Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:10:53.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross Kissing: Keeping One’s Word in Twelfth-Century Rus'

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Yulia Mikhailova  and
David K Prestel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this study, Yulia Mikhailova and David Prestel suggest that the political culture of pre-Mongolian Rus’ may be similar to that of post-Carolingian Europe, where public order still existed in the absence of a strong centralized authority. In Rus’ as also in the west, there was an order of norms rather than of institutions. Drawing on sources such as the Testament of Vladimir Monomakh and the Homily of Princes, Mikhailova and Prestel maintain that cross kissing was considered a sacred obligation for Rus’ rulers, a view given further support by the behavior of princes as recorded in the chronicles. They appear to trust oaths made on the cross and accept that there will be negative consequences for those who break them. Violations threaten one's salvation, and when chroniclers are favorably disposed to certain princes, they attempt to demonstrate that their violations are justified by an offence on the part of the prince with whom the agreement was enacted.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The authors would like to thank Professor A. K. Zaitsev, Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei, Moscow, for his valuable insights and advice with regard to this article. Schmitt, Jean-Claude, La raison des gestes dans VOccident médiéval (Paris, 1990), 16. The quotation used in the epigraph is taken from the same page.Google Scholar

2 Leyser, Karl, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottoman Centuries,ed. Reuter, Timothy (London, 1994), 194.Google Scholar

3 Anthony Burrow, John, Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative(Cambridge, Eng., 2002), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The Ipat'evskaia letopis’is useful for our purposes because it contains many “ideological“ passages concerning cross kissing. A plausible explanation for this is that most of the twelfth century (1118–1199) is covered by the so–called Kievskii svod,which treats the interim period between the Primary Chronicleand the Galician–Volynian Chronicle.The Kievskii svodis a complex work compiled from the chronicles of princes who occupied the Kievan throne. As one would expect, these chroniclers sought to justify the actions of their prince and condemn those of his rivals. As the readers likely had access to other chronicles, however, further explanation was needed to advance and support the arguments.

5 See Martin, Janet, Medieval Russia, 980–1584,2d ed. (Cambridge, Eng., 2007), 62 Google Scholar, and Franklin, Simon and Shepard, Jonathan, The Emergence of Rus, 750–1200 (New York, 1996), 247.Google Scholar

6 Martin, , Medieval Russia,24, 35.Google Scholar

7 Franklin, Simon, “Kievan Rus’ (1015–1125),” in Perrie, Maureen, ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, I: From Early Rus’ to 1689(Cambridge, Eng., 2006), 75.Google Scholar

8 Franklin, and Shepard, , Emergence of Rus,275–76.Google Scholar

9 For a survey of literature on succession and seniority, see Martin, Janet, “Calculating Seniority and the Contests for Succession in Kievan Rus,” Russian History/Histoire russe 33, nos. 2 – 4 (Summer-Winter 2006): 267–81.Google Scholar See also Dimnik, Martin, “The Rus’ Principalities (1125–1246),” in Perrie, ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, I,98.Google Scholar

10 See Franklin and Shepard, Emergence of Rus,276. The one exception is a passing remark in the description of the struggle over the Kievan throne between Igor’ Olgovich and Iziaslav Mstislavich in 1146 to the effect that, “Crosses kissed in one set of negotiations could be unkissed in another.” Ibid., 347.

11 There is not a single reference to cross kissing in such comprehensive studies as Martin, Medieval Russiaor The Cambridge History of Russia.

12 H. W., Dewey and A. M., Kleimola, “Promise and Perfidy in Old Russian Cross-Kissing,” Canadian Slavic Studies 3(1968): 327–41.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 329.

14 Ibid., 340.

15 Franklin, Simon, “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia,” Speculum 60, no. 1 (January 1985): 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Barthelemy, Dominique, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ I,” Past and Present, no. 152 (August 1996): 203;Google Scholar White, Stephen D, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ II,” Past and Present,no. 152 (August 1996): 222;Google Scholar Bisson, T. N, “The ‘Feudal Revolution,'” Past and Present,no. 142 (February 1994): 10.Google Scholar

17 Reuter, Timothy, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution,’ III,” Past and Present,no. 155 (May 1997): 190.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 184.

