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)

I agree with you. I updated the sentence: Rurik is considered to be a legendary character by modern scholars; while some think he may be mythical and perhaps even entirely fictional character (with Donald Ostrowski (2018) suggesting that "the chronicler" may have "created a fictional ruler named Riurik to provide [a] justification" for Igor's reign), others such as Norman W. Ingham and Christian Raffensperger (2007) think "Ryurik is [not necessarily] entirely fictional". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 16 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)

Oleg and Olga

PS: I just noticed that Lav under the year 6495 (987) has the following statement: Then the boyars spoke and said: “If the Greek faith were evil, it would not have been adopted by your [Volodimer's] grandmother Olga who was wiser than all other men.” Is Olga often known as "wise"? Given that Oleg the Wise is also commonly known as, well, the Wise, may this be yet more evidence of a mixup between the "wise" Olga and Oleg "the Wise"? It looks like that the same is said in PVL under 6456–6463 (948–955) when Olga goes to Tsargrad (Constantinople): The reigning Emperor was named Constantine, son of Leo. Olga came before him, and when he saw that she was very fair of countenance and wise as well, the Emperor wondered at her intellect. What is all the more interesting is that this Leo (Леоновъ) mentioned in the previous sentence is known as... Leo VI the Wise. Might there be even more mixing going on between a Leo "the Wise" (ὁ Σοφός), a "wise" (съмысльну, мудрѣиши) Olga, and an Oleg "the Wise"? Wait wait wait...! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

6412–6415 (904–907) И прозъваша Ольга вѣщии: бяху бо людие погани и невѣгласи. The people called Olĭga "the Wise," / "the Sage" for they were but pagans, and therefore ignorant.

6495 (987) "то не бы баба твоя прияла, Ольга, яже бѣ мудрѣиши вьсѣхъ человѣкъ." "It wouldn't have been accepted by your woman/grandmother, Olĭga, who is the wisest of all men."

The letters Ольга are EXACTLY the same in these two places, but in the first it is translated into English as "Oleg", and in the second as "Olga". Why?! Am I missing something? I want to know the full Old East Slavic / Church Slavonic declension of both names right now. Even though different words for "wise" are used, the fact that the same letter combination can mean both "Oleg" and "Olga" depending on context means there is a strong possibility of an accidental mixup. Even though Ольга in 987 is called a баба ("woman"/"grandmother"; this word is attested in all copies of verse 108, 27) of Volodimer, this Ольга is also called "the wisest of all men", which seems impossible if Ольга refers to a "woman"/"grandmother". It suggests someone might have read this text supposing that Volodimer had a grandfather called Oleg who was "the wisest of all men". This doesn't fully add up; Volodimer's grandfather was Igor, supposedly under the "regency" of Oleg, but it's not far off. Am I completely mental, or is there a real possibility for an Olga/Oleg mixup (possibly also involving Leo VI the Wise)? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately en:wikt:Ольга and en:wikt:Олег only exist about the modern spellings of the names. We want to know the declension of Ольга (Olĭga) and Ольгъ (Olĭgŭ). But, if the modern forms are anything to go by, it is that Ольга in 904–907 is accusative (or genitive) singular masculine and thus refers to Oleg, a man, and Ольга in 987 is nominative singular feminine and thus refers to Olga, a woman. That these coincide with exactly the rare instances in which both are called "wise", though with different Slavic words, remains highly suspicious, however. The gender of Olĭga in 987 does not make sense. Moreover, both are called "wise" in opposition to pagans: Olĭga in 904–907 directly ("they were but pagans, and therefore ignorant"), Olĭga in 987 indirectly, because being "wise" to Emperor Constantine meant that she was "worthy of reigning with him in his city", except that Olga is the one telling Constantine she should be baptised first – by him personally – because "she was still a pagan". Somehow, you can't be wise and pagan simultaneously, or you are so exceptionally wise that you're not really a pagan (anymore), and thus ready to convert to Christianity. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So, let's recap:

• Olĭga is a person of unclear gender
• who is "wise",
• so wise in fact that they are not really pagan anymore, and ready to convert to Christianity
• being "wise" may be a crucial requirement for becoming/being a prince
• they are a regent for a child monarch (Igor/Svyatoslav), "the wisest of all men"
• they are either the "godfather" (Oleg) or wife (Olga) of Igor
• they are the баба of Volodimer (could баба also be related papa?)

