Rus’, Byzantium and Western Europe in the late twelfth — early thirteenth centuries

Full text

DOI: 10. 21638/11701/spbu02 .2016.403 31
 . . 2016. . 4
UDC 9447.03
A. V. Maiorov
RUS’, BYZANTIUM AND WESTERN EUROPE IN THE LATE TWELFTH— EARLY
THIRTEENTH CENTURIES*
The paper discusses the little known facts of the history of political relations between Old Rus’, the
Byzantine Empire and Western Europe in the time between 1163and 1253. It analyzes the evidence
that the Russian and foreign sources provide concerning the long stay of the Russian prince Mstislav
Yurevich in the Holy Land as the governor for the Byzantine emperor ManuelI in Ascalon, the mili-
tary-political and dynastic union between the Galician-Volhynian prince Roman Mstislavich and the
Byzantine emperor AlexiosIII, Daniel of Galicia’s foreign policy, and, in particular, his relationship
with the German emperor Frederick II, the Austrian duke Frederick the Quarrelsome. The paper re-
veals the influence that the Nicaean Empire had on the relations between the Russian princes and the
Apostolic See. Refs62.
Keywords: Old Rus’, Holy Land, Byzantine Empire, Nicaean Empire, Austrian duchy, Apostolic
See.
DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2016.403
А. В. Майоров
РУСЬ, ВИЗАНТИЯ И ЗАПАДНАЯ ЕВРОПА В КОНЦЕ XII— НАЧАЛЕ XIII ВЕКА
       
 ,      1163 1253. 
        -
          
 I  , -   -
     III,   -
  , ,     II, -
   ,    
     .   ,
     II      
        -
   - . . 62.
Ключевые слова:  ,  , ,  , -
 ,  .
The Ipatiev Chronicle of the year 1163reported that the prince of Vladimir-Suzdal
Andrey Bogolyubsky exiled his Greek stepmother, the second wife of Yuri Dolgoruky,
and probably the relative of ManuelI Komnenos, to the Byzantine Empire. Her three sons
were exiled with her. The emperor granted lands to two of them: Prince Mstislav Yurievich
received control over the Palestinian city of Ascalon (‘()’) [Ipat’evskaia letopis’,
col.521].
Since at the time in question the Byzantine emperor was not the ruler of Palestine, the
news given in the Russian chronicle has raised doubt among researchers. In the late twelfth
Maiorov Alexander Vyacheslavovich— Doctor of History, Professor, St. Petersburg State University, In-
stitute of History, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation; a.majorov@spbu.ru
Майоров Александр Вячеславович —   , , -
  ,  ,  , 199034,
-,  ., 7–9; a.majorov@spbu.ru
* The work was financially supported by St. Petersburg State University, Project number 5.38.265.2015.
© -  , 2016

32 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
century, Ascalon was under the reign of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which in 1153 was
conquered by King BaldwinIII. In order to hold Ascalon and to continue the conquest,
BaldwinIII and his successor AmalricI repeatedly asked for military assistance in the
West, but did not obtain a proper support. Then the rulers of Jerusalem put a stake on the
union with the Byzantine Empire. Hoping to receive the empire’s help, in 1158BaldwinIII
secured his marriage with Theodora Komnenos, ManuelI’s niece. Baldwin acknowledged
his political dependence on Manuel and entered into foedus iniquum relationship with
him in consideration of the Byzantine support [Magdalino 2002, pp.73–74].
The main goal of the foreign policy of the King of Jerusalem, AmalricI, was to conquer
Egypt. Between 1163and 1169, Amalric made at least five campaigns to Egypt, exhausting
his forces. Still he could not attain conclusive victory. Muslims’ threat to Christian settlers
in the Holy Land grew stronger. [Mayer 1978, pp.175–192; Tyerman 2006, pp.347–350].
Having given up hopes for assistance from the West, Amalric, like his predecessor, had to
turn to the Byzantine Empire for help. In 1167he married Maria Komnenos, the grand-
niece of ManuelI, and, like Baldwin, had to declare himself a junior partner of the basileus
in international affairs [Magdalino 2002, pp.74–75].
It is very likely that Ascalon with its adjacent territories was the part of the Palestin-
ian lands that the crusaders had conquered. The Byzantine emperor required to cede it to
him in return for his military assistance. This is indicated by several factors, primarily by
the terms of the agreement with Amalric concerning the division of Egypt. According to
William of Tyre and John Kinnamos, Manuel was to obtain the coastland of the Mediter-
ranean, while the king of Jerusalem would receive the country’s inner regions. Ascalon
became the base of the Byzantine navy and army sent by the emperor to conquer Egypt.
In the fall of 1169two hundred ships of war arrived there from the Byzantine Empire to
begin the attack [Willem Tyrensis, pp.891–892, 899–905; Ioannes Cinnamos, p. 279–280;
Nicetas Choniates, pp.159–168].
Negotiations between the Byzantine emperor and the king of Jerusalem concerning
the conclusion of the dynastic marriage and the military alliance aimed at the conquest
of Egypt began in 1165, when King Amalric’s first embassy arrived in Constantinople.
Possibly at that time or soon afterwards it was conceived to transfer the part of the cru-
saders’ Palestinian possessions that the basileus laid claims to, namely the area of Ascalon
(‘ ()’), to the Russian prince Mstislav Yurievich who had taken service
with the emperor and was related to the Komnenoi [see; Maiorov 2016a, pp. 124–142].
Mstislav Yurevich apparently stayed in the east for more than a decade. Most likely,
Mstislav returned to Rus’ on the eve of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, i.e., in about
1187. Together with the prince, his wife’s brother Olisei Grechin returned to Rus’. He had
spent his younger years in the Holy Land and learnt there the skill of a painter. Soon
Grechin turned up in his home town Novgorod and quickly became famous as an out-
standing icon painter there. His name is often mentioned in the Novgorod birch bark
writings of the late 12th— early 13th centuries. In 1193he probably aspired to the posi-
tion of the Archbishop of Novgorod [Gippius 2004, pp.164–182]. Many contemporary
scholars consider Olisei Grechin to have been one of the main artists who executed the
fresco paintings in the Church of the Savior on the Nereditsa, near Novgorod [Ianin 1988,
ss.178–183; Etinhof 2005. pp. 115–143].
Relations with the Byzantine Empire played a very important role in the foreign pol-
icy of the Galician-Volhynian prince Roman Mstislavich. As reported in Jan Długosz’s