19 Perella, Nicolas J notes that some anthropologists suggest that kissing is a reflection of the primitive idea that by eating something one assimilates what is eaten into the self. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane: An Interpretive History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes(Berkeley, 1969), 1.Google Scholar

20 Stählin, Gustav, “Fileo/filos,” in Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,ed. and trans. Bromiley, Geoffrey W (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978), 9:125–27.Google Scholar

21 Stählin, “Fileo/filos,” 9:126.

22 This quotation from Exodus 18:7 and all subsequent Old Testament references are taken from the Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English,ed. and trans. Charles, Sir Lancelot Brenton, Lee (Peabody, Mass., 1997).Google Scholar

23 Stählin, , “Fileo/filos, 9:126. Also see Hosea 13:2.Google Scholar

24 Stählin, “Fileo/filos, 9:123. Stählin suggests that kissing the earth in front of shrines probably predated kissing the object itself.

25 Perella, , The Kiss Sacred and Profane,12.Google Scholar

26 For Paul's mentions of this sacramental kiss, see Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26. Peter mentions it in I Peter 5:14. For the New Testament we have used the Authorized Version.

27 Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane,15.

28 Le Goff, Jacques, Pour un autre Moyen Age: Temps, travail et culture en Occident: 18 essais(Paris, 1977), 374–75.Google Scholar Le Goff maintains that the kiss of vassalage is closer to the betrothal kiss, which marks the entrance into a non-natural family community, in this case, through marriage.

29 Chrysostom, John, Homilies on theEpistles of Paul to the Corinthians,vol. 12 of A Select Library oftheNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,ed. Schaff, Philip (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1999), 265.Google Scholar

30 Stählin, “Fileo/filos,” 9:145.

31 Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane,27.

32 Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist I: On the Person of Christ,trans, and annotated Marjorie Carpenter (Columbia, Mo., 1970), 249. In this regard also seejaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine,vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700)(Chicago, 1974), 139. Pelikan shows that the praise of the life-giving cross was a major theme of liturgies, citing both the Liturgy of St. Basiland the Liturgy of Chrysostom.

33 Nyrop, Kristoffer, The Kiss and Its History,trans. Frederick Harvey, William (London, 1901), 118.Google Scholar

34 Festal Menaion,Dans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (London, 1969), 153.

35 For cross kissing among the South Slavs and in western Europe, see Dewey and Kleimola, “Promise and Perfidy,” 327«1.

36 On the necessity of exercising caution about taking these documents at their face value, see Franklin, Simon, Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300(Cambridge, Eng., 2002), 163–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei,vol. 1, no. 1, 2d ed. (Leningrad, 1927; hereafter PSRL l),co\.32.

38 PSRL1:37.

39 PSRI1:52.

40 PSRI\:7S.

41 This might be compared to our modern signature, which adds authority to the text even when illegible.

42 Boris A. Uspenskii notes diat Constantine, in his vita written by Eusebius, saw the sign of the cross in a vision accompanied by the words “by this conquer” (en touto nika) thus linking the cross, according to Uspenskii, to the invincible deity (Deus Sol Invictus). Uspenskii, Krest i kmg: Iz istorii khristianskoi simvoliki(Moscow, 2006), 234.

43 Festal Menaion,142.

44 Franklin and Shepard, Emergence of Rus,254.

45 With regard to its relationship to the ancient liturgical kiss, there is at least one instance in the chronicles in which cross kissing is equated with kissing a person: ‘Your lips have still not dried from kissing the cross [Klirest esi tseloval a i eshche ti ni usta ne oskhla].“ Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei,vol. 2, Letopis’ po Ipat'evskomu spisku(St. Petersburg, 1908; hereafter PSRL2), 536, under 6677 (1169).

46 The Homilycould not have been created before the death of Iziaslav Davydovich because he was the last of David's sons to die and all his sons are referred to as no longer alive in the text. Iziaslav Davydovich died in 1161. The full title of the Slovoor Pokhvala (Encomium) is, in fact, the Pokhvala i muchenie sviatykh” muchenik“Borisa i Gleba.

