The Rus' chronicles, or Russian chronicles, were the primary form of historical Old East Slavic literature in Kievan Rus' and its successors. Chronicles were composed from the 11th to the 18th centuries.
In the High Middle Ages, the main centres of chronicle writing were Kiev (modern Kyiv, producing the Primary Chronicle) and Veliky Novgorod (known for the Novgorod First Chronicle, containing elements of the Old Novgorod dialect). In the Late Middle Ages, the former was replaced by Galicia-Volhynia and especially present-day Belarus (where the (Belarusian-)Lithuanian Chronicles were composed in early Ruthenian), while the Novgorod and Pskov Republics continued their tradition, and Vladimir-Suzdal developed its own centres (with Nizhny Novgorod preserving the Laurentian Codex). Chronicles remained the main historical narrative in Muscovy until the mid-16th century reign of Ivan the Terrible, when they were superseded by Byzantine-style chronographs.Lurye, Yakov. Chronicles // Literature of Old Rusʹ. Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary / ed. by Oleg Tvorogov. - Moscow: Prosvescheniye ("Enlightenment"), 1996. (). In 16th- and 17th-century Ukraine, then contested between the Cossack Hetmanate and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Rus' chronicles gave way to what has been termed the "Cossack Chronicles" (Eyewitness, Hrabianka, and Velychko), which were strongly influenced by the new Polish Renaissance historiography (modelled on classical histories).
Terminology The record of an event usually begins with the words "Въ лѣто ..." (Vŭ lě́to ..., "In the year..."; from them, the termsс letopis, litopys and latopis were derived.Mikhail Tikhomirov, "Letopis". Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Мoscow: Soviet Encyclopedia (1969—1978). The chronicles contain historical documents, oral traditions (often of a mystical nature), excerpts from previous chronicles, and text by the chronicler.
Origin The construction of the oldest Rus' chronicle, until the early 2000s generally accepted by modern scientists, was developed by Alexey Shakhmatov. In Shakhmatov's view, the hypothetical nachal'nyy svod ("original compilation") was compiled (Mikhail Priselkov dated it to 1037) in the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'. According to the previous scholarly consensus, the chronicles were originally a complete work and not divided into years.
The Primary Chronicle was written . Although Nestor "the Chronicler" of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (known from his hagiographies of Boris and Gleb) had traditionally been credited, its authorship is disputed, and the modern consensus is that Nestor was not its author. In 1116, the chronicle was revised by Vydubychi Monastery abbot Sylvester. This edition is preserved as part of the Laurentian Codex. In 1118, its third edition was written by an unknown author on behalf of Novgorod knyaz Mstislav I of Kiev. It was preserved as part of the Hypatian Codex. Dmitry Likhachov, following Nikolay Nikolsky, deduced the beginning of the Rus' chronicle from West Slavic Moravian legends.Dmitry Likhachev. "Rus' chronicles and their cultural and historical significance", Moscow/Leningrad, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1947. 499 p. 5 vols.
Attention, especially in the northern chronicles, was paid to the Old Rus' knyazi; despite the clerical composition of most of the chronicles, many texts depict them as chosen by pagan gods. The Rurikids were emphasized.
Folk legends and stories were sources. Historical distortions were not permitted; according to Shakhmatov, any mystical motives or phenomena in a chronicle occurred because the author believed in their truth or significance.
During the 1850s and 1860s it was thought that the Rus' chronicle originated as annals and evolved into a narrative, a view supported by Michael Sukhomlinov and Izmail Sreznevsky. This theory has been revived by Alexey Gippius and Oleksiy Tolochko, who believe that the chronicle was written as svods (annals) until the Primary Chronicle. The annals were brief, factual, and lacked complex narrative structure. Over time their accuracy increased, dates appeared, the volume of information expanded, and narrative additions were made.
History The Rus' chronicles began to be systematically prepared during the mid-11th century. There were two centers of chronicle preparation in this early period: Kiev (the capital of early Rus') and Novgorod. The Primary Chronicle, at the beginning of the 12th century, was a combination of Kievan and Novgorodian chronicles (including the Novgorod First Chronicle and survives in the Laurentian and Hypatian codices. Chronicles of the 12th- and 13th-century Kievan Rus' principalities survive in the Hypatian Codex, which includes the Kievan Chronicle (covering 1118 to 1200) and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (covering Galicia and Volhynia from 1201 to 1292).Лихачева О.П. Летопись Ипатьевская // Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси / АН СССР. ИРЛИ; Отв. ред. Д.С. Лихачев. — Л.: Наука, 1987. — Вып. 1 (XI – первая половина XIV в.). — С. 236; Лихачева О.П. Летопись Ипатьевская // Литература Древней Руси. Биобиблиографический словарь / под ред. О.В. Творогова. - М.: Просвещение, 1996 Late 12th- and early 13th-century chronicles of Rostov, Pereyaslavl and Vladimir-Suzdal survive in the Laurentian Codex and the Radziwiłł Chronicle.
The late-13th- and early-14th-century Hypatian Codex survives in 15th-to-18th-century сopies. A 1377 copy of the 14th-century Laurentian Codex survives.Лурье Я.С. Летопись Лаврентьевская // Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси / АН СССР. ИРЛИ; Отв. ред. Д.С. Лихачев. — Л.: Наука, 1987. — Вып. 1 (XI – первая половина XIV в.).
