The host discusses a variety of topics with virtual guests, spanning both the eras in which they lived and the present day. Currently, five full-length interviews are available in Russian. YouTube provides automatically translated subtitles, which are not always accurate but are generally sufficient to convey the essence of the conversation. So, even if you do not speak Russian, you can still enjoy the videos.

To begin, it might be worth briefly explaining how such videos are made. As Maxim Kovalenko says, interviews are initially conducted as text in ChatGPT. AI analyzes all materials related to a specific historical figure and strives to adopt the figure's original ideas and unique style to provide relevant answers to the questions. Once the text is completed, all that remains is to make a deepfake video of the historical figure. The most challenging part is the voiceover. It takes considerable effort to find the right intonation, voice, and pauses. The host also says it takes him a lot of time to fully immerse himself in the topic to communicate freely with such unusual guests.

The project's first video features an interview with an AI avatar of the writer Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, among other notable works. Preparing for this interview was the easiest for Kovalenko, as Dostoevsky has been his favorite writer since his student days. This is also the only video additionally published with an English voiceover. I believe, however, proper English subtitles would work much better.

I must also admit that my knowledge of Dostoevsky is limited by the curriculum. So I am not able to verify his AI avatar's answers offhand. However, I can say that the interview is worth watching, if only to hear Dostoevsky joke. And what stood out to me most was his remark about how, in today's world full of fleeting communication, a person feels more alone than ever.

The next interviewee is an AI avatar of Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, usually referred to in English as Leo Tolstoy. It is unlikely that there is a person who has not at least heard of his novel War and Peace. According to Maxim Kovalenko, preparing for this conversation was more difficult for him than for the previous one. Although he read all of Tolstoy's novels, he was not deeply immersed in his work. So he read Tolstoy's diaries, watched documentaries about him, and visited Yasnaya Polyana, the writer's birthplace.

As for me, I know no more about Tolstoy than about Dostoevsky. However, it is fairly well known that Tolstoy participated in the Crimean War (1853–1856), during which he was noted for bravery and promoted to lieutenant. But he left the army for good after the war and became a convinced pacifist. So it was only natural to wonder what Tolstoy's AI avatar thinks about the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and who should own Crimea. He expressed deep sorrow over the conflict and said that land belongs to the people who live on it with love and care. Of course, the host also discussed less serious topics with his virtual guest, including neural networks and favorite dishes.

The following interview remains the project's most popular video. It was also thanks to this episode that I became acquainted with the project. For this conversation, AI brought to life Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, a Russian revolutionary, political theorist, and the first head of government of Soviet Russia. According to Maxim Kovalenko, Lenin's views completely contradicted his own. However, working on the video gave him much pleasure, and he learned many new things that he had no idea about.

I am familiar with Lenin's ideas in general terms. As for the events surrounding him, the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War are such complex and vast subjects that even a professional historian can hardly claim to have a thorough understanding. However, it is not difficult to notice some flaws in the responses of Lenin's AI avatar. For example, he confidently expresses his opinion about Stalin, but Lenin's real attitude towards Stalin is a highly debatable issue.

Nevertheless, even as AI, Lenin is more competent than any modern politician. He adequately answers loaded questions on topics such as peasant uprisings in the USSR or the execution of the Romanov family. Speaking about the prospects for modern workers' struggle for their rights, the virtual Lenin acknowledged that the labor movement faces new challenges due to the development of new technologies such as AI, automation, and robotics. However, the problem is not the technologies themselves, but who controls them. It is essential to establish public control over technologies, ensuring they serve the interests of society as a whole and not just a few wealthy individuals.

Another interview features the AI avatar of poet, writer, and playwright Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin. Outside of Russia, his most famous work is probably The Queen of Spades. However, in Russian culture, Pushkin is a truly cult figure. Many consider him to be the greatest Russian poet, as well as the founder of the modern Russian literary language. Unlike previous guests of the project, Pushkin did not live to see the spread of photography and the invention of sound recording. There are no photographs of him or recordings of his voice. So, creating the poet's AI avatar that would satisfy all members of the project team proved to be a challenging task.

It so happened that I know more about Pushkin than about the historical figures who appeared in the project before. It is not surprising, then, that I noticed some flaws. For example, the AI-generated Pushkin speaks of his affair with Elizaveta Vorontsova as a fact. However, there is no consensus among researchers about the nature of the relationship between Vorontsova and Pushkin. The only thing we can say with certainty is that the poet was in love with her. This, of course, did not mean that there was a love affair between them.

