Talk:Calling of the Varangians

Thanks!

I'd just like to thank Nederlandse Leeuw for creating this page. I think it was sorely needed. I've been editing the pages on Kievan Rus' and Rus' people for several years, unfortunately mostly trying to tamp down the edit wars over 'Kyivan' vs. 'Kievan'. An article focusing on the origins and sources for the legend of the Varangians in the Rus' may help educate open-minded people on what we know about those times. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paulmlieberman You're welcome! I've been meaning to write this article for some time, mostly because I was frustrated at having to read countless articles citing passages from the Laurentian Codex as if it contains absolute and unassailable truth. As scholars need to point out time and again, there are lots of different versions of the same story that tell it differently, and there are internal contradictions and problems as well. Moreover, the reasons behind the writing, editing, changing and eventual political exploitation of these narratives by later figures was also worth a critical analysis. I couldn't really do that justice other than to give it its own article.

It's still a little weak on the textual criticism, that requires a more expert look by someone who can read Old East Slavic / Church Slavonic better than I. Especially interesting to me is the fact that in Names of Rusʹ, Russia and Ruthenia, someone pointed out that the Synod Scroll of the Novgorod First Chronicle, which is partly based on the original list of the late 11th Century and partly on the Primary Chronicle, does not name the Varangians asked by the Chuds, Slavs and Krivichs to reign their obstreperous lands as the "Rus'". One can assume that there was no original mention of the Varangians as the Rus' due to the old list predating the Primary Chronicle... This is probably true, my horizontal textual analysis overview shows that Synod Scroll does not mention any Rus' in They went over the sea to the Varangians, even though this is present in all later traditions. But we need RS to confirm that, we cannot just go by the primary sources.

There are some other things that the analysis shows quite clearly. Some scribal errors cause the гъте (Gote, Goths) to become the Кте (Kte, no longer a recognisable ethnonym). Safe to say that the Pskov Third Chronicle is relatively late, considering its relatively modern spelling, and the interpolation of Ryurik and Igor' going to... Pskov... of all places, is beyond a little suspicious. The Pskov editor couldn't resist the temptation of adding a story in which the heroes of yore visited his hometown. The rather random mention of And the reign of Michael the Greek tsar and his mother Theodora the queen, who both preached icon worship should probably be connected to an earlier tradition found in the Sofia First Chronicle: At this Michael's reign, they sent across the sea.... Somehow that indication of time (for chronological purposes) got mixed up with the earlier episode of the peoples fighting and being "unrighteouss" after expelling the Varangians. Apparently the Pskov editor thought he might as well mention that the Byzantine emperor and his mum were also "unrighteous" at the time (for ethical purposes).

PS: Oh yes, the Kyiv/Kiev editwars are also pretty tedious. Someone should create a List of Kiev–Kyiv editwars in a humour section outside the mainspace. I could use a good laugh after my apparently successful efforts of WP:BOLDly creating a List of wars involving Kievan Rus' that people had been arguing over for months, perhaps years. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Textual variants

At Talk:Kievan Rus'#Novgorod, someone pointed out that the phrase "the district of Novgorod" cannot really be found in the Laurentian Codex (Lav.), even though the widely-used English translation by Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor 1930 does.

• Primary Chronicle - Laurentian Codex under the years 6368–6370 (860–862) (page 6 and 7) (English translation by Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor 1930, slightly edited in 2013, available at the Electronic Library of Ukrainian Literature of the University of Toronto.):
• On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.

Laurentian Codex л. 7 - л. 7 об. (original text as readable online):

• От техъ прозвася Руская зем ля, новугородьци, ти суть людье ноугородьци от рода варяжьска. Преже бо беша словени.

I suppose the word "district" cannot be found in the original text. At the first instance, Cross & SW translated новугородьци as "the district of Novgorod", but at second instance, they translated almost the exact same phrase людье ноугородьци as "the people of Novgorod". I'm not sure if the suffix -ци has any special meaning in Old East Slavic? It doesn't seem part of the noun wikt:ru:городъ#Древнерусский itself. Does it indicate a demonym? Then it is better translated as "Novgorodians". That still doesn't make grammatical sense though. Apart from the Laurentian Codex, nobody else uses "Novgorod" twice in this episode. See Calling of the Varangians#Text. This could be a scribal error. Quite interesting. I should look at other translations of Lav. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've stumbled upon some other documents that are worth examining:

• Inés García de la Puente, "Beyond the Sea: On the Use of за море in the Primary Chronicle". Ruthenica. 16. 28–36. 2022.
• Horace G. Lunt, On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037. The Slavic and East European Journal. Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 251–264. (Not directly relevant to the calling of the Varangians, but interesting for textual criticism in general).

