 54. S. 6-38; Semenovker 1995; Bibikov 1998. S. 94-98.

ABOUT THE CEREMONIES OF THE BYZANTINE COURT

The work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, conventionally called "On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court", was preserved in a single list with a lengthy title: "Constantine, Christ-loving in Christ, the most eternal King Vasileus, the son of the wisest and ever-memorable Vasileus Leo, an essay and truly worthy creation of royal zeal." The treatise thoroughly describes the direction of receptions, including those of foreign ambassadors, in accordance with the rank of the visitors. The historical material of the methods of the past characterizes the reign of the emperors Leo I, Anastasius I, Justin I, Leo II and Justinian I. In the preface, the author writes about the historical significance of the work, based both on his own observations and on literary and archival sources.

For the history of Rus', the description of the reception by Constantine in the Byzantine capital of the embassy of Princess Olga is of paramount importance. In addition to a detailed presentation of the diplomatic procedure of the ceremony itself, the author lists in detail the composition of the Russian embassy, the amounts issued to its various members in accordance with the rank of the guests.

Editions: Constantinus Porphyrogenitus imperator. De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri 2 / Rec. I. I. Reiske. Bonnae, 1829-1830. Vol. 1-2; Constants VII Porphyrogenete. Le Livre des ceremonies. (Ch. 1-92) / Ed. A. Voft. Paris. 1935-1939. T. 1-2.

Translation: Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Rus'(IX - beginning of the XII century) St. Petersburg, 2000. S. 360-364.

Literature: Uspensky 1898. V. 3. S. 98-137; Vigu 1907. Vol. R. 209-227, 417-439; Treitinger 1956; Ostrogorsky 1967. Vol. 7. R. 1458-1473; Pashuto 1968, p. 66 et seq.; Arignon 1980, vol. 41, pp. 113-24; Litavrin 1981. T. 42. S. 35-48; Litavrin 1981a. No. 5. S. 173-183; Litavrin 1981b. pp. 72-92; Litavrin 1982. S. 134-143; Arignon 1983. V. 55 (1). R. 129-137; Obolensky 1983. Vol. 28, No. 2. P. 157-171; Cbolensky 1984. P. 159-176; Litavrin 1985. S. 49-57; Pritsak 1985. Vol. 9. No. 1/2. P. 5-24; Litavrin 1986a. No. 6. C. 41-52; Tinnefeld 1987. Bd. VI. 1. S. 30-37; Obolensky 1988-1989. P. 145-158; Litavrin 1989. T 50. C. 83-84; Nazarenko 1990. S. 24-40; Featherstone 1990. Vol. 14. 3/4. P. 293-312; Nazarenko 1989. V. 50. S. 66-83; Braichevsky 1991. S. 12-20; Rorre 1992. Vol. 46. R. 271-277; Nazarenko 1994. S. 154-168; Franklin, Shepard 1996. P. 134-139; Litavrin 1999. S. 421-452; Litavrin 2000. S. 154-213.

KONSTANTINE, THE LOVING CHRIST IN CHRIST
THE MOST ETERNAL KING BASILEVS, THE WISE SON
AND THE MEMORABLE BASILEUS LION,
A COMPOSITION AND A WORTHY CREATION IN TRUTH OF THE ROYAL DELIGION

Many events are forgotten and slip away over a long period of time, if they neglected the great and honorable occupation - the description of royal rites, if it were, so to speak, doomed to extinction, one could look at royal power as an everyday phenomenon and truly devoid of a beautiful appearance.

We decided to carefully select everything that we ourselves see and are accepted today from a variety of sources and present for convenient viewing in this work to those who will live after us; we will show the forgotten customs of our fathers, and, like the flowers we gather in the meadows, we will add them to the royal pomp for its pure splendor.

Another trick is Elga Rosen.

On the ninth of September, on the fourth day [of the week], a reception was held upon the arrival of Elga Archontissa Rosia. This archontissa entered with her relatives, archontissa-relatives and the most prominent of the servants. She walked ahead of all the other women, and they followed her in order, one after the other. She stopped at the place where the logothete usually asks questions. Behind her entered the ambassadors and merchants of the archons of Russia and stopped behind the curtains. Everything that followed was done in accordance with the method described above.

