Pilgrimage and Polemics: Early Reception of Latin Christendom in Kievan Rus’ between Byzantine Normativity and Practical Decisions 1

: This article analyses the main traits of reception of Latin (Roman Catholic) Christendom in Kievan Rus’, drawing from the notion of its confessional »otherness« in relation to the Eastern Orthodox norm. The mentioned reception is studied according to the East Slavic narrative sources written at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, i.e., directly after the »Great Schism« (1054) between Constantinople and Rome. The author of this article accentuates the complexity of the Rus’ attitude towards Latin Christians on various levels: 1) upholding the official Orthodoxy, following the Byzantine doctrinal themes as adopted in Church Slavic polemical literature, while, simultaneously, 2) respecting practical considerations of dynastic ties between the East Slavic political elite and ruling families of the neighbouring Latin world, 3) and venerating particular Latin saints. In this respect, special consideration is given to the travel diary on the Holy Land titled Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, the Hegumen of the Land of Rus’, serving as a prime example of encountering confessional differences. Daniel’s Pilgrimage is placed within the political and cultural context after the First Crusade during the Frankish rule over Palestine; it brings some valuable testimonies about the »Latin-Greek« relations in the Kingdom of Jerusalem as perceived by an educated ecclesiastical traveller, himself originating from an Eastern Orthodox environment. Daniel’s thematization of his confessional »other« in the Holy Land reveals a similar ambiguity in the case of Rus’ itself: on a declarative level, the polemical writings of the Kievan metropolitans testify about a negative position on the »Latin heresies«; on the other hand, common veneration of particular saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney, and decisions of the East Slavic princes confirm the permanence of intercultural contacts and pragmatic willingness to cooperate


Introduction
This article aims to explain the main traits of reception of Latin (Roman Catholic) Christendom in Old Rus' (of the Kievan period) drawing from the notion of its confessional »otherness« related to the Eastern Orthodox norm.The mentioned reception is studied according to the East Slavic narrative sources written at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries, i.e., directly after the »Great Schism« (1054) between 2 Poimenovanje Stara Rusija predstavlja slovensko priredbo samostalnika ženskega spola Rus' (csl.Русь).Ime Kijevska Rusija sledi poimenovanju v ruski in zahodni historiografiji, s katerim se označuje najstarejša etapa državnosti v kontekstu srednjeveškega in zgodnjenovoveškega pojava Stare Rusije.

Constantinople and
Rome.The author of this article accentuates the complexity of the Rus' attitude towards Latin Christians on several, at a first glance contradictory, levels: upholding the official Eastern Orthodoxy, following the Byzantine doctrinal themes as adopted in Church Slavic polemical literature, while, simultaneously, respecting practical considerations of dynastic ties between the East Slavic political elite and ruling families of the neighboring Latin world.Here, a special case is recognized in venerating particular Latin saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney.In this context, a particular consideration is given to the travel diary on the Holy Land titled Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, Hegumen of the Land of Rus' (Житье и хоженье Даниила, русьскыя земли игумена) from the first decade of the twelfth century serving as a basis and prime example of encountering confessional differences in a culturally diverse environment. 3Daniel's Pilgrimage belongs to the time of the early period of Frankish (Latin) rule over Palestine while simultaneously representing the oldest known travel diary in East Slavic medieval literature.This source brings some valuable testimonies about the »Latin-Greek« relations in the Kingdom of Jerusalem as perceived by an educated ecclesiastical traveller, himself originating from an Eastern Orthodox environment.
3 In this article, the synonymous use of terms Latin or Catholic, on the one hand, and Greek, Byzantine, Orthodox on the other, follows the historical accuracy, which prefers the expressions »Latin« and »Greek«.In the context of the discussed time and space, the term of Orthodoxy does not denote sharpened doctrinal and other differences between the (future) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity -namely, in the long-term, the significant split between the western (Roman, »Latin«) and eastern (Byzantine, »Greek«) halves of the once unified Christian Church took place no sooner than in 1054; furthermore, as additionally elaborated in the following parts of this article, it did not show its consequences clearly until the beginning of the thirteenth century, i.e., after the Fourth Crusade and pillage of Constantinople.Even in theological terms, including the Filioque controversy, the disputes were not irreconcilable, as shown by general consensus of the Christian writers of the first millennium, i.e., the Church Fathers (Bogataj 2016).Nevertheless, the reasonableness of the use of the term Eastern Orthodoxy is justified by two reasons.Firstly, in the light of the Church Slavonic sources of the time, the Orthodoxy or Orthodox Christianity appears as a historical denomination with which members of the Rus' elite denoted their own religious affiliation.In this sense, the hegumen Daniel calls members of his own religious community »those of true faith« (Church Slavonic: правовѣрьнии) or Orthodox (Church Slavonic: православнии), and his confessional »Other« »Latins« (Church Slavonic: латинянѣ) or »Franks« (Church Slavonic: фрязи) (Prohorov 2007a, 116.126.128).
