The overwhelming number (65 out of 95) of Russian inscriptions in Hagia Sofia is not surprising. However, it should be noted that some of these inscriptions mention not only the author but also other people who apparently accompanied him on his visit to the temple. In addition to the 65 authors who signed their names, another 16 people were added, bringing the total number of graffiti visitors to 81.

  The ideal source of information about these people would be the complete records with the names and occupations of all those who traveled from the Russian territories to Byzantium and back, with the date of their journey and an indication of their destination. But such or similar records unfortunately do not exist, and all the information we have is incidental. In other words, our efforts are limited to piecing together the scattered traces we have found by chance from individual authors. It is curious why both contemporary and all other, later sources are so suspiciously silent about the Russians.

  According to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (913 - 959), the Russians came to the Byzantine capital either for war or for trade.[1] Trade relations between Byzantium and Kievan Rus, in the words of J. Shepard emerged after a series of events and negotiations in the early 10th century.[2] As a result, the Russians developed a lively trade with Constantinople along the Dnieper River, or as the Russian annals call this route, “from the Varangians to the Greeks”.[3]

  Initially the Russians limited themselves to staying outside the capital and settled near the monastery of St. Mamas and the harbor, which also bears the saint's name. The suburb of St. Mamas was located in the north on the Bosporus (today’s Beşiktaş)[4] and was in fact an imperial complex with a hippodrome, portico street and harbor.[5] At this time, the city was obviously of strategic rather than commercial importance.[6] The choice of location was therefore determined more by the desire to establish surveillance and strong control over the Russians and their ships. Unfortunately, there is little information about their trading activities in the capital. We can assume that they reached the city in groups of 50 people on their boats.[7]

  Unfortunately, after the 10th century there is no more information about the Russians and their stay in Constantinople. From this point onwards, we hear less and less about them. Even in the 11th and 12th centuries, when trade between Russians and Byzantines reached its peak, we know nothing about their trade and disposition.[8] According to J. Shepard, the relations between Russians and Byzantines could best be described as peaceful.[9] This is clear from an imperial charter of January 1044, which shows that the Russians were expected to serve in the Byzantine army only six months after the war between them in 1043.[10]

  But more importantly, the Russians at this time did not have the right to temporary residence in the suburbs of the Byzantine capital, but to permanent residence behind the fortress walls. However, due to the complete silence of the sources, we know neither the circumstances under which they received the porticoed street, nor the exact date on which this happened. We can certainly date their entry into the city to no earlier than 989/ca. 995 and no later than 1043.[11]

  The Russian colony in Constantinople, which emerged in the 11th century, possessed certain rights and played an important role in relations between Byzantines and Russians. It brought together merchants, envoys and warriors who served in the Byzantine army, as well as pilgrims, travelers and clergy and became a kind of home away from home for them.[12]

  In 1200, Dobrynja Jadrejkovič (later Archbishop Antonius), who visited Constantinople[13], under his secular name, noted in his Kniga palomnik (The Pilgrim’s Book) that the “Russian porticoed street” stretches from the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs to the Golden Horn.[14] Broadly speaking, we can conclude that the Russians occupied the best commercial properties in the city along the Great portico street of Maurianos.[15] Obviously, they sought concessions in this area, not only because it was good for business, but because they were already doing business there. Like the merchants of other nationalities, the Russians also had their own quarter in Constantinople. We do not know the exact boundaries of the quarter, but we have reason to believe that their neighbors to the north were the Venetians and the Amalfians. We do not know the exact boundaries of the quarter, but there is good reason to believe that the Russians’ neighbors to the north were the existing Venetian and Amalfitan quarters.[16] In other words, the area where the trading activities of the Rus were concentrated gradually became the nucleus of their colony.