Going out again through the Anadendrarium and Triklin of Candidates, as well as the triklin, in which the Kamelavian stands and in which they are ordained to the rank of master, she passed through Onopod and golden hand, i.e. portico of Augustia, and sat there. When the basileus entered the palace in the usual way, another reception took place as follows.

In the Triklin of Justinian there was a platform decorated with porphyry Dionysian fabrics, and on it was the large throne of Vasileus Theophilus, on the side was a golden royal chair. Behind it, behind two curtains, stood two silver organs of the two parties, for their pipes were behind the curtains. Invited from Augustius, the archontissa passed through the Apse, the hippodrome and the internal passages of Augustius himself, and, having arrived, sat down in Skyla 10 . Despina 11, meanwhile, sat on the throne mentioned above, and her daughter-in-law - in an armchair. And [then] the whole Edicule 12 entered, and the pitchfork 15 was introduced by the prepositor 13 and the ostiarium 14: the first vila - the zost, the second vila - the magisters, the third vila - the patrikiss, the fourth vila - the protospafarissa-officials, the fifth vila - other protospafarissa, the sixth vila - spafarokandidatissa, the seventh vila - pafarissa, stratorissa and candidateissa 16.

And so, only after this did the archontissa enter, introduced by the prepositor and two ostiarii. She walked in front, and her kindred archontesses and the most prominent of her attendants followed her, as before mentioned. Preposit asked her a question, as if on behalf of August 17, and, having gone out, she [again] sat down in Skily.

Despina, having risen from the throne, passed through Lavsiak and Tripeton 18 and entered the Kenurgis 19 , and through it into her own kyton 20 . Then, in the same way, the archontissa, together with her relatives and servants, entered through [Triklin] Justiniana, Lavsiak and Tripeton to Cenuurgia and [here] rested.

On the same day, clitoris 21 took place in the same Triclinium of Justinian. Despina and her daughter-in-law sat on the throne mentioned above. The archontissa stood to the side. When the refectory 22, according to the usual rite, introduced the archontis and they performed proskynesis 23, the archontissa, bowing her head slightly, sat down at the apocoptus 24 in the same place where she had stood, along with the zostes, according to the charter. Know that chanters, apostolites and hagiosophites 25 , were present at this clitoria, singing basilicas 26 . All sorts of theatrical games were also played out.

And in Khrysotriklin 27 [at the same time] there was another clitorium, where all the ambassadors of the archons of Russia, people and relatives of the archontissa and merchants feasted. [After dinner] received: anepsia 28 of her 30 miliaris 29, 8 of her people - 20 miliaris each, 20 ambassadors - 12 miliaris each, 43 merchants - 12 miliaris each, priest Gregory - 8 miliaris, 2 translators - 12 miliaris each, Svyatoslav's people - 5 miliaris each, 6 people of the ambassador - 3 each, the translator of the archontissa - 15 miliarisi.

After the basileus got up from dinner, a dessert took place in Aristiria 30, where there was a small golden table installed in Pentapyrgia 31. Dessert was served on this table, decorated with pearls and precious stones bowls.

Vasileus sat [here], Roman 32 - purple-born basileus, their purple-born children, daughter-in-law and archontissa. It was handed over to the archontissa in a golden bowl adorned with precious stones - 500 miliaris, 6 of her women - 20 miliaris and 18 of her attendants - 8 miliaris.

On the eighteenth of September, on Sunday, the clitoris took place in Chrysotriclene. Vasilevs sat [here] with dew. And another clitoris took place in the Pentacuvuklia of St. Paul, where Despina sat with her purple-born children, with her daughter-in-law and the archontissa. And it was given: to the archontissa - 200 milarisi, her anepsia - 20 milarisi, to the priest Gregory - 8 milarisi, 16 of her women - 12 milarisi, 18 of her slaves - 6 milarisi, 22 ambassadors - 12 milarisi, 44 merchants - 6 milarisi each , two translators - 12 miliaris each.

(Translated by G.G. Litavrin S. 360-364)

ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPIRE

From the historiographic point of view, the most important work, preserved under the name of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, since the first edition in 1611 is conventionally called "On the Administration of the Empire", although the only manuscript of the Byzantine period that has preserved the text (Cod. Paris, gr. 2009 XI century.), has a common lemma "Constantine, in Christ, the eternal king, the basileus of the Romans, to his son Roman, the divinely crowned and purple-born basileus." Thus, the treatise is an appeal to his son - the future emperor Roman II (ruled from 959 to 963). The instruction, in which Constantine considers the system of relations between the empire and the peoples surrounding it from the point of view of political benefits for Byzantium, determines the method of subjugation of each of these peoples and warns of possible claims of "barbarians" to Byzantium, and also gives an idea of the origin, customs, natural conditions the lives of the peoples of interest to the empire.

