Primary Chronicle

The Historian Nestor by Leo Mol[14]

Tradition long regarded the original compilation as the work of a monk named Nestor (c. 1056 – c. 1114), who is known to have written other works at the time, such as Life of the Venerable Theodosius.[15] Hence, writers spoke of the Chronicle of Nestor,[16] and of the author as Nestor "the Chronicler". Based on the 1661 Paterik of the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves, 17th-century writers started to assert that Nestor "the Chronicler" wrote many of the surviving Rus' chronicles,[17] including the Primary Chronicle, the Kievan Chronicle and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle,[18] even though many of the events described therein were situated in the entire 12th and 13th century (long after Nestor's death c. 1114).[18] Another reason given for belief in Nestorian authorship has been the word нестера in the opening lines of the Khlebnikov Codex (discovered in 1809[19]), which some readers took to refer to Nestor "the Chronicler",[20][21] but Ostrowski (1981) pointed out: 'The word нестера was added in [the Khlebnikov Codex], and thus cannot be used as evidence for the name of the compiler of the PVL.[21] It is not found in any of the other five main witnesses of the PVL,[21][lower-alpha 4] and thus represents an interpolation inserted into the text by an editor, who perhaps guessed the author's name.[24] From the 1830s to around 1900, there was fierce academic debate about Nestor's authorship, but the question remained unresolved, and belief in Nestorian authorship had persisted.[25] It is especially the internal evidence of the PVL and the known works of Nestor, which frequently contradict each other, while the contents barely coincide in places where that would have been expected, that has led modern scholars to conclude Nestor was not the author.[26][lower-alpha 5]

A more likely candidate as author is Sylvester of Kiev, hegumen (abbot) of the St. Michael's Monastery in Vydubychi (a village near Kyiv), who may have compiled several sources in the year 1116.[28] This attribution is based on the fact that the Laurentian text ends on page 286, lines 1 to 7, with the colophon "I wrote down (napisakh) this chronicle",[28][lower-alpha 6] after which he requests the readers to remember him in their prayers.[28] Alternately, the real author may have been some other unnamed monk from the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves mentioned in the title, and that Sylvester completed his work, or was a very early editor or copyist of the PVL.[28]

Wladyslaw Duczko (2004) argued that one of the central aims of the Chronicle's narrative is to 'give an explanation how the Rurikids came to power in the lands of the Slavs, why the dynasty was the only legitimate one and why all the princes should terminate their internal fights and rule in peace and brotherly love.'[30]

In the year 1116, Nestor's text was extensively edited by the hegumen Sylvester who appended his name at the end of the chronicle. As Vladimir Monomakh was the patron of the village of Vydubychi (now a neighborhood of Kyiv) where Sylvester's monastery was situated, the new edition glorified Vladimir and made him the central figure of later narrative.[20] This second version of Nestor's work is preserved in the Laurentian codex (see § Surviving manuscripts).

A third edition followed two years later and centered on the person of Vladimir's son and heir, Mstislav the Great. The author of this revision could have been Greek, for he corrected and updated much data on Byzantine affairs. This latest revision of Nestor's work is preserved in the Hypatian codex (see § Surviving manuscripts).

The organization style and the narrative flow of the Primary Chronicle exhibit visible signs of compilation, where different historical elements are brought together into a cohesive historical account.[30] Studies by a Russian philologist Aleksey Shakhmatov and his followers have demonstrated that the PVL is indeed not a single literary work but an amalgamation of a number of preceding accounts and documents.[31] In compiling the Chronicle, some of Nestor's original sources definitely included but were not limited to:

• The chronological table in the Primary Chronicle was derived from the Chronographikon Syntomon written by patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople (died 829)[32]
• the Byzantine annals of John Malalas, a Greek chronicler, who in 563 produced an 18 book work of intertwined myth and truth
• the Byzantine annals of the monk George Hamartolus (literally "the Sinner", as he called himself; also known as "George the Monk")[33] who tried to adhere strictly to truth, and whose works are the unique contemporary source for the period 813–842
• byliny,[34] which were traditional East Slavic oral epic narrative poems
• Norse sagas[35]
• several Greek religious texts
• Rus'–Byzantine treaties[30]
• oral tradition (non-written memories of the past), but how much "is very difficult to tell".[36]
• probably no "earlier local chronicles".[30] The hypothesis that a local chronicle was written until the late 980s at the St Elias church in Kiev "has to remain an unproven speculation".[30]

The Laurentian Codex was compiled in Suzdalian lands by the Nizhegorodian monk Laurentius for the Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1377. The original text he used was a codex (since lost) compiled in 1305 for the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Mikhail of Tver. The account continues until 1305, but the years 898–922, 1263–83 and 1288–94 are missing for reasons unknown. The manuscript was acquired by the famous Count Musin-Pushkin in 1792 and subsequently presented to the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg.

