This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Primary Chronicle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article doesn't clearly explain in what language or languages the Primary Chronicle is written. Does anyone have a reliable source for this information? Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
In the three editions section, why does it not say what sources/manuscripts we find the first edition in? It does this for the other 2 editions. For the sake of continuity it is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.57.40 ( talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is Radziwiłł Chronicle not mentioned among the manuscripts? Isn't it as important as the Laurentian and Hypatian codex? -- Off-shell ( talk) 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I appreciate for your attention and Merry Christmas. However, there is a big difference between Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic. It seems that you are not aware of it. Please, review your change by checking what is the matter. Moreover, the article itself states that the Russian Primary Chronicle is written in Old East Slavic. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 01:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I found this page due to a comment filed at ANI [2]. What I'm somewhat to confused to is: why is the article titled "Russian Primary Chronicle", if the lead, and much of the body, refers to it as the "Tale of Bygone Years"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
“in Scandinavia itself, there were no sagas of Viking triumphs and wars in Russia to match those recounting the conquest of Iceland and the British Isle’s”. Should be 'isles' but can't check source perhaps it is like that in the source? Ubilaz ( talk) 07:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It couldn't be "russian chronicles", as Russia didn't exist. State was called Rus'. Old Slavic name for Kyiv was Kyiev, not Kiev. @Mellk, @Onorem explain why you made changes to the article? Bodia1406 ( talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Ostrowski 2018 wrote (p. 44-45) about the differences between the PVL chronology and the PVL narrative for what they say about events in the 9th and early 10th century: What we seem to be dealing here with is two different time frames, one in the chronology part, the other in the narrative part of the PVL, and quite possibly two different authors of each.
I'll try to put them in a table here to visualise what he is saying.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
PVL chronology | PVL narrative |
---|---|
Beginning reign Michael III: 860 (318+542) [a] | Beginning reign Michael III: 852 (6360) |
Beginning reign Oleg: 889 (860+29) [b] | "Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev": 881/2 (6390) |
Beginning reign Igor: 920 (889+31) [c] | Beginning reign Igor: 912/3 (6421) |
Beginning reign Sviatoslav: 955 (922+33). No mention of Olga/regency. [d] | Beginning Olga's regency over Sviatoslav: 945/6 (6453) [e] |
Oleg is called a князь knyaz "prince", apparently in his own right. (18:12) [f] | Oleg is called отъ рода ему "from his kin" i.e. from Rurik's family (22:19), and is circumscribed as regent for Rurik's "very young" son Igor. [g] |
I must say that I find it highly suspicious that the PVL chronology never identifies either Olga (who is not mentioned at all, nor is Rurik) or Oleg as a regent, but says both Oleg and Sviatoslav were just princes. Meanwhile, both Oleg and Olga are described as regents in the PVL narrative. Given their similar names (Oleg/Olga; the declension of Oleg in Old East Slavic leads to forms like Ольгова Olgova, which looks even more similar to Olga) and the fact that neither is described as a regent in the chronology, I think there may have been some sort of mixup. A tradition that one of them was a regent for an underage prince may have been inserted twice, or it was present for one, and then carried over to the other. I would suggest that Olga was the original, and that the regency tradition was unintentionally copied to Oleg. In Lav., Ipat., and Rad., Igor was "very young" when Rurik supposedly "entrusted to Oleg's hands his son Igor'" in the 870s, and in 881/2, Oleg was reportedly "carrying the young Igor'" (Ostrowski) / "bearing the child Igor'" (Cross&SW). So little was Igor. It appears we should take "into Oleg's hands" literally. By contrast, the Igor of the Novgorod First Chronicle appears to be a lot older than the one found in Lav., Ipat. and Rad., personally telling Askold and Dir that he is of kingly lineage, killing them and becoming prince of Kiev, rather than Oleg doing all these things in Lav., Ipat. and Rad. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Calling of the Varangians)
Per WP:BOLDSYN, significant alternative names should be in bold. I do not see a good reason to hide significant alt names in a footnote, including those used more often than "Tale of Bygone Years" [3] or even "Povest' vremennykh let". Mellk ( talk) 21:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.