There are some other inaccuracies, but it would be too tedious to detail them all (although, of course, I could if anyone is interested). In any case, I enjoyed the video and the depiction of Pushkin it presented. It is certainly more visually appealing than previous interviews. The most provocative question to Pushkin's AI avatar was about the poet's attitude toward Vladimir Putin. The virtual Pushkin responded that any government should be judged not by its words, but by what it leaves behind.

The next step forward in visual terms was the interview with the last Emperor of Russia, Nicholas II (Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov). Now the guest appeared not as an image on a laptop screen, but in full height, sitting at the same table with the host in Maxim Kovalenko's kitchen. It is quite ironic that the first guest in this format was the person you least expect to see in such an informal setting. However, the Emperor's AI avatar seemed quite at ease during the kitchen conversation. For example, he showed off his tattoo and expressed his thoughts on the prospects of the Third World War.

In conclusion, it is worth reminding that this project serves merely as entertainment and should not be taken too seriously. AI cannot accurately replicate the thinking of the person it is impersonating. Errors are inevitable here. Nevertheless, seeing and hearing a historical figure in person is a fascinating experience. It is like watching an actor perform a role, except here the actor is replaced by AI. This project helps us see famous figures of the past as actual people, not just as portraits in school textbooks. According to the project's creator, many viewers also wrote in the comments that the videos inspired them to read the original material, which is very encouraging.

Most of the letters are brief messages that deal with everyday life, including topics related to family or household affairs, property management, and other similar matters. In other words, these are texts that are not typically found in official documents and literature of the time. I remember being struck when I first read some of the letters. The people who wrote them lived so long ago in completely different circumstances and even spoke a language quite distinct from modern Russian; yet, they were remarkably like us.

Recently, on the eve of another International Women's Day, I came up with the idea of ​​selecting some birch bark letters written by women. However, I do not intend to draw any general conclusions about the lives of East Slavic women in the Middle Ages. Here are merely some examples of letters with the necessary explanations. I found all the information in scientific publications (mostly in Russian) at https://gramoty.ru/birchbark/. There are also photographs, drawings, and the original texts, as well as translations into modern Russian, which I used as the basis for translating the letters for this article. If you want to read something in English related to this topic, you can check, for example, Old Russian Birchbark Letters: A Pragmatic Approach, by Simon Dekker, and Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia, by Jos Schaeken.

Letter № 644. From Nezhka to Her Brother Zavid

+ From Nezhka to Zavid. Why won't you send me what I gave you to forge? I gave it to you, not to Nezhata. If I owe you something, send a bailiff. You gave me a little piece of cloth; if that is why you won't give back (what I gave you to forge), let me know (option: send me a summons). I am not a sister to you (plural), since you act like this, you don't fulfill anything for me! So forge (the metal given to you) into three koltoks; its four zolotniks are in those two rings.

This letter from the early 12th century begins with a cross, which probably replaced the symbolic gesture of making the sign of the cross in writing. Next comes a typical incipit formula that mentions the sender and the addressee. Nezhka addressed the letter to her brother Zavid. Nezhata, mentioned in the text, is another of her brothers.

It seems that all three belonged to the upper strata of Novgorod society. Nezhata is likely the same person who appears in five other manuscripts (№ 586, 904, 892, 742, and 635). There is reason to believe that he was closely connected, perhaps by family ties, with Novgorod posadnik (the highest-ranking official) Ivanko Pavlovich, who held this position from 1134 to 1135.

In the letter, Nezhka reproaches Zavid for not fulfilling her request. Apparently, she gave him two rings (probably gold) weighing 4 zolotniks. A zolotnik was a unit of weight equal to approximately 4.266 grams (0.0094 lb), so 4 zolotniks were about 17.064 grams (0.037 lb). Nezhka asked her brother to forge them into koltoks (women's jewelry in the form of a hollow medallion attached to a headdress). However, it is unlikely that Zavid and Nezhata were jewelers. They were probably homeowners and had some artisans dependent on them.

Nezhka's advice to her brother to send a bailiff to her is most likely sarcasm. Sending an official to his sister would be treating her like a stranger. Furthermore, in light of recent research, her subsequent phrase, originally translated as "let me know," is more accurately understood as "send me a summons." In this case, it logically continues the previous phrase about the bailiff.

Both phrases also prepare the subsequent reproach, "I am not a sister to you." This fixed expression likely originates from the pagan formula for renouncing one's family. However, in this context, such a threat should hardly be taken seriously. More likely, it was meant to enhance the dramatic impact of the message. Also, the use of the second-person plural pronoun indicates that Nezhka is angry at both brothers.