47 Golubovsky, P. V, “Opyt priurochenia drevnerusskoi propovedi ‘Slovo o kniaz'akh' k opredelennoi khronologicheskoi date,” Drevnosti: Trudy arkheograficlieskoi komissii imperatorskogo moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva(Moscow), vol. 1, no. 3 (1899)Google Scholar; A. K., Zaitsev, “Dubliruiushchie drug druga izvestiia v stat'iakh 6682, 6683 i 6698, 6701 Ipat'evskoi letopisi,“in Rybakov, B. A, ed., Letopisi i khroniki(Moscow, 1981), 69–78.Google Scholar For a review of the opinions on the dating of the Homilyand additional arguments supporting its dating in the 1170s, see Yulia Mikhailova, “The Political Ideology of the Tale of the Campaign of Igor’and the Homily on Princesin the Context of Their Contemporary Political Reality” (MA thesis, Michigan State University, 2002).

48 Likhachev, D. S “Slovo opolku Igoreve“ikul'tura ego vremeni(Leningrad, 1985), 162 Google Scholar; Lenhoff, Gail, The Martyred Princes Boris and Gleb: A Socio-Cultural Study of the Cult and the Texts(Columbus, Ohio, 1989), 74.Google Scholar

49 PSRL2:530, 539, 546–48. The Ipat'evskaiaclearly indicates Polikarp's close relationship with the Kievan Monomakhovichi as well as with Rostislav. The chronicler (perhaps the same Polikarp), describes the “great love” that Rostislav “had for die monastery of St. Theodosius and its hegumen.” PSRL2:530, under 6676 (1168). After Rostislav died, Polikarp continued his relationship with this princely line, as is clear from the account of the death of Iaropolk Iziaslavich, a son of Iziaslav Mstislavich. Iaropolk became ill while participating in a military campaign led by his older brother Mstislav (Mstislav and Iaropolk Iziaslavichi were sons of Iziaslav, Rostislav's older brother, and grandsons of Mstislav the Great). “And the news came to Mstislav, ‘Your brother is very ill.’ And Msistislav sent messages to Polikarp and to Danil, his priest, saying thus to them: ‘If God takes my brother, put his body into a coffin and bring it to St. Theodore, where his father is buried.” PSRL 2:539, under 6678 (1170). It is all the more remarkable that Polikarp, and not the hegumen of the St. Theodore monastery, was sent to the dying Iaropolk in spite of the fact that St. Theodore's was his family monastery as is clear from the citation. Polikarp also participated in the dramatic burial of another Monomakhovich, Vladimir Andreevich. PSRL2:546–548, under 6679 (1171).

50 A full discussion of available information about krestnye gramotycan be found in Simon Franklin, Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus,173–76; Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation,” 23–24, 27, 31–32.

51 “Pouchenie Vladimira Monomakha,” in Dmitriev, L. A and Likhachev, D. S, comps., Izbornik (sbornik proizvedenii literatury drevnei Rusi)(Moscow, 1969), 152.Google Scholar

52 “Pouchenie,” 154, 152. One might object that Monomakh's devotion to fulfilling oaths can be explained by his personal history. There is a story in the Lavrentevskaiaunder 6603 (1095) about the Cuman leaders Itlar and Kytan and their men who came to Vladimir for peace negotiations and were ambushed and killed after Vladimir gave them pledges of safety. The chronicler, as is typical in describing the morally dubious actions of princes, places the main responsibility on Vladimir's advisers who devised the plan and shared it with Vladimir. He answered, “How can I do that after I swore an oath [to guarantee their safety]?” His advisers, however, convinced Vladimir that there is no sin in violating this oath because the Cumans “constantly swear oaths to you, and then ruin the land of Rus' and constantly shed Christian blood.” PSRI,1:227–28, under 6603 (1095). Vladimir may have regretted his treacherous action and could have been referring to his own sin when he wrote about kissing the cross, “k brat'i ili k komu[to your brethren or to anyone else].“ “Pouchenie,” 154 (emphasis added).