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Blimey! I think I've found the perfect tool: http://pvl.obdurodon.org/pvl.html. The e-PVL.

Complete digitisation of the oldest versions of the Lav. (Laurentian) Tro. (?), Rad. (Radzwill), Aka (Academic), Ipa (Hypatian), Xle (Xlebnikov), Byč (Bychowiec Chronicle?), Šax (Shakhmatov), Lix (Likhachev), α (Donald Ostrowski). The implications of this are pretty big. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It says "from those the Rus[sian] land was named" i.e. the Rus Varangians gave the name to the region. Novgorodians refers to something else. Mellk (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk Thanks! I will get back to this issue later. It really helps to have a native Russian (or Belarusian or Ukrainian) speaker in the room. This has just gotten a lot more interesting. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

20:8 to 20:10 contain the relevant passage. 20:8–20:9:

• Lav ѿ тѣхъ прозвасѧ рускаꙗ зе|млѧ новугородьци ти суть людье нооугородьци
• Tro и отъ тѣхъ прозвася русьская земля а новгородци
• Rad и ѡ тѣх вѧрѧгъ. прозвасѧ роускаа землѧ новгород тїи сѹт люде новгородци
• Aka и ѿ тѣх варѧгъ прозвасѧ русскаꙗ землѧ. новгород. | тїи сѹть людїе новогородци
• Ipa и ѿ | тѣхъ варѧгъ. прозва|сѧ рускаꙗ землѧ.
• Xle и ѿ тѣх варѧгь прозвасѧ роускаа землѧ.
• Byč И отъ тѣхъ Варягъ прозвася Руская земля, Новугородьци, ти суть людье Новогородьци
• Šax И отъ тѣхъ Варягъ прозъвася Русьская земля, Новъгородъ, ти суть людие Новъгородьстии
• Lix И от тѣхъ варягъ прозвася руская земля, новугородьци, ти суть людье Ноугородьци
• α И отъ тѣхъ Варягъ прозъва ся Русьская земля.

It's a textual variant! The original text probably didn't say "Novygorod'tsi", (it's also not mentioned in the Novgorod First Chronicle, which you wouldn't expect to leave out such a passage about the city where that chronicle was written), so it's probably a later interpolation. A pretty important one, I might add. If Русьская земля did not apply to "(the district of) Novgorod" at all, then there is no special connection between Novgorod and that term. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? And from what I can see, it is used in a broad sense. Mellk (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with textual criticism and Interpolation (manuscripts)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think I know what you mean by textual variants. But I was not sure what you were referring to in general. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to an ongoing exchange at Talk:Kievan Rus'#Novgorod, as well as indirectly to a related discussion at Talk:Garðaríki. In the first, an (apparently pro-Ukrainian) person is asserting Novgorod has never been part of the Rus' land. In the second, an (apparently pro-Russian) person is asserting that Novgorod has always been the capital or royal residence of (Kievan) Rus' or Garðaríki or Hólmgarðaríki.

I'm trying to remain objective, and follow what the most reliable sources are saying. I'm always open to changing my mind if I'm presented with better evidence. One of the sources I was relying on (Cross & SW) turned out to be not as reliable as I thought when it comes to this crucial passage in which Novgorod may or may not be identified with Rus'. Upon reflection, it probably does not. It's significant, but it doesn't yet explain everything. There is a lot more to this before we can draw conclusions too hastily. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think your response now in Talk:Kievan Rus'#Novgorod is about right, that is, the definition varied over time with different interpretations. Mellk (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw do you happen to know of a modern online English translation of the Laurentian Codex and other early Rus' chronicles? Cross & SW is clearly not as adequate as I thought for quotations, but we do need a reliable translation of these chronicles if we want to quote them in English. I made a lot of these translations myself, but I'm not a Church Slavonic scholar, nor a native speaker of any East Slavic language. I'm trained as a historian and am experienced with textual criticism, but I'm not a Slavic linguist. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other major translation, unfortunately. There seem to be partial ones e.g.[1] but not sure how good these are. Mellk (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a good one. I'll examine it further tomorrow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the others I will take a look later. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Also what do secondary sources say? I think there were times of a broad meaning and a more limited definition. But what the IP is saying is irrelevant anyway, since it is not about usage in historiography (which has a broad meaning). Mellk (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Nasonov, Plokhy, Halperin and others (I think Rybakov?) have said that the term Rus' has a narrow meaning and a broader meaning, and that at times these existed simultaneously. (This is something I still need to read into further.)