Letter № 531. From Anna to Her Brother Klimyata

The next letter, dating from the late 12th to early 13th centuries, conveys a different mood. It is the longest and one of the most dramatic birch bark letters known to date.

+ From Anna, a bow to Klimjata. Brother, lord, take action in my legal conflict with Kosnjatin. Declare to him before witnesses, "After you placed a surety bond on my sister and her daughter and called my sister a slut and her daughter a whore, now Fedor, having arrived and heard of this accusation, drove my sister out and wanted to kill her."

So, lord brother, after consulting with Voeslav, tell him (Kosnjatin), "Since you brought up this accusation, prove it." If Kosnjatin says, "She stood surety for her son-in-law," then you, lord brother, tell him, "If there are witnesses against my sister, if there are witnesses before whom she stood surety for her son-in-law, then the guilt is on her." When you, brother, check what accusation and what surety bond he (Kosnjatin) has imposed on me, then, if witnesses are found who confirm this, I am not a sister to you, and not a wife to my husband. Then kill me, never mind Fedor.

My daughter gave money in front of witnesses, with a public declaration, and asked for a pledge. And he (Kosnjatin) summoned me to the pogost (rural territorial center), and I came, because he left with the words, "I'm sending 4 bailiffs for grivnas of silver."

Many scientific works have now been devoted to interpreting the situation reflected in the letter. Different versions of the translation may also differ slightly, but this has a minimal impact on the content. The problem is that we are missing the context, and birch bark letters do not provide any detailed information. This is likely due to the role of the messenger, who often not only delivered a letter but also verbally elaborated on its contents.

Apparently, Kosnjatin demanded that Anna pay her son-in-law's debt, claiming that she stood surety for him. Anna did not want to pay, denying the surety bond. Perhaps Anna's daughter loaned out money entrusted to Anna's son-in-law by Kosnjatin, who suspected Anna's family of receiving uncontrolled income from his money. Another version says that Anna's daughter did not insist on receiving the pledge. As a result, one of the funds was lost (the debtor refused to return it, denying the loan).

Anyway, Kosnjatin summoned Anna for an official trial. When Anna arrived, Kosnjatin left, declaring that he was sending four bailiffs to collect the debt. The number of bailiffs was possibly determined by the number of debtors (Anna, her husband, daughter, and son-in-law). Anna's husband, Fedor, was away at the moment. Perhaps her son-in-law was also absent. When Fedor returned home, he learned of what had happened, flew into a rage, threw his wife out of the house, and nearly killed her.

Then Anna turned to her brother Klimjata for help. There is reason to believe that Anna's brother is the same Klimjata who appears in two other chronologically close letters (№ 725 and 671). If so, he was an influential householder with access to the archbishop and the ability to assist in legal disputes. In her appeal to her brother, Anna uses the same renunciation of one's family formula as the author of the previous letter. However, she uses it as an oath, not a threat, and in much more serious circumstances.

The grivna of silver mentioned here was a currency and a unit of weight. Its weight and shape varied by region. The Novgorod grivna was a thin, long ingot weighing 204 grams (0.450 lb). Alongside the grivna of silver, there was the grivna of kuna, which consisted of a certain number of silver coins. In the 12th century, it was worth 50 kunas and weighed approximately 51 grams (0.112 lb). Kuna was another weight and monetary unit, as well as the name of the silver coins and money in general.

The letter contains numerous misspellings, but the author corrected a significant portion of them while writing. Most of the errors involve missing a letter or syllable. It seems as if the writer was in a hurry. Perhaps the reason for that was the author's excited emotional state. This indicates that Anna most likely wrote it herself. A scribe would have no reason for such misspellings. Also, he would hardly have preserved the overall emotional tone of the letter.

It is worth noting that if the accusation has been confirmed, Kosnjatin's swearing at Anna and her daughter would not have been formally considered an insult. Otherwise, he would have faced legal consequences. Unfortunately, we do not know how it ended, but perhaps we will eventually. To date, archaeologists have unearthed only a small portion of the birch bark letters. Other documents related to this case may still be discovered.

Letter № 931. To Semyon from His Wife

However, women did not always turn to men for help. The short letter from the early 15th century is an example of an unusual family role distribution for the Middle Ages.

An instruction to Semyon from his wife, "You'd better calm everyone down and wait for me. And I bow to you."