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 33
History and in the Gustynya Chronicle, the Byzantine Emperor deposed by the crusaders,
AlexiosIII Angelos, stayed for a while in Galicia after his escape from the besieged Con-
stantinople in July 1203, where he met Prince Roman.
According to Długosz (the late 15th century), ‘Ascarus, the emperor of Constanti-
nople, after the city was seized (by crusaders— A. M.), moved to Tersona near the Pontic
Sea, from where he proceeded to Galatia or the Galician Land, which is a part of Rus’ still
under the Polish Kingdom, and having been kindly and favorably received and accom-
modated by the prince of Rus’, Roman, he stayed there for a while’ [Ioannis Dlugos 1973,
p. 177]. In the Gustynya Chronicle (early 17th century) we read, ‘They (crusaders— A. M.)
came to Tsarigrad by sea and were unprepared to capture Alexios Angelos, the Greek Tsar.
Nevertheless, Alexios was afraid of them. Besides, there was nobody among the Greeks
who was benevolent to him. Therefore he left the tsardom to Isaac, his blinded brother,
and with his boyars and plenty of riches and treasures fled to Rus’, to Roman Mstislavich
in Halych’ [Hustynskaia letopis’, p. 108].
Some researchers have questioned the above reports and rejected the possibility that
Emperor Alexios stayed in Rus’ [Grala 1986, pp. 639–661]. However, the evidence of the
Italian chronicler of the late 13th— early 14th century Bartolomeo del Fiadoni (Ptolemy
of Lucca) also confirms this fact. ‘In the occupied city (Constantinople— A. M.) by the
general consent of the Franks rather than the Venetians, the count of Flanders [Baldwin]
became emperor, as narrated by Martin and Vincent, which occurred by the consent of the
said pontiff (Pope InnocentIII— A. M.) The said empire (the Byzantine Empire— A. M.)
was owned by the Latins continuously up to the times of Alexander (Pope AlexanderIV—
А. М.), i.e. for 57years, as it is said there. At the time of its fall, according to Cusentinus,
Ascarus ruled, who immediately headed across the Black Sea for Chersonesus and from
there for Galatia, which is now a part of Rus’‘ [Tholomeus Lucensis 2009, pp.509–510].
According to B. Schmeidler, Fiadoni uses the name Cusentinus to denote a certain
chronicler from Cosenza, Calabria. This name may refer to several persons who lived
there at the time. Cusentinus’ chronicle, to which Fiadoni often referred, should be under-
stood as the continuation of the Annals of Archbishop Romuald from Salerno (d. in 1181),
which was drawn up at the archbishop’s cathedra in Cosenza and covers the period from
1177to 1264. The final form to this work was given by Tommaso of Leontine, Archbishop
of Cosenza in 1267–1272, who, as well as Fiadoni, belonged to the Dominican Order [Sch-
meidler 1906–1907, ss.252–261].
Thus, Fiadoni found the report about the flight of Askarus from Constantinople to
Galicia in an earlier written source. Besides, Fiadoni, who was born in approximately
1227, could speak directly to the eye-witnesses of the described events. Librarian to Pope
JohnXXII, he showed considerable awareness in the matters of the Curia’s foreign policy
and paid particular attention to the details of the Fourth Crusade, especially to the cir-
cumstances of the conquest of Constantinople. In addition, Fiadoni for many years was
the bishop of Torcello (the city and the island in the Venetian lagoon), the residents of
which, together with the Venetians, took an active part in the Fourth Crusade. Clearly,
Fiadoni, as the bishop of Torcello, could learn from his parishioners more information
about the particulars of the conquest of Constantinople.
There is no reason to believe that Bartolomeo del Fiadoni, and other medieval au-
thors following him, would confuse Galician-Volhynian Rus with Galatia— the historical
region located in Asia Minor, or to mistake Thracian Chersonese for Tauric Chersonese.

34 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
The now known story of how AlexiosIII stayed in exile, visited Bulgaria and ne-
gotiated with Tsar Kaloyan also indicates the possibility of ex-emperor’s contacts with
the Galician-Volhynian prince. This is also supported by the information about the mili-
tary-political alliance between Roman and Alexios, as well as the traditionally active role
of Halych in supporting the contenders for the Byzantine and Bulgarian thrones [see:
Maiorov 2016b, pp.364–388].
It was Roman Mstislavich who became the principal military ally of the Byzantine Em-
pire in the early 13th century. The Eastern Roman Empire was experiencing a severe politi-
cal crisis at that time caused by the rebellion of the Serbs and Bulgarians and aggravated by
the devastating raids of the Cumans (Polovtsy). According to Niketas Choniates, only the
military aid of the Galician prince Roman could help to stop the nomads’ aggression. ‘It was
Roman, the Prince of Halych, who quickly assembled a brave and numerous armed force,
attacking the Cumans and, having passed through their land without stopping, plundering
and devastating it. After repeating such attacks several times to the glory and the magnifi-
cence of the holy Christian faith, the smallest part of which like, for example, a mustard
seed, can shift mountains and move rocks, he stopped the raids of the Cumans and put an
end to those terrible miseries that the Romans suffered from them. In this way he rendered
to the people of the same faith an unexpected assistance, an unforeseen defense and, so to
say, protection sent down by God’ [Nicetas Choniates, pp.522–523].
The circumstances and the time of Roman’s campaign against the Cumans in Choni-
ates’ story coincide with the reports in the Russian chronicles about the campaigns in the
Steppe of the Galician-Volhynian prince [Lavrent’evskaia letopis’, col. 417–420; Novgoro-
dskaia Pervaia letopis’, pp. 45, 240].
In addition to Niketas Choniates, other Byzantine sources report the outstanding role
of Roman Mstislavich in the fight against the enemies of the Empire. Those sources are es-
sentially unknown to modern historians of Russia. They include the story in The Chronicle
of Theodore Skoutariotes [Anonymou Synopsis Chronike 1972, p. 428] and the poetic tes-
timony of Ephraem the Enian [Ephraem Aenius 1990, p. 234]. Both authors on the whole
echo Niketas Choniates’ reports, but supplement them with some new details.
All the Byzantine sources called Roman the ‘hegemon of Galicia’ (Γαλίτζης ήγεμών).
The term hegemon, unlike other Byzantine definitions of Russian princes, meant the em-
peror’s military ally and relative (or the brother). Roman’s union with AlexiosIII showed
also in the stabilization of relations with the Russian population of the lower reaches of the
Dniester and the Danube (the ‘branch of Tauro-Scythians’ from ‘Vordona’, as the Byzan-
tine sources call it) [see: Maiorov 2015a, pp.272–303].
Old Rus’ chronicles have preserved the record of at least two big campaigns of the Rus-
sian princes against the Cumans led by Roman Mstislavich. The first one was to take place
in early 1201. The second campaign’s chronology is difficult to establish because of the
condition of the chronicle’s records. During editing the initial composition of the chroni-
cle, the entry containing the information about the second campaign in the steppe had un-
dergone a significant rearrangement [Lavrent’evskaia letopis’, col.418, 421; Novgorodskaia
Pervaia letopis’, pp.45, 240. See also: Berezhkov 1963, p. 315, n.84]. The chronology and
the sequence of the events set forth therein can be established thanks to the mention of
the Leonides on 18October 1202, which preceded the campaign [Radzivilovskaia letopis’,
p. 161; Letopisets Pereiaslavlia Suzdal’skogo, p. 125. See also: Sviatsky, 2007, pp.237, 263,
279]. The campaign can be dated to the early spring of 1203.