Secondly, in the mentioned sources, Orthodoxy is linked to its original meaning in context, i.e.Orthodoxy (Greek: ορθοδοξία), the »correct opinion« or true belief of those who identified themselves with this denomination.The use of this terminology has historically been multilayered -including the terminology in Daniel's Pilgrimage -which is confirmed by the overlapping of confessional and ethnic-linguistic characterizations (e.g.equating of Latins or Franks with Catholics and Greeks with the Orthodox).In case of this article, the least appropriate solution would be the one calling (future) Catholics as Western Christians and the Orthodox as Eastern Christians.Namely, the latter expression is too wide: Eastern Christians also include different »Monophysite« (pre-Chalcedon) communities (e.g.Armenian, Jacobite, Ethiopic Churches), which cannot be assigned among the (future) Orthodox Church and communities deriving from the Byzantine (Constantinople) theological tradition.On such terminological problems and their conditioned resolving, see : Meyendorff 1983, 97-99.212-213;Chadwick 2003, 233-237;Siecienski 2013, 3-15;Malmenvall 2019a, 234-235.Daniel's Pilgrimage is supplemented by the comparison with the political and cultural circumstances in Kievan Rus', which conditioned the attitude of the East Slavic elite towards the Catholic Church.
The theoretical framework, to which the author of this work agrees, stems from the belief about the situationally conditioned establishment of confessional, ethnic, and other identity categories in medieval narrative texts.
It is a mechanism of forming ideas about oneself and the world, i.e. the domestic and foreign environment, which in the case of a medieval writer arises based on an »encounter« with the »other«.This can be paralleled with the fundamental principle of the Russian semiotic culturological school and its main representative Yuri Lotman (1922Lotman ( -1993)), the successor of the original linguistic structuralist paradigm, which brings the concepts of relation and comparison to the centre of its theory (2002; 2006).According to this paradigm, the recognition and evaluation of any cultural element, from the philosophical systems and social identity categories to an individual artwork, is always performed in relation to »other«; every element of culture acquires its existence only in the »encounter« with it, because without it, it cannot perceive itself as something independent, something that differs from the »other«.This is confirmed by the conclusions of a German historian Hagen Schulze (1943Schulze ( -2014)), who in the field of the study of ethnic categories in the Middle Ages believes that, on the one hand, these did not have a decisive significance in the formation of understanding reality at the time, while on the other hand, they are noticeable in historical sources when certain individuals or groups were subject to »encountering« (either peaceful or hostile) with the »other«.Ethnic categories thus make situationally aware or newly create the collective »independence« based on linguistic, tribal, or territorial proximity of the members of a certain group.(2003, 13-100) A significant part of post-modern theology, which brings to the forefront concepts such as »(intercultural) dialogue« and »encounter with the other«, reasons in a similar direction and understands God as the foundation of every genuine dialogue, as the »Other« with a capital letter. 44 For referential works on this subject, see : Buber 1984;Volf 1996;Isherwood and Harris 2013.A similar theoretical starting point can be noticed in several works of contemporary Slovenian theologians: Bogataj 2018, 960-961.967-968;Osredkar 2018;Malmenvall 2019b.

Palestine and the pilgrimage literature of Rus'
As a noticeable social phenomenon, pilgrimages to Palestine developed in the fourth century, at a time when Christianity was on the rise in the Roman Empire.The greatest standstill in the visitations to sacred places linked to the life of Biblical personages and Christian saints can be observed from 1071, when Palestine was under the rule of Seljuk Turks who tightened the policy towards local Christians and prevented pilgrimages from the European lands.The elimination of this »Seljuk obstacle« was the main goal of the First Crusade (1096-1099). 5Pilgrimages into the homeland of Jesus Christ reached their greatest span in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in the period of the Frankish (Latin) kingdoms in the Eastern Mediterranean lands.At that time, many churches were constructed or renovated, and a network of inns welcoming pilgrims was established.Even though many members of the clergy and nobility from western Europe can be noticed in pilgrimage flows of the time, they nevertheless included representatives of the Christian East and all strata of European inhabitantsfrom monarchs and bishops to townspeople and, to a lesser extent, even peasants.(Senyk 1993, 313-314;Nazarenko 2001, 626-627.631;Maleto 2005, 4.53;Riley-Smith 2005, 26;Gardzaniti 2007, 271.275.322;Prohorov 2007a, 8;Malmenvall 2019a, 235-236) Thus, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the culture of pilgrimages contributed to the spiritual connectedness between different confessional and social groups on the level of the entire European continent and Mediterranean world.During the early period of active western European intervention in the political and cultural circumstances of the Eastern Mediterranean, King Baldwin I (1100-1118) stood out among Catholic military leaders who mostly originated from the territory of present-day France.The time of his rule over the Kingdom of Jerusalem was decisively marked by the following factors: successful warfare against the Seljuk emirs of Syria in the east and Fatimid caliphs of Egypt to the south, intense construction works in Christian sacred places, the revival of pilgrimage flows, and the settlement of Catholic colonists from western Europe.Baldwin occupied the position of an unofficial leader of the Latin polities, 6 which stretched along the long coastal area from Antioch in the north to the Red Sea in the south.(Runciman 1990, 4.6-7.9-13.30.67-68.70-72.88-93.98-99.107.126.134;Riley-Smith 2005, 26.30.42-44.50-55.61.82-84.90-91.94-95.101-102.107-109;MacEvitt 2008, 5-7;Malmenvall 2019a, 236) The majority of town and countryside inhabitants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was composed of the Arabic, Syriac, or Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians, also called Melkites; 7 among the local Christian population, a significant part was constituted of »Monophysite« Eastern Christians, especially the so-called Syrian Jacobites and Armenians (MacEvitt 2008, 7-9.110). 8On the one hand, the politics of Baldwin I towards the non-Catholic Christians was defined by the awarding of higher legal status to the Latin Church and, on the other, by the tolerance towards other Christians who were allowed to keep their bishops, live by their traditions, and receive royal funds for the renovation of the old and construction of new churches.Christians to accept the union and join the Catholic Church with respect to eastern liturgical and organizational peculiarities took place,11 this cannot be stated for the period of Baldwin I. (Runciman 1990, 4.86-87.100-101;Riley-Smith 2005, 53-55.61-63.66-69.72.75.83;MacEvitt 2008, 21.134;Malmenvall 2019a, 132-133.135)The tolerance between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians was all the more obvious in the case of pilgrims who fared to Palestine from different European and Mediterranean landsin comparison to Catholics, the Eastern Christian pilgrims were not treated unequally.
The Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, Hegumen of the Land of Rus', composed in the first decade of the twelfth century, is considered the oldest and, in the following centuries, the most frequently transcribed pilgrim travel diary of the Kievan period of the East Slavic medieval culture.(Seemann 1970;VII.IX.XXXI.XLI-XLIV;Podskal'ski 1996, 318.321;Gardzaniti 2007, 274;Prohorov 2007b, 10.12) Based on a passage in the first lines of the travel diary (Prohorov 2007a, 16), it can be concluded that Daniel's travels through the Holy Land lasted sixteen months.In his Pilgrimage, Daniel never explicitly states the year of the beginning or conclusion of his journey; however, circumstantial mentions make it clear that it was made in the time of Frankish invasions into Syrian territory between 1104 and 1108, under the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin I (Ščapov 2003, 85;Prohorov 2007a, 92;Malmenvall 2019b, 716).What is known of Daniel is found only in his travel diary (Seemann 1970, VII;Garzaniti 1991, 19).
The Pilgrimage reveals only that Daniel was a hegumen of an unnamed monastery on the territory of Rus'; based on indirect references (e.g. the comparison of the river Jordan with the river Snov, the mention of Prince Oleg Sviatoslavich), it is assumed that Daniel originated from the town of Chernigov or its surroundings north-east of Kiev (Prohorov 2007a, 20.137;2009b, 10;Malmenvall 2019b, 716-717).
In the East Slavic medieval literature, works of historical character prevailed, mostly among the chronicle and hagiographic genres.Pilgrim travel diaries, which usually discuss Palestine, the monastic Mount Athos, or Constantinople, belong to the same group dedicated to historical and theological aspects of reality.(Seemann 1976, 11-13.76-77.139.144.191;Podskal'ski 1996, 318) First and foremost, Pilgrimage is the personal testimony of a writer thrilled about Palestine and simultaneously spiritually edifying reading for those who might never visit the Holy Land (Seemann 1976, 37-38.45;Podskal'ski 1996, 324;Gardzaniti 2007;323-324.327).The most space in Daniel's travel diary is dedicated to Jerusalem, the entire discussion of the Holy Land begins and ends in this place -it serves as a centre around which the entire journey revolves.The core of the Pilgrimage is composed of the precise description of sacred places, various buildings (primarily churches), and relics, accompanied by the author's first-person comments and summaries of Biblical and legendary-apocryphal tales pertaining to the described sacred places.(Seemann 1970, XII.XVIII;Garzaniti 1991, 21-24.30-31;Malmenvall 2019b, 717) When Daniel writes about the Holy Land, he states almost nothing about the life of local inhabitants, nor is he especially interested in the local socio-political situation.
It is interesting in this context that among all the inhabitants of Palestine, with the exception of King Baldwin, he never mentions anybody by name.
Daniel is primarily interested in the verbalization of his own participation in the »sacred space«, testifying to the »power of God«, which is revealed through history.In accordance with the discussed travel diary, all historical periods prove to be sacred -from the creation of the world and the first man Adam, the skull of whom, according to the Pilgrimage, lies at the foot of Golgotha (Prohorov 2007a, 30), to Daniel's contemporariness, when, according to the »grace of God«, in the name of the entire Land of Rus', he managed to place a lamp on Christ's grave (122.124).
In ) Thus, at first glance, the literal earthly testimony of bathing at the spring becomes a testimony of the »supernatural« reality, in this case, the reliving of Christ's life.When Daniel's word touches upon sacred places, earthly time loses its inevitable power, while an individual holy place retains its symbolic continuity.Hence, Daniel's testimony becomes »mobile« or reaches »beyond time« -it traverses into the past and from the past into eternity, from where it returns to its own time.Therefore, Daniel does not move only in the physical sense of the journey but also »travels« in time and touches eternity.(Malmenvall 2019b, 717-718) 2 Hegumen Daniel and the Latin »otherness« The Pilgrimage opens the topic of the relationship between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity both in the context of Frankish Palestine and Kievan Rus'.This topic is discussed primarily since the hegumen from the Orthodox Rus' was in Palestine in the time of the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem and could thus establish a relationship towards Catholicism in an environment where this was the leading social force.(Malmenvall 2019a, 242) The hegumen depicts King Baldwin I in a distinctly positive light.The latter differentiates his travel diary from the Byzantine pilgrim travel diaries, the so-called proskynitarions (προσκυνιταριον), which never have a positive attitude towards Catholics.(Garzaniti 1991, 38;Gardzaniti 2007, 321) Namely, the Pilgrimage writes that Baldwin »knew him very well« and »liked him very much« (Prohorov 2007a, 122).He is also denoted as a »virtuous man and very humble and not conceited in the least« (122).In Daniel's testimony, Baldwin's favour and virtue was most strongly expressed when he and his companions were »joyfully summoned to come along with him« to Lake Tiberias (92).Hence, the hegumen's group managed to travel through those »horrid places«, which were frequently subject to invasions of Muslim robbers and armies from Syria, »without fear and crime« with the protection of Baldwin's army (92).Safe passage to Lake Tiberias enabled Daniel and his fellow travellers to visit holy places connected to Christ's earthly life, such as Nazareth, Mount Tabor, and Cana of Galilee (9).The possibility of King Baldwin riding with his army to the Jordan just for Daniel's sake is very slim.Thus, it seems possible to connect the meeting between Daniel and the King of Jerusalem with Baldwin's campaign against Toghtekin (1104-1128), the Seljuk emir of Damascus, which was carried out in 1106.While travelling, Daniel encountered Baldwin unexpectedly during this campaign and the king took him as the ecclesiastical representative (hegumen) and pilgrim from a faraway land under his own patronage and left him at Lake Tiberias on his way to Damascus.The campaign on Damascus was soon halted due to the news of a simultaneous invasion of Fatimid troops from Egypt that occupied the town of Jaffa.(Runciman 1990, 72.88-91)The reason for the »joyful« encounter between Daniel and Baldwin could also be sought in the direction of widespread dynastic ties of the Rus' ruling family of Riurikids with Catholic magnates: the hero of the First Crusade Hugo (1057-1101) from the family of Capetians, Count of the Vermandois region in today's northern France, was the son of the French king Henry I (1031-1060) and Anna Yaroslavna, the daughter of Kievan Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise (1019-1054) (Malmenvall 2019, 245).Thus, Baldwin could have warmly greeted the ecclesiastical representative from a distant land who was nevertheless linked to his own Frankish territory.