Yes, unfortunately what the IP address is saying is largely irrelevant. They appear to be politically motivated to claim that Rus' can only mean Kyiv and the surrounding Middle Dnipro region. (I was therefore not surprised to find that the IP address is traceable to Kyiv. They're arguing from the POV of their hometown / current residence. Understandable, especially with the current situation in the real world, but difficult to reconcile with WP:NPOV.)

Conversely, the user who argued with me about Hólmgarðr definitely being the residence of the konungr of Garðaríki appears to be living in the Novgorod area, and has a similar hometown POV that, surely, Novgorod has always been "the capital of Rus'". Sometimes you'll learn something useful from such people. Both of them could teach me things I never knew. But neither of them is showing much willingness to learn something themselves. They just want to convince others of their own "truth"... Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I should add that the latter does seem to be quite knowledgeable about Old Norse literature, and does play by Wikipedia's rules. I've suggested a new article we might write together about it.

On the other hand, I've told the IP address I'm no longer interested in talking to them, because it's pointless. They're just preaching the Laurentian Codex to me as if it is gospel truth. The fact that they indirectly spotted an error in Cross & SW's translation (which also turned out to be a textual variant) is just a coincidence; they're not trained to examine these texts as a historian (as I am) or linguist. So yes, what the IP address is saying is just irrelevant now, someone on the Internet with an opinion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Rus' chronicle#Separate article for Textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles? Separate list of Rus' chronicles/manuscripts? I have suggested to create a new article on textual criticism and variants in general. You might want to give it a look. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ruriks

primary sources before the 15th century appeared to be completely unaware of Rurik's existence. @Nederlandse Leeuw, this phrase is based on a reliable source, but I don't think it's mainstream. Rurik is mentioned in the Laurentian Codex of the 14th century. In addition, the mainstream is the opinion that the text of the legend about calling of the Varangians goes back to the Primary Chronicle and NPL, the first versions of which were written in the 11th century. But, it is true that the 11th century is the border, before which Rurik is unknown in the sources (unlike Oleg and Igor). And it is true that the term Rurik dynasty is a late one. However, there are some indirect hints that the princes of Rus' had an idea of ​​​​descent from Rurik already in the early period. There were two more Ruriks, they were real princes: Rurik of the 11th century and Rurik of the 12th/13th centuries. Fyodor Uspensky (linguist) and some other researchers studied the dynastic names of the princes of Rus'. According to these studies, there was a complex system according to which the name was given. The name could be given in honor of the famous ancestor, and information about the ancestors was transmitted in oral dynastic legends. That is, the parents of Ruriks of the 11th and 12th centuries could not take the name from the chronicle. At least they believed that Rurik was their glorious ancestor (or one of their ancestors). Nikolay Omonov (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov You've got a point. Perhaps the sentence requires more nuance. The most relevant quote from Ostrowski supporting this statement is found on p. 31: The historiography accepts that early Rus’ kniazi were operating within a framework of being part of a dynasty founded by the Viking Riurik while the primary sources before the fifteenth century seem to be completely unaware of or, at the very least, unconcerned that Riurik did so. Sources earlier than 1377 do not mention "Rurik" at all. The Laurentian Codex of 1377 is a slight exception to this because it does mention Rurik, but not as any clear and unambiguous sort of founder of a dynasty. If anything, Lav. uses multiple ways of marking Oleg the Wise as thr first prince of Rus', sitting (on his throne) in Kiev, and Igor as the first prince of a dynasty. The Hypatian Codex of c. 1425 is the first to explicitly list Rurik at the top. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I have to correct myself, because even the Hypatian Codex does not list Rurik at the top, but starts its regnal list of princes of Kiev with "Dir and Askold" (Ostrowski 2018 p. 36):

