HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF RUS' IN SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY 455sources that are no longer extant. If their testimony agrees with that of thechronicle, then Bakhrushin argues they were unduly influenced by thechronicle account.Such an assessment of the main indigenous Rus' sources by a historianin the Soviet Union is remarkable in terms of its coming at a timewhen a resurgence of Russian nationalism was occurring. This nationalresurgence helps to explain the government's issuing decrees encouragingthe study of the religious past. Bakhrushin's article was easily the mostimportant article on the conversion to result from that national resurgence.Especially noteworthy is the fact that it appears in the journal Istorik-Marksist, which would seem to indicate that it had official approval. Yet,not only is Bakhrushin dismissing the main indigenous sources as unreliableand as literary constructs, but he also points to foreign sources, such asGreek, Arabic, and Armenian, as being "very important for us" and asmore reliable for understanding the Christianization process. One ofTikhomirov's criticisms of non-Soviet scholars was their "almost totalrejection of Russian sources" (see above). Thus, Tikhomirov's criticismmay also be an implicit criticism of this same rejection of the indigenoussources by Bakhrushin.Like Bakhrushin, Budovnits is circumspect about accepting the testimonyof the sources. He points out that when the chronicle compilationswere being made in the 1030s and 1040s, Christianity had already beenestablished for some time in Rus'. This means that for Budovnits Christianideology had taken over the consciousness of the feudal class as well as thatof the Church hierarchy, which acted as a transmission belt for the rulingclass. 41 Budovnits discerns a number of legends about missionary activity inthe chronicles. Furthermore, he sees as unreliable the testimony of ConstantinePorphyrogenitus, who describes the baptism of Rus' during thereign of Basil the Macedonian and the partriarchate of Ignatius: "in it, it isdifficult to discover even a kernel of truth." 42 Also like Bakhrushin, Budovnitstends to accept non-Rus' sources as being more reliable than the Rus'sources. Budovnits treats the Encyclical of 867 by Patriarch Photius abouta Rus' bishop in 860 as reliable, arguing that it is "hardly likely that Photiuswould make up such an episode in an official document." 43 But thisconclusion hides an assumption that the letter both is official and is what itpurports to be, that is, not deceptive, either genuinely or apparently so.Although Budovnits cites Arabic sources that testify to Christianity among414243"K voprosu," p. 402; "Kreshchenie," p. 75."K voprosu," p. 409; "Kreshchenie," p. 81."K voprosu," p. 409; "Kreshchenie," p. 81.