Talk:Council of Dolobsk

Textual analysis

PVL 1103

Line	Primary Chronicle based on Ostrowski et al. (2014)	English translation based on Cross & SW (1953) and Thuis (2015)
227.1	Въ лѣто 6611. Въложи Богъ въ сьрдьце Русьскымъ	6611 (1103). God inspired a noble project in the hearts of the Rus'
227.2	къняземъ Святопълку Володимиру, и съняста ся	princes Svyatopolk and Volodimer', and they met
227.3	думати на Долобьскѣ. И сѣде Святопълкъ съ своею	for consultation at Dolobsk. And Svyatopolk sat with hsis
227.4	дружиною, а Володимиръ съ своею въ единомь	druzhina, and Volodimer' with his own in a single
227.5	шатьрѣ. И почаша думати и начаша глаголати дружина Святопълча,	tent. And they began to reason, and Svyatopolk's druzhina began speaking:
227.6	"Не веремя веснѣ ити, хочемъ	"Spring is not the time to campaign; we would
227.7	погубити смьрды и ролию имъ." И рече	ruin the peasants and their crop fields." And said
227.8	Володимиръ: “Дивьно мя, дружино, оже лошади	Volodimer': "I am surprised, druzhina, that the horse
227.9	жалуеть, еюже ореть къто; а сего чему не	concerns you, with which the peasant plows; why do you not
227.10	{промыслитерасмотрите}, оже начьнеть смьрдъ орати, и	consider, that when the peasant starts plowing, and
227.11	Половьчинъ приѣхавъ, ударить смьрда стрѣлою, а	a Polovets comes, hits the peasant with an arrow, and
227.12	кобылу его поиметь, а въ село его ѣхавъ	takes his horse, and goes to his village
227.13	иметь жену его и дѣти и вьсе имѣние	to have his wife and children and the possessions
227.14	его възметъ? То лошади жаль, а самого не жаль	he has? You pity the horse, but you do not the peasant
227.15	ли?” И не могоша отвѣщати дружина Святопълча.	himself?" And the druzhina of Svyatopolk could not answer.
227.16	И рече Святопълкъ: “Се язъ готовъ уже”. И въста	And Svyatopolk said, "I am ready now." And Svyatopolk
227.17	Святопълкъ, и рече ему Володимиръ: “Тоти, брате,	arose, and Volodimer' said to him: "With this, brother, you will
227.18	велико добро сътвориши Русьскои земли”.	confer an inestimable benefit upon the land of Rus'."

NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hypatian Codex 1111

Line	Hypatian Codex based on PSRL Vol. 2 (1908), digitised by Izbornyk	English translation based on Makhnovets (1989) and Thuis (2015)
л.99.26	В лѣт̑ . ҂s҃ . х҃ . ѳ҃ı . [6619 (1111)] Вложи Бъ҃ Володимеру въ срдце.	In the year 6619 (1111), God gave Volodimer' an idea.
	и нача гл҃ти брату своему Ст҃ополку.	He went to talk to his cousin Sviatopolk,
	понужаӕ его на поганыӕ на весну.	and pressed him to go campaign against the pagans in spring.
	Ст҃ополкъ же повѣда дружини своеи рѣчь Володıмерю. ѡни же рекоша	Sviatopolk told what Volodimer' had said to him to his druzhina, but they said:
	не веремѧ нынѣ погубити смерьды ѿ рольи.	"Now is not the time to ruin the peasants by taking them off their crop fields."
	и посла Стополкъ к Володимерю гл҃ѧ.	Sviatopolk sent messengers to Volodimer' with the message:
	да быхови сѧ снѧла. и ѡ томъ подумалı быхомъ съ дружиною.	'We should convene and discuss this with our druzhina.'
	послании же приидоша к Володимеру и повѣдаша всю рѣчь Ст҃ополчю.	The messengers arrived to Volodimer' and told all Sviatopolk had said.
	и прииде Володимеръ. и срѣтостасѧ на Долобьскѣ.	Volodimer' came and they met at Dolobsk.
	и сѣдоша въ единомъ шатрѣ. Ст҃ополкъ съ своею дружиною. а Володимеръ съ своею.	And they went to sit in a tent together, Sviatopolk with his druzhina, and Volodimer' with his own.
	и бывшу молчанью. и рече Володимеръ брате. ты еси старѣи	After some silence, Volodimer' said: 'Cousin, you are the eldest.
	почни гл҃ати како быхъм̑ промыслили ѡ Русьскои земли.	Speak first, and say how we can protect the land of Rus'.'
	и рече Ст҃ополкъ брате ты почни.	Sviatopolk answered: 'Please, you start [talking], cousin.'
	и рече Володимеръ. како ӕ хочю молвити.	Thereupon Volodimer' said: 'If I say what I think,
	а на мѧ хотѧть молвити твоӕ дружина и моӕ . рекуще	your and my men shall contradict me and say:
	хощеть погубити смерды и ролью смердомъ.	"He wants to ruin the peasants and the peasants' crop fields."
	но се дивно мѧ брате . ѡже смердовъ жалуете и ихъ конии.	But I find it strange, brother, that you pity the peasants and their horses,
	а сего не помьшлѧюще. ѡже на весну начнеть смердъ тотъ ѡрати лошадью	without considering that if that peasant starts ploughing with his horse in spring,
	тою и приѣхавъ Половчинъ оударить смерда стрѣлою. и поиметь лошадьку.	a Polovets comes riding that hits the peasant with an arrow, takes his horse,
	и жону его и дѣти его. и гумно его зажжеть.	as well as his wife and children, and burns down his home.
	то ѡ сѣмь чему не мыслите.	Why don't you think about that?'
	и рекоша всѧ дружина. право во истину тако есть.	And all members of the druzhina said: "Indeed, that is true."
л.99–л.99об.	и рече Ст҃ополкъ. се ӕзъ брате готовъ есмь с тобою.	Sviatopolk spoke: 'Now, brother, I am ready to march with you.'