The Hypatian Codex dates to the 15th century. It incorporates much information from the lost 12th-century Kievan Chronicle and 13th-century Galician–Volhynian Chronicle.[38] The language of this work is the East Slavic version of Church Slavonic language with many additional irregular east-slavisms (like other east-Slavic codices of the time). Whereas the Laurentian (Muscovite) text traces the Kievan legacy through to the Muscovite princes, the Hypatian text traces the Kievan legacy through the rulers of the Halych principality. The Hypatian codex was rediscovered in Kiev in the 1620s, and a copy was made for Prince Kostiantyn Ostrozhsky. A copy was found in Russia in the 18th century at the Ipatiev Monastery of Kostroma by the Russian historian Nikolai Karamzin.

Numerous monographs and published versions of the chronicle have been made, the earliest known being in 1767. Aleksey Shakhmatov published a pioneering textological analysis of the narrative in 1908. Dmitry Likhachev and other Soviet scholars partly revisited his findings. Their versions attempted to reconstruct the pre-Nestorian chronicle, compiled at the court of Yaroslav the Wise in the mid-11th century.

The chronology offered by the Primary Chronicle (PVL) is sometimes at odds with that of other documents such as the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL) and Byzantine literature.[41] Sometimes the Primary Chronicle also contradicts itself, especially between narrative and chronological parts, which appear to have been written by two different authors.[42] Several scholars including Aleksey Shakhmatov (1897), Mikhail Tikhomirov (1960), Ia. S. Lur’e (1970), and Constantin Zuckerman (1995) have concluded that the 9th- and 10th-century dates mentioned in the PVL were not added to the text until the 11th century, unless directly copied from the Chronicle of George the Monk.[33]

The historical period covered in the Tale of Bygone Years begins with biblical times, in the introductory portion of the text, and concludes with the year 1117 in the chronicle's third edition. Russian philologist Aleksey Shakhmatov was the first one to discover early on that the chronology of the Primary Chronicle opens with an error. The Laurentian text of the Chronicle says: "In the year 6360 (852), the fifteenth of the indiction, at the accession of the Emperor Michael, the land of Rus' was first named".[43] It is thus claimed that the reign of Byzantine emperor Michael III began in this year, but Byzantine sources (such as 11th-century Greek historian John Skylitzes' account[44] ) point out that it began on 21 January 842.[32][45] Shakhmatov (1897) demonstrated that an editor based himself on a miscalculation found in the Short History of Nikephoros I of Constantinople.[32][45] Moreover, a few sentences later, the text states: 'from the birth of Christ to Constantine, 318 years; and from Constantine to Michael, 542 years. Twenty-nine years passed between the first year of Michael's reign and the accession of Oleg, Prince of Rus'.'[46][45] However, Constantine the Great acceded in 313, not 318, and the resulting sum of 318+542 years leads to another erroneous accession of Michael III, this time in 860.[32][45] This then leads to an internal contradiction, when "Michael the Emperor" is said to have mounted a campaign against the Bulgars in 853–858 (6361–6366),[47] which could not have happened before he became Byzantine emperor in 860 according to the latter accession date.[45]

Chronology of major events:[48]

