Rus' chronicle

Rusʹ chronicle
Template:Lang-orv
Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Chronicle) in Radziwiłł Chronicle of 15th century.
Author(s)	chroniclers, who were mainly churchmen
Language	Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic
Date	11–18th centuries
Genre	History

Rus' chronicle or Russian chronicle or Rus' letopis (Template:Lang-orv) was the primary type of Rus' historical literature. Chronicles were composed from 11th to 18th centuries, generally written in Old East Slavic (and later Ruthenian and Muscovite Russian) about Kievan Rus' and subsequent Rus' principalities and histories. Chronicles were one of the leading genres of Old Rus' literature, and were prominent in medieval and early modern Eastern and Central Europe.

The genre was distributed in Belarus, the Czech lands, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Chronicles were the main form of historical narrative until the middle of the 16th century, the time of Ivan the Terrible, when they were superseded by another historiographical genre – chronographs.

Terminology

The Template:Lang-orv has given rise to many Slavic derivatives (Template:Lang-be; Template:Lang-cz; Template:Lang-pl; Template:Lang-ru; Template:Lang-hbs; Template:Lang-uk), and was translated into Lithuanian as metraštis. The term letopis is translated into English as 'chronicle'. The record of a particular event in the annals usually begins with the words: "Въ лѣто..." (V lito...), which means "In the year..."; from these words, the terms litopys, letopis and latopis were derived.

Most of the letopises are author's works, which describe the genealogy and biography of the Old Rus’ian knyazes, the life of the people of Old Rus, and interpret events and signs from an E. Orthodox and eschatological point of view (see “§ Influence on the genre of Visions”). It is distinguished from otheral common genres such as "Word", "Life", and Kormchaia.

Letopises, unlike chronicles and annals, contain historical documents, oral traditions (often of a mystical nature), and excerpts from previous chronicles combined with the text of the chronicler himself. The letopis is more of a work of fiction, although it is based on svod (annual record).

Origin

The scheme of construction of the oldest Russian chronicle, generally accepted by modern scientists, was developed by Alexey Shakhmatov. In Shakhmatov's concept, the initial origin of the Russian chronicle was the "Oldest svod", compiled around 1039 at the Kiev Metropolitan see (Mikhail Priselkov dated its writing to 1037), on the basis of which the Kiev-Pechersk monastery was created "Initial vault". Presumably, in 1073, this arch was continued and supplemented by the hieromonk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, Nikon Pechersky.

According to most scholars, the letopises were not originally divided into years, but were a complete prose work. It is believed that around 1093–1095, on the basis of the "Oldest svod" and a number of other sources, the Abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery compiled the so-called "Initial svod" (the supposed original title is "Vremennik" ). In turn, on the basis of the "Initial vault" at the beginning of the 12th century, two of the oldest works that have come down to us are created: the Novgorod First Chronicle and the Tale of Bygone Years, supplemented by extracts from old Russian written documents, folk legends and materials of the Kiev princely archive (Russian-Byzantine treaties).

Presumably, the original (not preserved) edition of the "Tale of Bygone Years" was created around 1113 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor (authorship is disputed). In 1116, this chronicle was revised by the abbot of the Kiev Vydubychi Monastery, Sylvester, and its Second edition was created. This second edition (or Sylvester's edition) is preserved as part of the Laurentian letopis. In 1118, the third edition was created by an unknown author on behalf of the Novgorod knyaz Mstislav Vladimirovich (It was preserved as part of the Hypatian letopis). In later letopises, the "Initial svod" and the "Tale of Bygone Years" were often used as a source.

Dmitry Likhachov, following Nikolay Nikolsky, deduced the beginning of the Rus’ letopis from the West Slavic (Moravian) legends.

Special attention (especially in the northern letopises) was paid to the Old Rus’ knyazes; despite the fact that most of the chronicles were compiled by church people, in many texts the image of the knyaz as a sacred leader was close to pagan, when the knyazes were declared the chosen ones of the gods (Perun or Veles). A special place in the letopis was given to the genealogy of knyazes.

Folk legends and stories were used as sources. Historical distortions were never allowed; according to Shakhmatov, if there were mystical motives or phenomena in the letopis, it was only because the author himself believed in the truthfulness or significance of these events. Often the letopisets inserted an excerpt from another literary work into his work to decorate the text.

In the 1850s and 1860s, the concept appeared that the Rus’ letopis appeared in the form of annalistic notes, and then underwent a gradual narrativization (this version was supported by Michael Sukhomlinov and Izmail Sreznevsky). Currently, in the works of a number of researchers (Alexey Gippius, Alexey Tolochko), this theory is revived. According to the views of these scientists, the Russian chronicle appeared in Ancient Russia at a very early turn and was conducted in the form of short "svods" (annual records) until the creation of the"Tale of Bygone Years". The annual records were brief, factual, and lacked complex narrative structures. Over time, their accuracy increased, accurate dates appeared, the volume of information increased, the subject matter expanded, narrative inserts and additions were made.

History

Rus' chronicles were systematically prepared from the middle of the 11th century. There were two centers of chronicle preparation in this early period: Kiev (the capital of early Rus') and Novgorod. The Primary Chronicle of the beginning of the 12th century was a combination of Kievan and Novgorodian chronicle records, as well as the Novgorod First Chronicle. The Primary Chronicle survives in the Laurentian and Hypatian codices. Chronicles of Kievan Rus' princedoms of the 12–13th centuries survive in the Hypatian Chronicle which includes the hypothetical Kievan Chronicle, a continuation of the Primary Chronicle and covered events from 1118 to 1200, and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle which covered events in Galicia and Volhynia from 1201 to 1292. Chronicles of Rostov, Vladimir and Pereyaslavl of Suzdal of the end of 12th – early 13th century better remained in the Laurentian, Radziwill chronicles (codices) and Chronicle of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal.