I might add that the HLGW in the Schechter Letter/Genizah Letter of the 940s is commonly identified as "Oleg", even though he supposedly died in 912 or 922. But what if this is... Olga? Who was supposedly a regent over Svyatoslav in the 940s? Chronologically, it matches Olga more than Oleg. Anyway, let's resume this later. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

baba could not be related papa; papa is a late borrowing from other languages, probably from French in 18th century. This word in Russian replaced the Russian word tyatya (тятя). In Russian or Old East Slavonic or Church Slavonic these words cannot be confused with each other. The word papa is known in Church Slavonic, but that was the word for Pope (Roman pontiff), from Latin: Papa or from Greek: πάππας.

I doubt that the scribes could confuse Oleg and Olga, I cannot find the declension now, but it is different for these words. Although I like your assumption and there is a possibility that it was so. Oleg is вещий, Olga is мудрая. Вещий does not mean wise, but one who knows the future, prophetic. We do not know why Oleg was called вещий, perhaps this is an atavism of some legend. The chronicler of PVL taunts Oleg and writes that people called Oleg вещий (prophetic), but Oleg could not predict his death from the ux of the snake (another legend or saga). Мудрый (мудрая) is a characteristic of a worthy Christian ruler (or a ruler who is ready to become a Christian, like Olga). A wise ruler understands the plan of the Christian God, from the point of view of Christians. A pagan cannot understand this plan, from the point of view of Christians.

this Olga is also called "the wisest of all men" - Ольга, яже бѣ мудрѣиши вьсѣхъ человѣкъ. Человѣкъ is a human, human being, not a man, not a male. A man (male) is a муж (мужчина in Russian). Nikolay Omonov (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov I guess you're right. The facts that баба is present in all manuscripts (so probably not a later interpolation), and must refer to a female person; Ольга in 987 is probably nominative singular feminine; and the word "wise" in English comes from different Slavic words that have different nuances; already undermined my hypothesis. But the fact that you're now explaining that Человѣкъ can or does refer to human beings in general and not specifically to "men" (as in the English translation) essentially refutes the idea that there has obviously been a mixup between a "wise" Ольга in 987 and a "wise" Ольга in 904–907. It's still possible, but unlikely, especially because вещий and мудрая appear to mean something else. And while мудрѣиши/мудрая is a characteristic of a worthy Christian ruler (or a ruler who is ready to become a Christian, like Olga), вѣщии/вещий has no connection to it.

And now that I take a closer look at it, I better understand the sentence: [The people] called Olĭga "the Wise," / "the Sage" / "the Prophet(ic)": because the people were pagans and [therefore] ignorant. So it was the Rus' people who at the time were still pagan who were ignorant and mistakenly believed Oleg to be вѣщии wise/sagacious/prophetic, but in the subsequent narrative it turns out that Oleg could indeed not predict his own death. I thought the PVL narrator was calling Oleg вѣщии and thus an exception from amongst the otherwise ignorant Rus' people because they were pagan, and so Oleg was вѣщии despite being pagan, just like Olga in 948–955. But Olga was мудрѣиши in 987, and Olga in 948–955 was (60, 28) добру сущю лицьмь и съмысльну (Cross&SW: "fair of countenance and wise as well", but literally with DeepL I'm getting: "of good face/looks/cheeks and mind/sense/thoughts/intelligence/reason/meaning") despite being pagan. съмысльну sʺmyslʹnu seems to be the ancestor of en:wikt:смысл smysl, and not directly related to Мудрый/мудрая (does it has the same or similarly positive connotations with being a worthy Christian ruler?).