  So, when Antonius speaks of the Russian portico, he refers to not just a street where the Russian merchants regularly sold their goods, but the entire quarter in which they lived. At the same time, we get the impression that Antonius is not just talking about a Russian colony within the city. On his third tour, in which he describes the sights outside the capital, he mentions the existence of a Russian enclave in Galata, north of Golden Horn inlet. Antonius’ statement leads us to believe that the Russian possessions in the Byzantine capital were concentrated in, but not limited to, the Russian quarter known as the Russian portico.[17] The Russian merchants resided and conducted their business there, they had their inns, ruled by their laws, bought, sold, and rented buildings. It is not easy to reconstruct the reality of their lives, but it was hardly a bed of roses. As we know, disputes among the merchants were not uncommon. We learn accidentally that in the early months of 1043 there was a dispute with some Scythian (Russian) merchants in Constantinople in which a certain Scythian of high rank was killed which led to a war between the Byzantines and the Russians.[18] Although the location of the fight is not specified, one would assume that the fatal incident took place in the Russian quarter. Apparently, this colony had gradually spread throughout the Byzantine capital, but we are not yet able to explain exactly how it was organized. Based on the fact that each foreign colony in Constantinople had its own church, inns, etc., it is reasonable to assume that the Russian quarter had its own church and its own clergy. This is also supported by what Antonius said about the churches of St. George and St. Leontius.[19] Since they are mentioned only in Kniga palomnik, it seems that they were not only Russian, but also built by Russians for their spiritual needs.

  Unfortunately, their situation changed dramatically with the arrival of the Latins on the Fourth Crusade in 1203. The fate of the Russian colony under the subsequent Latin occupation after the capture of the Byzantine capital in 1204 is unclear, but apparently the Russian portico and the colony were completely destroyed in the great fire in August, 1204.[20] After 1261, we encounter the Russians again in Constantinople, but this time in a different location[21] - in the north-western part of the city, or as Ignatius of Smolensk stated in 1389, a “Russia living there”.[22]

  A look at Diagram 2 shows that the next peak of Russian visits to Hagia Sophia occurred in the second half of the 14th to the 20s of the 15th century. Not surprisingly, the same situation can be found in the Russian annals: between 1243 - 1342 there were only 10 trips to Constantinople, but the number increased significantly in the 1340s - 1350s, then peaked in the 1370s - 1380s and slowly decreased in the 1390s - the first decade of the 15th century. This peak at the end of the 14th century is connected both with the “Time of Troubles” in the Russian church and the disputes between Moscow, Lithuania and Constantinople over the possessions of the Kiev eparchy and the resulting problem of travel, as well as with the largest number of pilgrimages (5 between 1349 - 1423), judging by the literary sources.

  I mention this again because the inscription-graffiti also mark a high point in the period between the middle of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century (up to 1204) (see Diagram 2). Moreover, in contrast to the next peak, inscriptions with patronyms of laymen representing the high nobility dominate here: Vasil’ (Basil), son of Onan’ja (Onanič), Lazar (Lazaros), son of Kăstel (Kăstelevič), Ivan (John), son of Ivan (Ivankovič), Ivan (John), son of Sonilo (Sonilovič), Vasilij (Basil), son of Ivan (Ivankovič), Dobrinja, son of Sudăša (Sudošinič), Grozila, son of Gjurg (Gjurgevič), Simeon, son of Boris (Borisovič), Gleb, son of Boris (Borisovič), Jakov (James), son of Poloz (Polozkovič), Putjata, son of Klim (Klimovič) (nos. 3, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34 north gallery, see Table 1). We also have data on both family visits (nos. 3 north gallery) and group pilgrimages to Hagia Sophia (no. 4 north gallery). These are a sign of a well-organized shelter in the greater Constantinople area, and the best place for this is the Russian colony. Undoubtedly, it hosted all kinds of visitors who came from Russian territories. It was quite natural and understandable that they would seek shelter in a place where they could experience hospitality. It is much more likely that they preferred to be among their own kind for their own safety than in other places unknown to them. Incidentally, many other visitors to the Byzantine capital did the same.

  A look at Diagram 2 shows that the next peak of Russian visits to Hagia Sophia occurred in the second half of the 14th to the 20s of the 15th century. Not surprisingly, the same situation can be found in the Russian annals: between 1243 - 1342 there were only 10 trips to Constantinople, but the number increased significantly in the 1340s - 1350s, then peaked in the 1370s - 1380s and slowly decreased in the 1390s - the first decade of the 15th century.[23]

    This peak at the end of the 14th century is connected both with the ʽTime of Troublesʼ in the Russian Church and the disputes between Moscow, Lithuania and Constantinople over the possessions of the Kiev eparchy and the resulting problem of travel, as well as with the largest number of pilgrimages (5 between 1349 - 1423), judging by the literary sources.[24]

  However, like the chronicles, the literary sources do not always contain accounts of people who were traveling as traders or pilgrims, as unofficial visitors were considered unworthy of mention.[25] Therefore, we cannot expect data from the chronicles and the inscription graffiti to correspond completely, and matches such as those with Philipp Mikitinič or Danilo are quite rare. 

