Jump to content

Talk:Primary Chronicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What language?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Radziwiłł Chronicle

[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent correction

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi Aleksandr Grigoryev
Sorry for a slow reply, but Happy New Year!
Please read my edit summary: [1]. It explains why I reverted your edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Your and to you, BrownHairedGirl!
I guess my assumptions that for you Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic are one and the same language were not taken from your edit summer "Better to use a category which actually exists", since you are directing me back to it. Thank you, for your effort, though. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: the reason I reverted was simply WP:REDNOT.
I didn't form a view on which language would be more appropriate. Just that per WP:CAT, categories are for navigation, so categorising an article in a non-existent category is pointless. It's a signpost to nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sic?

[edit]

“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)[reply]

Russia did not exist in those times. Kyiv should be written in the Ukrainian way, since it is a city in Ukraine.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Read WP:KIEV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there are many different ways of spelling the city's name in Old East Slavic, such as Кꙑевъ Kyevŭ (sort of a mix of "Kyiv" and "Kiev") and many others. Neither the modern Russian or Ukrainian spellings were used at the time. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why should we use the Russian version of name then. If "Кꙑевъ" transcribed in Latin as "Kyiev"?
Why give Russian irredentism help for claims? Bodia1406 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read WP:KIEV. There are historical reasons. When quoting a text, you can use whatever spelling is used in that text. When referring to (the location of) the present city, you can use Kyiv. Otherwise Kiev is the standard for pre-1991 situations. That this coincides with Russian irredentism may be unfortunate, but not for individual Wikipedians to fix (unless consensus changes,WP:CCC, which I expect will happen, but only in several years time).
I'd also like to remind you that you are the bazillionth user who is trying to change the spelling of Kiev to Kyiv in history articles, and otherwise not trying to make Wikipedia better. If you really care about Ukraine, go write something about the post-1991 period, like Category:Women's rights in Ukraine (as I have). There is so much more important and interesting stuff to write about than that silly spelling issue. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PVL chronology versus PVL narrative

[edit]

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)[reply]

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]
  1. ^ "from the birth of Christ to Constantine, 318 years; and from Constantine to Michael, 542 years."
  2. ^ "Twenty-nine years passed between the first year of Michael’s reign and the accession of Oleg, Prince of Rus'."
  3. ^ "From the accession of Oleg, when he took up his residence in Kiev, to the first year of Igor’s principate, thirty-one years elapsed."
  4. ^ "Thirty-three years passed between Igor’s accession and that of Svyatoslav."
  5. ^ "6453 (945) (...) the Derevlians came forth from the city of Iskorosten' and slew Igor' and his company (...). But Olga was in Kiev with her son, the boy Svyatoslav."
  6. ^ "Ольгова, Русьскаго кънязя Oleg, Prince of Rus'."
  7. ^ "On his deathbed, Rurik bequeathed his realm to Oleg, who belonged to his kin, and entrusted to Oleg's hands his son Igor', for he was very young."

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)[reply]

Alt names

[edit]

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)[reply]

