Janet L. B. Martin 2006 explains that there are two contradictory chronicle traditions about Rurik Rostislavich either co-reigning with Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich (Sviatoslav III of Kiev) for some years as a "duumvirate" until the latter's death in 1194, as narrated in the Kievan Chronicle between 1173 and 1200, or Sviatoslav reigning alone without any mention of Rurik as co-prince. ruwiki even has an article section on it, ru:Киевские дуумвираты#Святослав и Рюрик (1181—1194), although it is entirely WP:UNSOURCED.
Martin herself appears to favour the duumvirate tradition, in 2007 mentioning it as one option, without mention the other, and poorly describes where the other chronicle tradition can be found. Footnote 27 in Martin 2006 p. 278 indicates it is to be found in the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle and Sofia First Chronicle tradition sub anno 6688 (1180) and 6693 (1185). I've got a digitised version of the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle 6688 to 6693 here. I don't know what it says exactly, but the 6693 entry says something about several princes including Volodimer' Glebovich' and Sviatoslav' Vsevolodich' gathering an army to fight the Polovtsi? and then something with "God". The entry for 6688, which starts one page earlier, is also difficult to read, but it mentions several princes and cities: Sviatslav, Novgorodsi, Polovtsi, Volodimer', Gavril, kniaz' Sviatoslav' Vsevolodich', Chernigovsti, Suzdal', Vsevolod Yur'evich, Bolz', Tver, Pereyaslavl, Dmitry, Mstislav', Poltesk (Polotsk?), Smolensk, Roman', Vseslav, holy Sofia, Bogorodintsi. It's hard to tell what it is about, but a lot is happening in the northwest around Novgorod. Not a single mention of Rurik, but several mentions of Sviatoslav, one of them identifying him as 'kniaz'.
I've also checked the Suzdalian Chronicle in the Laurentian Codex, which at https://expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Show.php l. 132 sub anno 6693 (1185) reads:
In the year 6693 (1185), Prince Vsevolod sent an ambassador to Kiev to Svyatoslav Vsevolodich and to Metropolitan Nicephorus, asking the bishop to install Luke, of humble spirit, the meek abbot of the Holy Saviour on Berestovye. What follows is a long religious treatise which never mentions Rurik. The entry for 6688 (l. 131) narrates a battle in Ryazan, involving a Roman and his brothers Igor and Sviatoslav (probably not Roman the Great, because his brothers were Sviatoslav, Prince of Brest and Vsevolod Mstislavich of Volhynia), and a prince named Vsevolod (probably the Big Nest) intervening. Again there is no Rurik, nor is there any mention of Kiev, and the Sviatoslav is probably not Sviatoslav III Vsevolodich of Kiev, who had no brothers called Igor or Roman).
We will need better secondary-source analysis that either Martin or I are doing here to say anything more reliable about this hypothetical duumvirate. As it stands, it's 2 against 1 (N4-S1 & Suz v. KC). If no other source can confirm Rurik co-reigned with Sviatoslav, and instead several other sources claim Sviatoslav reigned alone, the Kievan Chronicle account should probably be discounted. NLeeuw (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Martin 2006 acknowledges that the Kievan Chronicle account is heavily biased in favour of Rurik.
The evidence supporting the formation of a duumvirate by Sviatoslav Vsevolodich and Riurik Rostislavich is drawn from a Kievan compilation (1173-1200), which forms a section of the Hypatian chronicle. M. D. Priselkov concluded that this compilation was authored by Moisei, the hegumen of the Vydubitskii monastery, who unabashedly glorified Riurik. (...) Although the Kievan compilation was composed earlier than the other chronicles, its clear bias suggests that its account be treated with caution.
It's true that the Kievan Chronicle is older, compiled around 1200, but several scholars suggest it was actually Rurik Rostislavich who commissioned its production (or revision), which only makes it more suspicious. The Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod of the early 15th is significantly older, but its origins may trace back much further. Moreover, the Suzdalian Chronicle proper (after 1177) is independent of the KC, makes no mention of Rurik either (but does affirm Sviatoslav Vsevolodich as prince of Kiev in 1185), and its oldest attestation in the 1377 Laurentian Codex is much earlier than the KC in the Hypatian Codex (c. 1425). We would either have to believe that any mention of Rurik was deliberately deleted out of both the N-S tradition as well as the Suzdalian tradition; or that the Kievan Chronicle, probably commissioned by Rurik, deliberately inserted claims of Rurik co-reigning with Sviatoslav. I know which option my money is on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