I'll get to a more refined comparison plus the original OES text in Ipa later. Plus we'll have to think about a proper comparison box. Hopefully, some textual critic has already made one, as they tend to do with all these kinds of textual analyses. For now, I think that the assessment of Hans Thuis (2015) is correct that the narratives of Volodimer' Monomakh (hereafter: Monomakh) and Sviatopolk meeting at Dolobsk sub anno 1103 and 1111 are most definitely more than just "duplicates". The 1111 narrative seems very much a deliberate rewriting of the 1103 one in which the logic actually works a lot better, and the superior wisdom of Monomakh over Sviatopolk is emphasised even more. It's also much longer.

Instead of both of them getting an idea from God, only Monomakh gets it. Sviatopolk was already prepared to accept Monomakh's plans, but his druzhina criticises the idea; this then becomes the reason to hold the council at Dolobsk. Monomakh is timid, doesn't want to speak, until Sviatopolk grants him authority to speak. Now the whole hypothetical scenario is more detailed, and follows a logical progression from one thought to the next. The only implicit assumption the reader is now required to make is that a campaign against the Polovtsi will risk the lives of the peasants and horses called to action; the rest flows naturally from it (unlike the confused, incoherent narrative of 1103 where thoughts and events are out of logical order). The only difference is that the Polovets will now not just 'ride to the peasant's village', but 'burns down his home' rather than 'have all the havings he has', plus that this time everyone (except Monomakh himself) is accused of caring only about the peasants and horses (rather than just the horses sub anno 1103). Monomakh repeats that they should think about this, and here all the druzhina say "Indeed, that is true." instead of only Sviatopolk's druzhina having nothing to retort.

The effect of all the changes from 1103 to 1111 is that Monomakh is made to be both more humble but much wiser, smarter, more strategic than he was in 1103. The whole narrative stresses how much Monomakh is supposed to become the legitimate successor to Sviatopolk just 2 years later by virtue of his wisdom. But Monomakh remains humble and obedient to Sviatopolk as long as the latter is alive, which emphasises loyalty and thus even more legitimacy. NLeeuw (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

One thing the campaign rationale of Monomakh lacks, though, is taking into account the agricultural seasons. Spring is usually the time for sowing the seeds for most crops. Only Sviatopolk's druzhina seems to understand that taking the peasants off the fields in spring, where and when they should be sowing the crops, will ruin their fields (biologically), and therefore the peasants (financially).

Monomakh doesn't seem to understand. Sub anno 1103, he accuses Sviatopolk's druzhina of only caring about horses. But no one has mentioned horses so far. They mentioned crop fields in spring. Monomakh assumes that every peasant will need a horse in order to plow their fields before sowing the seeds (which might have been common practice, but is not always agriculturally necessary, depending on circumstances, particularly with the black earth / chornozem in Ukraine and surrounding areas), although that's not an argument Sviatopolk's druzhina has explicitly made. Apparently for Monomakh, spring is primarily the season when Polovtsi raids should be prevented from happening (presumably based on recent experiences), not when peasants should be plowing and sowing.

And so, Monomakh argues for a pre-emptive strike on the Polovtsi in both 1103 and 1111. The irony is that on 15 September 1101, the Rus' and Polovtsi had concluded a peace treaty, and no more interactions are reported between them in 1102. Yet, after the thus apparently unprovoked Rus' 1103 anti-Polovtsi campaign, Monomakh in hindsight accuses the POW Polovtsi commander Beldyuz of having been the aggressor by 'violating your oaths and spilling Christian blood', and orders him to be executed.

Similarly, the Rus' concluded peace and marriage alliances with the Polovtsi on 12 January 1108, and all subsequent hostilities in 1108, 1109 and 1110 appear to be initiated by the Rus' themselves. There are no reports of Polovtsi raiding and pillaging Rus' peasants in the preceding years. (That doesn't mean there were none, but the PVL text does not provide clear underlying causes to believe Monomakh's rationale, except that everyone either silently or verbally agrees with him in 1103 and 1111, respectively). So, the overall grand strategy logic of Monomakh still does not work.

The greatest irony of all is that the Rus' inflict the very same harm on the Polovtsi that the Rus' themselves dreaded so much: Polovtsi peasants are killed; and horses, camels, livestock, wives, children, and possessions are abducted. One could argue 'better them than us', or 'well they were pagans' (as the prologue sub anno 1102 does), but that only seems a later religious justification for what is essentially a turf war over resources (e.g. the execution of POWs doesn't seem very "Christian"). NLeeuw (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

God inspired a noble project in the hearts of the Rus' princes is the Cross&SW 1953 translation. But the original words are:

Въложи Богъ въ сьрдьце Русьскымъ къняземъ. Literally,

Inserted God into [the] hearts [of the] Rus' princes. It's not clear what is inserted; there is nothing to insert into the hearts. See wikt:вложить. Translating this as "inspired" is a stretch; I don't see any modern Ukrainian or Russian verbs related to Въложи that can mean "inspired". Moreover, the words a noble project come out of nowhere. They're not in the text. It may be inferred from what is written in the prologue under 276.22, 23: На придущее лѣто въложи Богъ мысль добру въ Русьскыѣ кънязи: During the following year, God inspired the princes of Rus' with a noble project:, although that again is a stretch. мысль добру is just a good thought/idea, and Thuis 2015 therefore translates it as een goede gedachte, while under 1103 just gaf een ingeving, i.e. gave an idea. I would have to read more literature on this, but it seems a formulaic start of a narrative of an unprovoked Rus' campaign against the Polovtsi that the chronicler needs to justify by invoking God's command, because it is difficult to find justification in doing to the Polovtsi exactly what you do not want them to do to you (something with a Golden rule...). NLeeuw (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay so, the noun translated as "crop fields" is роля́. The forms it takes in Ipat sub anno 1111 are рольи and ролью; Makhnovets made that ріллі and ріллю, declensed from modern Ukrainian equivalent wikt:рілля which derives from роля́. (Just like with toponyms such as Podolia, a vowel shift in Ukrainian turned the second /o/ into an /i/ and added an /l/, resulting in Podillia.)

The only sense wikt:роля provides is the French loanword rôle ("role"), not "arable land", "cultivated land" etc. but in OES and Old Ruthenian, it definitely had that meaning. It's not wikt:поле (pole), a transcription error native Slavic speakers used to the Cyrillic script are unlikely to make (but someone like me might). NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I might add that Ipat. sub anno 1111 always spells the name Володимеръ with an /е/ at the end. There seems to be overwhelming agreement in most of the 5 main textual witnesses (Lav, Rad, Aka, Ipa, Xle) sub anno 1103 to spell the name as Володимеръ with an /е/ at the end as well, with only occasional disagreement from Rad and Aka. Not sure why Ostrowski et al. 2014 chose to render it consistently as Володимиръ with an /и/ at the end. That seems unfounded. Byč, Shakhmatov and Likhachev all spelt it as Володимеръ as well. NLeeuw (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

On the description and (rather hostile, associative, primitive) ethnology of the Polovtsi, it may be said that it is full of contradictions. On several occasions, but particularly sub anno 6604 (1096), the author goes off on a tangent to explain who the Polovtsi and other nomadic peoples supposedly are. They are, allegedly, simultaneously "pagans" (suggesting belief in multiple, non-Abrahamic gods), "godless" (belief in no gods), and sons of Ishmael from the desert of Yathrib (suggesting Muslims), descendants of Sarah (Saracens/Sarakenoi, also associated with Muslims), as well as descendants from Ammon, Moab, and the daughters of Lot (suggesting lots of pre-Muslim non-Jewish pagan Canaanite Semitic peoples mentioned in the Hebrew Bible). Obviously, these suppositions and categorisations can't all be simultaneously correct. First of all, it seems that the Polovtsi (Cumans) did not adopt Islam until the second half of the 13th and the first half of the 14th century. (Similar later chronicle accusations against the Mongols of being "sons of Ishmael" when they invade in the early 13th century are also anachronistic and incorrect). Nor does it appear that the author or later editors made a concerted effort to get their story straight about who the Polovtsi were; just that they were non-Christian. And it is repeatedly decried that the Polovtsi "spill the blood of Christians" whenever they attack Rus' settlements; no such complaints are made when Rus' princes make war on each other, e.g. during wars of succession.

It also seems that such "ethnologies" (or rather, free associations and speculations based on hearsay from far away) show up particularly when the Rus' troops are defeated in battle by the Polovtsi. When the Rus' win, there is no such need for explanation. The author is content that this means the Rus' princes and people are devout Christians and God is on their side. But when the Rus' lose, the author tries to explain it in terms of sin, and then sometimes about who the Polovtsi are and why they are so "evil". I have yet to confirm this pattern, but it seems to be there in the text.

Lastly, sub anno 6604 (1096), the author expresses a belief that Alexander of Macedon (the Great) 'shut up the unclean peoples in the mountain.' This loosely quotes the Revelations of Pseudo-Methodius (7th century, Syria) and more (George Hamartolos?), as aptly indicated by Cross&SW 1953. In the same breath, some ethnology is presented about the tributary Finno-Ugric peoples in the north, such as the Pechera, the Yem'/Yam', the Ugra/Yugra, and the Samoyeds. NLeeuw (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)