• 852 (6360): The principal date mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, when the land of Rus' was first named in the Greek chronicle of George Hamartolos; this is evidence that the compiler used it as one of the sources for the Primary Chronicle.[49]
• 859: 'The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians, the Ves', and the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polyanians, the Severians, and the Vyatichians'.[47]
• 862: The calling of the Varangians. The various tributaries of the Varangians attempted to rid themselves of the Varangian lordship, which led to quarrels among the tribes and culminated in them inviting a knyaz ("prince") from the Varangians to rule over them.[47] As a result, the three Varangian brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor and their kinsfolk crossed the sea and settled themselves in various localities, and it is claimed that it was after these Varangians that the land of Rus' would eventually be named.[50] Around the same time, two other Varangians called Askold and Dir captured the town of Kiev.[50]
• 866 (6374): The Siege of Constantinople (860) by Rus' forces. According to Byzantine sources, this happened in 860, not 866.[51][8]
• 881/2 (6390): Rurik's successor, Oleg, sent messengers to Askold and Dir, representing himself as a stranger on his way to Greece on an errand for Oleg and for Igor', the prince's son, requesting a meeting. He then ambushed Askold and Dir, saying: "You are not princes nor even of princely stock, but I am of princely birth." Igor' was then brought forward, and Oleg announced that he was the son of Rurik. They killed Askold and Dir, and after carrying them to the hill, they buried them there, on the hill now known as Uhorska (Hungarian hill), where the castle of Ol'ma now stands.'[52] Then 'Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev'[45] (Old East Slavic: къняжа въ Киеве, romanized: kŭnyaza vŭ Kyeve[45]) 'and declared that it should be the mother of Rus' cities.'[52] According to the text's aforementioned chronology of Oleg's accession 29 years after Michael III in 860, Oleg's reign should have begun in 889 rather than 881/2.[45]
• 883: Prince Oleg conquers the Derevlians.
• 884–885: Prince Oleg defeats the Radimichians and the Severians, bringing them under his rule.
• 907: Prince Oleg launched an incursion against the Greeks, resulting in a favorable treaty for Rus'. The Greek emperor Leo conceded to provide allowances for Oleg's men, award them a right to stay and trade in Constantinople free of tax, and to enter unconditional peace. This event is not mentioned in Byzantine sources.[8]
• 912: After Oleg's prophetic death from a snakebite, prince Igor succeeded him as the ruler of Rus' and was neither “successful in his military campaigns nor popular with people.” According to the Novgorod First Chronicle, Oleg died in 922; if Oleg (Helgi) is the same person as HLGW, "king of the Rus'", in the Genizah Letter, he would still have been alive in the 940s.[53]
• Ca. 945: Prince Igor was murdered in the act of uprising by the Derevlians. His wife Olga assumed the throne following her husband's death and brought revenge upon Igor's murderers. Some of the Derevlians were burned in their homes, others were buried alive, while the remaining were simply slaughtered. Olga later ruled as a regent for her young son Svyatoslav, who went on to have an extensive military career as an adult, venturing East against the Khazars and the Bulgars.
• 972: Svyatoslav was killed in a Pecheneg ambush while returning from one of his frequent campaigns against the Greeks.
• 973: The reign of Yaropolk began and was complicated by quarrels with his two brothers, Oleg and Vladimir.
• 978–980: Yaropolk proved himself victorious against his brother Oleg but died at the hands of men of his other brother Vladimir. After inheriting the throne, Vladimir initially upheld pagan practices and worshipped Perun.
• 986–988: The conversion of Volodimer: Vladimir was baptized into Orthodoxy, which later became referred to as the "Baptism of Rus'" because it was followed by a widespread Christianization of Kievan Rus'. The entire conversion story covers a large chunk of the Primary Chronicle: pages 84–121, or 37 out of a total of 286 pages (12.9%) of the entire text.[54]
• 1015: Following Vladimir's death, Svyatopolk inherited the title of the Prince of Kiev and became known as Svyatopolk the Accursed for his violent actions towards his siblings.
• 1019: Svyatopolk was overthrown by his brother Yaroslav the Wise, whose reign brought an end to the unified kingdom of Rus but laid the foundation for the development of the written tradition in the Kievan Rus'.
• 1054: After Yaroslav's death, the kingdom was split into five princedoms with Izyaslav ruling in Kiev, Svyatoslav in Chernigov, Igor in Volodymyr, Vsevolod in Pereiaslav, and Rostislav in Tmutarakan’.
• 1076: Vsevolod held a victory over his four rivals and became the Grand Prince of Kiev.
• 1093: After Vsevolod’s death, Svyatopolk reigned over the Kievan Rus.
• 1113: Rise to power of Vladimir Monomakh, whose religious testament and prayers were appended at the end of the Chronicle by monk Sylvester, working from St. Michael’s monastery in 1116.