The passage about Daniel's visit to Nazareth is written in a similar manner of mutual favour, the town where, together with his companions, he visited the remains of the house of St Joseph, Mary's husband.When the traveller describes these events, he unambiguously praises the hospitality of the Catholic community -here, he denotes it with the expression »Franks« (фрязи) -and its care for the mentioned sacred place.
And here [in Nazareth] was Joseph's house, where this holy cave lies.
[…] And here is the church, built over this holy cave, dedicated to the holy annunciation.This place was once abandoned, but now it was restored by the Franks and arranged well.And here is a Latin bishop, very rich, who rules over this holy place.And they have honoured us with delicious food and drink and everything [else].
And in this town, we spent one night.And when we had rested well and got up in the morning, we went to this church and bowed to this sacred place.(Prohorov 2007a, 116) The most apparent expression of tolerant relationships between the Catholic and Orthodox community in the Palestinian territory in the time of Daniel's journey is the testimony about the joint celebration of the Despite the joint celebration of the Easter Vigil, Daniel clearly introduces the difference between the »Latins« (латинянѣ) on the one hand, and the Orthodox, on the other, who he addresses with the term »of the true faith« (правовѣрьнии), emphasizing that true Christian faith is not (completely) preserved in the Catholic, but only in the Orthodox Church.The difference between those of »the true faith« and »Latins« is additionally supported with a remark ridiculing the singing of Catholic priests.He states that Orthodox priests and monks »sang« vespers while »Latins« at the grand altar »shrieked« (верещали).(Malmenvall 2019a, 246) The differences in the religious doctrine and practice between the Catholic and Orthodox Christians are stressed only twice in the travel diary.The first occurs in the context of the spiritual interpretation of the significance of Mount Tabor, where a hidden polemical point can be found directed against the Catholic liturgical practice.It is a criticism of the use of unleavened bread during the Eucharist, which confirms the correctness of the Orthodox practice that commands the use of leavened bread.(Gardzaniti 2007, 293;Prohorov 2007a, 112.158)Secondly, differences are emphasized in the context of the miracle with »the heavenly fire« at the Easter Vigil in the Basilica of Christ's Resurrection.Despite positive depictions of Baldwin and the Franks, Daniel makes it clear in his travel diary that for him, the Orthodox faith is the only true faith.Indeed, in his narration of the annual miracle of spontaneous lighting of the fire during the Easter Vigil in the Basilica of Christ's Resurrection, he once again praises Baldwin for letting him hang and light the lamp by the Sepulcher of God (Prohorov 2007a, 122); however, simultaneously, he stresses that he witnessed with his own eyes that Greek lamps and with them the lamp he placed there in the name of the entire Rus' were lit at the Sepulcher of Christ, while Catholic (Frankish) lamps remained extinguished (124).
