Authenticity and historical context

Because the text of this treaty is only found in the Primary Chronicle (PVL), it is difficult to authenticate.^[1] Some scholars believe that the original text of the treaty was written in Medieval Greek, then translated into (Old) Church Slavonic, after which the Greek original was lost.^[4] Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1930) wrote about the earliest treaties in general:

The textual and archival history of the treaties of 907, 912, 945, and 971 is completely obscure, and it has never been satisfactorily determined whether the copies preserved in the Povest' represent Old-Russian texts of the treaties made when they were negotiated, or whether they are translations afterward prepared from Greek originals which subsequently came to light in Kiev itself. It is not likely that the Russian [sic] princes of the tenth century, who were by no means superior to Scandinavian freebooters elsewhere on the Continent, attached any grave significance to these scraps of paper, and the fact that there is but one Greek allusion to them would indicate that to the Byzantine authorities they were more a gesture than a contract. The obscurity, the grammatical uncertainty, and the general disregard of style shown by these treaty-texts lead to the conclusion that they were translated at a moment when they had no further value except as casual relics of the past.'^[5]

Serhii Plokhy (2006) compared the surviving texts of the supposed Rusʹ–Byzantine treaties of 907, 911 and 944, noting that 'there is serious doubt that the dates attached to the texts of these treaties are reliable. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the treaties are at least partly the result of later creative editing of original texts, either by the author of the Primary Chronicle or by his predecessors. For example, the text of the Rus' treaty of 911 with Byzantium, which is considered more reliable than the other two, does not include a list of Rus' towns', unlike those of 907 and 944.^[6]

The text has many affinities in content and phrasing with the trade treaties later concluded by Byzantium with the merchant republics of Italy.^{[citation needed]} No treaties of comparable complexity and antiquity are known among the other societies in Europe of that time.^{[citation needed]}

Linguistics

It was composed in two languages and signed personally by Emperor Leo VI the Wise.^{[citation needed]}

All the names of the Rus' envoys mentioned in the treaty appear to be Scandinavian^[7] (attested or reconstructed Old Norse forms in parentheses): Farlof (Farulfr), Ver/lemud (Vermu(n)dr), Rulav (Rollabʀ), Fost (*Fastuʀ), Frelavc (Frilleifr), Inegeld (Ingjaldr), Karly (Karli), Karn (Karna, attested in a Swedish runic inscription), Lidul(f) (Lidulif < Leiðulfr, but litulf is attested from a runic inscription), Ruald (Hróaldr), Rjuar (Hróarr), Truan (Þróndr or Þrandr).^[2] Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1930) observed: 'In the portion of the account of Oleg's expedition which is of native Russian [sic] origin the Russes and the Slavs are clearly distinguished, but in the treaty text itself the whole expedition is designated as Rus'.'^[7]

Apart from the chronology at the start of the PVL (18:10–12), the Treaty of 911 is the only place in the PVL where Oleg is referred to as a кънязя k"nyazya "prince".^[8] If this is accurate, then Oleg would have to have been a prince in his own right (suo jure).^[1] On the other hand, Oleg reportedly told Askold and Dir that he was роду къняжа rodu k"nyaza "of princely stock/lineage" (PVL 23:14–16), instead of a prince himself, when he is said to have killed them and taken over Kiev in 881/2.^[9] At Rurik's death, the PVL only calls Oleg his "kinsman", given the care of Rurik's son Igor, and acting as a regent on Igor's behalf, rather than being a prince in his own right.^[9]