The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Edward Gibbon [1873]
[Footnote 56: The wars of the Russians and Greeks in the ixth, xth, and xith centuries, are related in the Byzantine annals, especially those of Zonaras and Cedrenus; and all their testimonies are collected in the Russica of Stritter, tom. ii. pars ii. p. 939 - 1044.]
[Footnote 57: Cedrenus in Compend. p. 758]
[Footnote 58: See Beauplan, (Description de l'Ukraine, p. 54 - 61: ) his descriptions are lively, his plans accurate, and except the circumstances of fire-arms, we may read old Russians for modern Cosacks.]
[Footnote 59: It is to be lamented, that Bayer has only given a Dissertation de Russorum prima Expeditione Constantinopolitana, (Comment. Academ. Petropol. tom. vi. p. 265 - 391.) After disentangling some chronological intricacies, he fixes it in the years 864 or 865, a date which might have smoothed some doubts and difficulties in the beginning of M. Leveque's history.]
[Footnote 60: When Photius wrote his encyclic epistle on the conversion of the Russians, the miracle was not yet sufficiently ripe.]
[Footnote 61: Leo Grammaticus, p. 463, 464. Constantini Continuator in Script. post Theophanem, p. 121, 122. Symeon Logothet. p. 445, 446. Georg. Monach. p. 535, 536. Cedrenus, tom. ii. p. 551. Zonaras, tom. ii. p. 162.]
[Footnote 62: See Nestor and Nicon, in Leveque'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.]
[Footnote 63: Leo Grammaticus, p. 506, 507. Incert. Contin. p. 263, 264 Symeon Logothet. p. 490, 491. Georg. Monach. p. 588, 589. Cedren tom. ii. p. 629. Zonaras, tom. ii. p. 190, 191, and Liutprand, l. v. c. 6, who writes from the narratives of his father-in-law, then ambassador at Constantinople, and corrects the vain exaggeration of the Greeks.]
[Footnote 64: I can only appeal to Cedrenus (tom. ii. p. 758, 759) and Zonaras, (tom. ii. p. 253, 254;) but they grow more weighty and credible as they draw near to their own times.]
Yet the threats or calamities of a Russian war were more frequently diverted by treaty than by arms. In these naval hostilities, every disadvantage was on the side of the Greeks; their savage enemy afforded no mercy: his poverty promised no spoil; his impenetrable retreat deprived the conqueror of the hopes of revenge; and the pride or weakness of empire indulged an opinion, that no honor could be gained or lost in the intercourse with Barbarians. At first their demands were high and inadmissible, three pounds of gold for each soldier or mariner of the fleet: the Russian youth adhered to the design of conquest and glory; but the counsels of moderation were recommended by the hoary sages. "Be content," they said, "with the liberal offers of Caesar; it is not far better to obtain without a combat the possession of gold, silver, silks, and all the objects