According to Daniel's belief, this is the miraculous confirmation of the true faith of the Orthodox Church and the testimony of the partiality of the Catholic.Thus, the author establishes a tension between two types of defence of Christian holy sites -the direct defence of Palestine, performed by the Catholic Crusaders, and the spiritual defence of the purity of the Christian faith, performed solely by the Orthodox Church.(Malmenvall 2019a, 247) From the liturgical and simultaneously socio-political aspect, the most noticeable issue in Daniel's testimony is the supremacy of Catholic clergy in the Jerusalem Basilica.On the evening of Holy Saturday, only »Latin« priests were gathered around the main altar.The ritual at the Holy Sepulcher, during which a miracle was supposed to happen, was also performed by a »Latin« bishop, while all the events took place under the auspices of King Baldwin.In such circumstances, when the socio-political life in Palestine and church life at the holiest spot upon the main holiday were controlled by the Catholics, Daniel's testimony about the miracle of the »heavenly fire«, which happened with the lighting of three Orthodox lamps over the Holy Sepulcher -the »Greek«, Palestinian, and Rus' -gained strong symbolical meaning.(Huygens 1994, 111.136.138;Pahlitzsch 2001, 181-188;Gardzaniti 2007, 322-323) The presented terminological imprecision cannot allow for the conclusion that in everyday life the Palestinian Frankish elite was not aware of theological differences and other relationships between various Christian communities, but testifies to the fact that it did not want to accentuate such differences on the textual level and thus, in the spirit of tolerant coexistence and simultaneously maintenance of their own authority for the sake of social peace, consciously avoided direct discussion on the »true« and »heretic« Christians.(MacEvitt 2008, 101-102.105)Hegumen Daniel follows similar restraint: the Catholic-Orthodox relations do not occupy the core of his travel diary; yet when he does speak of them, he mostly portrays the Catholic side positively, even though it is simultaneously perceived as his »other«.This does not mean that Daniel, when highlighting Catholic-Orthodox relations, directly modelled any of the »Latin« sources; instead, during his pilgrimage, Daniel created an image about the complexity of confessional circumstances and internalized the atmosphere of (at least external) tolerant coexistence between Christian communities in preserving the memory

Kievan Christianity and Byzantine confessional normativity
To a considerable extent, the fond attitude towards the Catholic community, as expressed in Daniel's Pilgrimage, should not be understood as an isolated example.It is justified to compare it to the political and cultural circumstances in Rus' at the time, which conditioned the attitude of the Rus' elite towards the Catholic Church.At the end of the tenth century, Christianity was asserted among Eastern Christians as a state religion with the help of Byzantine mediation.The Kievan Metropolitanate, which included the entire territory of Rus', was subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople.According to its size and income, this metropolitan see occupied first position among all territorial units of the Church of Constantinople; the position of its metropolitan bishop was usually held by members of the highest strata of Byzantine society from the circles close to the emperor or the patriarch, which testifies to the fact that Kiev was highly significant to Constantinople.(Malmenvall 2018, 29-30;Senyk 1993, 298-301;Tachiaos 1988Tachiaos -1989, 430.432-433) , 430.432-433)Despite the subsequent general domination of the Byzantine confessional and cultural model in Rus', the members of its political elite (initially) recognized the importance of Latin ecclesiastical structures as well.During the second half of the tenth century, the East Slavic territories saw regular missions from the Archbishopric of Magdeburg (on the east of present-day Germany, established in 962) and fostered diplomatic contacts with the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, including the meeting between the emissaries of the Kievan Princess Olga (945-960) and Otto I (961-973) in 959.
Various Latin annals of the German-speaking lands written between the mid-tenth and early eleventh century testify to the fact that ecclesiastical dignitaries and rulers of the Holy Roman Empire saw the Archbishopric of Magdeburg as a missionary centre in relation to the vast Slavic territories in the east, including Rus'.(Kuznecova 2002, 44-48.53-56;Golovko 2012;Kardaš 2018) Furthermore, at the beginning of the eleventh century, the so-called »baptism of Rus'« did not bring a sudden jurisdictional shift towards the Church of Constantinople as attested by Vladimir's diplomatic

SIMON MALMENVALL
mission to the Roman Pontiff in 1000/1001 and the activity of two Latin missionary bishops, Bruno (Bonifatius) of Querfurt in Saxony with his two visits at the Kievan princely court and Reinbern of Kolobrzeg in Poland visiting Sviatopolk (died in 1019), Vladimir's son and Prince of Turov.
A stable episcopal network under the Metropolitan of Kiev within the Patriarchate of Constantinople was established not before the mid-eleventh century during the rule of Yaroslav Vladimirovich.(Kostromin 2015, 60.64.70;2013, 96-101;Nazarenko 2010, 58.61)Despite its incorporation into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Rus' territory still bordered the Catholic world in the north and west, and had been in constant contact with it since the mid-eleventh century.The Rus' declarative attitude towards Catholic Christianity was prevalently shaped by Kievan metropolitan bishops who, until the mid-thirteenth century, were almost exclusively of Greek origin and represented views and spread habits of the Constantinople Church.(Tachiaos 1988(Tachiaos -1989, 431.434.440-442) , 431.434.440-442)In their care for the preservation of the true faith, in the second half of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth century, i.e. immediately after the »great schism« between Rome and Constantinople in 1054,14 they developed a special literary genre of polemical writings against different ritual and disciplinary practices and doctrinal positions (»heresies«), asserted in the Catholic Church of the time. 15The anti-Latin polemical writings, originally composed in Greek and some of them later translated into Church Slavonic, comprise one of the socially most important legacies of Rus' literature.Their main compositional characteristic, which can be noticed in the proven to be the oldest text of this kind, i.e. the treatise of the Kievan metropolitan bishop Ephraim (around 1055-1062) composed soon after 1054, represents the content which in compilation and authorship is non-independent.(Kostromin 2013b, 5.9-10.12;Čičurov 1997) Among repeated reproaches to the »Latin« side, mainly assumed after the letters of Patriarchs Fotios (857-867, 877-886) and Michael I Keroularios (1043-1059), the following prevail: dogmatic definition of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the »Father and Son« (Filioque), celebration of the Eucharist with the correspondence between the Kievan prince Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) and Kievan metropolitan bishop Nicephorus I (1104-1121) was created.The prince asked the bishop about the content of discords causing the schism between the eastern and western Church, and the metropolitan explained the twenty »guilts« of the Catholic side.(Senyk 1993, 319;Podskal'ski 1996, 290-292) 4 Contacts with the Latin polities and interconfessional reality In the field of ecclesiastical affairs, the Kievan polity remained faithful to the Orthodox religion, while the political decisions of Rus' princes, such as entering into dynastic marriages and military alliances, indicated their pragmatic will for collaboration with Catholic states, first and foremost with neighbouring Sweden, Poland, and Hungary (Senyk 1993, 298-301.306).The absence of a centralized system of secular authority and the need for missionary strengthening of faith among the people on the solely declaratively Christianized territory brought Rus' much closer in the general social sense to the North and Central European state formations of the time than with the centralized and culturally well-developed Byzantine Empire.Hence, it is understandable that, in a certain respect, the life of the Rus' Church imitated western patterns, such as duties in the form of a tithe, which was probably assumed after the model in Poland.(Senyk 1993, 301;Malmenvall 2019b, 721-722) Furthermore, it is not possible to neglect the fact that the great majority (around three quarters) of dynastic marriages attested in the preserved historical sources, including members of the ruling Rus' family of Rurikids, between the mid-tenth and mid-twelfth century, was concluded with the Catholic polities west of the Kievan state: primarily with Poland, Hungary, and Sweden, but also with Norway, Denmark, the Holy Roman Empire, France, and England.With its diplomatic, dynastic, and military means, Rus' actively co-shaped the political image of Northern and Central Europe of the time; due to the geographic vicinity, the liveliest ties were formed between the East Slavic territory and Poland.(Raffensperger 2012, 47-48.51-53)This makes it clear that the unity in the Orthodox religion between Rus' and the Byzantine Empire was not automatically reflected in their political entanglement.This can also be explained with the Rus' princes' way of life that greatly differed from the situation in Byzantium.Members of the Byzantine imperial PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... court lived in Constantinople and only rarely embarked on travels and they were surrounded by servants and officials, while the Rus' princes enforced their rule through family members, their network of officials was poorly developed, and they were frequent travellers along with their military escort -at least until the mid-twelfth century this was also true for the polities in Northern and Central Europe.Furthermore, in the eyes of Byzantine diplomacy, dynastic ties with recently Christianized »Northerners«, which also included the East Slavic territory, were far from respected and therefore very rare.(Raffensperger 2012, 51-53;Malmenvall 2019b, 722) Based on the presented circumstances, the »anti-Latin« polemical writings should be understood not only as a learned expression of the Orthodox teaching defence but also as the consequence of disharmony between the desired and real situation, i.e. as a contradiction to a certain aspect of behaviour by the Rus' political elite who, in the opinion of the Kiev metropolitan bishops, were in danger of spiritually confessional indifference (Danilevskij 2018, 126-128;Colucci 1988Colucci -1989, 586-588), 586-588).The three examples given above, pertaining to the relationship between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, testify especially well to the fact that the secular authorities of the Rus' society functioned pragmatically and were not hindered by religious differences when entering into politically useful (dynastic) ties with Catholic monarchical families.On the basis of the fact that the ecclesiastical expectations regarding religious »purity« were not fulfilled, it can be furthermore concluded that the Orthodox Church's influence in Old Rus', despite its significant social role, was not unlimited.(Malmenvall 2019b, 723) Confessional differences after the schism between the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches in 1054 did not play a major role in the context of political and economic contacts between Rus' and other Latin lands, particularly Scandinavia (Malmenvall 2021, 102). 16In addition, an increasing majority of contemporary historians claim that the crucial turning point concerning the cultural and political tensions between the »Latin« and »Greek« Churches, along with their psychological alienation, occurred after the pillage of Constantinople in 1204 during the Forth Crusade (Hussey 1986, 136;Chadwick 2003, 277;Nyberg 1983).In this context, an interesting observation by Tatjana N. Jackson ( 2011) is worth pointing out: the religious differences between Scandinavia and Rus' were of little importance even for the Icelandic saga writers or compilers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, just as they were of little importance for the ruling dynasties in both Rus' and Scandinavian polities from the eleventh to the mid-twelfth centuries.  1and a particular Rus' liturgical source from the mid-twelfth century, found in a fifteenth-century manuscript (Lind 1990, 16-17;Jackson 2011, 166-167), conventionally called Prayer to the Holy Trinity 17 For the Rus'-Scandinavian (cultural) relations in the twelfth century, see : Lind 1990;2017.18 For a comparative overview of Olaf's cult in the medieval Eastern Orthodox Church, see: Mel'nikova 1996.In addition, Olaf himself, according to the sagas, had spent about two years of his exile, approximately between 1027 and 1029, in Rus' at the court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Skórzewska 2011, 339.344;Jackson 2011, 153-154;Jackson 2010, 153-154;Jónsson 1914, 201).(Arhangelskij 1884, 12-14).While several writings are attributed to Kiril of Turov with reasonable certainty, many more have been ascribed to him on insufficient grounds by medieval scribes and modern scholars alike.In this context, the original authorship is not important: the prayer, with its list of saints, is significant for its demonstration that a Rus' ecclesiastical writer, monk, or cleric, most probably working in the mid-twelfth century, still found it acceptable to include a number of Western saints in his litany.(Lind 1990, 19-20) Among Western saints, one can find names from the late antiquity, such as Martin and Victor, and early Roman pontiffs, such as Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and Leo; additionally, the prayer lists Western ruler saints from a relatively recent past, such as Wenceslaus I of Bohemia (921-935), Magnus, and Olaf -those names are listed alongside Rus' ruler martyrs, Boris and Gleb (died in 1015).Magnus, placed just before the Norwegian king Olaf, the most famous of the Scandinavian ruler saints, can hardly be any other than Magnus Erlendsson.(2.4-9) Consequently, the author or compiler of the above-mentioned prayer did not only include a particular Western saint, along with many other saints from the Christian West, into an Eastern ecclesiastical context, but also connected the native martyred princes Boris and Gleb with their Western counterparts, such as Wenceslaus and Magnus.By doing this, he indirectly acknowledged ruler martyrs on the periphery of Europe of the time as a special (sub) category of common Christian saints.(Malmenvall 2021, 105)

Conclusion
According to the preserved East Slavic narrative sources concerning the period after the »Great Schism« in 1054, the attitude of the elite of Old Rus' (of the Kievan period) towards Latin Christendom can be defined as ambiguous and manifold.In this context, the travel diary (Pilgrimage) on the Holy Land by Hegumen Daniel serves as a prime example of encountering confessional differences.In the traveller's perception of »otherness« two aspects stand out: a fond attitude towards King Baldwin and praise of the Frankish care for holy places.Furthermore, on one hand, the division between those »of true faith« and »Latins« is apparent, while on the other, the tolerant coexistence in the preservation of places connected to Biblical events is noticeable.The most apparent expression of tolerant relations between the Catholic and Orthodox communities in the territory of Palestine in the time of Daniel's journey is the testimony of the joint celebration of Easter in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher.Simultaneously, the hegumen's report of the lighting of the »heavenly fire« in orthodox lamps functions as a supernatural sign of the confirmation of his Church being of the true faith which is supposed to have the spiritual right to claim the protection of the Holy Sepulcher, for which, in the military sense, Latin Crusaders were responsible.
The hegumen's travel diary cannot be considered an isolated testimony, since it reflects in a unique manner the political and cultural circumstance of Rus' of the time, which conditioned the attitude of the Rus' elite towards the Catholic Church.It should be stressed that the Kievan Metropolitanate, which covered the entire territory of Rus' from the mid-eleventh century, was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and among jurisdictions of the Constantinople Church it was the first in terms of size and income.On a declarative level, the polemical writings of the Kievan metropolitan bishops testify about a negative position on the »Latin heresies«.However, common veneration of particular saints, such as Olaf of Norway or Magnus of Orkney, and decisions of the East Slavic princes confirms the permanence of intercultural contacts and pragmatic willingness to cooperate with the neighbouring Catholic polities (Sweden, Poland, Hungary) in forming military alliances.The ambiguous attitude towards the Latin variant of Christianity was also influenced by the absence of a centralized system of the secular authority and the need for missionary strengthening of faith among people in the solely declaratively Christianized area.In the general social sense, this brough Old Rus' much closer to northern and central European polities of the time than to the centralized and culturally well-developed Byzantine Empire.Hence, it becomes clear why the vast majority (about two thirds) of dynastic marriages, which -between the mid-tenth and mid-twelfth centuries -included representatives of the ruling family of Rurikids, was concluded with Catholic polities.Since the PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... expectations of the Church regarding religious »purity« were not realized, it can, among other findings, be concluded that, despite its significant social role, the Orthodox Church in Rus' did not have the unlimited influence and that the unity in the Orthodox religion between Rus' and the Byzantine Empire was not automatically reflected in their political entanglement.

9
Eastern Christians could celebrate their liturgy daily in the Jerusalem Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ, which was officially in the hands of the Catholics.The confirmation of such diversity was a novelty by the Franks.Namely, in the time of the Muslim authority, prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, only the Melkites could hold their rites in the Basilica of Christ's Resurrection, and not the Jacobites, Armenians, or Latins.Consequently, the Franks turned this church into a true meeting point of the entire Christian world -both in their attitude towards the local confessional circumstances and foreign pilgrims.(MacEvitt2008, 120; Malmenvall 2019a,  237)    10 Such disputes were the reflection of occasional interventions of Catholic political authority for the preservation of wider social peace; those never turned into systematic attacks on individual Eastern Christian communities, but solely on its (socially more significant) individuals and smaller groups.In this respect, the mainly tolerant coexistence of different confessional branches of Christian inhabitants of Palestine -with the (declaratively) superior position of Catholics -cannot be compared to legally hierarchical organization of the dhimmi, i.e., Jews and various branches of Christianity, which in the Islamic world meant precisely delimited groups of tolerated, yet legally second-class inhabitants paying higher financial duties.(MacEvitt2008, 23-25)   PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ...