And the PVL narrator is not himself ascribing any prophetic wisdom to Oleg (as I initially thought). Instead, the narrator taunts the people for mistakenly believing Oleg to be вѣщии, and the fact that they are mistaken is proven by Oleg's unforeseen death later, and explained by the narrator by the fact that the people are pagans, and pagans may be assumed to be ignorant by default. Olga later proves to be an exception to the rule, which surprises emperor Constantine. But there is also a cliché suggestion that women like Olga are rarely simultaneously "beautiful and smart", a cliché which continues throughout history up till our times. съмысльну may thus be in more direct opposition to добру (...) лицьмь a good face (60, 29) than to Азъ погана есмь I am a pagan (61, 1) a bit later. After all, Constantine does not appear to be aware that Olga is a pagan until she tells him so. Either he did not know, or he forgot it in the heat of the moment of being surprised by how she was, in his perception, simultaneously "beautiful and smart". (I must say I know that feeling when talking to such a woman; I might forget other potentially relevant facts for a minute ;) ).

In conclusion, the connections I thought I saw can so far be better explained by coincidences than any evidence of a mixup between Olga and Oleg. Thanks so much for helping me understand! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I might add that the 1930 Cross&SW English translation often changes what is direct speech in Old East Slavic into indirect speech in English. E.g. 60:30–61:1:

Она же, разумѣвъши, рече къ цьсарю: Азъ погана есмь source text (Ostrowski et al. 2014)

And she, understanding, said to the tsar: I am a pagan. literal meaning (according to DeepL)

When Olga heard his words, she replied that she was still a pagan 1930 Cross&SW English translation

The same happens in 881/2 (6390) verses 23:22–23 when Oleg conquers Kyiv/Kiev and declares it to be the mother of Rus' cities:

И сѣде Ольгъ, къняжа въ Кыевѣ. И рече Ольгъ: “се, буди мати градомъ Русьскымъ” source text (Ostrowski et al. 2014)

And Oleg sat down, reigning in Kyevû. And Oleg said: "Behold, be a mother to the cities [dative plural] of (the) Rus' (people) [dative plural?]." literal meaning (according to DeepL)

Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev, and declared that it should be the mother of Rus' cities. 1930 Cross&SW English translation

This is a reminder especially to myself that the 1930 Cross&SW English translation should be examined critically, as it is quite a non-literal translation that misses a lot of nuance and meaning. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think съмысльная (in Russian: смышлёная) means smart or quick-witted, it's not a synonym for мудрая. I think съмысльная is not a sacred property of a ruler, but simply a quality that a good ruler should have. If I'm not mistaken, вѣщии is a quality of a good pagan (pagan priest, druid, sorcerer), but not a Christian leader. A Christian cannot know what only God knows. While the pagans mystically learn the secrets of the universe and they are trying to influence the deities. For a Christian, this is a sin; one should not try to influence the will of God. (Of course, this is the chronicler's point of view, not mine).

Nevertheless, your hypothesis is interesting, and it is possible that in some manuscripts these names could be confused. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that etymological explanation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Rurik and PVL versus NPL

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)

@Nikolay Omonov I'm glad to know my NPL translation seems accurate, thanks.

We could get into the authenticity of the Rusʹ–Byzantine Treaties if you like; I am in serious doubt about which parts to accept or reject, especially when there is no surviving Greek counterpart to compare it to. Some of it seems authentic, about other parts I am not so sure.

