Empire, commonwealth and jurisdiction: the Rus’ Metropolitanate within the Byzantine eparchal tradition (6-11th. c.) (original) (raw)

This research examines the precise nature of the relationship of Byzantium with her northern neighbors, putting earlier, decontextualized questions about whether or not Rus’ was a vassal state of Byzantium into a broader context of whether or not much of Pontic-Caspian Eurasia, from the Danube to the Volga, and perhaps beyond, was effectively absorbed, in some form or another, by Byzantium. It asks questions such as: what was that form? How was this eparchal absorption manifested economically and politically? Was there a form of financial implication? What form did it take and who benefited from it? And how was suzerainty exercised? The sigillographic record will be employed to illustrate the extent of Byzantine administration, while studies of coin hoards found in the various Rus’ suffragan sees will supply most of the information for economic analyses. Chronologically, this research embarks from 989 and means to address the so-called “feudalization” of Rus’ after Christianization and the development of the Rus’ metropolitanate during and after the reign of Jaroslav I Vladimirovič. It will also explore the 11th -c. rise of Rus’ in light of previous historiographical interpretations, both post-Soviet (Russian and Ukrainian) and Western historiography. The research will offer syntheses to answer questions about what were imperial reactions to both processes, namely feudalization and church development, as they coincided in the mid-11th century? How was Kievan Christianization manifested in taxing local populations and how did the economy change vis-à-vis Christianization? Did Christianity become an expression of identity and loyalty or was it merely a tool of subjugation? Can such political, social and economic factors of Rus’ Christianization be explained in terms of Constantine Zuckerman’s concept of imperial “Pontic policy?” If so, how? And would they be detectable in both textual and archaeological sources? The final question this study means to pose (and perhaps to partially answer) is: to what extent can the concept of “potestarity” (потестарность) be applied to the process of the adoption of monotheism (“monotheization”) - both within and beyond Kievan Rus’?