  In his study of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, G. Majeska identifies 127 individuals who undertook 147 journeys, of which 121 appear to have been completed and 6 of the Russian travelers mentioned in the chronicles ended their journey in Byzantium.[26] Much more common were one-way journeys, where the traveler permanently moved to the new place and died there.

  The majority of the people who traveled in both directions (Russia-Byzantium) belonged to the clergy - 45 had a clerical rank, 31 of them were representatives of the lower clergy (people of no particular rank, monks, hegoumenoi, deacons, proto deacons, priests, protohiereos, etc.) and 14 belonged to the higher clergy (metropolitans, bishops, archimandrites) who traveled on ecclesiastical business.[27] The former traveled as part of the entourage of the Russian bishops. They included the scribes Stefan and Jakov (Jacob), son of Gregory (Grigorevič), and the steward Filip, son of Mikita (Mikitinič), who is mentioned in the inscriptions (nos. 8, 20 and 32 south gallery). Most of the journeys of a secular nature were also connected with ecclesiastical matters in the broadest sense - 43, of which the names of 17 Russian envoys and 8 boyars are mentioned in the chronicles for this period.[28]

  At all times, the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, remained the most important center of literature and art. In the city of many thousands, there were always many opportunities for creative activities, especially under the patronage of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. Most writers and master artists were concentrated here, whose works were disseminated in the capital, in the centers of the provinces and beyond the borders of the empire.[29]

  With the exception of Mt. Athos monasteries, the Byzantine capital was home to the largest ecclesiastical and religious centers with several large monasteries and churches that were centers of literary and artistic activity. Their main work consisted of copying, translating and proofreading literary works, literary exchange among the different Slavic nations or translating Byzantine literature.[30] Among these centers is the aforementioned monastery and the suburb of St. Mamas, where not only Russians but also Bulgarians lived. Those who came to Byzantium to engage in literary and educational missions probably also stopped here. Theodosius of Tărnovo, the founder of Bulgarian hesychasm, also stayed here in the company of his four Bulgarian disciples. Among them were the future Bulgarian Patriarch Evtimij and the future Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev-Moscow (1376-1406).[31]

  Another important center of the Slavic presence in Constantinople was the monastery of St. John the Baptist, which later became known as Stoudios Monastery, named after its founder.[32] Slavic translations of its statutes suggest that links between the monastery and Slavic lands already existed in the 11th and 12th centuries.[33] A little bit more is known about the second half of the 14th century, when Evtimij of Tărnovo and Cyprian Camblak went there, and then in 1387, the founder of the monastery in Serpukhov, Afanasij Vysotsky, came to Constantinople together with Cyprian.[34] He settled in the Stoudios monastery and died in Constantinople around 1401. The next place was the monastery of the Virgin Peribleptos, where the Bulgarian monk and later patriarch of Tărnovo, Evtimij, stayed for a time around 1370.[35]

  Of course, Slavs passing through the Byzantine capital could stay not only at the places already mentioned, but the latter are the ones for which we have reliable information. And if we follow the inscriptions-graffiti and the written records, we can limit the whereabouts of the Russians mainly to the Russian colony and some of the more important monasteries, the Bulgarians in the suburb of St. Mamas, the Stoudios Monastery or the Peribleptos Monastery. The center of communication between Serbs and Byzantines was the Evergetis Monastery of the Virgin, as well as the hospital built by the Serbian King Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282 - 1321) in Constantinople.[36]

  The small number of Bulgarian and Serbian graffiti can most probably be explained by their good command of Greek, which may have been their preferred language (spoken and written) during their stay in the Byzantine capital. Perhaps some of the Greek graffiti in Hagia Sophia are the work of people of Slavic origin, demonstrating their education. At this point, it must be remembered that the highly educated part of the Bulgarian nobility and clergy throughout the Middle Ages had a good command of “written and spoken Greek”[37] and a “large part of the rich Greek vocabulary found its way into the church and worship, literature and also into the language of ordinary Bulgarians”.[38] The Bulgarian scribe Isaiah of Serres says about the use of the Greek language in 1371: “The Greek language was first ordained by God as the finest and most graceful and was perfected at various times by the wise. But our Slavic tongue was not granted the refinement of the language art by the wisdom of philosophizing men”.[39] For the Bulgarians, therefore, the offering of prayers or the leaving of autographs in the most distinguished and sacred temple of Byzantium could be done only in this “exquisite” language. Given this fact, however, it is impossible to determine the ethnic origin of the inscriptions following the prayer formulae or leaving autographs in which the names Theodore, Basil, John, Melethios, Arsenios, Gregory, Theodosios, Sabas the Monk are mentioned - their authors could be both Byzantines and Bulgarians.