The whole part of the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus from Ch. 1.16 to ch. 13.11, with the exception of Ch. 9, is a summary of the practice of Byzantine diplomacy in relation to the northern neighbors of the empire - the Pechenegs, Uzes, Khazars, Alans, Ross, Bulgarians and Hungarians. This is a kind of "practical lesson" in Byzantine foreign policy. Regarding the reality of the reflection here of the foreign policy situation of the middle of the 10th century. Byzantinists do not have unanimity: for example, some (G. Manoylovich, V. Greku) noted the educational and didactic and others (P. Lemerle) - the bookish, scholarly and encyclopedic nature of the work. However, an analysis of Constantine's information about the nomads of the Northern Black Sea region convinces of the relevance of the data given in the treatise for the study of Byzantine foreign policy in the middle of the 10th century, although one can speak about specific sources of Constantine's information only in individual cases and mostly presumably.

Konstantin begins his review of the foreign policy situation of Byzantium with a description of relations with the Pechenegs. It is in this connection that Constantine for the first time here speaks about Rus', reporting that the Pechenegs "became neighboring and adjacent to the dews, and often when they do not have peace with each other, they rob Russia, cause significant harm and damage to it," and also , "that the dews are anxious to have peace with the Pachinakites". Konstantin speaks of Russian-Pecheneg trade. The author of the treatise analyzes the military-political potential of Rus' in the complex of its relations with Byzantium and the Pechenegs.

The ninth chapter, exceeding in volume other sections of the initial part of the work, is devoted to Rus', more precisely, to a description of the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and a story about what the traveler encounters. Russian cities are listed - Novgorod, Smolensk, Lyubech, Chernigov, Vyshgorod, Kyiv, Vitichev; Russian princes are called - Igor and Svyatoslav; describes in detail the relationship of the princely squad ("dew") with the Slavic population of various tribes of the described territory; talks about polyude. Polyudie Konstantin reproduces the words in the Slavonic sound, showing here his characteristic interest in the languages of the peoples described by him. So, all known Dnieper rapids are called both "in Russian" (the Scandinavian name is indicated), and "in Slavonic", where the Russian equivalent of the name is transmitted. The author of the treatise also names the Slavic word "zakany" (laws).

Constantine distinguishes between "Outer Rus'", by which he meant Northern ("Novgorod") Rus', and Rus' in its own, narrow, sense of the word - as a territory for collecting tribute by the senior prince, i.e. Kievan Rus. Among the Slavic tribes subject to Rus', the Krivichi, Lendzyans, Drevlyans, Dregovichi, Severians are named. From Constantine's description, it becomes clear that Kyiv prince already in the middle of the tenth century. "planted" his son, a potential successor, on the Novgorod table.

Among the evidence of ethno-cultural content, the description of Yavychesknkh sacrifices of the Ross on about. Khortitsa on the way to Byzantium.

Continuation of chapter 13 is devoted to Hungary and other countries Central Europe. This section, among other things, gives advice on how to respond to the Khazars, Hungarians or Russians, or other "northern" and "Scythian" peoples - their frequent requests for imperial regalia, which were considered a privilege only in Pantian emperors. It is also proposed to refuse to respond to the harassment of the "barbarian" rulers about dynastic marriages with imperial relatives. It also tells about Greek fire - the most important secret weapon of the Byzantine fleet in battles with enemies.

The next chapters (14-42) "On the management of the empire" are devoted to the writing of the lands, history, customs of the Arabs, then - Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Croatia, Serbia. A number of episodes refer to the history of Avars and Bulgarians at the turn of the 9th/10th centuries. Again, the story concerns the Techenegs, Hungarians and Khazars, their origin, ancient history, settlements, tribal ethnology. The same part of the treatise contains a story about Moravia and its ruler Svyatopolk. The section ends with an ethno-geographical chapter entitled "Description of the Earth from Thessalonica to the Danube River and the fortress of Belgrade, to Turkia (=Hungary. - M.B.) and Pachinakia, to the Khazar fortress of Sarkel, to Russia and to Necropyla, located on the Pontus Sea, near the Dnieper River, to Kherson, together with the Bosporus, in which there are fortresses of climates; then - to Lake Meotida, also called the sea because of its size, up to the fortress of Tamatarha, and to this - to Zikhia, Papagia Kasakhia, Alanya and Avasgia - up to the fortress of Sotiriupol "The description of the Northern Black Sea region, including the lands of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, the Dnieper region, the Crimea, Tmutarakan, the North Caucasian coast and areas up to modern Sukhumi ("Sotiriupol"), dates back to after 906.

