OF THE EOMAN EMPIRE 155 first enterpi'ise "^ under the prince of Kiow, they passed without opposition, and occupied the port of Constantinople in the ab- sence of the emperor Michael, the son of Theophilus. Through [Michael m.] a crowd of perils he landed at the palace stairs, and immediately repaired to a church of the Virgin Mary."^ By the advice of the patriarch, her garment, a precious relic, was dra^ni from the sanctuary and dipped in the sea ; and a seasonable tempest, which determined the retreat of the Russians, was devoutly ascribed to the Mother of God.'" The silence of the Greeks The serond. may inspire some doubt of the truth, or at least of the impor- {.^vn tance, of the second attempt of Oleg, the guardian of the sons of Ruric.'" A strong bai-rier of arms and fortifications defended the Bosphorus : they were eluded by the usual expedient of drawing the boats over the isthmus ; and this simple operation is described in the national chronicles as if the Russian fieet had sailed over dry land with a brisk and favourable gale. Theiiiet^i "i* It is to be lamented that Bayer has only given a Dissertation de Russonim prim,} Expeditione Constantinopolitana (Comment. Academ. Petropol. torn. vi. p. 365-391). After disentangling some chronological intricacies, he tixes it in the years 864 or 865. a date which might have smoothed some doubts and difficulties in the beginning of M. Levesque's history. [The true date of the Russian attack on Con- stantmople is given in a short Chronicle tirst printed by F. Cumont in " Anecdota Bruxellensia I. Chroniques quelques byzantines du Nlscr. 11376" ; and has been established demonstratively by C. de Boor(Byz. Zeitsch. iv. p. 445 sc/,^.). It is Jime 18, 860 ; the old date 865 or 866 was derived from the Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon (p. 674, ed. Bonn : cp. above, vol. 5, p. 503) ; but it has been proved by Hirsch that the dates of this chronicle had no authoritv. The same source which gives the right date asserts that the Russians were defeated and annihilated (ij^aiio-eTjcrai) by the Christians with the help of the Virgin. It seems certain that they experienced a severe defeat <7/?t'/- their retreat from the walls. Two homilies delivered by Photius on the occasion of this attack were published by Xauck in 1867 and again by C. Miiller in Frag. Hist. Graec. v. 2, p. 162 sqq. The first was spoken in the moment of terror before the Emperor's arrival ; the second after the rescue. But the second makes no mention of the destruction of the hostile armament ; hence de Boor shows that it must have been delivered immediately after the relief of the barbarians from the walls, but before their destruction. Another contemporary notice of the event is found in the life of Ignatius by Nicetas(see above, vol. 5, p. 502), Migne, P. G. 105, p. 512. The chronicle of Nestor makes Oskold and Dir (see above, note 60) the leaders of the expedition. ] "* When Photius wrote his encyclic epistle on the conversion of the Russians, the miracle was not yet sufficiently ripe ; he reproaches the nation as ei? lino-nira ical moK^oi'iac [n-ai'TosJ fieurepovs Ta.TT6i±evov. [See Photii Epistolae, ed. Valettas, p. 178.] ™ Leo Grammaticus, p. 463, 464 [p. 241, ed. B.]. Constantini Continuator, in Script, post Theophaneni, p. 121, 122 [p. 196-7, ed. B.]. Simeon Logothet. p. 445, 446 [p. 674-5, ^'^- B.]. Georg. Monach. p. 535, 536 [826, ed. B.]. Cedrenus, tom. • P- 551 ["• 173. ed. B.]. Zonaras, tom. ii. p. 162 [xvi. 5]. " See Nestor [c. 21] and Nicon, in Levesque's Hist, de Russie, tom. i. p. 74-80. Katona (Hist. Ducum, p. 75-79) uses his advantage to disprove this Russian victory, which would cloud the siege of Kiow by the Hungarians.