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 35
The belittling of the role of the Galician-Volhynian prince Roman Mstislavich in the
political life of South Rus’ and in the organization of the joint campaigns of the Russian
princes against the Cumans, characteristic for the chronicles of North-Eastern Rus’, can be
primarily explained by the political views of the chronicler Simon, who at the beginning
of the 13th century came from Kiev to Vladimir-Suzdal, where he later became a bishop
[Nasonov 1969, pp.199–201]. Simon had close ties with the family of the Kievan prince
Rurik Rostislavich, the main enemy of Roman in the struggle for Kiev. When Simon ar-
rived in Vladimir, he began to serve the interests of Grand Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest,
who also saw Roman as a dangerous rival in the struggle for the influence in South Rus’.
Prince Vsevolod did not share Roman’s foreign policy orientation to the support of
the Byzantine authorities in the fight against the rebellious Bulgarians and their allies—
the Danube Cumans. The prince of Vladimir-Suzdal had direct contacts with the lead-
ers of the Bulgarian revolt and deliberately evaded military support of Byzantine Empire
[Etinhof 2005b, p. 198].
The key to military aid that Roman provided to AlexiosIII was the Galician-Volhyn-
ian prince’s marriage with a certain Byzantine princess. That marriage has given rise to a
considerable literature, which has suggested a great number of different hypotheses [see:
Dąbrowski 2002, p. 34–40]. Most authors tend to conclude that “Roman’s Grand Princess”
was of a high Byzantine origin; however, her identification causes considerable difficulties.
There are no sufficient grounds to believe that Roman’s second wife was the representative
of the Kamateros kin. It is also incorrect to suggest that she was the daughter of Emperor
IsaacII from his marriage to Margaret of Hungary [see: Maiorov 2014a, pp.188–233].
The starting point for our search was Niketas Choniates’ information about IsaacII’s
eldest daughter who was born before his accession to the throne and by the order of the
father sent to the monastery as a child [Niketas Choniates, p. 419]. In the practice of the
Byzantine Empire, taking the vows by the members of the royal family or aristocracy did
not necessarily have to be for life. On the contrary, there are many examples when mo-
nastic vows were completely canceled due to a change in political circumstances. Very
often that happened with noble Byzantine women, including empresses [see: Herrin 2006,
pp.3–11].
After the coup d’etat of 1195, when AlexiosIII overtook the imperial power from his
deposed brother IsaacII, the conditions were favorable for the abolition of monastic vows
for the ex-emperor’s eldest daughter. The new ruler decided to marry her to the Galician-
Volhynian prince Roman, whose military aid was urgently needed for the Balkan prov-
inces of the empire, exhausted by the Cuman raids.
Near the Polish town of Chelm (Old Russian Kholm), an ancient five-tier (storey)
stone tower has survived to this day with the remains of a chapel in the top tier. The tower
stands on the place where the Old Russian town of Stolpie once existed. According to the
latest research, the Stolpie tower replicates architectural structures that were wide-spread
in Northern Greece in the later Byzantine times. These were religious buildings belong-
ing to the local monasteries and representatives of the secular elite. According to writ-
ten sources, the Stolpie tower was most likely built between the 1220and the 1240s and
was intended for “Roman’s Grand Princess”, who again took monastic vows [see: Zespół
wieżowy 2009].
Emperor IsaacII had another daughter, named Irene, who later married the Ger-
man king Philip of Swabia. The commemoration book of the Speyer Cathedral, where