Chapters 43-46 contain detailed, sometimes unique, information about Transcaucasia, about the lands of Armenians and Georgians based on contemporary data for Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The next two chapters are related to Cyprus.

The next section of the treatise (ch. 49-53) is devoted to the Byzantine regions, including Kherson in the Crimea, their ethnic composition) (in particular, the settlement of the Slavs in the Peloponnese), the administrative structure of the empire, historical changes in the conditions of provincial government and other internal historical and political subjects of the history of Byzantium from ancient times to the time of the treatise.

The time of compiling the work is considered to be the middle of the 10th century, the period between 948 and 952.

Notes to the published fragments of this work by Konstantin used comments from the Russian edition of 1991 (see below).

Editions: Constantme Porphyrogenitus. De administrando impeno / Ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins. Washington, 1967 Comm by R. J. H. Jenkins, D. Obolensky, E Dvornik a. o. London, 1962.

Edition and translation: Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. About the management of the empire. Text, trans., comm. / Ed. G.G. Litavrin and A.P. Novoseltsev. M., 1991.

Literature: Vigou 1906. Bd. 15. S. 517-557; Rasovsky 1933. T. 6. S. 1-66; Ostrogorsky 1936, vol. 8, pp. 41-61; Priselkov 1941. S. 215-246. Vernadsky 1943; Vasiliev 1951. Vol. 6. P. 160-225; Stender-Petersen 1953, Shevelov 1955. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 503-530; Levchenko 1956; Tolkachev 1962 S. 29-60; Sorlin 1965. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 147-188; Zlatarski 1967-1971. T. 1. Ch. 1-2; Pashuto 1968; Obolensky 1971; Toynbee 1973; Wosniak 1973. Ivanov and Toporov 1974; Duychev 1976. S. 31-34; Koledarov 1977. No. 3 S. 50-64; Sakharov 1980; Dunot, Arignon 1982. V. 43 S. 64-73; Rybakov 1982; Sedov 1982; Moravcsik VT I. S. 361-379; Ivanova, Litavrin 1985. S. 34-98; Lovmyansky 1985; Litavrin 1999; Litavrin 2000.

KONSTANTINA, IN CHRIST THE ETERNAL KING,
VASILEVSA ROMEEV, TO HIS SON ROMAN,
TO THE BORDEN AND PURPLE-BORN

1. About pachinakites 33 : how useful they are, being at peace with the basileus of the romans

So listen 34 son, what I think you [should] know; acquire understanding 35 in order to master control. After all, I say to everyone else that knowledge is good for subjects, especially for you, who are obliged to take care of the salvation of all and rule and guide the world ship. And if 36 I used a clear and accessible speech 37 , as if carelessly flowing ordinary prose, to present what is to come, do not be surprised at all, my son. After all, I tried to present not an example of calligraphy or an atticising style 38 , solemn and sublime, but rather to instruct you through a simple and everyday 39 narrative in what, in my opinion, you should not remain in ignorance and which you can easily to deliver that intelligence and wisdom, which are acquired in long experience.

I believe that it is always very useful for the Vasileus of the Romans to wish peace with the people of the Pachinakites, to conclude friendly agreements and treaties with them, to send from here to them every year an apocrysiar 41 with appropriate and appropriate gifts for the people and to take omir from there, i.e. hostages 42 , and apocrysiarius, who will arrive in this God-protected city 43 together with the executor of this work 44 and will take advantage of the royal favors and favors, in everything worthy of the ruling basileus.

Since this people of the Pachinakites neighbor 45 the region of Kherson 46 , they, not being friendly towards us, can oppose Kherson, raid it and ruin both Kherson itself and the so-called Climates 47 .

2. About pachinakites and dews

[Know] that the Pachinakites have become neighbors and contiguous 48 also with the Ross, and often, when they do not have peace with each other, they rob Russia, cause significant harm and damage to it.