  The explanation can also go in another direction, namely in relation to the attitude of the Bulgarians towards Constantinople, and obviously it was not only a source of positive influence and stimulus of their cultural development, but also a source of evil and actions that negatively impacted the Bulgarian ethnos.[40] Referring to the words of the Byzantine theologian Euthymios Zigabenos about the assertion of the Bogomil leader Vasiliy Vrach(Basil the Physician) that Satan took residence in the Hagia Sophia, V. Gyuzelev notes that this “largely reflects the attitude of the enslaved Bulgarians towards the Byzantine capital, from which they believed the greatest evil emanated”.[41]

  Finally, the pilgrimage was not a simple tourist journey abroad, because it took much longer, and because it was fraught with trials and tribulations. Pilgrims undertook these journeys in the hope of divine reward, and indeed they were often used by the Church as a form of atonement. The purpose of the pilgrimage was to see holy relics, and unlike us, the medieval pilgrim actually believed that if he looked at the relics of a saint and prostrated himself before them, he would persuade that saint to intercede with God on his behalf.

  Of course, the most important object of veneration after Jerusalem was the Byzantine capital of Constantinople.

  The Russians came to Constantinople to see the signs of God’s work on earth, which they had known about since childhood and were ready to perceive and understand.[42] The main destination for the pilgrims from the Russian lands was the temple Hagia Sophia. “Behold, I, the unworthy... - wrote at the beginning of the 13th century Dobrynja Jadrejkovič (the future Archbishop Antonius of Novgorod) - I came to Constantinople. At first, I worshipped St. Sophia…”.[43] The monk Zosima - deacon of the Monastery of the Trinity - St. Sergius (founded by St. Sergios of Radonež), who visited Constantinople in late 1419 and early 1420, noted that on his arrival he visited all the holy places, but first I venerated “the holy Great Church where the Patriarch lives”.[44] Even those who came to the Byzantine capital not as pilgrims but as clergymen, merchants or diplomats did not overlook the temple. Some of the visitors left behind a reminder of the pious deeds they had performed. A pious act is to believe and express one's faith by praying, lighting a candle, visiting a church, venerating the holy relics, and so on.

  The appearance and concentration of these inscriptions on the walls of temples is therefore not unusual, as temples are a convenient place for educated people to gather and provide an environment conducive to communication. Moreover, their walls are accessible and provide a suitable surface for expression. In fact, these inscriptions are an integral part of the intellectual creativity of the Middle Ages, a kind of reflection of the complex and diverse reality, an expression of the common human desire for expression and communication on different levels and in different directions. They reflect the entire spectrum of human and social life at the time in which they were written.

 

---

[1] Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gyula Moravcsik, Washington, DC 1967, p. 50. 18.

[2] J. Shepard, Constantinople - gateway to the north: the Russians, in: Constantinople and its hinterland, C. Mango, G. Dagron (eds.), Aldershot 1996, 259.

[3] T. Tomov, Konstantinopol i ruskata kolonija (do 1204 g.), Sofija 2008, 59, 120 notes 3 and 4. See also S. Franklin, J. Shepard, The Emergency of Rus 750 - 1200, Cambridge 1996, 91-111.

[4] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 67, 123-124 note 40. The opinion recently expressed by F. Androŝuk (Konstantinopolʹskie monastyri sv. Mamanta i mesto rezidencii russkih kupcov v X veke, Ruthenica 11 (2012) 7-28) that the Russian quarter in Constantinople should be located “northwest of the harbor of Theodosios, in the area adjacent to the Theodosian land wall and the river Lycus” is untenable, as it sends the Russians directly into the boundaries of the city itself - something that only happens towards the end of the 11th century and it first happens with the Venetians. The same applies to the author’s claim about the use of the harbors especially on the south side of the city as opposed to those on the Golden Horn as well as to what was said about “the Russian porticoed street”.

[5] R. Janin, Raymond, Constantinople Byzantine: développement urbain et répertoire topographique, (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 4), Paris 19642, 141.

[6] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 67, 124 note 42.