It is an interesting idea that early scribes would believe they were only an obedient instrument of the Creator etc. and that they would consider changing the text a sin against God's plan, which a mortal cannot change. Because this is pretty much the same attitude that copyists of the Bible had (or were believed to have had), and yet we see changes, errors, interpolations and omissions everywhere. We often just don't know when and by whom exactly something was changed. This problem is much worse with the PVL and NPL because there are very few copies and they are all relatively late. From the Nachal'nyy svod in the 1090s to the Laurentian Codex in 1377 there is a gap of about 282 years. Compare that with the Gospel of John being written around the year 90 and the fact that our oldest (tiny little) fragment from it, Rylands Library Papyrus P52 ("P52") is dated 125–175, so the gap between composition and oldest surviving (highly fragmentary) copy is only a few decades. But in that case, too, it would take until the four great uncial codices of the 4th to 5th centuries that we got the complete texts of the New Testament.

Maybe the early Rus' scribes were very careful in transmitting the text for the first 100 years (12th century) or so, but what if scribes of the next 100 years (13th century) were much more careless? What if the scribes of 1300 to 1377 were extremely careless and added and omitted whatever they liked? Unfortunately we cannot know. What we can see are the differences between Lav. and the Sinodal'nyy and Komissionnyy NPL. By that time, we already see there were major differences in the opening lines alone (as I found out last night: User:Nederlandse_Leeuw/Textual_PVL#0_2).

According to Lav., the Pověstĭ vremennyx lětŭ is about "the origin of the land of Rus', the first princes of Kievě (киевѣ)" ("of Kievě" is not mentioned in any other copy of the PVL).

According to the Komissionnyy NPL, the Vremennyky, ezhe esty narictaetsya lЂtopisanie is indeed about князеи и земля Руския the Rus' princes and land, but also about "how God (богъ) chose our country (...) first in the Novgorodian (Новгородчкая) volost and then the Kyevan (Кыевская), and of the rise of Kiev (Киева), which was called by the name of Kyevû (Кыевъ)" (a unique text I haven't found anywhere else!).

We don't know which scribes added which bits and pieces, but someone must have added of Kievě to Lav., and someone (perhaps the Komission itself?) added the parts about God, the Novgorodian volost and the rise of Kiev (Киева). Given that both use relatively modern spellings of the city name of Kyiv/Kiev (as well as Новгородчкая Novgorodchkaya, while the NPL writes Новугороду Novugorodu, Новѣгородѣ Novѣgorodѣ etc. in the Calling of the Varangians), we may presume these are later interpolations. The Komissionnyy NPL even indicates that its spelling Киева is a modernisation of the original name Кыевъ, so whoever added this sentence was aware that the written language had changed in the meantime, and wanted to inform the reader that these names referred to the same city and not two different ones. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It is true that the NPL contains a lot of later terms, for example, in the text of Russkaya Pravda. For this reason, we cannot fully trust the NPL, just as we cannot trust the PVL. Regarding the motivation of scribes, I mean the common environment of scribes in which the chronicles were written. There was also a lot of different literature, mostly religious. The chroniclers distorted the texts and built their own chronologies, I only mean that, according to many modern scolars, this was not a conscious lie. Comparison with biblical tradition is a good idea, but there is some difference. The early tradition of Rus' existed later than the biblical one, but this culture of early Rus' was simpler. It was a society that had recently passed to the state form. The conscious creation of a fictional history requires a motivation, religious or political. Biblical culture was a developed religious culture, there were many currents that competed with each other. We don't see anything like this in early Rus'. Until the 11th century, there was no private ownership of land, there was no developed monarchy, no bureaucracy, these were simply early "barbarian kingdoms"; there was almost no influence of Roman law. The law of Rus' did not even have the death penalty, because the state was undeveloped and could not ensure the execution of such punishments. The motivation to create history can be in religion or politics. In order to use the chronicles for political purposes, they had to be circulated in a large number of copies, and there must be a wide literate public. Such a culture appeared only in the 16th century, and from the 16th century the undoubted invention of history begins. We cannot know what the early scribes thought, but what we know about their culture is not something that gives rise to a big conscious lie. But they certainly made mistakes, and we can't believe them. And I think that they were careless and did not know how to work well, because there was no developed education too. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov That is a very well-balanced assessment. I agree with what you say, and am glad you are providing me more details that I did not know yet about the early times of Rus'. It is quite clear to me that the earliest writers and scribes were trying to explain where they themselves, their cities, the state / dynasty / realm, and the various peoples around them came from. And that process seems to have gone on until this very day. Whenever I read some not-very-reliable source about Rus'/Russian history on the Internet (including unsourced or poorly sourced sentences in English Wikipedia articles), I see origin/founding myths everywhere. For centuries, writers and editors seem to want to explain that this or that event or person "created Rus'", or "was the origin of Rus'", or "was the day the Russian nation was born", or "would eventually lead to the establishment of the Russian Empire" etc. If you count them all up, it seems like Rus'/Russia was "founded" about 50 different times throughout the centuries! The Calling of the Varangians is one of the most popular stories, but so is Oleg/Igor's conquest of Kiev, Volodimer's baptism, Yaroslav's reign and development of the Russkaya Pravda, Daniel of Galicia's crowning as Rex Russiæ / Rex Ruthenorum (this one is more popular in Ukraine than in Russia), Kulikovo, the non-battle at the river Ugra, etc. Anyway, I shall have to read more literature, and see where else I can apply textual criticism. I've done some improvements at Novgorod First Chronicle, but it needs a lot more. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion of Volodimer