The Primary Chronicle traces the history of the Slavic people all the way back to the times of Noah, whose three sons inherited the Earth:

• Shem inherited the eastern region: Persia, Bactria, Syria, Media, Babylon, Cordyna, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Elymais, India, Coelesyria, Commagene, Phoenicia.
• Ham inherited the southern region: Egypt, Libya, Numidia, Massyris, Maurentania, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Camalia, Lycia. Caria, Lydia, Moesia, Troas, Aeolia, Bithynia, Sardinia, Crete, Cyprus.
• Japheth gained north-western territories: Armenia, Britain, Illyria, Dalmatia, Ionia, Macedonia, Media, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Scythia, and Thessaly.

The Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Rus, and others were named to be descendants of Japheth. In the very beginning, humanity was united into a single nation, but after the fall of the Tower of Babel, the Slavic race was derived from the line of Japheth, “since they are the Noricians, who are identified with the Slavs.”[57]

According to the so-called "Korsun legend", presented in the Chronicle just preceding the conversion of Volodimer, the Prince took possession of the Greek city of Korsun (Chersonesus) located in the Crimean Peninsula, in an attempt to gain certain benefits from Emperor Basil. Following Vladimir's successful conquest of the city, he demanded that the Emperor's 'unwedded' sister be given up for marriage with him. Upon hearing the news from Korsun, emperor Basil responded that "It is not meet for Christians to give in marriage to pagans. If you are baptized, you shall have her to wife, inherit the kingdom of God, and be our companion in faith."[58] The legend concludes with Vladimir's embrace of Christianity at the church of St. Basil in Korsun and his marriage to the Emperor's sister, Anna Porphyrogenita.

For centuries after the Chronicle’s creation, the legend's factuality had been subject to extensive debate. Many historians, antiquarians, and archaeologists had attempted to determine the actual location of Vladimir's conversion by synthesizing textual evidence of the Chronicle with material evidence from Crimea. Their efforts became known in the realms of historical discipline as the “archaeology of the Korsun legend.”[59] This search culminated under Archbishop Innokentii's diocesan administration (1848–57), when in the ruins of Chersonesos, archaeologists unearthed the foundations of three churches and determined that the one containing the richest findings was allegedly used for the baptism of the Kievan Prince.[60] The unearthed material evidence proved sufficient to pinpoint the real location of the legend's events with reasonable accuracy.[59]

In the early 1860s, the Eastern Orthodox Church began construction of The Saint Vladimir Cathedral in Chersonesos, which has been destroyed on three separate occasions after first being erected and was renovated each time thereafter. The cathedral last faced destruction during the October Revolution and was not restored until the fall of the Soviet Union. It has been argued that by honoring Vladimir the Great and his contribution to the Eastern Orthodoxy, the cathedral serves the purpose of validating Russia's historical ties with the Crimean Peninsula, the accounts of which are preserved by the Chronicle.[59]

• Лаврентьевская летопись [The Laurentian Chronicle.], Полное собрание русских летописей (ПСРЛ) (online edition) (in Russian), USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 1, 1928, from the Laurentian Codex
• Ипатьевская летопись [Ipatiev Chronicle], Полное собрание русских летописей (ПСРЛ) (in Russian), Imperial Archaeological Commission, vol. 2, 1908, from the Hypatian Codex
• Новгородская первая летопись старшего и младшего изводов [Novgorod First Chronicle Older and Younger Editions] (in Russian), USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950, from the Novgorod First Chronicle
• Ostrowski, Donald, ed. (2003). The Povest' vremennykh let: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis. 3 volumes (in Russian and English). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Archived from the original on 2005-03-09. Retrieved 2002-03-23. (assoc. ed. David J. Birnbaum (Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature, vol. 10, parts 1–3) – This 2003 Ostrowski et al. edition includes an interlinear collation including the five main manuscript witnesses, as well as a new paradosis ("a proposed best reading").
• Ostrowski, Donald; Birnbaum, David J. (7 December 2014). "Rus' primary chronicle critical edition – Interlinear line-level collation". pvl.obdurodon.org (in Church Slavic). Retrieved 17 May 2023. – A 2014 improved digitised version of the 2002/2003 Ostrowski et al. edition.