53 “Slyshite, kniazi” from “Slovo o kniaz'iakh” in vol. 4 of Biblioteka literatury drevnei Rusi,ed. Likhachev, D. S, Dmitriev, L. A, Alekseev, A. A, et al. (St. Petersburg, 1997), 226.Google Scholar The Slovo o kniaz'iakh,which is extant in a fifteenth-century manuscript, is one of three versions of this sermon. The oldest full-length version, Pohhvala i muchenie sviatykh” muchenik“ Borisa i Gleba,is found in a fifteenth-century manuscript, and a seventeenth-century manuscript contains the Slovo pokhval'noe na prenesenie sviatykh strastoterpets” Borisa i Gleba. See The Hagiography of Kievan Rus',trans, and with an introduction by Paul Hollingsworth (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), 219–28.

54 “Slovo o kniaz'iakh,” 226. David Sviatoslavich has an interesting parallel in western historiography in Count Gerald of Aurillac, who is presented by his biographer “as a saint because of his extraordinary self-abnegation in, for instance, only fighting defensive wars against his neighbors.” Reuter, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III,” 203. 55. “Slovo o kniaz'iakh,” 226.

56 Ibid., 228.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid., 226.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., 226–28.

61 PSRI,1:312–14, under 6654 (1146).

62 For example, the chronicle cites a warning sent by the leaders of the southern Monomakhovichi to Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich: “You, brother, kissed the cross to us to keep Roman's treaty. If you keep this treaty, you are a brother to us. If, however, you again bring up the old disputes that existed in the time of Rostisiav, then you are breaking the treaty.“ PSRL2:670, under 6698 (1190). The preceding text, however, does not contain any information about “Roman's treaty.” We do not know when it was made or what it was about. The content or at least part of the content of the treaty between Iurii Dolgorukii and the Olgovichi is known only from the Olgovichi's accusation: “You kissed the cross to us promising to make a campaign against Iziaslav along with us, but you did not come.” PSRI,2:363, under 6656 (1148). Had Iurii kept his promise, we, likely, would not have known about this krestotselovanie. To cite one more example, the obituary of Gleb Iurevich states that “if he kissed the cross to someone, then he never in his life perjured it.” PSRJ,2:563, under 6681 (1173). Neither chronicle, however, mentions any treaties made by this prince. If the obituary is accurate, it suggests that we often do not have any information about treaties that were faithfully kept.

63 A quantitative analysis of available data is further complicated by the lack of an adequate textological study of the Kievskii svod,which is the main source for our information about interprincely treaties. A good illustration can be found in Zaitsev's article, “Dubliruiushchie drug druga izvestiia,” 69–78. He convincingly demonstrates that two different military campaigns described in the Kievskii svodweve,in fact, one and the same campaign. The compiler of the svodused two different sources containing the accounts of the same event and mistakenly took them for two different events. We do not know, however, how many more of such dublirovki(as Russian textologists call them) exist in the svodbecause not much progress in its textological analysis has been made since 1981 when Zaitsev's work was published. A methodological difficulty also prevents successful quantitative analysis. In many cases, it is not clear whether a violation of a treaty actually took place. For example, the chronicle describes the breaking of an alliance between Rostisiav Mstislavich and Sviatoslav Vsevolodich, which had been sealed by kissing the cross, as a result of the slander of some “evil men.” Sviatoslav's son Oleg was staying in Kiev at Rostislav's court. “Evil men” falsely told Oleg that Rostisiav was planning to capture him. Oleg believed them, left Kiev, and upon returning home told his father about Rostislav's allegedly hostile plans against him. Sviatoslav believed this story, broke his alliance with Rostisiav, and kissed the cross to be an ally of Rostislav's enemy Iziaslav: “Thus was Sviatoslav involuntarily brought from an alliance with Rostisiav to one with Iziaslav [Tako nuzheiu povedesia Sviatoslav“ot Rostislavli liubvi k“hiaslavu],” concludes the chronicler. PSRI.2:512–14, under 6669 (1161). Should this be considered krestoprestuplenie? It is difficult to say, as the princes acted in good faith but were deceived by false information.