In the 14th century a new period in chronicle writing began in which Rus’-wide collections were compiled. The Laurentian Chronicle (ca 1377), the Hypatian Chronicle (beginning of the 15th century), and many others from this period have come down to us in later redactions (...)It says "Rus'-wide collections". The entry for "Rus'" itself has a bit of a contestable definition:
Rus’ [Русь]. The former name of Ukraine. (...) Gradually it came to signify the entire realm of the grand prince of Kyiv (Kyivan Rus’).Given that the Laurentian Codex of 1377 was probably compiled on the orders of Dmitry of Suzdal in the Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal (not founded until 1341), long after the end of Kievan Rus' in 1240, these two entries in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine are incompatible.
The oldest redaction of the compendium, dating back to the early 15th century, was discovered by Nikolai Karamzin at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia. (I found out that this is incorrect, it was already transferred to the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg in 1767 on the orders of Catherine II, although she probably never knew just how important it was).
There are two more redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus.So it doesn't say anything about where the original Hypatian Codex was written, just that the copy which came into the hands of Karamzin in 1809 was found at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia, and that the "second redaction" (of which I had never heard before) "was probably written in Belarus", not "in what are today Ukrainian lands".
Naming convention of both title of ruler (hospodar) and the state changed as it expanded its territory. Following the decline of the Kingdom of Ruthenia and incorporation of its lands into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Gediminas started to title himself as "King of Lithuanians and many Ruthenians", while the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia. Similarly the title changed to "King of Lithuanians and Ruthenians, ruler and duke of Semigallia" when Semigallia became part of the state.So it doesn't seem to be entirely made up, but have some legal basis. Moreover, IEU seems to closely connect it to the mixing of Lithuanian and Kievan Rus' law to "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law". It says: The systematic study of Lithuanian-Ruthenian law began in the first half of the 19th century. Polish historians considered it a local variant of Polish law, and Russian historians usually referred to it as ‘western Russian’ law and treated it as part of Russian law. Eventually, it was studied by Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian historians and legal scholars, who accepted it as part of the legal history of all three nations. I suppose "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law" is a reasonable compromise term. The state was Lithuanian, but the legal language was Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic. It's also not unhistoric to consider at least a certain phase of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, namely the
13th to 16th centuries, as a "Lithuanian-Ruthenian state". Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rutheniainstead say "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia". [7] [8] Mellk ( talk) 08:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
[This study] is concerned with the territories that comprised the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Belorus/White Russia and which were designated as the "Polish Provinces", and the latter says
[This study] is concerned with the territories which comprised the lands of the historic Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia/White Russia and which became designated as the "Polish Provinces" within the Russian empire.So she treats Belorus, Ruthenia and White Russia as synonyms that can all be attached to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I guess Ruthenia is the least misleading / politically sensitive of the three... Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Moved off-topic comments to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)]
Done. Moved to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article gives an information that the 852 was the year when Varangians first attacked Constantinople, while the chronicle doesn't mention that. The article declares the Land of Rus' was founded by Varangian Brothers in 862, while the Primary Chronicle associates the start of Rus' with 852. The Article's name "Russian Primary Chronicle" is incorrect since there was no such state as "Russia" at that time. 5.248.199.38 ( talk) 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
In the year 6360 (852), the fifteenth of the indiction,[16] at the accession of the Emperor Michael, the land of Rus' was first named. We have determined this date from the fact that in the reign of this Emperor Russes attacked Tsar'grad, as is written in the Greek Chronicle.[17]