Interesting. I based the edits on the group of scholarly articles and Martin 2007 which I've been reading recently, and I gradually came to the conclusion that "Povest' vremennykh let" is quite widely used by scholars, with "Primary Chronicle" in second place, while virtually all other names are rare. I gotta admit that in this case it would have been a good idea to check Google Ngram (even though it is somewhat overrated), because scholarly publications do not necessarily represent all RS. I didn’t expect some of these statistics (especially how "Russian Primary Chronicle" is far more popular than "Tale of Bygone Years"), but they make sense. The only altname that may not warrant a mention in the lead section is "Rus' Primary Chronicle". Otherwise I think you were right to restore these altnames to the lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is enough recent usage for it to be possible to include as an alt name[4]. Was it 10%? "Nestor's chronicle" seems to be used not enough, though. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:ALTNAME doesn't give us firm statistical rules as to how commonly used an alternative must be in order to be included. The most important bit is:
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.
My edits to move some of the Altnames to a footnote were intended to clear up the first sentence for better readability. In my view the reader wasn't helped by 6 different names for the same thing in the opening sentence, but barely giving any substantive information about what the PVL really is. As we had already moved the modern Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian names to a footnote, I thought it appropriate to do the same with the variations of "Primary Chronicle", namely "Russian Chronicle" and "Rus' Chronicle". It is a bit surprising to me now to find that the article opens with the Altname "Tale of Bygone Years" which itself is not so commonly used at all. But it is the most commonly used translation of Povest' vremennykh let, so we kind of have to mention it in the opening sentence.
We could open the article with:
The Primary Chronicle or Russian Primary Chronicle (Church Slavonic: Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ, romanized: Pověstĭ vremęnĭnyxŭ lětŭ,{{efn|{{Langx|be|Аповесць мінулых часоў|Apoviesć minulych časoŭ}}; {{Langx|ru|Повесть временных лет|translit=Povest' vremennykh let}}; {{Langx|uk|Повість минулих літ|Povist' mynulykh lit}}.}} commonly transcribed Povest' vremennykh let (PVL), lit. "Tale of Bygone Years") is a chronicle of Kievan Rus' from about 850 to 1110.
I think that is a better balance between all these names than what we've currently got. (I think "Rus' Primary Chronicle" and "Nestor's Chronicle" are really too rare for the opening sentence anymore.)
Another alternative might be to create a "Name" section just after the lead to give ourselves all the space we might need in order to explain all these names and where they come from. We may be demanding the opening sentence to do too much work within such a small space. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name section might work to include all the names, but yes I understand that clutter is a concern. I think 10% is used in another convention which does not necessarily apply here. In this case your suggestion could work for now. "Tale of Bygone Years" seems to be used slightly more often than "Povest' vremennykh let"[5] so perhaps both should be in bold? Also I think Template:Lit can be used for the literal translation. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's do that. My suggestion plus boldening both plus Template:Lit. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for the good points you made! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the infobox clarify the language? Currently it says OES but I think there are differing classifications. Mellk (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also in regards to the manuscripts, I think there should be clarification on this too. OES is generally regarded as having diverged into "Ruthenian" and "Russian" by the 1300s to 1400s. The Radziwill Chronicle for example was written in Church Slavonic of a Ruthenian variety Mellk (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good questions. I recently agreed with Nikolay to change "Old East Slavic" to "Church Slavonic" in Calling of the Varangians. I've done that here in the opening sentence as well. Although some indeed regard there to have been a split between "Russian" and "Ruthenian" Church Slavonic around 1400, it's all still Church Slavonic, especially if people are copying old manuscripts instead of writing new ones. Perhaps the entries of the Radziwiłł Chronicle of the late 15th century are reasonably classified as "Ruthenian" / "Chancery Slavonic" because they are newly written. But here, we are concerned with copies of the Primary Chronicle, which was written in the 1090s-1110s in (Old) Church Slavonic. We do see that later and later copies (Lav 1377 - Xleb 1575) use increasingly modern spellings for the same words (the Early Cyrillic script is gradually abandoned, the younger a copy gets), but the grammar in PVL copies does not seem to change very much. (At least not that I can see, but I'm not an expert. I bet you can see such differences more easily than I). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is more Church Slavonic with significant borrowings from the vernacular. I think it could be explored further later. Indeed, even the term "Old Russian" is used up to the 17th or 18th centuries because writing was more based on Church Slavonic until that period. Mellk (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably justified, especially if the copying was done by someone influenced by the regional vernacular of Suzdalia, Muscovy, Tsarist or Imperial Russia. By the way, the current text says under Primary Chronicle#Hypatian Codex that Ipat was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. Although especially the early 15th-century copy of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle of the late 13th century might be reasonably classified as early "Ruthenian", it seems to me that "Ukrainian lands" is a bit of an anachronism. Besides, the source doesn't say so (WP:FAIL), it only says: 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.
Its entry for Hypatian Chronicle says 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".
Hypatian Codex does claim The codex was discovered in what is today's Ukraine in 1617 by Zacharias Kopystensky, and was then copied by monks in 1621. I'll try to verify that claim right now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be fine to mention more modern territorial definitions depending on if it is more useful and how the source phrases it. I do not expect most readers to know or be familiar with certain names of locations. For example, when referring to peoples like Cossacks or earlier nomadic peoples in Ukraine, we would probably use more modern definitions. I would imagine the eastern territories of Lithuania at the time are typically referred to as "Ruthenian".