@Nikolay Omonov I was thinking, maybe we should split off Baptism of Volodimer Conversion of Volodimer from Christianization of Kievan Rusʹ? This article is already quite big, but the part about Volodimer (Vladimir/Volodymyr/Uladzemir) converting to Christianity is badly written. I did some corrections, but it still largely assumes that whatever Lav. says must be true. I think this story would benefit from textual criticism, as well as historical criticism (some of which Ostrowski 2006 has already provided). I've always found the "Examination of Religions" story to be quite unbelievable, especially because pretty much the same story is told twice (part 1 and part 2), and it is also remarkably similar to how the Khazars are said to have chosen Judaism because they liked neither Christianity nor Islam. Most scholars today believe Volodimer converted to Orthodox Christianity, not because he suddenly believed it to be more theologically true than any of the other religions in his realm, but in connection with his marriage with the Byzantine emperor's daughter because of the political alliance with Byzantium that would bring him. But those details tend to get lost within the larger narrative of "Christianization of Kievan Rusʹ". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I also read a lot of myths about the history of Rus' and Russia. Some of them I understand as nationalistic (or even racist) narratives, from simply anti-Normanist ideas to Russian versions of the idea of the Aryan race (Rybakov in the last years of his life said something about his support for the Aryan theory). It seems to me that, according to modern ethnology, an ethnos cannot have a starting point. Ethnic groups change slowly, as do languages. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's nice to find a native Russian-speaking Wikipedian who has similar ideas and a scholarly approach. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Baptism of Volodimer is an important event and it's a good idea to have a separate page.

You probably know that in Russian christianization is most often called крещение (although the word christianization also exists: христианизация). That is, in Russian it is literally the Baptism of Rus'. And this synonym has a theological meaning. Both before and now, religious people consider the Baptism of Rus to be a kind of sacred act. This perception first appears in Sermon on Law and Grace in the 11th century. The Baptism of Rus is an event that is still considered important in all three states: public holidays are established, conferences, anniversaries are held, special coins and stamps are issued.

"Examination of Religions" is a legend, which Yevgeny Golubinsky proved already in the 19th century. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed that from early on, in English, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian Wikipedia, as well as images on Commons and sources outside Wikipedia. Which is why I'm somehwat in doubt whether "baptism" is the correct word. Ostrowski called it "Volodimer's Conversion" rather than "baptism". Ostrowski, Donald (2006). "The Account of Volodimer's Conversion in the "Povest' vremennykh let": A Chiasmus of Stories". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28 (1–4). Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute: 567–580. Retrieved 6 May 2023.