[Know] that the dews are also anxious to have peace with the Pachinakites. After all, they buy 49 cows, horses, sheep from them, and from this they live easier and more satisfying, since not one of the animals mentioned above was found in Russia 50 . But even against enemies remote from their borders, 51 dews cannot go at all, if they are not at peace with the Pachinakites, since the Pachinakites have the opportunity - at the time when the dews move away from their [families] - by attacking, destroying and ruining everything . Therefore, the dews always take special care not to suffer harm from them, for this people is strong, to attract them to the union and receive help from them, so that they can get rid of their enmity and use help.

[Know] that this royal city also has 52 Romans, if the dews are not at peace with the Pachinakites, they cannot appear, neither for the sake of war, nor for the sake of trade, for when the dews with boats come to the river rapids and cannot bypass them otherwise than pulling their boats out of the river and crossing them, carrying them on their shoulders, then the people of this people of the Pachinakites attack them and easily - the dew cannot withstand two labors 53 - they win and massacre.

3. About Pachinakites and Turks 54

[Know] that the Turks, too, are very much afraid and afraid of the aforementioned Pachikits, because they were repeatedly defeated by them 55 and betrayed to almost complete annihilation, which is why the Turks always consider the Pachinakits terrible and tremble before them.

4. About Pachinakites, Dews and Turks

[Know] that while the basileus of the Romans is at peace with the Pachinaks 56, neither the dew nor the Turks can attack the power of the Romans according to the law of war, nor can they demand great and excessive money and things from the Romans for peace, fearing that the basileus will use the power of this people against them when they attack the Romans of Pachinakita, bound by friendship with the basileus and prompted by his letters 57 and gifts, they can easily attack the land of the Ross and Turks, take their wives and children into slavery, and ruin their land 58 .

5. About Pachinakites and Bulgars 59

[Know] that even the Vasileus of the Romans would have seemed more terrible to the Bulgars and could have forced them to calmness, being in peace with the Pachinaks 60, since the named Pachinaks 61 coexist with these Bulgars and, when they wish, either for their own self-interest, or for the sake of basileus of the Romans, can easily oppose Bulgaria 62 and, thanks to their overwhelming majority and strength, overcome those and win. Therefore, the Bulgars also show constant diligence and concern for peace and harmony with the Pachinaks. Since [the Bulgars] were repeatedly defeated and robbed by them, they learned from experience that it is good and profitable to always be at peace with the Pachinakites.

6. About Pachinakites and Chersonites

[Know] that another people from the same Pachinakites 63 is located near the region of Kherson. They both trade with the Chersonites, and fulfill the orders of both them and the basil and in Russia, and in Khazaria 64, and in Zikhia 65, and in all the local regions, receiving, of course, from the Chersonites a pre-agreed payment for this very service, respectively the importance of the commission and their labors, such as: vlattii, prandii, khareria, belts, pepper 66 , Parthian scarlet skins and other items required by them, how each Chersonite will be able to negotiate with any of the Pachinakites upon agreement or yield to his insistence. After all, being free and, as it were, independent, these same pachinakites never perform any service without payment.

Ros fleet. Miniature of the Madrid List of the Chronicle of John Skylitzes

7. About cornflowers 67 sent 68 from Kherson to Pachinakia 69

Whenever a vasilik crosses over to Kherson for the sake of such an assignment, he must immediately send [a messenger] to Pachinakia and demand hostages and guards from them 70. When they arrive, then leave the hostages in custody in the Kherson fortress, and go with the guards to Pachinakia and fulfill the task. These same Pachinakites, being insatiable and extremely greedy for their rare things, shamelessly demand large gifts: the hostages seek one for themselves and another for their wives, the guards - one for their labors, and the other for the weariness of their horses. Then, when the basilik enters their country, they demand first of all the gifts of the basileus, and again, when they please their people, they ask for gifts for their wives and their parents. Moreover, those who, for the sake of protecting the cornflower returning to Cherson, come with him, ask him to reward the work of themselves and their horses 71.