36 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
the royal couple of Philip and Irene was buried, listed among Irene’s Greek relatives her
sister named Euphrosyne (Effrosina) [Kalendarium necrologicum, p. 323]. That German
queen’s sister could only be Isaac’s eldest daughter, sent to the nunnery as a child by her fa-
ther. However, contrary to expectations, the church book commemorated Euphrosyne as
a secular person without her religious status. The book provides conventional commemo-
ration dates of the German queen’s Greek relatives in connection with major religious
feasts. This shows that the Speyer canons did not have any precise information about the
death dates of the named persons when compiling the list.
However, the precise data concerning the death of the German king Philip of Swabia
in the summer of 1208, shortly after which his wife Irina died, were well known in Halych.
The Galician-Volhynian chronicle is the only one among all Old Rus’ sources to provide
a detailed description of the circumstances of Philip’s murder and to name the people
involved in this crime [Ipat’evskaia letopis’, col.723]. Only the bereaved relatives could be
interested in those details of the events that were so distant from Rus’. And those relatives
were Princess Euphrosyne and her children.
The name Евфросиния (Euphrosyne) is repeated in several generations of Roman
Mstislavich and his second wife’s descendants. This name, part of the Russian princes’
name list in the 11th-12th centuries, is undoubtedly related to the cult of StEuphrosyne of
Alexandria. The cult of the saint was venerated also in the Byzantine Empire, where the
name Euphrosyne became the part of the Byzantine empresses’ name list [see: Maiorov
2014a, pp.188–233].
The deeds of the Galician princess Euphrosyne were reflected in the artifacts of Old
Rus’ sphragistics. Several seals from Old Novgorod depict the image of StEuphrosyne
with the scene of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor on the reverse. There are no suf-
ficient grounds to identify the owner of these seals as Euphrosyne of Polotsk, the hegume-
ness of the Holy Savior Convent. She cannot be associated with any special reverence for
the Transfiguration feast. Contrary to the prevailing opinion, she had nothing to do with
the foundation of the Transfiguration church or monastery in Polotsk. The Holy Savior
Convent with the church, founded during her lifetime, were dedicated to the old feast
of the Most Merciful Savior, the iconography of which is in no way connected with the
Transfiguration [see: Maiorov 2011a, pp.5–25].
The above was confirmed by a finding made in May 2015during the excavation on
the territory of the Holy Savior Convent of StEuphrosyne in Polotsk. It was the seal with
the half-length depiction of Christ Pantocrator and the inscription on the back «+ H
   N» (God, help your servant Euphrosyne). The
identical seal was found in the same place in 1998, but the inscription on it was hardly
legible. Both seals can be reasonably attributed to the princess-nun Euphrosyne [see: Duk,
Kalechyts, Kots 2015, pp.13–18].
Historians possess no evidence to prove that the hegumeness of Polotsk had personal
relationship with any of the Novgorod princes. On the other hand, the Galician prin-
cess Euphrosyne had close ties with Novgorod. She undoubtedly corresponded with the
Novgorod prince Mstislav the Bold, whose daughter Anna became the wife of Daniel—
the eldest son of the dowager Galician princess [Ipat’evskaia letopis’, col.732]. Accord-
ing to D. Dąbrowski, the marriage was concluded in 1217[Dąbrowski 2002, pp.67–71].
Influenced by the information received from South-Western Rus’, Mstislav abdicated the
Novgorod throne, interfered decisively into the struggle for Halych with the Hungarian

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 37
king’s son Koloman, and soon became the Galician prince [see: Maiorov 2001, pp.437–
479].
Moreover, there is good reason to associate Euphrosyne of Galicia with the spread
of the Transfiguration cult in the Galician-Volhynian Rus’. Many Transfiguration mon-
asteries and churches there date to the 13th century. Various sources have preserved in-
formation about them [Rozhko 1999, pp.42–49]. Numerous Transfiguration icons have
survived from the late 13th to 15th centuries. They come from the western Ukrainian areas
and used to be patronal icons in churches [Dimitrii 2005, pp.42, 46–48, 213, 397–398].
Another name by which the Galician princess Euphrosyne is better known in his-
torical literature was the name Anna. Apparently it became her monastic name. The con-
nection of the ‘Roman’s Grand Princess’ with the cult of StRighteous Anna, the Virgin’s
mother, is evidenced by the construction of the chapel in honor of the HolyGodparents
Joachim and Anna over her tomb, as reported by the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle
[Ipat’evskaia letopis’, col. 937–938]. The unique Galician icon The Cathedral of Joachim
and Anna has also survived. Created at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries, it is a copy of an
older patronal icon [see: Maiorov 2010a, pp.70–75].
Several famous Christian relics of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ are associated with Ro-
man Mstislavich’s second wife. Along with liturgical, they also had a great political sig-
nificance as the insignia of supreme power. The most important is a precious reliquary
cross with a piece of the wood of the True Cross, which is now kept in the Notre-Dame
Cathedral [Durand 1992,pp. 139–146]. Manuel Komnenos the Crown-Bearer mentioned
in the Greek inscription on the reliquary should be identified as the Byzantine emperor
ManuelI [Dąbrowska 1991, pp.67–89].
Such a noteworthy relic could have come to Rus’ only as a dowry of the Byzantine
princess Euphrosyne, who became Roman Mstislavich’s new wife. According to Niketas
Choniates, when IsaacII sent his elder daughter to the convent, he did what once ‘Empress
Xene intended to do after the death of her husband, Emperor Manuel Komnenos’ [Nik-
etas Choniates, p. 419]. In other words, princess Euphrosyne in her early childhood was
elected as a ‘sacrifice to God’, which was made by her father in memory of another great
Byzantine ruler, Emperor ManuelI.
After Polish troops captured Lviv in 1340, King CasimirIII received the relic as part
of the loot. Together with other valuables of the Galician-Volhynian treasury, the cross
was brought to Kraków. RocznikTraski, a Lesser Polish chronicle compiled in the mid-
14th century, reported, “There (in Lviv— A. M.) numerous spoils of war [were taken con-
sisting of] of silver, gold, precious stones, great treasures of ancient monarchs, including a
number of golden crosses, especially the one in which a big piece of the wood of the Holy
Cross was found […]” [Rocznik Traski, p. In 1669, the Polish king John Casimir abdicated
the throne and went to France, stealing some of the most valuable relics of the Polish treas-
ury, including Emperor Manuel’s cross [Raffin 1935, pp.286–287].
The creation of the Galician-Volhynian Aprakos Gospel of the early 13th century
should be also associated with Euphrosyne of Galicia. That Gospel is now kept in the
State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. Today the highly artistic illustrations and ornaments
decorating the manuscript are considered to be the most significant examples of Old Rus’
miniatures.
The general stylistic analysis of the manuscript artistic decoration reveals its resem-
blance to the works of Byzantine art of the later Komnenos time, as well as to the book