At the beginning of the Hypatian Codex, which dates to 1425, is a list of rulers (князи) of Kiev up to its capture by Batu in 1240. This list precedes the Hypatian copy of the PVL. It begins with “Dir and Askold” and moves immediately to Oleg and then Igor’.[31] No attempt is made by the list maker to connect the rulers to each other by genealogy. The absence of Riurik can be explained by the fact the Riurik is not recorded as ever having ruled in Kiev. Nonetheless, this list provides a sharp contrast to lists that began to appear about 25 years later. At the beginning of the Archaeographic Commission copy of the PVL, which dates to the middle of the fifteenth century, two genealogies and a chronological list of Rus’ rulers appear. All three of them begin with Riurik. The fact that neither Lav. nor Ipat. do what these later genealogies and chronologies do suggests that they did not assign the role of "founder" to Rurik, even if they do mention him elsewhere as Igor's father. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oleg is called the first prince of the dynasty in Kyiv, because according to the PVL, Rurik ruled in the northern territories (possibly Ladoga). If I'm not mistaken, the Laurentian Codex also calls Igor the son of Rurik, like other chronicles. At the beginning of the Primary Chronicle, the question is asked: where did Rus' (Rus' land) begin (откуду есть пошла Руская земля)? It seems that the answer to this question is contained in the story about the calling of the Varangians: from those Varangians Rus (Rus' land) got its name (от тех варяг прозвася Русская земля). For example, Vladimir Petrukhin and Elena Melnikova wrote about this (text and links here). There can be many interpretations here, but Rurik as Igor's father was already mentioned in the PVL and NPL. In addition, many modern scholars consider Rurik not a legendary person (this theory was mainstream in Soviet studies, where it was important to prove the Slavic, not the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty), but a real chief or konungr. This is written here. Although the legend version also exists. On the other hand, Melnikova, who also believes that Rurik was the real ruler, suggested that Rurik, Oleg and Igor were not related; the founder of the dynasty was Igor; and all these three persons were combined into a single dynasty by a chronicler of PVL who misunderstood various oral dynastic legends. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov Oleg is called the first prince of the dynasty in Kyiv, because according to the PVL, Rurik ruled in the northern territories (possibly Ladoga). That is an interpretation that we Wikipedians might have of the PVL as a WP:PRIMARY source, but we need a WP:SECONDARY source which confirms such an interpretation. The secondary source that I have invoked here, Ostrowski 2018 (full citation: Ostrowski, Donald (2018). "Was There a Riurikid Dynasty in Early Rus'?". Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 52 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1163/22102396-05201009.), draws a different conclusion (p. 32):

The earliest extant Rus’ chronicle, the Povest’ vremennykh let (PVL), recounts a chronology of time elapsed from the flood to the accession of Emperor Michael III of Byzantium (r. 842–867), then continues, "29 years passed from the first year of Michael’s reign to the first year of Oleg, Rus’ Ruler" (отъ пьрваго лѣта Михаила сего до пьрваго лѣта Ольгова, Русьскаго кънязя, лѣтъ 29).[5] In doing so, the PVL chronologer makes no mention of Riurik, which is a notable absence if he were seeing Riurik as the founder of the ruling dynasty. As is clear from the next line of text after that, the chronologer refers to Oleg as sitting in Kiev (понелѣже сѣде въ Кыевѣ), which Riurik did not do. He, thus, indicates that he is more interested in the first Rus’ ruler to reside in Kiev than with any founder of a dynasty. In the ensuing recounting of the years elapsed for each of the rulers, bringing that count down to the death of Iaroslav (1054), the chronologer does not supply any dynastic connection. His primary concern is to explain who the Rus’ were that attacked Constantinople s.a. 6374 (866; 860 in Byzantine sources) and s.a. 6415 (907; absent in Byzantine sources), not with establishing a genealogical legitimization of dynastic rule. We find no attempt in the PVL to connect the later rulers genealogically with the earliest rulers.

the Laurentian Codex also calls Igor the son of Rurik, like other chronicles. Yes (s.a. 6390), but what is the significance of that? Plenty of scholars have pointed out that it is chronologically almost impossible for Igor to have been Rurik's son. Nicholas V. Riasanovsky 1947 (p. 108, quoted by Ostrowski):

due to considerations of age, Igor could hardly have been Riurik’s son ….” Riasanovsky went on to write “that no Kievan sources anterior to the Primary Chronicle (early twelfth century), knew of Riurik. In tracing the ancestry of Kievan princes they usually stopped with Igor.”

