Nestor's Chronicle

The ''Primary Chronicle'', shortened from the common ''Russian Primary Chronicle'' (, commonly transcribed ''Povest' vremennykh let'' (PVL), ), is a chronicle of Kievan Rus' from about 850 to 1110. It is believed to have been originally compiled in or near Kiev in the 1110s. Tradition ascribed its compilation to the monk Nestor (''Nestor's Chronicle'') beginning in the 12th century, but this is no longer believed to have been the case.

The title of the work, ("Tale of Bygone Years") comes from the opening sentence of the ''Laurentian'' text: "These are the narratives of bygone years regarding the origin of the land of Rus', the first princes of Kiev, and from what source the land of Rus' had its beginning". The work is considered a fundamental source for the earliest history of the East Slavs.

The content of the chronicle is known today from the several surviving versions and codices, revised over the years, slightly varying from one another. Because of several identified chronological issues and numerous logical incongruities pointed out by historians over the years, its reliability as a historical source has been strictly scrutinized by experts in the field. (See .)

Authorship and composition

Authorship

Tradition long regarded the first compilation as the work of a monk named Nestor ( 1056 – 1114), known to have written other works such as ''Life of the Venerable Theodosius''. Writers of the time spoke of the ''Chronicle of Nestor'', and of the author as Nestor "the Chronicler". Based on the 1661 '' Paterik'' of the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves, late 17th-century writers began to assert that Nestor "the Chronicler" wrote many of the surviving Rus' chronicles, including the ''Primary Chronicle'', the ''Kievan Chronicle'' and the '' Galician–Volhynian Chronicle'', even though many of the events they described took place in the 12th and 13th century, long after Nestor's death 1114. Another reason given for belief in Nestorian authorship was the word нестера in the opening lines of the '' Khlebnikov Codex'' (discovered in 1809), which some readers took to refer to Nestor "the Chronicler". But as 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." The word is not found in any of the other five main versions of the PVL, and is thus an interpolation inserted into the text by an editor, perhaps guessing at the author's name. 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 persisted. The internal evidence of the PVL and the known works of Nestor often contradict one another, while the contents barely coincide in places where they seemingly should, so modern scholars have concluded that Nestor was not the author.

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. 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", after which he requests the readers to remember him in their prayers. Alternately, the real author may have been some other unnamed monk from the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves mentioned in the title, and Sylvester completed his work, or was a very early editor or copyist of the PVL.

Editions

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.'

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 II Monomakh was the patron of the village of Vydubychi (now a neighborhood of Kyiv) where Sylvester's monastery was situated, the new edition glorified Monomakh and made him the central figure of later narrative. This second version of Nestor's work is preserved in the Laurentian Codex (see ).

A third edition followed two years later, centered on Monomakh'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 revision of Nestor's work is preserved in the Hypatian Codex (see ).

Composition

The organization, style, and narrative flow of the ''Primary Chronicle'' shows signs of compilation, different historical elements are brought together into a single cohesive historical account. Studies by Russian philologist Aleksey Shakhmatov and his followers have demonstrated that the ''PVL'' is not a single literary work but an amalgamation of a number of ancestors accounts and documents. 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)
* the Byzantine annals of John Malalas, a Greek chronicler, who in 563 produced an 18+book work of myth and truth intertwined.
* the Byzantine annals of the monk George Hamartolus (literally "the Sinner", as he called himself; also known as "George the Monk") who tried to adhere strictly to truth, and whose works are the only contemporary source for the period 813–842
* byliny, traditional East Slavic oral epic narrative poems
*Norse sagas
* several Greek religious texts
* Rus'–Byzantine treaties
* oral tradition, but how much "is very difficult to tell".
There probably were no "earlier local chronicles". The hypothesis that a local chronicle was written before the late 980s at the St Elias church in Kiev "has to remain an unproven speculation".

Linguistically speaking, the ''Primary Chronicle'' is written in Old East Slavic, with strong Old Church Slavonic (early South Slavic) elements. Although these two languages were quite similar up to the early 12th century, with few phonological, morphological and lexical differences at that point, scholars have noted a general pattern of religious passages and moral teachings featuring strong Old Church Slavonic elements, whereas entries on events in specific years are dominated by Old East Slavic elements. Nevertheless, there are no clear linguistic boundaries between the two, as profane (secular) passages sometimes feature Old Church Slavonicisms, while devotional passages sometimes feature Old East Slavicisms. In the view of many modern linguistics, the authors (and editors) of the ''Primary Chronicle'' probably considered the language they wrote in to be one single language. However, this literary language likely differed significantly from the Old East Slavic spoken lingua franca in contemporary Kiev, which appears to have been an amalgamation of several Old East Slavic dialects, with relatively few Old Church Slavonic influences.

Surviving manuscripts

Because the original of the chronicle as well as the earliest known copies are lost, it is difficult to establish the original content of the chronicle. The six main manuscripts preserving the ''Primary Chronicle'' which scholars study for the purpose of textual criticism are:
* '' Laurentian Codex'' (1377)
* '' Hypatian Codex'' ( 1425)
* '' Radziwiłł Chronicle'' ( 1500)
* '' Academic Chronicle'' ( 1500)
* '' Khlebnikov Codex'' ( 1575)
* '' Trinity Chronicle'' ( 1450; excluded by some scholars who count only "five main witnesses")

Laurentian Codex

The '' Laurentian Codex'' was compiled in Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal 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.

Hypatian Codex

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''. 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.

Contents

Stories

The early part of the ''PVL'' features many anecdotal stories, among them:

* The supposed biblical origins of the Slavs from a son of Noah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible