The Nature and the Image of Princely Power in Kievan Rus’, 980–1054 by Walter K. Hanak (review)

This book is an updated and published version of Walter Hanak’s 1973 Indiana University doctoral thesis, “The Nature and Image of Grand Princely Power in Kievan Russia: 980–1054.” Hanak’s goal is to examine what the sources say about royal power in Kievan Rus’. The lands upon which Vladimir I (r. 980–1015) and Jaroslav (r. 1019–1054) reigned were subject to a variety of influences, notably from the existing Slavic structures conquered by the Riurikid dynasty, the Scandinavian Varangians who travelled down the rivers and established themselves in Kiev and other centers, the decrepit but still powerful Jewish Khazar state, and the ideological lure of Byzantium (and consequently, Christianity) to the south. Hanak is not attempting to argue that a certain influence prevailed over the others, but rather to examine their variety, how they appear in the sources, and how to attempt to interpret them. Thus this book is heavily concerned with a close reading of the so-called Russian Primary Chronicle, abbreviated as PVL in Slavonic characters throughout, although other material receives examination as well.

The first chapter lays some of the groundwork for understanding Vladimir’s reign and is primarily concerned with Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity and how this introduced a new way of writing about princely power. Hanak convincingly argues that the Russian Primary Chronicle presents Vladimir as a new Solomon, drawing a long list of similarities between the Rus’ prince and the Old Testament king. Later, he notes that the Chronicle is occasionally problematic in following the Old Testament stories, indicating that Christianity was not the only lens through which legitimacy and power could be viewed in Kievan Rus’. While Jaroslav’s reign did not precisely follow the model Old Testament story of the Divided Kingdom after Solomon’s death, he proved his worth fighting the Pechenegs, a more traditionally Varangian exercise of his power.

The second chapter is concerned with the influence of Byzantine conceptions of power. Much of this chapter deals with law and the relationship of the prince to the clergy, the latter complicated by unclear relations with Byzantium and the degree to which Kiev was falling under the influence of Constantinople. Hanak argues that the Byzantinization of the Kievan royal office was uneven, and that while it provided material for the formulation of the office, Rus’ fears of being culturally and religiously enveloped by Constantinople caused them to maintain some distance.

The next three chapters, altogether shorter than chapter 1 alone, discuss Varangian, Khazar, and Slavic influences on Kievan imperial representation. Hanak argues for a strong but receding Varangian influence that is well-disguised by sources that preferred to see Byzantine or Old Testament precedents rather than Scandinavian. The establishment of a centralized state in Kiev by Vladimir, however, led to a decline in Varangian customs in the attempt to keep the state together. This is a particularly useful chapter since Hanak manages to bring many subtle influences of Nordic practice to light. The following chapter on Khazar ideas is accurately titled “The Khazars in the Shadows of Kievan Political Thought,” and one needs to emphasize just how “shadowy” those influences are. Hanak brings up a few examples of dual kingship and discusses the term “khagan” since it was applied to both Vladimir and Jaroslav. This chapter is brief and shows that while some Khazar influences were probably present, their traces in the sources are very limited. The final chapter is on how existing Slavic organizations affected Kievan kingship. The princes, military commanders, and the urban popular assemblies are identified by Hanak as the primary Slavic institutions that had a voice in kingship. Ultimately, none seem to have had a major role, although the Kievan Rus’ had to expend some effort to marginalize them.

The problems with this book are very minor. A small selection of typos can be found throughout. Although few, these errors should not have survived Brill’s editorial process...