I could quote more, but this suffices to say that interpretation of this WP:PRIMARY source at face value will not be enough. You said it well: There can be many interpretations here.

Soviet studies may have had an incentive for rejecting the historicity of Rurik in order to promote anti-Normanism. But the fact that anti-Normanism had been discredited by the 1990s does not automatically prove Rurik was a real person after all (or that, if he did, he "founded a dynasty"). Obviously, if Igor was a real person (and I see no reason that he wasn't), that means he had a father (like every human being). It doesn't mean that his father was necessarily called "Rurik", let alone that this Rurik was/did the things ascribed to him in relatively late sources, given that he appears to be absent from, or unimportant in, the earliest sources. Names of otherwise nameless people are often invented centuries later. (E.g. List of names for the biblical nameless. Potiphar's wife is never given a name in the Book of Genesis, but many centuries later, the Quran claims that she was called Zuleikha. I think we can safely say that name was made up, and added to an existing story in which the wife of Potiphar had been nameless.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"due to considerations of age, Igor could hardly have been Riurik’s son" - but we do not know the date of birth of Rurik and, in general, the PVL chronology for the early period is incorrect.

As I understand it, anti-Normanism had been discredited in the 19th century and finally during the 20th century as a result of the development of archeology and linguistics, but Soviet historiography was a kind of "reserve" of not quite scientific theories. But you are right that this is not connected with the question of the reality of Rurik and the question of the foundation of the dynasty. I'm certainly not sure that Rurik was a real person. We really do not have any evidence of the real existence of Rurik, because all the sources about him go back to the PVL and NPL. I like this interpretation. Perhaps he was just a legendary konungr. However, there are many secondary sources, many authors who consider him real and consider him to be Igor's father and "founder" (many such publications). Britannica: "Igor, also called Ingvar... grand prince of Kiev and presumably the son of Rurik, prince of Novgorod, who is considered the founder of the dynasty that ruled Kievan Rus and, later, Muscovy until 1598". The Big Russian Encyclopedia ("Russian Britannica"): "Probably Igor was the son of prince Rurik".

I think that we can write in this article that some researchers consider Rurik to be legendary, and some researchers consider Rurik to be a real ruler. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. In the section below, I'm trying to figure out the differences between dates given by the PVL chronology and the PVL narrative.

I think your objection to the last sentence of the lead section is valid. I've decided to more specifically link it with Ostrowski page 31. It now reads: ...although primary sources before the mid-15th century appeared to be either completely unaware of Rurik's existence, or not particularly concerned with identifying him as the founder of a dynasty.{{sfn|Ostrowski|2018|p=31}} Is that okay with you?

You also say that I think that we can write in this article that some researchers consider Rurik to be legendary, and some researchers consider Rurik to be a real ruler. I sort of already wrote that in the article: Rurik is considered to be a legendary, mythical and perhaps even entirely fictional character by modern scholars. Is that sufficient for you? Or doesn't that reflect what you are trying to say?

With WP:BRITANNICA we should be cautious; a lot of what is says it not accurate. Per WP:BRITANNICA: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. Personally, I have stopped using it as a source. I don't know if the Great Russian Encyclopedia is regarded as a reliable source (it has no entry at WP:RSP). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this text. But perhaps we can add to the text that some researchers consider him a real ruler, and add some modern authors from here (such as Zuckerman, Melnikova, Petrukhin, Pchelov).