38 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
miniatures of the later Romanesque period that came from Southern Germany and, in
particular, Swabia [see: Popova 1972, pp.283–315]. The menologion of the Galician-Vol-
hynian Gospel contains the dates of religious feasts and the memory days of the saints,
whom Euphrosyne of Galicia personally worshiped [see: Maiorov 2010b, pp.160–166].
To the influence of Grand Princess Euphrosyne should be attributed the appearance
among the Galician-Volhynian princes of baptismal names that were unusual or even
unique for the Ruriks. This is primarily the name of Prince Daniel, which was subsequently
repeated in the name list of the Moscow princes. The use of this name in the princely family
is explained by the spread of the cult of StDaniel the Stylite and the rise of interest in the
outward features of stylitism, which is evident in sphragistics and in numerous architec-
tural monuments of Galician-Volhynian Rus’ of the 13th and early 14th century. Due to the
family ties of the Galician-Volhynian princes with the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal, this cult
spread in North-Eastern Rus’, and later in Moscow [see: Maiorov 2011b, pp.32–50].
The origin of Euphrosyne of Galicia, who was the daughter of Vasileos IsaacII, ex-
plains a surprising for Rus’ rise of interest in stylitism among the princes of Rus’ and
their milieu. According to Niketas Choniates, Emperor IsaacII especially patronized and
sympathized with the stylites and the ascetics, thus astonishing his contemporaries, since
the stylites had lost the influence over the emperors that they once exerted in the times of
iconoclasm, and their movement had been gradually declining.
The Byzantine hagiography concerning StsDaniel the Stylite and Leo the Great Tsar
explains the connection between the names of Daniel and Leo among the descendants of
Roman Mstislavich. Daniel the Stylite was the spiritual father and the main adviser of Em-
peror LeoI. Apparently this connection was reflected in the names of the father and the
son— the Galician-Volhynian princes— Daniel Romanovich and Lev (Leo) Danilovich
[see: Maiorov 2015b, pp.345–366].
The appearance of the name of Irakli Danilovich is related to the cult of the True Holy
Cross. Although the Byzantine emperor HeracliusI, who returned the main relic of all
Christians— the Cross of Calvary— from Persian captivity was never canonized by the
Church, his memory was widely venerated in both the Christian East and West. Heraclius
became especially popular in the countries of Europe during the Age of Crusades, when
his name became the symbol of the liberation and the defense of the Holy Land. This was
reflected in the medieval literature and art, as well as in the name list of the Latin patri-
archs of Jerusalem.
Perhaps in the name of Irakli Danilovich, the influence of his father’s personal rela-
tionship with the Hungarian king AndrewII can be traced. AndrewII patronized Daniel
Romanovich from an early age and at one time even considered making him heir. The
Hungarian king is known to have been one of the leaders of the Fifth Crusade. He partici-
pated personally in the war in Palestine, claimed the throne of the Latin Empire, and all
his life remained a true knight of Christ like the celebrated Byzantine emperor Heraclius
[see: Maiorov 2011c, pp.110–121].
In the chronicle’s description of the outward appearance of the Galician-Volhynian
princes, in particular that of Daniel of Galicia, we cannot notice the characteristic attri-
butes of the imperial dignity that no other Russian princes had. Prince Daniel wore the
ceremonial attire made of the “Greek oloviron”, which was unprecedented [see: Maiorov
2014b, pp.225–235]. This was a special Byzantine term for the “genuine” or “royal” purple.
According to the laws of the empire, only emperors and their next of kin had the right to

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 39
wear clothes made of precious fabrics like oloviron. Such fabrics, which were considered
to be the main attribute of royal blood, could not be freely sold or exported to other coun-
tries. Daniel could have obtained the ceremonial dress made of Greek oloviron only thanks
to his mother, the Byzantine princess Euphrosyne [see: Maiorov 2014c, pp.147–161].
The outward signs of the royal dignity match the royal title of the Galician-Volhynian
princes. Numerous written sources use the titles царь (tsar) and самодержец (autocrat), as
well as the epithets derived from them, with respect to the princes of Galician-Volhynian
Rus’ throughout the 13th century. The interest in the royal title on the part of the rulers of
other Russian lands, on the contrary, had become a thing of the past. The Russian sources
of the 13th and early 14th centuries use the royal title mainly referring to the Great Mongol
Khans and the Khans of the Golden Horde [see: Maiorov 2009, pp.250–262].
Starting with Roman Mstislavich, the Galician-Volhynian princes constantly thought
about the sacralisation of their power. To that end they collected the most honored Chris-
tian relics. Similarly, the Byzantine emperors for centuries had been gathering in Constan-
tinople almost all the known relics of the Christian East. After the Crusaders plundered
the Byzantine capital in 1204, many European monarchs had the idea of the “transfer of
rule” (translatio imperii) through the acquisition and transfer of Constantinople relics
into their capitals. Subsequently, Moscow grand princes and tsars continued this practice
over the centuries [see: Maiorov 2011d, pp. 17–24]. Maiorov 2011d, pp.17–24].
Old Rus’ literature and art reflected the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders,
in particular, in The Tale on the Taking of Tsargrad by Fryagi.
The most likely author of this work, the oldest version of which has survived as part
of the Older Version of the First Novgorod Chronicle, is the Novgorod Boyar Dobrynya
Yadreykovich (later Archbishop Anthony).
A close associate of the Galician-Volhynian prince Roman Mstislavich, Dobrynya
spent several years in Constantinople on his behalf and witnessed the devastation of the
Byzantine capital by the Latins in April 1204.
The close relationship with the Galician-Volhynian prince explains why Dobrynya
paid attention to the prince’s brother in-law— the German king Philip of Swabia— and
his role in the organization of the Fourth Crusade. The author of The Tale on the Taking
of Tsargrad by Fryagi expressed the “Ibellin” point of view, i.e. he attempted to take off the
German king the responsibility for the devastation of Constantinople. He was familiar
with the details of the escape of Prince Alexios (the future emperor AlexiosIV) from the
Byzantine capital to King Philip and used characteristic German vocabulary (place names
and personal names). All that suggests that the Russian scribe used the information re-
ceived from a well-informed German source. Dobrynya’s informer could be one of King
Philip’s supporters, Bishop of Halberstadt Konrad von Krosigk, who participated in the
siege of Constantinople in 1203–1204[see: Maiorov, Metelkin 2016, pp.292–308].
The Byzantine heritage of Roman Mstislavich and “Grand Princess” Euphrosyne-An-
na was evident in the foreign policy of their sons and grandsons, first of all in the strug-
gle of Daniel of Galicia for Austria and his son Roman Danilovich’s attempt to seize the
throne of the Austrian dukes in 1252–1253. The Galician-Volhynian princes were among
the main claimants to the “Austrian succession” due to their relation with the Babenberg
dynasty from the female side: Euphrosyne of Galicia was a cousin of the Austrian duch-
ess Theodora, while the childless duke FrederickII the Quarrelsome was Daniel’s second
cousin [see: Maiorov 2011e, pp.32–52].