8. About cornflowers sent from the God-protected city to Pachinakia with helandia 72 along the Danube rivers 73 , Dnieper and Dniester 74

[Know] that in the direction of Bulgaria 75 the Pachinakites settled down towards the region of the Dnieper, Dniester and other rivers there. When a cornflower with helands is sent from here, he can, without going to Kherson, find the same pachinaks here by the shortest and fastest way, having found them, he notifies them through his man, being himself on the helands, having with him and guarding the royal things on ships . The Pachinakites converge on him, and when they converge, the vasilik gives them his people as hostages, but he himself receives their hostages from the Pachinakites and keeps them in helandia. And then he negotiates with the pachinakites. And when the Pachinakites swear oaths to the cornflower according to their "zakans" 76, he gives them royal gifts and receives "friends" 77 from among them as much as he wants, and then returns. So it is necessary to negotiate with them so that when the basileus needs them, they would perform the service, whether against the Ross or against the Bulgars, or against the Turks, or they are able to fight with all of them and, repeatedly attacking them 78 , have now become terrible for [them]. This is also clear from the following. When the cleric Gabriel was somehow sent to the Turks 79 at the command of Vasileus and said to them: "Vasileus declares to you 80 that you go and drive the Pachinakites from their places, and you would settle down instead of them, since you were previously located there, in order to be near my kingdom and so that, when I wish, I would send ambassadors and find you soon," then all the archons of 81 Turks exclaimed in one voice: "We ourselves will not get involved in a war with the Pachinakites, since we cannot fight with them 82, - the country [theirs] is great, the people are numerous, this bad offspring. Do not continue such speeches before us - we do not like them "83.

[Know] that the Pachinakites, with the onset of spring, cross over from the other side of the Dnieper River and always spend the summer here 84 .

9. About dew 85 traveling with monoxyl 86 From Russia 87 to Constantinople

[Let it be known] that the monoxyls coming from outer Russia 88 to Constantinople are 89 one of Nemogard 90, in which 91 Sfendoslav 92, son of Ingor 93 , archon of Russia 94 was sitting, and others from the fortress of Miliniski 95 , from Teliuets 96 , Chernigogi 97 and from Vusegrad 98 . So, they all go down the river Dnieper 99 and converge in the fortress of Kioava 100 called Samvatas 101 . The Slavs, their pasgiots 102, namely: Kriviteins 103 , Lenzanins 104 and other Slavinians 105 - cut monoxyls in their mountains 106 during the winter and, after equipping them, with the onset of spring, when the ice melts, they introduce them into the neighboring reservoirs. Since these [reservoirs] flow into the Dnieper River, they also enter this very river from there [places] and go to Kiev. They are pulled out for [equipment] and sold to dews, dews, having bought these dugouts alone and dismantled their old monoxyls, transfer them from those to these oars, oarlocks and other decorations ... equip them 107. And in the month of June 108, moving along the Dnieper River, they descend to Viticheva 109, which is a paktio fortress of the Ross, and, having gathered there for two or three days, until all monoxyls 110 are united, then they set off on their way and descend along the named river Dnepr 111. First of all, they come to the first threshold 112 called Essupi, which means in Russian and Slavic "Don't sleep" 113 . [This] threshold is as narrow as the area of cycanistry 114 , and in the middle of it there are steep high rocks sticking out like islands. Therefore, the water flowing towards them, rushing down from there, emits a loud, terrible rumble.