[7] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 68, 124 note 43: On market days, the Russians sailed from St. Mamas through the Golden Horn and anchored their ships in one of the harbors at the north end of Constantinople. It is possible that they entered the city through one of the following gates: St. Barbara, Neorion or Drungarion. I believe that the total number of Russian boats permitted to land in the capital's harbors was two or three, as noted by the Bishop of Cremona Liudprand (“two Russian ships”). This was the only way to comply with the regulation regarding the number of Russians (50) allowed to enter the city. Of course, not all Russians left their boats. We can assume that these 50 men included ambassadors, merchants and their servants and possibly soldiers. We must also bear in mind that this was in keeping with the Byzantine mentality and that the memory of the Russian naval attacks on the capital in the 10th century was still alive. So, despite the new relations between the Byzantines and the Russians, the main feeling of fear (of the Russians) did not change.

[8] According to P. Schreiner, there is very little concrete information about Russian-Byzantine relations in these centuries: P. Schreiner, Miscellanea Byzantino-Russica, Viz Vrem 52 (1991) 158.

[9] J. Shepard, Why Did The Russians attack Byzantium in 1043? Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 22 (1979) 182.

[10] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 81, 133 note 48.

[11] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 82.

[12] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 83.

[13] The date is given by the author himself, when on May 21, 1200, he mentions a miracle in the church of Hagia Sophia: “God performed this miracle sacredly and honestly in the year 6708 [1200] in my lifetime, in the month of May, on the feast day of St. Constantine and his mother Helena, on the 21st day, Sunday, during the reign of Alexios and Patriarch Yoan(John) …”, E. Maleto, Antologija hoženij russkih putešestvennikov XII - XV veka, Moskva 2005, 224-225. For the date of his return, which cannot be precisely determined, see Tomov, Konstantinopol, 134 note 3 with cited literature.

[14] What Antonius says supports the claim that the portico in question did not continue southwards, towards the Propontis. Сf. Tomov, Konstantinopol, 97.

[15] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 96-98.

[16] For the location of the Venetian and Pisan quarters, cf. Janin, Constantinople Byzantine, 247-248; P. Magdalino, Constantinople médiévale. Études sur l’evolution des structures urbaines, Paris 1996, 69, 79-82; P. Magdalino, The Maritime Neighborhoods of Constantinople: Commercial and Residental Functions, Sixth to Twelfth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000) 220-221; Tomov, Konstantinopol, 99.

[17] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 102.

[18] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 77-78.

[19] Maleto, Antologija hoženij, 231; Tomov, Konstantinopol, 90-91.

[20] Tomov, Konstantinopol, 103.

[21] According to G. Majeska, Russian travelers to Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries,  Washington D.C. 1984, 90 note 91 the Russian colony of the 14th century was “made up largely of ecclesiastic.”

[22] Maleto, Antologija hoženij, 279, 280.

[23] Dž. Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija 1240 - 1453 gg.: palomniki, diplomaty, kupcy, v: Kievskaja i Moskovskaja Rusʹ, T. ІІ, kn. 1, Moskva 2002, 364.

[24] Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija, 365.

[25] Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija, 368.

[26] Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija, 361.

[27] Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija, 362.

[28] Madžeska, Russko-vizantijskie otnošenija, 363.

[29] I. Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 19 (1963) 110.

[30] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 117.

[31] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 112.

[32] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 114.

[33] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 115.

[34] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 115.

[35] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 116.

[36] Dujčev Centry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo sotrudničestva, 116.

[37] V. Gjuzelev, Vizantijsko-bǎlgarskijat dialog v oblastta na kulturata, Spisanie na BAN 5 (2006) 5.

[38] Gjuzelev, Vizantijsko-bǎlgarskijat dialog, 6.

[39] V. Gjuzelev, Izvori za srednovekovnata istorija na Bǎlgarija (VII – XV v.) v avstrijskite rǎkopisni sbirki i arhivi. T. I. Bǎlgarski, drugi slavjanski i vizantijski izvori, Sofija 1994, 30-31.

[40] V. Gjuzelev, Carigrad i bǎlgarite prez srednovekovieto (VII - XV), Istoričesko bǎdešte 1 (1998) 11.

[41] Gjuzelev, Carigrad i bǎlgarite, 11.

[42] G. Majeska, St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The Russian travelers on the Relics, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973) 72.

[43] Maleto, Antologija hoženij, 221.

[44] Maleto, Antologija hoženij, 297.

                                                                                            ***

---