• "Laurentian Codex 1377: digitisation of the Laurentian Codex, including transliteration and translation into modern Russian, with an introduction in English" (in Church Slavic and Russian). National Library of Russia. 2012.
• Cross, Samuel Hazzard; Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P. (1953). The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (PDF). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mediaeval Academy of America. p. 325. Retrieved 26 January 2023. (First edition published in 1930. The first 50 pages are a scholarly introduction.)
  • Cross, Samuel Hazzard; Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P. (2013) [1953]. SLA 218. Ukrainian Literature and Culture. Excerpts from The Rus' Primary Chronicle (Povest vremennykh let, PVL) (PDF). Toronto: Electronic Library of Ukrainian Literature, University of Toronto. p. 16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 May 2014. Retrieved 26 January 2023.
• Excerpts from "Tales of Times Gone By" [Povest' vremennykh let] (Lecture Notes), University of Oregon, archived from the original on 2008-12-07, retrieved 2007-10-10.

• Dimnik, Martin (January 2004). "The Title "Grand Prince" in Kievan Rus'". Mediaeval Studies. 66: 253–312. doi:10.1484/J.MS.2.306512.
• Duczko, Władysław (2004). Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Leiden: Brill. p. 290. ISBN 9789004138742. Retrieved 19 February 2023.
• Gippius, Alexey A. (2014). "Reconstructing the original of the Povesť vremennyx let: a contribution to the debate". Russian Linguistics. Springer. 38 (3): 341–366. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
• Isoaho, Mari (2018). "Shakhmatov's Legacy and the Chronicles of Kievan Rus'". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. Slavica Publishers. 19 (3): 637–648. doi:10.1353/kri.2018.0033. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
• Lunt, Horace G. (Summer 1988). "On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037". The Slavic and East European Journal. 32 (2): 251–264. Retrieved 6 May 2023.
• Lunt, Horace G. (June 1994). "Lexical Variation in the Copies of the Rus´ "Primary Chronicle": Some Methodological Problems". Ukrainian Philology and Linguistics. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. 18 (1–2): 10–28. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
• Lunt, Horace G. (1995). "What the Rus' Primary Chronicle Tells Us about the Origin of the Slavs and of Slavic Writing". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 19: 335–357. ISSN 0363-5570.
• Maiorov, Alexander V. (November 2018). ""I Would Sacrifice Myself for my Academy and its Glory!" August Ludwig von Schlözer and the Discovery of the Hypatian Chronicle". Russian History. Brill. 45 (4): 319–340. Retrieved 19 May 2023.
• Martin, Janet (2007). Medieval Russia: 980–1584. Second Edition. E-book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-36800-4.
• Ostrowski, Donald (March 1981). "Textual Criticism and the Povest' vremennykh let: Some Theoretical Considerations". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. 5 (1): 11–31. Retrieved 6 May 2023.
• Ostrowski, Donald (2018). "Was There a Riurikid Dynasty in Early Rus'?". Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 52 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1163/22102396-05201009.
• Tolochko, Oleksiy (2005). "История Российская" Василия Татищева: источники и известия "Istoriia Rossiiskaia" Vasiliia Tatishcheva: istochniki i izvestiia [Vasily Tatishchev's "History of Russia": Sources and Information]. Moscow: Новое литературное обозрение Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. p. 543. ISBN 9795867933462. Retrieved 17 May 2023. (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
• Tolochko, Oleksiy (2007). "On "Nestor the Chronicler"". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. Harvard University. 29 (1): 31–59. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
• Waugh, Daniel Clarke (Dec 1974). "Review". Slavic Review. 33 (4): 769–771. doi:10.2307/2494516. JSTOR 2494516. S2CID 163559666.

• Chadwick, Nora Kershaw (1946). The Beginnings of Russian History: An Enquiry into Sources. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-404-14651-1.
• García de la Puente, Inés. 2006. “Single Combats in the PVL. An Indo-European Comparative Analysis”. In: Studi Slavistici 3 (1): 19-30. https://doi.org/10.13128/Studi_Slavis-2143.
• Velychenko, Stephen (1992). National history as cultural process: A survey of the interpretations of Ukraine's past in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian historical writing from the earliest times to 1914. Edmonton. ISBN 0-920862-75-6.
• Velychenko, Stephen (2007). "Nationalizing and Denationalizing the Past. Ukraine and Russia in Comparative Context". Ab Imperio (1).

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Primary Chronicle.