We", probably Sylvester of Kiev) is saying that (I'm paraphrasing): "The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus names the land of Rus' for the first time at the accession of emperor Michael (III), which happened in the fifteenth year of the indiction." He calculated that to be in the year '6360' from the day of Creation, which later scholars have calculated to mean 852 AD/CE (although they found that date to be historically incorrect).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Primary Chronicle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article doesn't clearly explain in what language or languages the Primary Chronicle is written. Does anyone have a reliable source for this information? Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
In the three editions section, why does it not say what sources/manuscripts we find the first edition in? It does this for the other 2 editions. For the sake of continuity it is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.57.40 ( talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is Radziwiłł Chronicle not mentioned among the manuscripts? Isn't it as important as the Laurentian and Hypatian codex? -- Off-shell ( talk) 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I appreciate for your attention and Merry Christmas. However, there is a big difference between Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic. It seems that you are not aware of it. Please, review your change by checking what is the matter. Moreover, the article itself states that the Russian Primary Chronicle is written in Old East Slavic. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 01:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I found this page due to a comment filed at ANI [2]. What I'm somewhat to confused to is: why is the article titled "Russian Primary Chronicle", if the lead, and much of the body, refers to it as the "Tale of Bygone Years"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
“in Scandinavia itself, there were no sagas of Viking triumphs and wars in Russia to match those recounting the conquest of Iceland and the British Isle’s”. Should be 'isles' but can't check source perhaps it is like that in the source? Ubilaz ( talk) 07:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It couldn't be "russian chronicles", as Russia didn't exist. State was called Rus'. Old Slavic name for Kyiv was Kyiev, not Kiev. @Mellk, @Onorem explain why you made changes to the article? Bodia1406 ( talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Ostrowski 2018 wrote (p. 44-45) about the differences between the PVL chronology and the PVL narrative for what they say about events in the 9th and early 10th century: What we seem to be dealing here with is two different time frames, one in the chronology part, the other in the narrative part of the PVL, and quite possibly two different authors of each.
I'll try to put them in a table here to visualise what he is saying.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
PVL chronology | PVL narrative |
---|---|
Beginning reign Michael III: 860 (318+542) [a] | Beginning reign Michael III: 852 (6360) |
Beginning reign Oleg: 889 (860+29) [b] | "Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev": 881/2 (6390) |
Beginning reign Igor: 920 (889+31) [c] | Beginning reign Igor: 912/3 (6421) |
Beginning reign Sviatoslav: 955 (922+33). No mention of Olga/regency. [d] | Beginning Olga's regency over Sviatoslav: 945/6 (6453) [e] |
Oleg is called a князь knyaz "prince", apparently in his own right. (18:12) [f] | Oleg is called отъ рода ему "from his kin" i.e. from Rurik's family (22:19), and is circumscribed as regent for Rurik's "very young" son Igor. [g] |
I must say that I find it highly suspicious that the PVL chronology never identifies either Olga (who is not mentioned at all, nor is Rurik) or Oleg as a regent, but says both Oleg and Sviatoslav were just princes. Meanwhile, both Oleg and Olga are described as regents in the PVL narrative. Given their similar names (Oleg/Olga; the declension of Oleg in Old East Slavic leads to forms like Ольгова Olgova, which looks even more similar to Olga) and the fact that neither is described as a regent in the chronology, I think there may have been some sort of mixup. A tradition that one of them was a regent for an underage prince may have been inserted twice, or it was present for one, and then carried over to the other. I would suggest that Olga was the original, and that the regency tradition was unintentionally copied to Oleg. In Lav., Ipat., and Rad., Igor was "very young" when Rurik supposedly "entrusted to Oleg's hands his son Igor'" in the 870s, and in 881/2, Oleg was reportedly "carrying the young Igor'" (Ostrowski) / "bearing the child Igor'" (Cross&SW). So little was Igor. It appears we should take "into Oleg's hands" literally. By contrast, the Igor of the Novgorod First Chronicle appears to be a lot older than the one found in Lav., Ipat. and Rad., personally telling Askold and Dir that he is of kingly lineage, killing them and becoming prince of Kiev, rather than Oleg doing all these things in Lav., Ipat. and Rad. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Calling of the Varangians)
Per WP:BOLDSYN, significant alternative names should be in bold. I do not see a good reason to hide significant alt names in a footnote, including those used more often than "Tale of Bygone Years" [3] or even "Povest' vremennykh let". Mellk ( talk) 21:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.
