THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER discussed the need for establishing a common ground between the “parallel universes” that are the historiographies of Rus and Latin Europe and some of the many challenges of this task. This chapter will explore the possibilities offered by an engagement with the two historiographic traditions for a better understanding of the interplay between medieval sources and modern interpretative frameworks. If “debates about the relationship between modern interpretations of the Middle Ages and the reality they claim to represent are, implicitly, debates about the protocols we employ when reading medieval texts,” then looking simultaneously at two sets of medieval texts and two different protocols may bring implicit assumptions to light. Making protocols explicit would, in turn, help to reveal circular reasoning which occurs when historians read their sources “in light of protocols that exclude elements outside of their ‘professional belief system’,” and then use such readings to reinforce their beliefs. A question of kingship in Rus and Latin Europe is a case in point.

The discussion of relations between the Kievan and regional princes in the previous chapter presents something like a mirror image of recent discussions of relations between the king and aristocracy among Western medievalists. In Rus scholarship, the general assumption is that major princes were equals, and that since the second quarter of the twelfth century at the latest the Kievan prince was just one regional prince among many. The first chapter of this book argued that he was a regional prince— but not just a regional prince, that he was part of a network of interprincely relations— but also occupied a special position above regional princes, that he advanced his family interests— but was also responsible for the safety and well-being of the realm. In short, he was not just a regional prince, but also a ruler; all princes, although closely connected, were not equal.

What differentiates this argument from scholarly representations of the relations between the king and magnates in the medieval West is the position of “but” and “although.” Western medievalists argue that the king and magnates, although not equal, were closely connected, that the king was responsible for the safety and well-being of the realm, but that he also advanced his family interests, that he was a supreme ruler, but also a territorial magnate.