Each character of the letter was written with extreme care, but clearly not by a very experienced hand. The message is delivered in an imperative tone, slightly softened by a polite ending. Apparently, Semyon's wife had learned about some disturbance, conflict, or family quarrel that had occurred in her absence.

She demands that Semyon calm the conflicting parties and wait for her return, without figuring out who was right and who was wrong. The wife clearly believes that she can handle the situation better than her husband. It is possible, however, that her husband was personally involved in the conflict.

Letter № 1113. From Ivanko and Miroslava to Ivanko and …

The relationship between stepparents and stepchildren is not always smooth. 800 years ago, it was the same. A letter from the late 12th century reveals an example of such a relationship.

From Ivanko and Miroslava, a bow to Ivanko and ... Please, my stepdaughter is on Radjatina Street. Tell her, "Send other people's canvas, you scoundrel. I need to pay 18 kunas right now, and I'm empty-handed. And since you tricked Ivanko out of a grivna, send at least a zolotnik from it to Polepa. Why would you act like that? Don't disobey, send quickly."

This long, by the standards of birch bark letters, text does not contain a single misspelling or correction. By all indications, it is the work of a competent professional scribe. The piece of birch bark with the name of the second addressee is missing. Judging by the ending, it could have been a woman. If so, this is a letter from one married couple to another. In fact, as is often the case in birch bark letters, only one of the senders was the author of the text.

The proposed interpretation is based on the assumption that Ivanko, mentioned in the main text, is the same person as one of the indicated senders. He would then be Miroslava's husband and the father of her stepdaughter. Therefore, the real author of the letter is Miroslava.

She asks the addressees to convey her demands to her stepdaughter. First, Miroslava calls for sending the canvas. Perhaps the stepdaughter was supposed to weave the canvas for her stepmother. Calling it "other people's," Miroslava emphasizes that it does not belong to her stepdaughter. In this case, the canvas served to cover some expenses of 18 kunas.

However, Miroslava could also have purchased that canvas on credit. It later ended up in the hands of her stepdaughter. Now Miroslava has to pay 18 kunas. Instead, she prefers to take the canvas back from her stepdaughter and return it to the seller.

Miroslava also mentions the grivna that her stepdaughter received from Ivanko. The stepmother believes the stepdaughter should send at least a zolotnik of this money to a certain Polepa. Perhaps Polepa is Miroslava's biological daughter. Then the situation described in the letter is reminiscent of a typical fairy tale. However, it is worth remembering that this is merely a guess.

Letter № 752. Love Letter

Since Novgorod was a significant economic center, the vast majority of letters found there are in one way or another related to money. However, there are some texts of a different kind. The manuscript, dating from the late 11th to early 12th centuries, can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a love letter. Apparently, after reading this letter, the addressee tore it along the lines. Archaeologists found only two fragments, tied together in a knot.

Initial fragment:

… to you three times. What malice do you bear towards me that this week (or this Sunday) you did not come to me? And I treated you as a brother! Did I really offend you by sending you (messages or a gift)? But I see this is unpleasant for you. If it were pleasant for you, you would have escaped prying eyes and come running ...

Final fragment:

(After a big gap) ... now at some other place. Write me back about ... (After a gap of 6–8 words) … leave you. Even if I offended you with my foolishness, if you start making fun of me, then God and my nonentity will judge you.

The first missing fragment was small, so experts were able to roughly reconstruct the first line of the letter as "I sent (messages)..." The second missing fragment contains at least two lines. Because the break line is not straight, the end of the first line of the final fragment is also missing. This is approximately 6–8 words between "write me back about" and "leave you." One can only guess what was written there, for example, "I will never leave you" or "Do you want me to leave you?"

Judging by the length of the opening piece, there was no incipit formula in place. This is understandable given the intimate content of the letter. We can also say with certainty that the person who wrote the letter was familiar with literary language. Such skills required a higher level of education than the ability to read and write for everyday needs. This suggests the involvement of a third party, perhaps an educated monk. However, the intimate content of the letter does not support this assumption. It is more likely that the letter was written by an educated (and therefore high social status) woman.

One example of literary phrases in a letter is the expression "my nonentity" (Old Russian: моѧ хоудость; literally: my slimness, my insignificance). This is a self-deprecating etiquette formula of ecclesiastical origin, meaning "I" (the opposite of such expressions as "Your Majesty" or "Your Eminence"). So the final statement means, "God and I will judge you." This is also a typical formula for Old East Slavic literature. However, placing her name next to the name of God was quite a daring move for a young woman in the late 11th century. Now we can only marvel at such a message a woman could send to her beloved who did not show up for a date in such a distant past.