64 Barthelemy, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ I,” 196–205; White, “Debate: The 'Feudal Revolution’ II,” 205–23; Timothy Reuter “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III, 177–195; Chris Wickham, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ IV,” Past and Present, no. 155 (May 1997): 196–208. These are all responses to T. N. Bisson's 1994 article in Past and Present. Bisson replied to the responses in, “The ‘Feudal Revolution': A Reply,’ Past and Present, no. 155 (May 1997): 208-25. We are grateful to Nancy McLoughlin, University of California, Irvine, for bringing this debate to our attention.

65 Bisson, “The ‘Feudal Revolution'” (1994), 22––28, 40–42.

66 The issue of whether Bisson's “feudal revolution” or Barthelemy's mutationist interpretation more accurately describes the situation in post-Carolingian France is of less interest to us than the observations that both sides make concerning the proliferation of violence during the period and the means employed to control it and maintain at least some degree of order. As White observes: “When debated in ‘normative or prescriptive terms,’ the use of force to prosecute an allegedly unjust claim was certainly contested, but not the belief that violence should sometimes be used to claim a right or avenge a wrong.“ White, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ II,” 214. White also notes that ‘Violence served not only as a method of expropriation, domination, and intimidation, but also as a way of symbolically asserting rights, pressing enemies to settle by distraining property and expressing righteous anger and justifiable enmity.” Ibid., 212. This seems very similar to the oft-repeated objection of Rus’ princes: “ia v obide ne mogu byti.“

67 White, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ II,” 214. In support of the method we employ in this study of using narrative sources for quantitative analysis, we note that one of the participants in the debate questions the use of this method in the comparison of the number of acts of violence performed before, during, and after the period of the “feudal revolution.” Even in this case, however, he himself uses narrative sources to evaluate the attitudes toward violence, legitimacy, and power of oath-taking. Timothy Renter, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III,” 177–95.

68 “Vam” Bog” tako veld” byti pravdu deiati na sem” svete v” pravdu sud suditi i v“ khrestnom” tselovan'i vy stoiati.” PSRL2:530, under 6676 (1168). “Pravda,” of course, has multiple meanings. In reference to princes, however, it most often means “law” or 'justice.“

69 PSftL 2:602, under 6684 (1177).

70 PSRI.2:563, under 6681 (1173).

71 PSRI2:567, under 6682 (1174).

72 “tselovala esve krest” k” Iziaslavu Mstislalichiu … a dusheiu ne mozheve igrati.“ PSRI2:377.

73 PSRI2:614–15. We do not know, however, whether this is an authentic description of David's feelings or the chronicler's reaction, stressing how badly Sviatoslav acted when he violated cross kissing and attacked David. What is certainly clear is that David was caught off guard.

74 PSRL2:690–91, under 6703 (1195).

75 PSftZ. 2:305–6, under 6648 (1140).

76 PSR1,2:522–23, under 6672 (1164).

77 Iziaslav Mstislavich was one of Mstislav the Great's sons and an active participant in the conflict over Kiev that broke out soon after his father died in 1132. Iziaslav's chronicle, exceptionally detailed and well written (apparently by one of his own men), survived as a part of the Kie.vskii svod.

78 “Ne idet mesto k’ golove, no golova k mestu.” PSRL2:442, under 6659 (1151).

79 PSRL2:380, under 6657 (1149).

80 In terms of his biological age, lurii was younger than Viacheslav. For all practical matters, however, he was considered a “senior” Monomakhovich.

81 “Otets’ mia pereobidifi volosti mi ne dal”, i prishel“esm’ narek“Boga i tebe, zane ty esi starei nas Volodimerikh“vnutsekh”, a za Ruskuiu zemliu khochiu stradati i podle tebe ezditi.” PSRL2:366–67, under 6656 (1148). The translation of chronicle accounts dealing with the system of interprincely relationships presents great difficulties because the meaning of the terminology employed is often unclear. The words obida, obidet’appear to refer to actions of a prince that are detrimental to the honor of another prince or violate his rights.