I think there is a slight POV with that source you brought up. For example it refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state and mentions 'Ukrainian princes' from the 11th century[6] but it is a tertiary source anyway. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'Ukrainian princes' from the 11th century is an anachronism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Lithuanian-Ruthenian state' or 'Lithuanian Rus'' is a common concept in Ukrainian historiography, and to a certain extent in English-language historiography about Ukraine, but outside those areas it is indeed rare. I haven't seen it in Lithuanian historiography (but I know very little about that in general), and only passing mentions in Russian historiography. It may be a legitimate concept, but it does have a certain perspective that is not universally accepted, so it should be used cautiously, if at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have heard about "Lithuanian Rus'" to refer to those territories (also referred to as Ruthenia), to distinguish from "Muscovite Rus'" or "Muscovite Russia", but not really of a "Lithuanian-Ruthenian state" outside of Ukrainian historiography. Mellk (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do read now at Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Etymology that 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)[reply]
While both the sources it cites for the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia instead say "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia".[7][8] Mellk (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-spotted! So those sources also WP:FAIL. I do note that both are relatively old (1947 and 1969), written during Soviet times. When I google-book the term "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia", I do get lots of sources, including more recent ones: 2022, 2013, 2001, 1999, 1997, 1996, 1983, 1954, 1944, 1861. I also see that the 1947 book which says "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia" (Latin: Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae at [sic] Russia [sic]) also says Rex Litwinorum Ruthenorumque ("King of the Lithuanians and Ruthenians"). People in the late Middle Ages and early modern period were just really inconsistent in how they translated Русь and its derivates into Latin, and thus what kind of translations we get in English.
Same with King of Ruthenia#Title, it varied from Russiae to Rusiae to Rusciae to Rutheniae to Ruteniae to Ruthenorum etc. It seems like the Rus(s)(c)iae was more common as a toponym while Rut(h)enorum was more common as a demonym/ethnonym, and they were used interchangeably without any sort of standard. And it's pretty difficult to translate that into modern English without accusations of anachronism, original research or invented tradition. Obviously lots of modern Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians claim the Русь heritage exclusively for themselves. E.g. I see some Ukrainians claim that the title Rex Russiae of Daniel of Galicia means he / Galicia/Volhynia was the real successor of Kievan Rus', and the real "Russia". In other cases with Ukrainians they seem to prefer Ruthenia(n)(s) rather than Russia(n)(s) to dissociate themselves from modern Russia while still being able to claim credit for Русь.
The primary sources allow for both interpretations, and as a historian I can't really say who is "right" or "wrong", or at which point Ruthenia(n)(s) and Russia(n)(s) are no longer synonyms. That seems to have been a complicated centuries-long process, during which Ruthenian eventually split into Ukrainian and Belarusian, and Russian became synonymous with the language spoken in Suzdalia/Muscovy/Tsardom/Empire.
Anyway, I guess adding some more recent sources to support "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia" as an altname alongside "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia" for this middle period seems a good idea. We could do an Ngram on it if we wanted to, but neither is going to be the article title anyway, so that seems unnecessary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried Ngram anyway just because I'm curious. It doesn't work with more than 5 words and for some reason rejects "Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia", so I had to take out "Duchy", but I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison then. Do you know how to fix this tech issue? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, this dissertation of Mary A. Gembicki 2004 from Columbia University has virtually the same text in the Abstract and Themes sections, but the former says [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)[reply]
Belarus has a harder time with forms, rather than just Belarusian you will see Belarussian, Belorussian, Belorusian etc. for just the adjective. Mellk (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Latin church preferred the Ruthenia form while others preferred the Russia form.
I do not know Lithuanian, but it seems in Lithuanian the equivalent is written as "Didžioji Lietuvos, Rusijos ir Žemaitijos kunigaikštystė". Mellk (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This last sentence appears to refer to the Chetvertyn/Pogodin copy that is dated to c. 1620. It seems like the "later redactions" of the Hypatian Codex which the IEU refers to are identical with the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle#Textual witnesses. So far I haven't seen anything other than internal linguistic evidence in order to argue that the Hypatian Codex was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. Given that (early) "Ruthenian" is also commonly applied to the ancestor of modern Belarusian ("White Ruthenian"), and the second and third redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus (Khlebnikov c. 1575?), it seems an unsafe assumption that the original was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. I'm going to remove those words for now until we can find confirmation, because it is possible that the Hypatian Codex of c. 1425 is claimed to have been written in "Old Ukrainian"/"what are today Ukrainian lands" while actually being Old Belarusian/written in what is today Belarus. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, makes sense. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now I made a mistake with the Ngram viewer. The results for "Primary Chronicle" there also include "Russian Primary Chronicle". The correct version should be this then.[9]. Hopefully this is the correct notation. Mellk (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved off-topic comments to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Interesting. Well, we have kind of drifted off-topic. Maybe we should move this last bit to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex? It's no longer about Primary Chronicle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Moved to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex#Provenance and physical description from here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Mellk (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varangians in 852, 862, and "Russian Primary Chronicle"

