Long before Prince Volodymyr, considered by the Eastern Orthodox Church as the first baptizer of Rus’, Christianity was embraced by Prince Askold who, together with his brother Dir, ruled Kyiv in 860-880 AD.
Little is known about his effort to convert Rus in the new faith. All we know from the chronicles is that he built a church behind the city wall, where the Askold Grave is now located. It was named for St. Nicholas. At the time, princes traditionally named temples for their patron saints, so the great Russian historian Vassily Tatishchev assumed that Prince Askold was baptized under the name of Nicholas (Mykola), which is presently accepted by most historians. Yet the prince’s Christian name brings forth one of the most thrilling mysteries of Christianity in Rus’.
In keeping with church tradition, the name given at baptism originally belonged to the godfather. Naturally, Prince Askold’s godfather had to have royal blood or be a ranking clergyman, because in his case the prestige of a state was involved. The same happened when baptizing Boris I, khan of Bulgaria. He agreed to convert on condition that his godfather be Byzantine Emperor Michael III, albeit in absentia. And so the Bulgarian khan received the Christian name of Michael (Mikhail). Likewise, Prince Volodymyr chose Byzantine Emperor Basil II as his godfather and was given his name. Eventually, he built a church and named it for St. Basil — another tribute to tradition.
So who could have been Prince Askold’s godfather? Nicholas who? The political situation was unique: the ruler of Rus embracing Christianity for the first time. Assuming that Prince Askold was baptized by the Greeks, traditionally during one of the campaigns against Byzantium, then who was his godfather by the name of Nicholas? An analysis shows that no one under this name ruled or occupied any significant political or religious posts in the Byzantine Empire at the time.
But there was Roman Pope Nicholas I (also known as Nicholas the Great). A coincidence? Hardly likely. The Roman Pope was known for active Christianization among the Slavs and he gave his blessing to the missionary endeavors of Cyril and Methodius, as well as for their Slavonic translations of the Holy Bible.
To this end another mystery is worthy of notice, also having to do with Prince Askold’s baptism. It is traditionally believed that Rus’ was baptized under Prince Volodymyr, ten centuries ago. The Orthodox Church celebrated the millenary jubilee not so long ago. But why not count the years of Christianity from the baptism of Prince Askold? This would seem to add to the prestige of the Church of Rus’, because this way Christianity in Rus’ would be a century older. Naturally, the fact of Prince Askold’s baptism is mentioned in our historical sources, but only fleetingly, while full credit for baptism is given Prince Volodymyr.
Quite a few historians believe that a mystery is involved. The only logical assumption is that while Prince Volodymyr received baptism from Constantinople, Prince Askold did from Rome. If so, Askold’s baptism is no credit to the Eastern Orthodox Church and this fully explains the biased approach. It must have been on Greek instructions that Rome’s priority in the baptism of Rus’ was made obscure by bringing to the fore stories about Volodymyr’s conversion at Constantinople.
Some may object, of course, that the Great Schism took place later, 65 years after Prince Volodymyr’s baptism. In reality, it was the final split of the ecumenical Church, while the first rift occurred precisely at the time of Prince Askold when Nicholas I was the Primate of Rome and Patriarch Photius (ranking with the most learned figures of the Eastern Orthodox Church) reigned in Constantinople. He was the first to clearly define the dogmatic differences between the Eastern and Roman Churches which have survived to this day, along with a struggle, albeit muted of late, for dominance. In fact, Constantinople and Rome also competed for primacy in the conversion of Slavs.