In the 14th century a new period in chronicle writing began in which Rus’-wide collections were compiled. The Laurentian Chronicle (ca 1377), the Hypatian Chronicle (beginning of the 15th century), and many others from this period have come down to us in later redactions (...)It says "Rus'-wide collections". The entry for "Rus'" itself has a bit of a contestable definition:
Rus’ [Русь]. The former name of Ukraine. (...) Gradually it came to signify the entire realm of the grand prince of Kyiv (Kyivan Rus’).Given that the Laurentian Codex of 1377 was probably compiled on the orders of Dmitry of Suzdal in the Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal (not founded until 1341), long after the end of Kievan Rus' in 1240, these two entries in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine are incompatible.
The oldest redaction of the compendium, dating back to the early 15th century, was discovered by Nikolai Karamzin at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia. (I found out that this is incorrect, it was already transferred to the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg in 1767 on the orders of Catherine II, although she probably never knew just how important it was).
There are two more redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus.So it doesn't say anything about where the original Hypatian Codex was written, just that the copy which came into the hands of Karamzin in 1809 was found at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia, and that the "second redaction" (of which I had never heard before) "was probably written in Belarus", not "in what are today Ukrainian lands".
Naming convention of both title of ruler (hospodar) and the state changed as it expanded its territory. Following the decline of the Kingdom of Ruthenia and incorporation of its lands into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Gediminas started to title himself as "King of Lithuanians and many Ruthenians", while the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia. Similarly the title changed to "King of Lithuanians and Ruthenians, ruler and duke of Semigallia" when Semigallia became part of the state.So it doesn't seem to be entirely made up, but have some legal basis. Moreover, IEU seems to closely connect it to the mixing of Lithuanian and Kievan Rus' law to "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law". It says: The systematic study of Lithuanian-Ruthenian law began in the first half of the 19th century. Polish historians considered it a local variant of Polish law, and Russian historians usually referred to it as ‘western Russian’ law and treated it as part of Russian law. Eventually, it was studied by Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian historians and legal scholars, who accepted it as part of the legal history of all three nations. I suppose "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law" is a reasonable compromise term. The state was Lithuanian, but the legal language was Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic. It's also not unhistoric to consider at least a certain phase of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, namely the
13th to 16th centuries, as a "Lithuanian-Ruthenian state". Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rutheniainstead say "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia". [7] [8] Mellk ( talk) 08:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
[This study] is concerned with the territories that comprised the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Belorus/White Russia and which were designated as the "Polish Provinces", and the latter says
[This study] is concerned with the territories which comprised the lands of the historic Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia/White Russia and which became designated as the "Polish Provinces" within the Russian empire.So she treats Belorus, Ruthenia and White Russia as synonyms that can all be attached to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I guess Ruthenia is the least misleading / politically sensitive of the three... Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 11:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Moved off-topic comments to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)]
Done. Moved to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article gives an information that the 852 was the year when Varangians first attacked Constantinople, while the chronicle doesn't mention that. The article declares the Land of Rus' was founded by Varangian Brothers in 862, while the Primary Chronicle associates the start of Rus' with 852. The Article's name "Russian Primary Chronicle" is incorrect since there was no such state as "Russia" at that time. 5.248.199.38 ( talk) 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
In the year 6360 (852), the fifteenth of the indiction,[16] at the accession of the Emperor Michael, the land of Rus' was first named. We have determined this date from the fact that in the reign of this Emperor Russes attacked Tsar'grad, as is written in the Greek Chronicle.[17]
We", probably Sylvester of Kiev) is saying that (I'm paraphrasing): "The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus names the land of Rus' for the first time at the accession of emperor Michael (III), which happened in the fifteenth year of the indiction." He calculated that to be in the year '6360' from the day of Creation, which later scholars have calculated to mean 852 AD/CE (although they found that date to be historically incorrect).