Византийское миссионерство: Можно ли сделать из «варвара» христианина?

Иванов Сергей Аркадьевич

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

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

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

IV

In the book a survey is made of Byzantine efforts to convert nomads. Greek sources here are numerous. For centuries Byzantines regarded nomads as essentially unlawful people whose conversion to Christianity demanded that they fully reject their basic ways of life. For example, the missionaries were trying to forbid Tatars to drink

«koumys» (horse milk). But such rigidity gradually gave way to more sober approach: as the Empire was declining, its demands became less strict. It can be proved by the marginal notes in the «Sugdaian Synaxarion» and by such outstanding and largely overlooked source as the questions of Theognoste, the Greek bishop of Saray (capital of Tatars), addressed to Constantinopolitan patriarch John Bekkos, and the answers of the latter about the sense and the formalities of missionary practices. This is a document of real religious wisdom and tolerance. It proves that Greeks preached to nomads in difficult circumstances, and showed great courage in doing this. They simplified the rite, adjusted the teaching and tried hard to disseminate not the Byzantine way of life, but the most general concepts of Christianity. Interestingly, the Patriarch approves of all the innovations suggested by the bishop with the only exception: he insists on the excommunication of a priest who happened to kill somebody during his missionary service.

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

V

The last part of the monograph consists of generalizations and conclusions. The author tries to outline methods of Byzantine mission, which Byzantines themselves never theoretize on. Data are collected from accidental slips and oblique evidence of hagiography. At early stages of the history of missions Byzantine preachers were trying to persuade

«barbarians» to reject bellicose way of life and not to invade the Empire — it logically led local rulers to regard them as saboteurs, and cost life to some of them. Later missionary discourse changed: preachers began to advertise military achievements of their Christian Empire and to promise to «barbarians» similar victories over their neighbors. Strangely, the main emphasis was put by Greek missionaries on retelling stories from the Old Testament and Church history rather than simple evangelical parables. More important were the civilizing efforts: missionaries planted orchards, sowed grain, organized schools etc. The fundamental mistake of the Byzantines was that they did not pay much attention to this part of mission — the Empire preferred to have contacts only with ruling elites and to make stress on political ties. As a consequence the Orthodox cause was uprooted with every transfer of power or political necessity. The question of the language of mission is also complicated. Although Greek' Church Fathers praised the gift of «speaking in tongues», Byzantines did not show any inclination to learn foreign languages. Although the Orthodox church, contrary to the Roman, did not principally object to the use of the vernacular in liturgy, Byzantine cultural snobbery hampered any contacts «from heart to heart». History of Greek clergy in Rus’ shows that Byzantine bishops never tried to address the flock in vernacular. Byzantines did not know such Western institution as «missionary bishopric» without a center. Who was carrying out missions practically? It must have been monks. Meanwhile, monastery rules of Byzantium did not approve of the mission, and in a charming Greek tale of a demon caught by a monk the former admits under pressure that the monastic desire to go and convert «barbarians» is in fact his malicious instigation!

The cause of weakness of the Byzantine mission is the Greeks’ eschatological approach to Christianization. In their opinion, the whole world should be baptized from above. Earthly mission was appreciated only as a shadowy reflection of the divine. Greeks remembered well Christ’s prophecy that the Last Judgement would come as soon as the Gospel had been preached in all parts of the world. So, Byzantines felt it as a kind of arrogance to intervene into Heavenly designs. However, it was not the only reason why Byzantine mission was so weak. Byzantium did not understand Christianity without Roman Empire. Consequently, a country, which did not belong to Byzantium politically, remained to some extent «nonchristian» in the eyes of the Greeks. This is why their Christian mission was always a political one. This is why Byzantines invariably imposed on the neophytes all religious duties of imperial subjects. To some extent, it may be argued, Greeks did not even want to convert «barbarians», because there existed some danger that these «savages» will sully the shining beauty of the Orthodoxy. These feelings are obvious from the following example. Theophanes Continuatus, Byzantine chronicler of the 10 ^th century, describes the emperor Leo V converting pagan Bulgarians: «He delivered Christian faith to them, into which they had to convert with our help, and he deserved curse, because he was, by the God’s word, «casting pearls before swine». As we see, «barbarians» are not worthy of Christianity!

Somebody can say that the initial «internationalism» and «democratism» of Christian doctrine suffocated in the iron embrace of the isolationist Empire. Somebody else can put it in a different way: active mission presupposes active attitude towards life and Christian duties; in this sense mission is the invention of the Medieval West, whereas the Orthodox East followed the initial eschatological approach of the Early Church. Whatever explanation is more accurate, it is beyond doubt that missionary zeal, distinguishable in Cyril and Methodius, in Stephen of Sugdaia, in Theognoste and some other enthusiasts, was in Byzantium overcome by cultural snobbery and messianic imperialism. This is why Christian Orthodoxy lost to its spiritual rivals the Nile valley, the Middle East, Moravia, Croatia, Abkhazia, Hungary, Lithuania, Khazaria and, for the short time, even neighboring Bulgaria. Historical consequences of this cultural specifics of Byzantine Christianity are huge and lay beyond the scope of my monograph.