Without doubt, due to this struggle each of the Churches tried to belittle or hush up the attainments of the other, especially when their paths crossed. The same must have been the case with the baptism of Prince Askold, and by extension with the introduction of Christianity in Kyiv Rus’. Yet who did baptize the first ruler of Rus’, where, and when? A key to this mystery seems to consist in Askold’s Christian name. And there is an interesting entry in a chronicle: “And so Askold went to fight the Bulgars and it was then that his son was killed.” Another chronicle mentions Prince Dir and that the two brothers fought not the Bulgars but Greeks. This is not a discrepancy, because Slavic chroniclers used the word Greeks to denote Christian peoples adhering to the Greek rite. In other words, the Kyiv princes fought the baptized Bulgars. It is logical to wonder if their campaign had anything to do with dramatic events in Bulgaria, following the introduction of Christianity.
Boris I, khan of Bulgaria, had long sought to convert his country, but there was strong opposition from a hundred “purebred” Bulgarian families that had come to the Balkans with Khan Asparukh and who were appalled at the idea of assimilating with the local Slavs after converting to their faith. But circumstances — defeat in the war against the Greeks and Franks, famine caused by an unheard-of drought, and a 40-day earthquake — dictated otherwise and in 863 Bulgaria received baptism from Constantinople. The following year, however, the opposition rebelled. The battle-hardened and resolute Khan Boris-Mikhail crushed it quickly and ruthlessly, uprooting 52 old boyar families, but the heathens were not broken and subsequent rebellions were practically continuous.
Without doubt, the anti-Christian opposition sought and found assistance from other pagan states, among them Rus’ which, several years before 860, had made its name internationally by a daring and devastating campaign against Constantinople. Perhaps the line in our chronicle, “Askold and Dir went against the Bulgars...,” refers to the Rus’ princes’ reply to the proposition of war against the Christians. The chronicler specifies when: the summer of 867.
Despite help from allies, the Bulgarian pagans suffered another defeat. Moreover, Prince Askold lost his son in the war, although it is not likely that the Rus’ host was destroyed. More likely, Bulgarian Prince Boris made peace with Rus’, and in all likelihood the peace pact had a clause about the Rus’ prince, perhaps together with his men, converting to the new faith, already established in Bulgaria. This way the threat of Rus’ subsequently siding with the Bulgarian infidels would be effectively eliminated.
Thus Prince Askold could have been baptized in Bulgaria, during the abortive campaign of 867. This gives rise to yet another interesting hypothesis, prompted by Prince Askold’s Christian name. Traditionally in the period, one of royal blood could have the Roman Pope as one’s godfather. It stands to logic that in Askold’s case it was Nicholas I, primarily because in 867 in Bulgaria Prince Askold could have been baptized only by a Roman Catholic clergyman.
It appears that in 866, Khan Boris, chagrined by Constantinople Patriarch Photius’s refusal to ordain an independent archbishop for Bulgaria, ordered all Greek clergy deported and turned to Rome. In the spring of that same year, Pope Nicholas I sent a mission to Bulgaria, led by Cardinal Bishop Formosus of Porto who baptized the Bulgars anew.
Granting this hypothesis about the baptism of the first Rus’ ruler, the baptism must have been performed by Cardinal Bishop Formosus. Of course, Prince Askold could have stipulated that his godfather be the Roman Pope, St. Nicholas I. Askold was a proud man and would not have been content with a lesser rank for his godfather than that of the Bulgarian tsar.
On return to Kyiv, Prince Askold tried to introduce Christianity in Rus’, but made little headway. Even worse, the local pagans summoned Prince Oleg from Novgorod and 882 saw a bloody coup killing both brothers, Askold and Dir.
In sum, it should be noted that of the two brothers only Askold must have embraced Christianity, with Dir remaining pagan. This assumption is supported by the fact that the brothers were buried separately. Askold, as a Christian, was buried on the grounds of the church he had built (and this would become a tradition with Rus’ princes). Dir, as a heathen, was buried according to old Rus’ ritual, most likely burned and the urn with the ashes was then conferred to the earth. Nestor the Chronicler writes that Dir’s grave was somewhere behind the Church of St. Irene.
Perhaps further historical research will shed more light on that distant past and the relationships between Kyivan princes, Bulgaria, and the Roman Catholic Church.
