Section 08: Veneration

The section treating Vladimir’s emergence as a saint — the title Equal-to-the-Apostles, the comparison to Constantine that shaped his cult, and the curiously slow path by which the baptizer of Rus’ came to be formally venerated. Unlike his martyred sons Boris and Gleb, who were canonized within two generations, Vladimir’s cult took shape gradually, firming only in the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries; the section sets out why, and traces the fate of his relics from the Church of the Tithes through the Mongol destruction of 1240 to Peter Mohyla’s rediscovery in 1635.

Tradition: Russian Orthodox (Equal-to-the-Apostles)

Contents

File Topic
The New Constantine The title Equal-to-the-Apostles (ravnoapostol’ny); the Chronicle’s and Hilarion’s comparison of Vladimir to Constantine the Great (“the new Constantine”); the slow canonization — why the baptizer of Rus’ was not glorified at once; the obstacles (no incorrupt relics, no early miracles); the firming of the cult in the later 13th–early 14th century and the traditional link to Alexander Nevsky’s victory at the Neva on 15 July 1240; the feast, July 15
Relics and Cult The burial in the Church of the Tithes; the Mongol destruction of the church in 1240 and the burial of the tomb in rubble; Peter Mohyla’s rediscovery of relics in 1635 and the dispersal of skull and hand to the Kiev Caves Lavra, St. Sophia, and Moscow; the modern questioning of the 1635 identification; the iconography and the spread of the cult

How to Use

  • Read The New Constantine for the title, the Constantinian typology, and the central puzzle of the slow canonization.
  • Read Relics and Cult for the material afterlife of the saint — the tomb, its destruction, its rediscovery, and the contested authenticity of his relics.

A Note on Sources

The slow formation of Vladimir’s cult is, unusually, attested within the primary sources themselves: the Chronicle’s own obituary of 1015 laments that the Rus’ had not yet rendered Vladimir the honor his work deserved. The dating of the firm establishment of the cult is debated; following methodology §3, the named scholarly positions are given. The rediscovery and identification of relics in 1635 is reported with the modern scholarly doubts attached, per §3.5.

Cross-References