40 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
The Austrian knot was tied in the Galician-Volhynian princes’ foreign policy appar-
ently in the late 1230s, when the German emperor FrederickII removed Duke Frederick
the Quarrelsome from power. Daniel of Galicia initially intended to take the side of his
Austrian relative. However, after meeting Emperor FrederickII in the spring of 1237in Vi-
enna, he went over to his side. In return the Galician-Volhynian prince received from the
emperor a monetary reward in the amount of five hundred silver marks and the title of the
“king of Rus’” (rex Rusciae) [see: Maiorov 2010c, pp.140–148; Maiorov 2015c, pp.53–61].
The alliance with the Hungarian king BélaIV in 1246brought Daniel of Galicia to the
side of Frederick Babenberg’s enemies. There are all grounds to believe that Daniel could
have taken part in the battle at the Leitha River on the side of the Hungarian king. That
battle resulted in the death of Duke Frederick. Moreover, the Galician-Volhynian prince
could have had his hand in the death of the duke, who fell in a fight with a certain “king
of Rus’”. The breakup between the Romanovichi and Frederick Babenberg was obviously
contributed to by a bitter conflict of the latter with his own mother Theodora Angelina,
who sought protection with her relatives abroad [see: Maiorov 2012a, pp.54–77].
The struggle for the ‘Austrian succession’ is directly connected with the history of the
coronation of Daniel of Galicia. Before the crown was received from the ambassadors of
Pope InnocentIV, the campaign of Russian-Polish troops in Moravia took place in the
summer of 1253, described in detail in the Galician-Volhynian chronicle. Daniel and his
allies’ attempt to provide military support to his son Roman in the castle Grimberg near
Vienna besieged by the troops of Přemysl Ottokar (who also claimed the Austrian throne)
failed. The reason for this was the position of InnocentIV, who did not want a Russian
prince to appear on the Babenberg throne and contrary to his initial promises gave prefer-
ence to other candidates [see: Maiorov 2012b, pp.49–54].
The position of the Pope in the Austrian question led to Daniel’s reluctance to take
the royal crown that had been sent to him and to his demonstrative refusal to meet the
papal legate in Kraków. Only six months later, after much hesitation, Daniel agreed to be
crowned, yielding to the persuasion of his Polish allies (December 1253)[see: Maiorov
2011f, pp.143–156].
Daniel’s rapprochement with the Apostolic See began in 1246–1248, as a result of the
Pope’s promises to support the Romanovichi’s claims to Austria expressed in his personal
letters and via the Archbishop of Salzburg Philipp von Spanheim during the talks in Press-
burg (summer 1249). This rapprochement continued in 1252–1253with the mediation
of the Hungarian king BélaIV, who also had his eyes on the ‘Austrian succession’ [see:
Maiorov 2012c, pp.33–52].
At the same time, the Byzantine factor continued to play a significant role in the Ro-
manovichi’s foreign policy. Daniel’s coronation and the talks concerning the church union
with Rome took place against the background of broader political processes initiated by
Pope InnocentIV and the Nicaean emperor JohnIII Vatatzes. In exchange for the return
of Constantinople to the Greeks, Nicaea’s authorities agreed to recognize the supremacy
of the Pope in church affairs and the Orthodox clergy’s subordination to him. At the same
time when Daniel held negotiations with the papal legate Opizo in Kraków and Chelm, the
embassy was dispatched from Nicaea to Rome in order to conclude the agreement on the
union of the Western and the Eastern churches (late 1253)[see: Maiorov 2015d, pp.11–34].
Daniel Romanovich’s mother, Euphrosyne-Anna, remained the conveyor of the Ni-
caean interests in Galician-Volhynian Rus’. After spending many years in the convent, she

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 41
appeared for the last time on the pages of the chronicle as one of the protagonists in coro-
nation history. According to the court chronicler, “his mother persuaded” Daniel to give
consent to the coronation and the union with Rome. The union of the strongest prince
of Rus’ with Rome was advantageous at the time for the rulers of Nicaea, as it contrib-
uted to the realization of their own political purposes. When the new Nicaean emperor
TheodoreII Lascaris refused to yield to the Pope and decided to return Constantinople by
military force, it immediately led to the rupture of relations of Galician-Volhynian princes
with Rome [see: Maiorov 2011g, pp.60–99].
References
Anōnymu synopsis chronikē, ed. K. N. Sathas. Athens: Grēgoriadēs, 1972 (=Mesaiō nikē bibliothē kē /Biblio-
theca Graeca medii aevi, vol. 7). 680pp. (in Greek).
BerezhkovN. G. Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia [Chronology of Russian chronicles]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963. 346pp. (in Russian).
DąbrowskaE. ‘Królów polskich relikwiarz koronacyjny Krzyża Świętego’, Kultura średniowieczna i staropol-
ska. Studia ofiarowane A. Gieysztorowi w pięćdziesięcioletie pracy naukowej. Warszawa, Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1991, pp.67–89. (in Polish).
DąbrowskiD. Rodowód Romanowiczów ksiąźąt halicko-wołyńskich. Poznań, Wrocław, Wydawnictwo Histo-
ryczne, 2002. 347pp. (in Polish).
Dimitri (Iarema), patrarkh, Іkonopys Zakhіdnoi Ukrainy XII–XV st. [Painting of icons of the Western
Ukraine 12th–15th centuries]. Lvv, Drukars’ki kunshty, 2005. 508pp. (in Ukrainian).
DukD., KalechytsI., KotsA. ‘Piachatka Eufrasinni Polatskai’ [Seal of Ephrosinia Polotzkaya], Belaruski
gistarychny chasopis, 2015, no.7, pp.13–18. (in Belarusian).
DurandJ. ‘La Vraie Croix de la princesse palatine au trésor de Notre-Dame de Paris: Observations tech-
niques’, Cahiers Archéologique, 1992, vol.40, pp.139–146.
Ephraem Aenius, Historia Chronica, ed. by Ο. Lampsides. Athens: Athenis Institutum Graecoromanae
Antiquitatis, Academiae Atheniensis, 1990 (=Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, ser. Atheniensis,
vol. 27). XL+464pp. (in Greek).
Etinhof . . Vizantiiskaia ikona VI— pervoi poloviny XIII veka v Rossii [Byzantine icon 6th— the first half
13th century in Russia]. Moscow, Indrik Publ., 2005. 766pp. (in Russian).
Etinhof O. E. ‘Zametki o greko-russkoi ikonopisnoi masterskoi v Novgorode i rospisiakh Spaso-
Preobrazhenskoi tserkvi na Nereditse’ [Notes on the Greek-Russian icon painting workshop in
Novgorod and the paintings of the Holy Transfiguration Church on the Nereditsa], in: Tserkov’ Spasa
na Nereditse: ot Vizantii k Rusi. K 800-letiju pamjatnika [Church of the Saviour on Nereditsa: from
Byzantium to Rus’. By the 800th anniversary of the monument], ed. by O. E. Etingof. Moscow, Indrik
Publ., 2005. pp. 115–143. (in Russian).
GippiusA. A. ‘O neskol’kikh personazhakh novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot XII v.’ [On several per-
sonages of the Novgorod birchbark documents of the 12th century], IaninV. L., ZalizniakA. A., Gip-
piusA. A., Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste: Iz raskopok 1997–2000gg. [Novgorodian birch bark manu-
scripts. From the excavations of 1997–2000]. Moscow, Russkie slovari, 2004, pp.164–182. (in Russian).
GralaH. ‘Tradycija dziejopisarska o pobycie władcy Bizancjum w Haliczu (Jan Długosz i kronikarz Hustyń-
ski)’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, 1986, vol.93, no.3, pp. 639–661. (in Polish).
HerrinJ. ‘Changing Functions of Monasteries for Women during Byzantine Iconoclasm’, Byzantine Women:
Varieties of Experience 800–1200, ed. by L. Garland. Aldershot, Burlington, Ashgate, 2006, pp. 3–11.
Hustynskaia letopis’, ed. by V. A. Kuchkin. St. Petersburg, Dmitrii Bulanin Publ., 2003 (=Polnoe Sobranie
Russkikh Letopisei, vol. 40). 202pp. (in Russian).
IaninV. L. ‘K probleme avtorstva nereditskikh fresok’ [On the problem of the authorship of the Nereditsa
frescoes], Pamiatniki kul’tury: novye otkrytiia, 1987god. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1988, pp.178–183.
(in Russian).
Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. by A. Meineke. Bonnae, Weber,
1836(=Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, vol.13). 412pp. (in Greek).
Ioannis Dlugosii Annales, seu Cronicae incliti regni Poloniae, ed. by J. Dabrowski. Warszawa, Państwowe
Wydawn, Naukowe, 1973, vol. 5–6. 432pp. (in Latin).
Ipat’evskaia letopis’, ed. by A. A. Shakhmatov. Moscow, Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1998 (=Polnoe Sobranie
Russkikh Letopisei, vol.2). XVIp.+938col.+92p. (in Russian).