Russian fleet. Miniature of the Radziwill Chronicle

In view of this, the dews do not dare to pass between the rocks, but, mooring nearby and disembarking people on land, and leaving other things in monoxyls, then naked, feeling with their feet [the bottom, dragging them] 115, so as not to bump into any stone. So they do, some at the bow, others in the middle, and others at the stern, pushing with 116 [her] poles, and with extreme caution they pass this first threshold, along a bend near the river bank. When they pass this first time, then again, having taken the others from the land, they set sail and come to another threshold, called in Russian Ulvorsi, and in Slavic Ostrovuniira, which means "Island of the Threshold" 117 . It is similar to the first, heavy and difficult to pass. And again, after disembarking people, they conduct monoxyls, as before. In the same way, they pass the third threshold, called Gelandri, which in Slavonic means "The Noise of the Threshold" 118 , and then in the same way - the fourth threshold, huge, called in Russian Aifor, in Slavic Neasit, since in the stones of the threshold pelicans nest 119 . So, at this threshold, everyone moored to the ground with their noses forward, the men appointed to carry the guards came out with them and retired. They are vigilantly guarding because of the Pachinakites 120 . And the rest, taking the things that they had in monoxyls 121 , lead the slaves 122 in chains overland for six miles 123 until they pass the threshold. Then, also, some dragging, others on their shoulders, having crossed their monoxyls on this side of the threshold, pushing them into the river and carrying a load, enter themselves and again set sail. Having approached the fifth threshold, called in Russian Varuforos, and in Slavic Vulniprakh 124, for it forms a large backwater 125, and having again crossed their monoxyls along the bends of the river, as on the first and second threshold, they reach the sixth threshold, called according to - Russians Leandi, and in Slavonic Veruchi, which means "Water boiling" 126 , and overcome it in a similar way. From it they sail to the seventh threshold, called in Russian Strukun, and in Slavic Naprezi, which translates as "Small threshold" 127 . Then they reach the so-called Kraria crossing 128 , through which the Khersonites cross from Russia 129 , and the Pachinakites 130 on their way to Kherson 131 . This crossing has the width of the hippodrome 132, and the length, from the bottom to the [place] where the underwater rocks protrude 133, as far as the arrow of the one who shot it from here to there will fly. In view of what the Pachinakites descend to this place and fight against the Ross 134 . After passing through this place, they reach an island called St. Gregory 135 . On this island they perform their sacrifices, because there is a huge oak tree: they sacrifice living roosters, they strengthen and arrows around [the oak], and others - pieces of bread, meat and what everyone has, as their custom dictates. They also cast lots for roosters: either slaughter them, or eat them, or let them go alive. From this island the dews are not afraid of pachinakit 137 until they find themselves in the river Selina 138 . Then, advancing in this way from [this island] for up to four days, they sail until they reach the bay of the river, which is the mouth in which (lies the island of St. Etherius). When they reach this island, they rest there for up to two or three days. And again they re-equip their monoxyls with everything they need, what they lack: sails, masts, helms, which they brought [with them]. Since the mouth of this river is, as it is said, a bay and extends all the way to the sea, and in the sea lies the island of St. Etherius, from there they go to the river Dniester and, having found refuge there, again rest there 139 . When the weather is favorable, they set sail and come to the river called Aspros 140 , and having rested there in a similar way, they set off again and come to Selina, and the so-called branch of the Danube River. Until they pass the Selina River, the Pachinakites follow next to them. And if the sea, as often happens, throws the monoxil onto land, then all [others] moor to stand together against the Pachinakites. They are not afraid of anyone from Selina, but, having stepped into the land of Bulgaria, they enter the mouth of the Danube 141. From the Danube they arrive at Konopa 142, and from Konopa - at Constance 143 ... to the river Varna 144; from Varna they come to the river Dichina 145 . All this refers to the land of Bulgaria 146 . From Dichina they reach the region of Mesemvria 147 - those places where their painful and terrible, unbearable and difficult voyage ends. The winter and harsh way of life of those same dews is as follows. When the month of November comes, immediately their archons 148 leave with all the dews 149 from Kiava and go to polyudia, which is called "circling" 150, namely, in Slavinia, the Vervians 151 , Drugovites 152 , Krivichi, Severii 153 and other Slavs 154 , who are paktiotami rosov 155 . Feeding 156 there throughout the winter, they again, starting in April 157, when the ice on the Dnieper River melts, return to Kiav. Then, just as it was told, taking their monoxyls, they equip [them] and go to Romagna 158 .

[Know] that bonds can fight the Pachinakites 159 .

10. About Khazaria 160 how it is necessary and with whose forces to fight [with her]

[Know] that the bonds are capable of fighting the Khazars, since they are in the neighborhood with them, just like the exusiocrat of Alania 161 .

[Know] that the nine Climates of Khazaria 162 are adjacent to Alania and the Alans, if, of course, he wants, can plunder them from here and cause great damage and disaster to the Khazars, since from these nine Climates all the life and abundance of Khazaria were.

11. About the Kherson fortress and the Bosporus fortress 163

[Know] that the exusiocrat of Alania does not live in peace with the Khazars, but considers the friendship of the basileus of the Romans more preferable, and when the Khazars do not want to keep friendship and peace in relation to the basileus, he can greatly harm them, and lying in wait on the ways, and attacking walking without guards at the transitions to Sarkel 164, to Klimaty and to Kherson. If this exusiocrator tries to prevent the Khazars 165, then both Kherson and Klimaty enjoy a long and deep peace, since the Khazars, fearing the attack of the Alans, find it unsafe to march with an army to Kherson and Klimaty and, having no strength for war at the same time against both, will be forced to keep the peace.