[edit]

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)[reply]

You've got a point. I'm gonna fact-check this, because the entry says something else. In the Cross & SW 1953 translation:
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]
On page 24, the editors note: The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus is twice specifically referred to as a source in the Povest'; first in the discussion of the various alien races: glagolet Georgiy v letopisan'i ("Georgius says in his Chronicle") and second, under 852: yako pishetsya v letopisan'i Grech'stem ("as is written in the Greek chronicle"). So, the compiler of the PVL ("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).
More importantly, Sylvester is saying that the Russes [Rus'] attacked Tsar'grad in the reign of this Emperor. Byzantine sources do corroborate a Siege of Constantinople (860), rather than in 866 as the PVL says. Both dates fall within the reign of emperor Michael III (20 January 842 – 24 September 867), but unlike what this article currently says, this didn't happen already in the year 852. Someone has been reading incorrectly. Thanks for pointing it out! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the chronicle basically associates the beginning of Rus' with Kyivan Princes attack on Constantinople, and therefore makes a conclusion that the naming of Rus' people(Polanians) were somewhere in 852. It is important since russian nationalists always use the 862 quote in order to twist its meaning completely, so everything will look like Rus' began in Russia. And it's not "Russian Primary Chronicle" by the way, I hope you will deal with that too. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with the 852 issue. More information can be found in calling of the Varangians, were I dealt with the origin narrative of (Kievan) Rus' more generally.
We should not remove the alt name "Russian Primary Chronicle" because of the consensus we reached in the #Alt names section above per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:ALTNAME. As long as this name is found frequently in English-language literature, we should keep it. Only when it becomes obsolete per WP:AGEMATTERS, we should remove it. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your corrections, but there are fundamental mistakes again. Rus' land will not be "eventually called", this name was taken from Varangians by Polanians already in 852 as chronicle says, even before arrival of Askold and Dir. Askold and Dir are not Varangians, the chronicle specifically marks "they are not from Rurik's tribe". Chronicle doesn't say Askold and Dir captured Kyiv. And you named Kyiv incorrectly as "Kiev".
Okay, so what will you do with 862?
About "Russian Primary Chronicle", is it still used? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:KYIV. I don't care what the Chronicle literally/specifically says, this is not Bible class. We need secondary sources to interpret it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. What is the reason for not using Kyiv for historical topics as well as modern? What secondary sources specifically? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:KYIV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I wrote yet again. I asked what is the reason for not using Kyiv for historical topics as well as modern? And for a long time I still didn't get the answers in the Kyivan Rus' topic to in which format should I provide sources for you . I thought wikipedia would listen on article improvement suggestions? 109.237.92.26 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We listen to article improvement suggestions if they are useful. 95% of what you're saying isn't useful, because you don't seem to care about our policies and guidelines. You never seem to read them, because after I tell you to read WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS, you're still asking in which format should I provide sources for you. You should know by now what kind of sources Wikipedia needs if you read the rules. And when I tell you twice to read WP:KYIV, you say "I don't get it", and continue to insist that we should spell it as Kyiv in pre-1991 articles. We can't do that, and if you actually read WP:KYIV, you would know why. Nor can we follow your Normanist, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian WP:POV. Every time you pointed out an error, it was a coincidence. In all other cases your "improvement" suggestions do not lead to improvement. So I am kind of done wasting my time with you. Bye. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in which form it should be provided to you, but oh ok, just to not waste any more time on it I will provode it as I want.
About WP:KYIV, there was simply no reason described for that decision of keeping "Kiev" for historical things in this page, that's why I had asked you. Of course it is confusing for me and not only just for me when official name is Kyiv, but the editor doesn't only keep "Kiev", but prints even more "Kiev" instead of using just Kyiv.
If you haven't noticed, I didn't mention word "Ukraine" a single time. I read some ukrainian studies, true, as well as some russian. Oh, please, I'm not normanist, anti normanist, pro ukrainian, and I didn't tell you to promote anything of that. I am against any russian propaganda things though, yes, and I saw plenty of them in your articles, you deleted some of those things already. All I want is non biased article improvement, that's all. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Please keep reading, you may eventually understand the relevant policies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After that "good", I get an another unclear response from you to secondary source I provided. Aren't you an administrator here or what? If so, I would like to have a normal discussion with you about changing and improving the article, but you are trying to avoid it, tell me to "read" something, ignoring what I am providing to you. Maybe I would have to deal with other administrators who actually follow the rules of their own website, because you as it seems deliberately try to lead all discussions to a dead end. 109.237.92.26 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am no longer the right person to help you. Even if you do mean well and want to contribute constructively, I notice that I simply do not have the patience/skills to explain to you, as a newcomer, how Wikipedia works. At the Wikipedia:Teahouse, there will probably lots of nice people who are willing to take the time to patiently explain to you how Wikipedia works. I recommend you ask your questions about the relevant policies and guidelines at the Wikipedia:Teahouse before coming back here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus is twice specifically referred to as a source" George Hamartolos as a source? He was primarily interested in church history and Byzantine Iconoclasm. His chronicle ends at the year 842, and various writers wrote different continuations of his work until the 12th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm so letopisan'i Grech'stem "the Greek chronicle", which mentions the Rus' attack on Constantinople during the reign of Michael (namely 860, misdated to 866), cannot refer to Georgiy v letopisan'i "George's chronicle" because that stopped in 842? Then Cross & SW have misidentified these two as the same source. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, they are referring to the Continuation of Hamartolus by Symeon Logothete? In any case, a preliminary seach for source texts does find the following 1863 publication of Chronicon breve quod ex variis chronographis with Latin translation under the year 841 (p. 1179): Ιουνίω δε μηνί ια κατέπλευσαν οι Ρώς κατά Κωνσταντινούπολεως μετα πλοιον χιλιαδες. / Junii porro mensis die undecimo, indictione decima quarta, Russi ad millia decem adversus Constantinopolim classem paraverunt. The Greek text (presumably the original) says And in the month of June the Rus' sailed against Constantinople with a thousand ships., but the Latin roughly translates to On the eleventh day of the month of June, the fourteenth indiction, the Rus' prepared a fleet of ten thousand against Constantinople. Not sure if this is part of Hamartolos original text or a later continuation / interpolation, but if this attack happened in 860, Hamartolos couldn't have reported it, and the '841' date is wrong. Certainly the Latin text inserts more a precise date not found in the Greek, and increases the number of Rus' ships tenfold. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for mention Russian in the name of this chronicle