82 “Vsikh nas starei otets’ tvoi, no s nami ne umeet’ zhiti, a mne dai Bog“vas, brat'iu svoi vsiu imeti i ves’ rod’ svoi v” pravdu, ako i dushiu svoiu. Nyne zhe, ache otets’ ti volosti ne dal”, a iaz“ti daiu.” PSRL2:367, under 6656 (1148). “V pravdu” is another example of an expression that is difficult to translate. It appears that “pravda” usually refers to justice, law, or some formal rules.

83 PSRL 2:318, under 6653 (1145).

84 “And they sent their messengers to Pereiaslavl’ to Iziaslav and told him, ‘Come to us, O Prince, we want you.’ When Iziaslav heard that, he gathered his warriors and advanced against him [Igor’] from Pereiaslavl’ … Then, all the Chernyi Clobuks and all people of Poros'e sent their messengers to him and told him, ‘You are our prince, and we do not want the Olgovichi, come fast, and we will support you.’ And Iziaslav took off for Dernovoe. And all the Clobuks and people of Poros'e gathered there, and at the same place the townspeople of Belgorod and Vasilev sent their messengers to him saying, 'Come, you are our prince, we do not want the Olgovichi.’ Men sent by the Kievans came to the same place and told him, ‘You are our prince, come, we do not want to be like the hereditary property of the Olgovichi. We are ready to be where we see your banner.’ Then Iziaslav gathered both the Christians and the pagans in the field.” PSRL2:322–23, under 6653 (1145).

85 PSRI1:313, under 6654 (1146).

86 At that time Igor’ sent a messenger to Iziaslav saying, ‘God took my brother's soul, are you faithful to your oath on the cross?’ He, however, did not reply at all and kept his messenger and did not let him go.” PSRI2:322, under 6653 (1145). It is also very interesting to compare Iziaslav's speech about this campaign against Igor’ to the speech he made to Rostislav cited above. Judging from his open disrespect of Iurii's seniority, we would expect Iziaslav to say something like, “Yes, I kissed the cross to Igor', but I am not going to fulfill my oath for such and such reasons.” He, however, says something quite different: “Brothers! I dutifully obeyed Vsevolod as my senior brother, but with those [that is, Igor' and his “brethren“], I will rely on the will of God and the power of the life-giving cross.“ PSRI2:323, under 6653 (1145). The reference to “the power of the life-giving cross” is apparently intended to present Iziaslav as a supporter of faithfulness to krestotselovanie and to distract attention from his violation. Another example of this tactic can be found in a story about Iziaslav's attempt to form an alliance with the Davidovichi. The latter had to kiss the cross promising to support Iziaslav, but the act obviously contradicted their longterm interests. The Kievan vechewarned Iziaslav that he should not trust them and should not start a military campaign along widi them. Iziaslav's reply to that supposedly was, “They kissed the cross to me, and I cannot cancel the campaign we planned together [ Tselovali ko mne khresf adumu esmi s nimi dumaC'a vsiako segoputi ne khochiu otlozhiti].” PSRL2:344, under 6655 (1147). When the Davidovichi indeed violated dieir oath, Iziaslav, according to his chronicler, expressed not only anger but also great surprise. PSRI2:346–48, under 6655 (1147). In other words, the whole story makes the reader think that Iziaslav simply could not believe that it was at all possible for someone to violate a cross kissing. In this manner the chronicler creates the illusion that Iziaslav was a strong supporter of faithfulness to the oath in the hope that it will help his readers forget about Iziaslav's own krestoprestuplenie.

87 Likhachev, D. S, Russkie letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie(Moscow- Leningrad, 1947), 215, 232.Google Scholar

88 PSKL2:489, under 6665 (1158). Vinacould mean “guilt,” “offence,” or “reason“; here it most likely means “offence.“

89 The chronicler states that all this was the slander of some “evil men.” For our purposes, however, whether Rostislav was in fact going to do anything bad to Sviatoslav or not is not relevant. What is essential here is that both Sviatoslav and Oleg trusted the “evil men” and that their resulting discussion with the retainers provides a valuable source on the subject of krestotselovanie.