The 1375 Tverian annals are part of the Rogozhskiy Chronicle and the 16th-century Tverian Collection. A chronicle related to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Moscow covered up to 1408 and survived as the Trinity Chronicle until the 1812 Fire of Moscow. It was reconstructed by Mikhail Prisyolkov.Приселков М.Д. Троицкая летопись: Реконструкция текста. – 2-е изд. – СПб.: Наука, 2002. – 512, с. A chronicle made in Tver contained revisions similar to the late-14th–early-15th-century Trinity Chronicle. The 1430s Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod, compiled at the office of the Moscow Metropolitan, may have combined the Sofia First and Novgorod Fourth Chronicles.
The first known Muscovite chronicles appeared during the mid-15th century. A 1470s compilation included the first part of the Yermolin Chronicle. The Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery chronicle contained the second part of the Yermolin Chronicle. The Sofia Second Chronicle is thought to have derived from the Lvov Chronicle. The Ioasaf Chronicle, covering 1437–1520, was made at the end of the 1520s at the office of the Moscow Metropolitan and was a source for the Nikon Chronicle. The multi-volume Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible was compiled. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century chronicles, such as the late-16th-to-18th-century Siberian Chronicles, were local, provincial texts. Sergei Soloviev about chronicle authenticity.Сергеев В.И. Сибирские летописи // Жуков Е.М. Советская историческая энциклопедия: В 16 т. - М.: Государственное научное издательство «Советская энциклопедия», 1961-1976.
14th-to-16th-century Belarusian–Lithuanian Chronicles such as the Supraśl, Bychowiec, and Barkulabovo chronicles continued the tradition of Rus' chronicles.Лурье Я.С. Летописи белорусско-литовские (западнорусские) (Belarusian-Lithuanian (West-Rus') Chronicles) // Dictionary of Scribes and Literature in Ancient Rus’ / Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Russian Literature; Edited by Dmitry Likhachov. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987.Marchenko, M. I., Українська історіографія [Ukrainian Historiography (From Ancient Times to the Mid-19th Century)], Kyiv, 1959; Ukrainian Writers: A Bio-Bibliographical Dictionary, vol. 1, Kyiv, 1960.
Purpose After the 12th and 13th centuries, Rus' chronicles were usually produced by monasteries or at the courts of princes and bishops. Later editors were increasingly concerned with compiling and revising existing writings.
Textual comparison indicates a pronounced political orientation and abrupt changes.Timothy Gimon What was written in the Russian Letopis? // «ФИПП» magazine. М., 1998. № 1 (2), pp. 8—16. Shakhmatov and his colleagues sought to establish the identity and views of their authors and to place a chronicle in its contemporary political struggle.Alexey Shakhmatov All-Russian letopis svods of the XIV and XV centuries // Журнал Министерства народного просвещения. 1900. № 9, pp. 90—176; № 11, pp. 135—200; 1901. № 11, pp. 52—80; Search for the oldest Russian letopis vaults. SPb., 1908. D. S. Likhachev, V. G. Mirzoev, and A. F. Milonov wrote about the educational and didactic purposes of the old Russian chronicles.Dmitry Likhachov Russian letopises and their cultural and historical significance. М.; L., 1947, pp. 71, 97.Vladimir Mirzoev Social function of history: According to the "Primary letopis" // Questions of historiography and methodology of history. Rostov-on-Don, 1976, pp. 8, 16—17.Andrey Kylunov. On the question of the moralism of the old Russian letopis // Russian social thought of the middle ages: Historical and philosophical essays. Kiev (1988), p. 141.
According to Igor Danilevsky, the chronicles had an eschatological purpose. Since the second half of the 11th century, they were "books of life" which would appear at the last judgment.Igor Danilevsky The idea and title of the Primary Letopis // National history. 1995. No. 5, pp. 101—110; Он же. «Добру и злу внимая равнодушно»...? (Нравственные императивы древнерусского летописца // Альфа и омега. M., 1995. No.3 (6), pp. 157—158. He is "Listening to good and evil indifferently"...? (Moral imperatives of the old Russian chronicler) // Alpha and Omega. (in Russian) According to Timothy Himon, Danilevsky's arguments are indirect. Himon suggests that the chronicles had several goals, including the recording of sacred and unusual events and reinforcing power; the chronicle is considered a tool of political power.
Сharacteristics The chroniclers were primarily clergy. Rus' chronicles were composed in monasteries, at the courts of princes, the tsars of Moscow and the kings of Galicia-Volhynia, and in the offices of metropolitan bishops. The chronicles (often contradicting each other) typically consisted of collections of short factual entries for the preceding year and speeches and dialogues by princes. The Rus' chronicles contain narratives about the settlement of the Eastern Slavs and neighbouring peoples, how Kievan Rus' was founded and developed, and its diplomatic relations, society, culture, and religion. The chronicler would sometimes provide an extended, embellished narrative on the most significant events of Rus' history.
Aleksey Shakhmatov was the leading expert in the textual criticism of Rus' chronicles. Shakhmatov considered the main part of the chronicle texts (collections of records from different sources), with every new chronicle a collection of previous chronicles and newly-added historical records.Aleksey Shakhmatov. Investigation on the Oldest Kievan Rusʹ chronicle svods. - Saint Petersburg: Printing-House of M.A. Aleksandrov, 1908. — XX, 686 p. — Reprint from Chronicle of Work of Imperial Archaeographic Commission. — Vol. 20. ().Aleksey Shakhmatov. Review of Rusʹ chronicle svods of 14th—16th Century. Moscow / ed. by A.S. Orlov, Boris Grekov; Academy of Sciences of USSR, Institute of Literature. — Moscow, Leningrad: Publisher of Academy of Sciences of USSR, 1938. — 372 p. ().