The Great Russian Encyclopedia (Bolshaya Rossiyskaya Encyclopedia - BRE) in Russian Wikipedia is usually considered a reliable source if its article does not contain obvious errors (in facts, not in interpretations). Most of BRE articles on history were written by subject matter experts who also have many publications in peer-reviewed journals. But absolutely reliable sources do not exist. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

PVL chronology versus PVL narrative

Ostrowski 2018 wrote (p. 44-45) about the differences between the PVL chronology and the PVL narrative for what they say about events in the 9th and early 10th century: What we seem to be dealing here with is two different time frames, one in the chronology part, the other in the narrative part of the PVL, and quite possibly two different authors of each. I'll try to put them in a table here to visualise what he is saying. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

PVL chronology	PVL narrative
Beginning reign Michael III: 860 (318+542)	Beginning reign Michael III: 852 (6360)
Beginning reign Oleg: 889 (860+29)	"Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev": 881/2 (6390)
Beginning reign Igor: 920 (889+31)	Beginning reign Igor: 912/3 (6421)
Beginning reign Sviatoslav: 955 (922+33). No mention of Olga/regency.	Beginning Olga's regency over Sviatoslav: 945/6 (6453)
Oleg is called a князь knyaz "prince", apparently in his own right. (18:12)	Oleg is called отъ рода ему "from his kin" i.e. from Rurik's family (22:19), and is circumscribed as regent for Rurik's "very young" son Igor.

I must say that I find it highly suspicious that the PVL chronology never identifies either Olga (who is not mentioned at all, nor is Rurik) or Oleg as a regent, but says both Oleg and Sviatoslav were just princes. Meanwhile, both Oleg and Olga are described as regents in the PVL narrative. Given their similar names (Oleg/Olga; the declension of Oleg in Old East Slavic leads to forms like Ольгова Olgova, which looks even more similar to Olga) and the fact that neither is described as a regent in the chronology, I think there may have been some sort of mixup. A tradition that one of them was a regent for an underage prince may have been inserted twice, or it was present for one, and then carried over to the other. I would suggest that Olga was the original, and that the regency tradition was unintentionally copied to Oleg. In Lav., Ipat., and Rad., Igor was "very young" when Rurik supposedly "entrusted to Oleg's hands his son Igor'" in the 870s, and in 881/2, Oleg was reportedly "carrying the young Igor'" (Ostrowski) / "bearing the child Igor'" (Cross&SW). So little was Igor. It appears we should take "into Oleg's hands" literally. By contrast, the Igor of the Novgorod First Chronicle appears to be a lot older than the one found in Lav., Ipat. and Rad., personally telling Askold and Dir that he is of kingly lineage, killing them and becoming prince of Kiev, rather than Oleg doing all these things in Lav., Ipat. and Rad. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think your table is well done. Maybe you're right on the regency. I can only summarize how these contradictions are usually explained in the literature. The PVL chronology at the beginning of the chronicle text can be considered a later text created by an author for whom direct continuity was important. Olga's regency is reflected in some detail in the narrative part. She lost her husband Igor, who was killed by the Drevlyans, and she takes revenge on them. Then she brings up her grandchildren while her son Svyatoslav goes to war. She ended up in besieged Kyiv with her grandchildren and sends a reproach to her son that he is fighting in a foreign country, but does not protect his mother. In general, Olga's regency is described in detail. I'm not sure that this is a regency, rather, at first Olga was the real ruler, and then, when her son Svyatoslav grew up, they were both co-rulers. It was not a real monarchy, it was an early "barbarian" state, and there, most likely, there were no monarchical ideas of a single ruler or regent.

It is true that there are serious problems in the dates, but in the literature this is explained by the fallacy of early dates. It is believed that the chroniclers had princely dynastic legends that were not dated. And they made an attempt to link the dates of the reign of the Kyiv princes to the dates of the reign of the Byzantine emperors. Why this is so is unknown, but the connection is visible. Chroniclers have created an erroneous chronology.