9If in the later decades occasional disputes arose between Latin and Eastern Christians 10 and pressures of Catholic rulers on Eastern the Pilgrimage the tale dissolves into two chronological levels.The first level is formed of linear time, subject to the earthly laws of changing and passing.The level of linear time is, for example, reflected through mentions of looting attacks of Muslim neighbors(24.72.82.96.112.118)onpilgrims and Christian inhabitants.The second chronological level is presented by personal testimonies which emphasize the physical presence of Daniel and his companions within a certain reality of the history of salvation.Here, the following excerpt should be highlighted: »The source springs from this rock and this bath is miraculous, it appeared on its own for it was created by God.Christ himself bathed in this bath with his disciples.The spot where Christ sat on a stone is known until this day.This PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... is where us, unworthy sinners, bathed too.«(96.98 PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... greatest Christian holiday, Easter, at the commonly acknowledged holiest place, i.e., in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher, with the presence of the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin(Malmenvall 2019a, 245-246).Here, the author again emphasizes Baldwin's kindness for he let him put the lamp on God's Sepulcher and sent him to a good spot during the vigil, to one of the choir lofts right above the door to God's Sepulcher, from where he had an unobstructed view of the celebration(Prohorov 2007a, 126.128).Then I, weak and unworthy, on that [Good] Friday, at the first hour of the day, went to that Prince Baldwin and bowed before him to the ground.He saw me, the weak one, and summoned me to him with love saying: »What do you desire, the hegumen of Rus'?«For he knew me well and liked me very much, he is a virtuous man and very humble and not the least conceited.AndI replied: »My prince, my lord!I ask of you: for the sake of God and Rus' princes, allow me to place my own lamp on the holy Sepulcher in the name of the entire Land of Rus'!« […] And with my sinful hands I placed [the lamp] at the feet where the cleanest feet of our Lord Jesus Christ laid.For a Greek lamp is placed at the head, while at His chest there was a lamp of the [Laura of] saint Sabbas and all monasteries.[…]And then [at the Vigil on Saturday evening] these three lamps were lit.(122.124) (Weltecke 2020 of relations with the Catholic side, Daniel's travel diary reveals a certain characteristic that brings him closer to the writing of literary texts of the time -such as the Chronicles of the Jacobite patriarch Michael from the end of the twelfth century(Weltecke 2020) -created in the Eastern Christian (Orthodox, Jacobite, Armenian) cultural centres on the territory of Palestine and other lands of the Eastern Mediterranean under the Latin rule.The same as in these literary texts, Daniel, in his Pilgrimage, does not avoid mentioning doctrinal and liturgical differences between his own community and the ruling Catholics, and defending the orthodoxy of his side without hesitation.On the other hand, the same as in the majority of local Eastern Christian texts of the time, he does not deal with the operation of the »Latin« authorities; furthermore, he does not directly speak about socio-political relations between the Catholics and Eastern Christians (in this case the Orthodox).(MacEvitt2008,22-23;Malmenvall2019a,248)12Outsidetheconfessionalconsiderations, he even praises Baldwin's hospitality and care of the »Latin« for common holy places of Christianity.Based on everything presented here, it seems sensible to conclude the following: Daniel's personal experience, previous Rus' interactions with the Catholic Church, genre limitation of the pilgrim travel diary, and disposition of intellectuals from the ranks of Palestinian Eastern Christians towards the Latin authorities shaped the hegumen's testimony into a text, in which the Catholic community could not be presented in the negative light; nevertheless, he wrote about it as of his »other«, establishing a value difference between »us« (Orthodox, of the true faith) and »them« (Latin, non-orthodox).(Malmenvall2019a,248)TolerancetowardsCatholicsexpressed by hegumen in the Pilgrimage can be compared with the attitude towards the Orthodox and other Eastern Christians attested by the Latin texts (travel diaries, chronicles, royal and ecclesiastial charters) created in the twelfth century on the territory of the SIMON MALMENVALL Kingdom of Jerusalem.Frankish sources never explicitly denote local Eastern Christians as heretics(MacEvitt 2008, 100-112), they only emphasize linguistic differences which, from the terminological standpoint, are multilayered and ambiguous.(22)Namely,localEastern Christians are generally called Greek (Graeci), Syrians (Suriani), and Armenians (Armeni); Greeks thus signify Christians who speak or perform the liturgy in Greek, Syrians in Arabic or Syriac, and Armenians in Armenian.This division according to the linguistic key is, among others, also used by priest John of Würzburg, the author of one of the most famous Latin medieval pilgrim travel diaries (Descriptio terrae sanctae), written around 1165.From the theological point of view, the presented expressions are insufficient.The greatest unclarity is found in the expression Syriac -it denotes an Arabic or Syriac speaking Christian who could have belonged to an Orthodox (Melkite), Jacobite, or Maronite (Uniate) Church.13Similarly,Greeks could be Arabic or Syriac speaking Melkites who attended ceremonies in churches with Greek liturgical language.
The lighting of the »heavenly fire« in Orthodox lamps functions as a supernatural sign of confirmation of Orthodoxy and consequently godliness of the Orthodox Church, which -despite the Catholic political supremacy over the Holy Land -should have had a spiritual right to claim the protection of the Holy Sepulcher.(247) PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ...
PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ... of places connected to the life of Jesus Christ, which did not need clear terminological and theological delimitations.(Malmenvall2019a, 249) 13 Overviews of the ambiguity of the term Syrian in the context of the Crusades in the Eastern Mediterranean: Nasrallah 1974; Weltecke 2010; Monferrer 2013.
The only unambiguous mention of the schism of 1054 in medieval Icelandic sources is preserved in the Icelandic saga of Arni, bishop of Skálhot (1271-1298) (Árni Saga Biskups), from the late thirteenth century.This mention is set within the story of the Council of Lyon (1274), where the »Greeks« reached a temporary unification with the Catholic Church under Pope Gregory X (1271-1276).(Jakobsson2008,175)Furthermore,ontheterritory of Rus', the veneration of royal or princely Scandinavian saints, such as Olaf II of Norway (1015-1028), Canute IV of Denmark (1080-1086), and Magnus Erlendsson of Orkney (1106-1115), the latter two being ruler martyrs, was clearly present.Veneration of the Scandinavian ruler saints in Rus' presents a curious instance of Christian interaction at a time when Eastern and Western Christianity, at least in general terms, were supposed to have drifted apart.As already explained, the effects of the schism in 1054 varied from region to region, depending on the distance from and frequency of contact with its two focal points, Rome and Constantinople.(Malmenvall2021,103-104)17Inthiscontext, one can mention two interesting examples: the existence of the so-called »Varangian« or »Latin« church for the Scandinavian merchants in twelfth-century Novgorod, dedicated to Saint Olaf(Jackson 2010,  147.157-161), PILGRIMAGE AND POLEMICS: EARLY RECEPTION OF LATIN CHRISTENDOM IN KIEVAN ...(Rus.Молитва Святой Троице).19Thistext is attributed to the hieromonk, renown orator and later bishop, Kiril of Turov (1130-1182), and contains a litany of both Eastern and Western Christian saints from various historical periods -from the first decades of Christianity to the twelfth century