Might that be a better idea? The Russian equivalents seem to be превраще́ние prevraščénije, обраще́ние obraščénije, and конве́рсия konvérsija, the latter clearly a Latin-derived cognate of English conversion. While baptism may be a single (and indeed "sacred") "act", conversion is more of a gradual "process", and that seems to be what we are dealing with here, in four stages. At least, the PVL compiler would have us believe that Volodimer hesitated 4 times before he finally converted (got baptised). But there is evidence that 4 originally separate stories have been smashed together into a single story, and that's why it looks as if it is one story with 4 stages. I would suspect that in the original 4 versions, Volodimer got baptised at the end of each story. But the PVL compiler of course realised you can't get baptised more than once. So the first, second and third stories end with an anti-climax, a hesitation, where Volodimer does not get baptised, even though you would expect him to. (Without Shepard 1992 pointing it out, I wouldn't have noticed this.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Volodimer's baptism is a specific ritual when he was baptized, and the whole narrative (narratives) is better called Volodimer's Conversion. 4 originally separate stories and the way they are put together is really similar to how different narratives were put together in the Bible.

There is also a page (ru:Раннее распространение христианства на Руси) about the early spread of Christianity in Rus' (before Volodimer). I wrote it because it's a big topic. There are different legends from different sources and information about Christian artifacts that archaeologists have found. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov Impressive ruwiki article! We used to have Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, but it was largely original research, and mostly seemed to be aimed at promoting the concept of a Rus' Khaganate. This itself is a legitimate (though not universally accepted) idea, but on ruwiki and other Russian texts, I mostly see it used as a vehicle for promoting Anti-Normanism. I decided to clean the article up and merge it into Christianization of Kievan Rusʹ, mostly the section Christianization of Kievan Rusʹ#Ninth century. Does the information there roughly agree with what you wrote at ru:Раннее распространение христианства на Руси, or is it very different?

Also, to address the elephant in the room, are you okay with using the spelling "Volodimer" (closest to Володимѣръ as found in the Old East Slavic source texts, and favoured by Ukrainian and many modern English-language scholars)? I know the main article is called Vladimir the Great, but Vladimir is just modern Russian spelling, Volodymyr modern Ukrainian, and Uladzemir modern Belarusian. By picking a modern spelling, we are implicitly making a political statement (not least because the current presidents of Ukraine and the Russian Federation both have names derived from Володимѣръ). There are frequent disputes about how to spell his name elsewhere on English Wikipedia, see e.g. Talk:Kievan Rus'#Volodymyr the Great, not “Vladimir”. I tried pointing out that "Scholars name him Volodimer or Volodimir", but nobody seems to be listening. Since prominent modern English-language scholars of Kievan Rus' such as Ostrowski, Horace G. Lunt, Simon Franklin, Charles J. Halperin, and others all seem to be writing Volodimer, including in "The Account of Volodimer's Conversion in the "Povest' vremennykh let", I think we should be doing that in the article Conversion of Volodimer, too. What do you think? Personally, I'm not interested in making political statements; I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopædia based on scholarly sources. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Rus' Khaganate is a good hypothesis, if it was a state led by the Scandinavians, whose ruler took the title of Khagan, according to Constantin Zuckerman.

Vladimir is also a Church Slavonic variant. Modern Russian has been heavily influenced by Church Slavonic. But I think Volodimer is the right choice. In Russian Wikipedia, in such cases, they look at which variation is more common in modern Russian-language reliable publications. By analogy, we can see which variation is more common in modern English-language reliable publications. And it's Volodimer. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, we speak a synthetic language in which the Old Eastern Slavic and Church Slavonic are mixed. Similarly, English is a mix of Anglo-Saxon and French. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)