42 Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4
Kalendarium necrologicum canonicorum spirensium recentius, J. F. Boehmer (hrsg.), Fontes rerum Ger-
manicarum. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1868, vol.4, pp.315–327. (in Latin).
Lavrent’evskaia letopis’, ed. by E. F. Karsky. Moscow, Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1997(=Polnoe sobranie russkikh
letopisei, vol.I). VIII+580pp. (in Russian).
Letopisets Pereiaslavlia Suzdal’skogo, ed. by V. I. Buganov. Moscow, Arkheograficheskii tsentr, 1995 (=Polnoe
Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei, vol.41). 184pp. (in Russian).
MagdalinoP. The empire of Manuel I Komnenos. 1143–1180. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University
Press, 2002. 558pp.
MaiorovA. V. Galitsko-Volynskaia Rus’. Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskikh otnoshenii v domongol’skii period.
Kniaz’, boiare i gorodskaia obshchina [Galician-Volhynian Rus’. Essays on the socio-political relations
in the pre-Mongol period. Prince, nobles and urban communities]. St. Petersburg, 2001. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Tsarskii titul galitsko-volynskogo kniazia Romana Mstislavicha i ego potomkov’ [The title of
Tsar of Hlych nd Volyn’ Prnce Roman Mstislavich and his descendants], Studia Slavica et Balcanica
Petropolitana, 2009, no.1–2, pp.250–262. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Drevnerusskoe rukopisnoe Evangelie Aprokos iz sobraniia Gosudarstvennoi Tret’iakovskoi
galerei: k voprosu o datirovke i atributsii’ [The Old Russian handwritten Gospel Aprokos from the col-
lection of the State Tretyakov gallery. The question of its dating and attribution], Voprosy muzeologii,
2010, no.1, pp.160–166. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Neizvestnyi fakt biografii Daniila Galitskogo’ [The unknown fact of biography of Daniel of
Galicia], Rossica antiqua, 2010, no.2, pp.140–148. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Unikal’naia drevnerusskaia ikona iz sobraniia L’vovskogo natsional’nogo muzeia’ [A unique
Old Russian icon from the collection of the Lviv National museum], Voprosy muzeologii, 2010, no.2,
pp.70–75. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Apostol’skii presto i Nikeiskaia imperiia vo vneshnei politire Daniila Galitskogo’ [The Apos-
tolic See and the Empire of Nicaea in foreign policy of Daniel Galitsky], Rossica antiqua, 2011, no.1,
pp.60–99. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Daniil Galitskii i Fridrikh Voinstvennyi: russko-avstriiskie otnosheniia v seredine XIII v.’
[Daniel Galitsky and Friedrich the Quarrelsome: Russian-Austrian relations in the middle of the 13th
century], Voprosy istorii, 2011, no.7, pp.32–52. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Daniil Galitskii i nachalo formirovaniia kul’ta Sv. Daniila Stolpnika u Riurikovichei’ [Daniel
of Galicia and the Beginning of the Cult of Saint Daniel the Stylite in the Rurik Dynasty], Drevniaia
Rus’: voprosy medievistiki, 2011, no.4, pp.32–50. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘O proiskhozhdenii i simvolike imeni kniazia Irakliia Danilovicha’ [On the provenance and
symbolism of the name of Prince Iraklii Danilovich], Voprosy istorii, 2011, no.3, pp.110–121. (in
Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Pechat’ Evfrosinii Galitskoi iz Novgoroda’ [The Seal of Euphrosyne of Galicia from Novgorod],
Drevniaia Rus’: voprosy medievistiki, 2011, no.2, pp.5–25. (in Russian).
Maiorov A. V. ‘Koronatsiia Daniila Galitskogo: Nikeia i Rim vo vneshnei politike galitsko-volynskihk
kniazei’ [The Coronation of Daniel of Galicia: Nicaea and Rome in the foreign policy of Galicia-Vol-
hynian Princes], Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2011, no.1, pp.143–156. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Vostochnokhristianskie relikvii i ideia “perenosa imperii”: Vizantiia, Balkany, Drevniaia Rus’’
[Eastern Christian Reliquiae and an Idea of “Transfer of Empire”: Byzantium, the Balkans, Ancient
Rus], Religiovedenie, 2011, no.1, pp.17–24. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘“Korol’ Rusi” v bitve na Leite’ [The “king of Russia” in the battle of Leitha]. Rusin, 2012, no.3,
pp.54–77. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Pervaia uniia Rusi s Rimom’ [The First Rus’-Rome Union], Voprosy istorii, 2012, no.4,
pp.33–52. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Pokhod russkikh voisk v Moriviiu i bor’ba za “avstriiskoe nasledstvo” v 1252–1253gg.’ [Cam-
paign of the Russian troops in Moravia and the struggle for “Austrian Succession” in 1252–1253],
Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, 2012, no.3, pp.49–54. (in Russian).
Maiorov A. V. ‘The daughter of a Byzantine Emperor— the wife of a Galicia-Volhynian Prince’, Byzantino-
slavica, 2014, vol. 72, no. 1–2, pp. 188–233.
MaiorovA. V. ‘Grecheskii olovir Daniila Galitskogo: iz kommentariia k Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi’ [Greek
olovir of Daniel Galitsky: from the commentary to the Galician-Volhynian chronicle], Trudy Otdela
drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii Dom) RAN, 2014, vol.62, pp.225–235.
(in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘The imperial Purple of the Galician-Volynian Princes’, Rusin, 2014, no.2, pp.147–161.

Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 4 43
MaiorovA. V. ‘Illustri regi Russiae: korolevskii titul russkikh kniazei v pervoi polovine XIII v.’ [Illustri
regi Russiae: the Royal Title of Russian Princes in the First Half of the 13th Century], Stratum plus:
Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology, 2015, no.6, pp.53–61. (in Russian).
MaiorovA. V. ‘Ecumenical Processes in the mid— 13th century and the Union between Russia and Rome’,
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 2015, vol.126, no.1, pp.11–34.
MaiorovA. V. ‘The Alliance between Byzantium and Rus’ before the Conquest of Constantinople by the
Crusaders in 1204’, Russian History, 2015, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 272–303.
MaiorovA. V. ‘The Cult of St. Daniel the Stylite among the Russian Princes of the Rurik dynasty’, Slavic and
East European Journal, 2015, vol.59, no.3, pp.345–366.
MaiorovA. V. ‘Angelos in Halych: Did Alexios III Visit Roman Mstislavich?’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies, 2016, vol.56, no.2, pp.343–376.
MaiorovA. V. ‘…and Mstislav was given the city of Ascalon. Could the Russian Prince be the Viceroy of the
Byzantine Emperor Manuel I in the Holy Land?’, Byzantion, 2016, vol. 86, pp.124–142.
MaiorovA. V., MetelkinE. N. ‘“Die deutsche Spur” in der altrussischen Erzählung über die Einnahme Kon-
stantinopels durch die Kreuzritter’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2016, vol.109, no.2, pp.392–408.
MayerH. E. ‘Latins, Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem’, History, 1978, vol.63, pp.175–
192.
NasonovA. N. Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI— nachala XVIII veka. Ocherki i issledovaniia [History of
Russian chronicles 11th— the beginning of the 18th century. Essays and research]. Moscow, Nauka
Publ., 1969. 556pp. (in Russian).
Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. by I. A. van Dieten. Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1975 (=Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, ser. Berolinensis, vol. 11/1). CXV+656pp. (in Greek).
Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. by A. N. Nasonov. Moscow, Iazyki russkoi
kul’tury, 2000 (=Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol.3). XVI+592pp. (in Russian).
PopovaO. S. ‘Galitsko-volynskie miniatiury rannego IIIv. (k voprosu o vzaimootnosheniiakh russkogo
i vizantiiskogo iskusstva)’ [The Galician-Volhynian miniatures of early 13th century (to the question
of relationship between Russian and Byzantine art)], Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Khudozhestvennaia
kul’tura domongol’skoi Rusi, ed. by V. N. Lazarev. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1972, pp.283–315. (in Rus-
sian).
Radzivilovskaia letopis’, eds M. D. Priselkov et al. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1989 (=Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh
Letopisei, vol.38). 178pp. (in Russian).
RaffinL., Anne Gonzague, princesse palatine. 1616–1684. Paris, Desclée, de Bruwer & cie, 1935. 386pp.
Rocznik Traski, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, ed. by A. Bielowski. Lwów, Nakładem Własnym, 1872,
pp.826–861. (in Latin).
RozhkoM. ‘Pro deiak oboronn Preobrazhens’k monastir X st. v Galichin’ [About the defense of the
Transfigurations Monasteries of 13th century in Galicia], Lavra. Chasopis monahіv Studits’kogo ustavu,
1999, no. , pp.42–49. (in Ukrainian).
SchmeidlerB. ‘Der sogenannte Cusentinus bei Tolomeus von Lucca‘, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere
deutsche Geschichtskunde, 1906–1907, Bd.32, Hft.1, SS.252–261.
SviatskyD. O., Astronomiia Drevnei Rusi [Astronomy of Ancient Rus’]. Moscow, Russkaia panorama, 2007.
664pp. (in Russian).
Tholomeus Lucensis Historia ecclesiastica nova, eds O. Clavuot, L. Schmugge. Hannover, Hahnsche Buch-
handlung, 2009 (=Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 39). LXXVIII+786pp. (in Latin).
TyermanCh. God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. London, Penguin, 2007. 1040pp.
Willemi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. by R. B. C. Huygens. Turnholt, Brepols, 1986, vol.1 (=Corpus
Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, vol. 63). XLII+1024pp. (in Latin).
Zespół wieżowy w Stołpiu. Badania 2003–2004, ed. by A. Buko. Warszawa, IAE PAN, IA UW, 2009. 376pp.
(in Polish).
For citation: Maiorov A. V. Rus’, Byzantium and Western Europe in the late twel h — early
thirteenth centuries. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, 2016, issue 4, pp. 31–43. DOI:
10.21638/11701/spbu02.2016.403
Received: 27 February 2016
Accepted: 2 September 2016