Professor of History Dr. C. Raffensperger in his ‘Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World‘ published by Harvard University Press in 2012, mentions several little-known facts about Olga of Kyiv. In his work, Dr. Raffensperger uses the term ‘Rusian‘ with a single ‘S‘. In his other works, he stresses that “the adjectival form of Rus’ is “Rusian,” which most people, and most spellcheck software, want to convert to “Russian,” and it is a mistake.
[Yale Professor Timothy Snyder had used the same form in his books even before Raffensperger. Here is a quote from his The Reconstruction of Nations book: “In a 1449 treaty between Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy, the former was called “Rusian,” and the latter “Muscovite.” ]
Not to go into much detail, the difference between Rusian and Russian is akin to the difference between Roman and Romanian.
“Soon after the second treaty, in the 950s, the regent Olga herself made a visit to Constantinople. The purpose of the trip is most often recorded as Christianization, but references in both the PVL [Primay Chronicle] and De Cerimoniis [Book of Ceremonies] trade seem to suggest may have been at least as important. Additionally, the early date for extant copies of De Cerimoniis gives us a greater degree of reliability about the provenance of this particular interaction between Rus and Byzantium. On her trip, Olga was accompanied to Constantinople by a variety of associates, including over forty merchants, all of whom received gifts from the emperor. These merchants were from “the rulers of Rus,” which most likely refers to the various kniazia from the Rusian cities, and were members of Olga’s entourage. When Olga returned to Kyiv, she was asked by the Byzantine emperor to provide goods (“slaves, wax, furs, and soldiers”) that seem to have been negotiated in Byzantium…
The PVL under the year 955 records Olga’s journey to Constantinople. It maintains that Olga went to Constantinople, was baptized by the emperor himself, and took Helen as her Christian name. Helen was also the name of the emperor’s wife, and thus an obvious choice for the name. A more potent allusion, and the one referenced in the chronicle, was to the mother of Constantine the Great [272-337], who converted to Christianity prior to her death and was a Christian influence on her son.
This is evident, of course, only if one knows the events that will occur over thirty years later [baptism of Kyiv Rus by Olga’s grandson Vladimir the Great], as the chronicler did. The PVL continues its story to tell of the emperor’s infatuation with Olga and his proposal to marry her, at which point she showed her cleverness and understanding of Christian practice when she declared that he cannot be both her father, as her baptizer and godfather, and husband. This last part of the tale concerns a topos in Rusian history of the clever princess, of which Olga is the archetype— though a woman, she is able to overcome any number of men by means of her cleverness. This topos is included here because cleverness was indeed a vital factor for the ruler of a kingdom, especially one on the brink of accepting Christianity.
Of singular interest in the De cerimoniis description is the list of Olga’s guests in Constantinople. The majority of her retinue were merchants, which confirms the theory that her trip there was primarily trade oriented, not religious. However, the most interesting member of her entourage was her priest, Gregory. That Olga brought a priest with her indicates that if she was not already Christian, then she was already considering Christianity. Examining the text, it also seems that this priest was not one sent by the emperor to accompany her, as has been advanced. Gregory was excluded from most ceremonies that Olga participated in while in Constantinople— he may have been subtly, or not so, ostracized while there, suggesting that he was a priest from elsewhere, perhaps Rome or the German Empire…
The presence of a non-Byzantine priest in Olga’s entourage may have been a subtle message to the Byzantine emperor that she realized she had other options and she was examining all of them. There was already evidence in Rus of Christianity that did not originate from Byzantium, such as the Church of St. Elias in Kyiv, and the ongoing effects of such connections can be seen in the Germanic word for church (ts’rky/tsr’ky), which becomes the norm in Old East Slavic.
Olga’s awareness of being between two major micro-Christendoms was evident on her return from her trip to Constantinople. After snubbing the Byzantine emperor, in 959 she sent a messenger to German emperor Otto I, asking him to send her a bishop and priests to instruct her and her people. Understandably, Otto was quite receptive to such a request and dispatched Adalbert of Trier, later archbishop of Magdeburg, to Rus, presumably with an entourage of priests. No Rusian records exist detailing the stay of Adalbert and his entourage in Rus, nor the effect that they may have had on the people. The German records resume in 962 when Adalbert returned from Rus to report that his mission had failed due to pagan opposition. This failure may have occurred through no fault of Olga’s— the likely reason for failure comes from her son Sviatoslav, who may have begun to rule or at least exercise his influence at this time. Sviatoslav was a confirmed pagan and would not accept even the trappings of Christianity near him, lest he be thought weak.
The rulers of Rus realized that they had to convert to Christianity to fulfill their goals of participation in the European world, but they wanted to maintain their independence, both political and ecclesiastical. Their initial steps toward conversion, by Olga as well as by Vladimir, illustrate this point.”
Why does the title of the article have ‘ca. 1950‘ in it? ‘The Book of Ceremonies‘ of Constantine Porphyrogennetos published by Brill in 2017 has notes to the text that explain why. First, the text “On September 9th, a Wednesday, on the arrival of Olga, the archontissa of Rhosia, a reception was held in all respects like the reception previously described, and this archontissa went in with her own relatives of archontissa rank and more prominent female attendants.”
And the notes to it: “Whether this embassy took place in 946 like the dated embassies in this chapter or in 957 is still debated. Kresten, for example, argues for 946, Featherstone for 957. For both 946 and 957 the days of the week and the dates in the month correspond. The competing arguments have been presented by Tinnefeld, “Zurn Stand der Olga-Diskussion,” in Hoffmann & Monchizadeh, eds, Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie (2005), 531-567. Though problems remain, there appears to be a stronger case for 946 as the date for all the embassies described in Cer., II,15.”
Olga of Kyiv in the Book of Ceremonies by Byzantine Emperor >
More little-known details about the famous dynasty can be found in the ‘Gardariki, Ukraine‘ e-book.
The theory proposed in the “Kyiv Rus in Heimskringla Sagas and Byzantine Texts‘ book provides a new perspective on Olga of Kyiv and the role she played in establishing Novgorod.