90 “A uzhe esi kniazhe i volost’ svoiu pogubil“derzhasia po Rostislava, a on“ti vsiako lenivo pomogaet'.” PSRI.2:513–14, under 6669 (1161).

91 PSRL2:513–14.

92 Renter, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III,” 183.

93 PSRL2:315, under 6652 (1145). Compare PSRI.1:311, under 6652 (1144).

94 “Ty esi nam“khrest“tseloval“ako ti poiti s nami na Iziaslava se zhe esi ne poshel“a Iziaslav“prished”… zemliu nashiu povoevali a se paky Iziaslav“prished“opiat'… vsiu zhizn' nashiu povoevali. A ty ni k nam esi poshel', ni na Rostislava esi nastoupil”. Nyne zhe ozhe khoshcheshi poiti na Iziaslava, a poidi, a my s toboiu. Ne ideshi li, a my esm’ v khrest'nom“ tselovan'i pravi, a ne mozhem’ my odini rat'iu pogybati.” PSRI2:363, under 6656 (1148).

95 “Brate na torn” esmy khrest” tselovali komu svoe poznavaiuchi imati. Nyne zhe brate ozhe khoshcheshi khrestu u pravi ti to dai ny Bog“pozhiti ne khocheshi li upraviti a to uzrim”.” PS«L 2:394, under 6657 (1149).

96 Ibid. Here, again, we see the term obida,translated here as “insult.“

97 “Iziaslav zhe iakozhe biashe rekl“perezhe: ‘V'obide ne mogu byti,’ i tako opraviasia v“khrestnom“tselovanie.” PSRL 2:395, under 6658 (1150).

98 White, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ II,” 214–15; Bisson, “The ‘Feudal Revolution,'“ 41; Reuter, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III,” 182.

99 For the discussion of this “ritual of transgression,” as Franklin calls symbolic “casting“ of the krestnye gramoty, see Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation,” 23–24, and Franklin, Writing, Society and Culture,172–76. See also Vasilii Sergeevich, Russkiia iridicheskiia drevnosti(St. Petersburg, 1909), 2:204–5.

100 Dewey and Kleimola, “Promise and Perfidy,” 331.

101 PSRL2:291. The remark about the absent metropolitan is made by the chronicler.

102 “Vy este narekli mia vo svoem’ plemeni… stareishego a nyne sedefesi v Kyeve, a nine esi chasti ne uchinifv Ruskoi zemle no razdal“esi inem“molozh'shim“brat'i svoei. Dazhe mne v nei chasti net“da to … Ruskaia oblast’ a komu esi v nei chast’ dal“s tern zhe ei i bliudi i sterezhi … a mne ne nadobe.” PSRL2:683, under 6703 (1195).

103 “Gave it to Roman and kissed the cross to him not to give it to anyone else [Daf… Romanovi i kresC k nemu tselovat’ azh’ emu pod” nim” ne otdati nikomu zhe].” PSRI2:683 6703(1195).

104 “Kniazhe my esmy pristavleny v Ruskoi zemle ot Boga vostiagivati vas” ot krovoprolit'ia … Azh’ esi dal” volost’ molozh'shemu v oblazne pred” stareishim” i krest“ esi k nemou tseloval” a nyne az” snimaiu s tebe krestnoe tselovanie i vzimaiu na sia, a ty … volost’ … dai zhe stareishemu, a Romanovi dasi inuiu v toe mesto.” PSRL2:684–85, under 6703 (1195).

105 PS/tL 2:684–85, under 6703 (1195).

106 Dewey and Kleimola, “Promise and Perfidy,” 330.

107 Franklin and Shepard, Emergence of Rus,324.

108 This is a theme reiterated throughout the last two chapters of ibid., 323–71.

109 White, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ II,” 212.

110 Reuter, “Debate: The ‘Feudal Revolution’ III,” 184.