12. About Black Bulgaria 166 and about Khazaria

[Know] that the so-called Black Bulgaria can fight the Khazars.

37. About the Pachinakites 167

Let it be known that the Pachinakites first inhabited the Atil River, as well as the Geih River 168 , being neighbors of both the Khazars and the so-called Uz 169 . However, fifty years ago, 170 the mentioned bonds, having entered into an agreement with the Khazars and went to war against the Pachinakites, defeated them and expelled them from their own country, and the so-called bonds 171 have ruled it up to the present time. The Pachinakites, having taken flight, wandered, looking for a place for their settlement. Having reached the land, which they still possess 172 , finding the Turks there, defeating them in war and driving them out, they expelled them 173 , settled here and rule this country, as it is said, up to this day already for fifty-five years 174 .

Let it be known that all Pachinakia is divided into eight themes 175 , having the same number of great archons. And the themes are as follows: 176 the name of the first theme is Irtim, the second is Tzur, the third is Gila, the fourth is Kulpei, the fifth is Haravoi, the sixth is Talmat, the seventh is Hopon, the eighth is Tsopon. At the same time, in which the Pachinakites were expelled from their country, they had archons in the Irtim theme of Vaitsu, in Tsura - Kuela, in Gil Kurkute, in Kulpei - Ipaosa, in Haravoi - Kaidum, in the theme of Talmat Kosta, in Hopon - Giatsi, and in the theme Tsopon - Batana. After the death of these, their cousins inherited the power, for they had established laws and an ancient custom, according to which they had no right to transfer dignity to children or to their brothers; it was enough for those who owned it that they ruled during their lives. After their death, either their cousin or the sons of cousins must be chosen, so that dignity does not remain permanently in one branch of the family, but so that honor is inherited and received also by relatives in the collateral line. From an outside family, no one invades and becomes an archon. The eight themes are divided into forty parts, and they have archons of a lower rank.

It should be known that four genera of the Pachinakites, namely: the Kuartsitsur theme, the Sirukalpei theme, the Vorotalmat theme and the Vulatsopon theme, are located on the other side of the Dnieper River towards the edges [respectively] more eastern and northern 177, opposite Uzia, Khazaria, Alania, Kherson and other climates 178 . The remaining four clans are located on this side of the Dnieper River, towards the more western and northern regions, namely: the Giazikhopon theme neighbors with Bulgaria, the Lower Gila theme neighbors with Turkia, the Kharavoi theme neighbors with Russia, and the Iavdiertim theme neighbors with the payable countries of Russia localities, with Ultins 179, Dervlenins 180, Lenzanins 181 and other Slavs. Pachinakia is five days away from Uzia and Khazaria, six days from Alanya, ten days from Mordia 182, one day from Russia, four days from Turkia, half a day from Bulgaria 183, to Kherson it very close, and even closer to the Bosporus.

Let it be known that at the time when the Pachinakites were expelled from their country, some of them, by their own will and decision, remained in place, live together with the so-called bonds and are still among them, having the following special signs (in order to differ from those and to show who they were and how it happened that they were cut off from their own: after all, they shortened their robes to the knees, and cut off their sleeves from the very shoulders, trying to show, as it were, that they were cut off from their own and from their fellow tribesmen 184.

You should know that on this side of the Dniester River, in the region facing Bulgaria, at the crossings across this river, there are empty fortresses: the first fortress was called Aspron by the Pachinakites, since its stones seem completely white; the second fortress of Tungata, the third fortress of Kraknakata, the fourth fortress of Salmakata, the fifth fortress of Sakakata, the sixth fortress of Gieukata 185 . In the midst of the very buildings of ancient fortresses, some signs of churches and crosses carved in sandstone are found, so some people keep the tradition that the Romans once had a settlement there.

You should know that the Pachinakites are also called Kangars, but not all of them, but the people of three themes: Iavdiirti, Kuartsitsur and Havuksingila, as more courageous and noble than the others, because this means the nickname Kangars.

(Translated by G.G. Litavrin. S. 33-53, 155-159)

COMMENTS

183 Important evidence of territorial problems.

184 Ibn Fadlan confirms the information about the Pecheneg nomad camps among the Uzes.

185 The names are of Turkic origin.