[edit]

It is not called as russian primary chronicle, this name for Primary Chronicle is complete history falsification since late of XX century Tokach (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the footnote. It is the result of a 20th-century development in English-language historiography on the subject. Originally it was Russian Primary Chronicle by Cross 1930, then shortened to Primary Chronicle, but a few 21st-century sources still use "Russian" in the name. NLeeuw (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not originally Russian Primary Chronicle, it is literally 1 (one) sentence in his work, where, btw, he says: "The Russian Primary Chronicle, formerly referred to as the Chronicle of Nestor but in modern Slavic critical literature most frequently termed The Tale of Bygone Years (Povest' Vremennykh Let) from the title occurring at the beginning of the traditional text, thus covers the period which extends from the year 852, the conventional dawn of Russian history, to the second decade of the twelfth century"
In this book he says it is Povest' hundreds times across the book, why then we use name ocurred once (and obviously made up by him) but omit name used often in the book and that is most frequently used by others according to him?
This mention of 'Russian' in nowadays context gives too much weight which is against wiki, as it used for interpreation of facts, not describing facts. For interpreation of facts there must be many secondary sources.
I insist Russian must be removed. Thank you Tokach (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many secondary sources. The first 10 references and first 3 footnotes are fully dedicated to explaining the title, and variations thereof. The current situation is the result of a careful and balanced discussion of the relevant recent English-language scholarly literature. See #Alt names above for a full explanation. NLeeuw (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to pretend that this is not a widely used name.[10] Mellk (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Contents" section

[edit]

What do we think should be in the Primary Chronicle#Contents section? Right now, subsection 1 "Stories" is a bulletlist with a random sampling of stories contained in the PVL, followed by Opening date error, followed by subsection 3 "Major events", another bulletlist of random sampling of stories contained in the PVL, but now with dates added. Both the first and third subsections have many unsourced bulletpoints (part of which I myself am responsible for).