There are different opinions about the contradiction between PVL and NPL in Oleg's biography. In PVL, he is a prince, and he rules while Igor is still young. He is not considered a regent, namely a prince. He is called a prince in the earliest sources of Rus' - in the first treaty between Rus' and Byzantine Empire (which are known in the text of the PVL). In the NPL, Oleg is a commander under the authority of an adult Igor. Here again there are contradictions in dating, which the researchers again explain by the erroneous work of the chroniclers. Although many researchers, due to Shakhmatov's publications, believe that the NPL version is more authentic, most authors believe that in relation to Oleg, the PVL is closer to reality, because Oleg is called a prince in the first treaty with Byzantium (911 or possibly 907), which considered to be authentic, since they reflect the norms of Byzantine law and could not have been invented by the chronicler. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thank you. I think I should start by saying that I think that neither the PVL chrononology nor the PVL narrative is complete nonsense, nor do I think they are both completely accurate; I suppose both of them may contain a core of historical truth, but it is very difficult to discern fact from fiction. E.g. it has been demonstrated that the year counts of both are wrong because Byzantine emperor Michael III acceded to the throne in Constantinople on 21 January 842, not 852 (PVL narrative), nor 860 (PVL chronology). But the fact is that Michael III did reign around that time, so there is a core of historical truth in it.

I'm still not sure whether the NPL, PVL chronology, or PVL narrative is to be believed in which cases, and which cases not. For all the reasons you mention, there are reasons to believe Oleg was completely subordinate to Igor as some sort of general / military commander (NPL), that he had some sort of position in between of being a regent of Igor, who was the real knyaz, but "obeyed" Oleg as he grew up and perhaps even long after coming of age - which is strange (PVL narrative), or that he was a fully worthy prince / knyaz in his own right and not just of "princely stock" or just a "kinsman" of Rurik, who is not even mentioned as a predecessor (PVL chronology, Treaty of 907).

Ostrowski makes some interesting observations (p. 48; I should not that Ostrowski translates knyaz as "king", whereas most scholars translate it as "prince"):

I have come to the following conclusions. First, no concept of a “Riurikid dynasty” (i.e., that the Rus’ rulers were Riurikovichi) appears in the primary sources before the sixteenth century. Second, despite the suspect chronologies and testimonies of the PVL and the NPL in calling Igor’ the son of Riurik, we do not know who Igor’’s father was (as we do not know who Oleg’s father was). The chronicler may have simply thought Igor’ must be Riurik’s son for otherwise he would not have been able to be a ruler in Rus’ or he created a fictional ruler named Riurik to provide that justification. He then demoted Oleg to acting as regent, that is, not a ruler in his own right, neglecting to erase all mentions of Oleg as a king.

I am sure there are those scholars who will dismiss my hypothesized solution as unconvincing. Yet concerning a problem where there are no convincing solutions, we have to begin ascertaining degrees of unconvincingness. For us to continue pointing out that there is a serious problem of chronology in the chroniclers’ declaring Igor’ to be Riurik’s son and then acting as though he were his son is at some level contradictory. Relying solely on the Rus’ sources and rejecting any evidence that disagrees with them is faulty methodology because those same Rus’ sources, as has repeatedly been acknowledged in the historiography, are themselves faulty. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In Askold and Dir#Primary Chronicle and Novgorod First Chronicle I've created another side-by-side comparison. This one is a bit simpler than the Calling of the Varangians#Texts, but it can still be expanded later. If you've got any suggestions or corrections (especially my home-made translation of NPL), please say so. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Your translations of the texts seem to me well done.

I think that neither the PVL chrononology nor the PVL narrative is complete nonsense, nor do I think they are both completely accurate - I fully agree with this. We cannot trust either one or the other.

It seems to me (this is just my opinion) that the argument about the authenticity of the treaties with Byzantium (in which Oleg is a prince) looks convincing.

In addition, there is one common consideration. The chroniclers of the early period most likely did not invent events and characters. There are studies by Dmitry Likhchev, Andrey Karavashkin, Igor Danilevsky, Timothy Guimon, Vladimir Petrukhin (see here and here) that the early chroniclers and scribes operated in the paradigm of revelation. They believed that history is the realization of God's plan, which a mortal cannot change. Some scribes of Rus' directly wrote about this, and a number of researchers believe so. The scribes constantly wrote that they were only an obedient instrument of the Creator. Early scribes rarely wrote their names (although we know a number of names, but very few), because they did not consider themselves the authors of the text. The early chroniclers could carry out their reconstruction of events, made an erroneous chronology, believed in legends as the truth, but they did not lie consciously. The lies and the creation of a new history for the interests of current politics began in the 15th and 16th centuries, and on this point Ostrowski is right, I think. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)