But what do we really think this section should contain? Should subsection 1 have a thematic focus, and subsection 3 a chronological focus, or somesuch (that seems to have been the original intention)? Or should it be a summary of the structure of the PVL, a bit like Kievan Chronicle#Structure? If so, we need some authoritative scholar to subdivide it for us, lest we stoop into WP:OR territory.

  • Cross & SW 1930/1953 never divided the PVL into chapters (it's just "Laurentian Text" + Appendix I & II).
  • Hans Thuis (2015) does have a chapterisation (divided by reigning periods of princes of Kiev, just like Lisa Lynn Heinrich did for Kievan Chronicle#Structure), but only from the killing of Boris in 1015 onwards; the intro and narrative from 852 to 1015 is not partitioned into chapters. Thuis' table of contents is as follows:
    • These are the tales of the bygone years... (page 7)
    • On the murder of Boris (p 105)
    • On the murder of Gleb (p 108)
    • The beginning of the reign of Yaroslav in Kiev (p 113)
    • The beginning of the regime of Iziaslav in Kiev (p 128)
    • Beginning of the reign of Vsevolod in Kiev (p 159)
    • Continuation of the chronicle according to the Hypatian manuscript (p 206)
    • Beginning of the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodich (p 216)
    • The writings of Vladimir Monomakh (p 223)
      • A. The instruction (p 223)
      • B. Letter to Oleg, son of Sviatoslav (p 236)
      • C. Prayer attributed to Vladimir Monomakh (p 239)
  • I myself have been trying to give a bit of structure to Textual variants in the Primary Chronicle by grouping subsections by stories that we've got stand-alone articles (or subsections) for. I find that very convenient for navigation, as unlike with the Bible, the page and line subdivision of the PVL is not used outside of professional scholarly circles, and easily checkable and navigable. I'm using 3 or 4 sources at a time to find and connect all these data, to make it easier for myself, other editors and last but not least our readers to understand which part of the PVL they are actually reading. But as a Wikipedian, I'm not an authoritative scholar who can divide the PVL in, say, 15 chapters as Lisa did in 1977 with the Kievan Chronicle. Be that as it may, the following connections to existing articles may be made so far (numbers indicate page and line):
Page/line-based division of the Primary Chronicle corresponding to existing articles

Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Named women

[edit]

I just added two sentences from Raffensperger 2024, who wrote Named women number only a handful in the whole PVL, with roughly six women bearing personal names in the text. But now I'm second-guessing the validity of that statement. Supposedly, these 6 named women are:

  1. Princess Olga of Kiev;
  2. Abbess Ianka or Anna Vsevolodovna of Kiev;
  3. her sister Eupraxia Vsevolodovna of Kiev (alias Holy Roman Empress Adelheid);
  4. Predslava Volodimerovna, a daughter of Volodimer Sviatoslavich and Rogneda of Polotsk (Rogned');
  5. Predslava Sviatopolkovna of Kiev; and
  6. Catherine (Katerina) Vsevolodovna (died 1108), daughter of Vsevolod Yaroslavich I of Kiev.
But how could that possibly be true?
  • Rogneda of Polotsk is mentioned by name "Rogned'" several times, and her death is recorded sub anno 6508 [1000].
  • Anna Porphyrogenita is called "Anna" at least twice in the Conversion of Volodimer, and her death is recorded sub anno 6519 [1011].
  • Malusha is mentioned sub anno 6478 [970] as the mother of Volodimer, and the daughter of Malk of Lyubech.
And I should probably go on, but this should suffice to refute the point. Maybe Raffensperger meant to say these are the only women mentioned by their Christian names? But that's an odd way of saying "personal names". Nevertheless, in the previous sentence he quotes Joanna Chodor as writing: "even while writing a full chapter about Emnild, the wife of Boleslas Chrobry, the chronicler [ Gallus Anonymus ] never refers to her by her Christian name." Are non-Christian names somehow not "personal"? Besides, what is un-Christian about a name like Anna? Or do names only count as "Christian" if the woman in question becomes a nun, goes to a convent and takes on a Christian name for religious purposes, completely unrelated to etymological or cultural backgrounds of that name? I don't know. Maybe it's best to leave out this statement until I know what it actually means. NLeeuw (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primary_Chronicle&oldid=1265622727"