Hypatian Chronicle of the end of the 13th – early 14th centuries is an All-Rus' svod in south redaction (presumably). It survives in сopies from the 15–18th centuries. Laurentian Chronicle of the 14th century is a svod from North-East Rus' (Vladimir-Suzdal). One copy of 1377.

"Tverian svod" of 1375 reflected in the Rogozhskiy Chronicle and Tverian Collection of the 16th century. Chronicle svod, related to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Moscow, was continued up to 1408 and survived in Troitskaya ("Trinity") Chronicle, which burnt in the Fire of Moscow of 1812. It was reconstructed by Mikhail Prisyolkov. Chronicle svod was made in Tver in c. 1412, it reflected additional revision (similar to Troitskaya Chronicle) of All-Rus' svod of the end of the 14th – early 15th century. This "Tverian svod" reflected in the Simeon and Rogozhskiy chronicles. "Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod" of the 1430s (or "Svod of 1448" according to Shakhmatov) was compiled at the office of Moscow Metropolitan and united All-Rus' and Novgorodian chronicles. The svod was preserved in the Sofia First and Novgorod Fourth chronicles.

First known Moscow grand princely chronicles appeared at the middle of the 15th century. "Chronicle Svod of 1472" reflected in the Vologda–Perm and Nicanor chronicles. Basis of "Svod of 1472" was "Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod", edited by Moscow grand princely chroniclers, who brought censorship, excluded in particular the mentions of Novgorodian liberty, because Novgorod State was joint to Moscow Grand Princedom. In the end of the 1470s, "Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod", the svod similar to Troitskaya Chronicle and other sources was compiled together. This compilation was censored even more than the "Svod of 1472". The "Compilation of the 1470s" reflected in "Moscow Grand Princely Svod of 1479", surviving in copy of the 18th century, and in its later redaction was continued up to 1492. This "Svod of 1479" underlaid all of official chronicles of the end of the 15th – 16th centuries. The compilation of the 1470s also reflected in the first part of Yermolin Chronicle. The "Svod of Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery" contained text, independent of Moscow Grand Princedom. This svod reflected in the second part of Yermolin Chronicle and in so-called Abridged Chronicle Svods of the end of the 15th century. "Rostov Archbishop Svod" of the 1480s reflected in Typographical Chronicle. Another "Chronicle Svod of 1480s", made in unofficial church sphere, reflected in the "Svod of 1518", which in turn reflected in the Sofia Second Chronicle and Lvov Chronicle. Ioasaf Chronicle was made at the end of the 1520s at the office of Moscow Metropolitan. It covered events of 1437–1520. In the same years, the first redaction of the Nikon Chronicle was compiled using the Ioasaf Chronicle as its immediate source. Nikon Chronicle was the largest Rus' chronicle. Voskresenskaya ("Resurrection") Chronicle was another extensive chronicle created between 1542–1544. In late 1550s, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, initial redaction of the Nikon Chronicle was united with passages from Voskresenskaya Chronicle and the Chronicle of the Beginning of Tsardom (Template:Lang-ru) – chronicle of events of 1533–1552, i.e. the beginning of Ivan's reign. In 1568—1576, also during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the multivolume Illustrated Chronicle Svod was created. This svod was the last All-Rus' chronicle, as they were replaced by another form of historiographical texts – chronographs. Russian chronicles of the 17–18th centuries were local, provincial texts, like Siberian Chronicles of the late 16th – 18th centuries.

The Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles (such as the Suprasl, Bykhovets, and Barkulabovo chronicles) written in the 14th to 16th centuries were a continuation of the tradition of Rus' chronicles. A group of Ukrainian chronicles from the 17th and early 18th century have survived, including the Hustynia, Lviv, Mezhyhiria, and Ostrih chronicles, the Chroniclers of Volhynia and Ukraine collection, the Eyewitness Chronicle, and the Chronicles of Hryhorii Hrabianka and Samiilo Velychko. These Ukrainian litopyses are concerned with the rebellions, society, policies and international relations of the Cossack Hetmanate and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and their wars with the Crimean Khanate and Ottoman Empire. Later, under the influence of the Rus' chronicles, Kazakh letopis appeared, the so-called "shezhire", which differ from ordinary letopises in a more simplified structure and are ordinary pedigrees.

The Old Polish letopis or so-called Polish chronicles were written in Latin; since the 13th-century chronicles appeared in Polish. The oldest Polish chronicle written in Latin was Gesta principum Polonorum at the beginning of the 12th century. Maciej Stryjkowski wrote the Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all of Ruthenia (1582), generally considered to be the first printed book on the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Development of Rus' chronicles were Lithuanian Chronicles of the 15–16th centuries and Ukrainian Chronicles of the 17–18th centuries.

Purpose of creation

The writers themselves (singular letopisets) very rarely reported any direct information about themselves or their work, so in most cases, references in the literature to the time, place, and, especially, the purpose of creating letopis monuments are assumptions or the results of reconstruction. Rus' chronicles written from the 12th and 13th centuries onwards were usually produced in monasteries or at the courts of princes and bishops. Later editors were increasingly concerned with compiling and redacting existing writings.

Comparison of letopis texts reveals the presence of their pronounced political orientation and sharp changes in it. Alexey Shakhmatov and his followers, in addition to reconstructing the history of the creation of chronicle vaults, sought to establish the identity and views of their authors, as well as to determine the place of the chronicle in the political struggle of their time. D. S. Likhachev and V. G. Mirzoev, and A. F. Milonov wrote about the educational and didactic tasks of the old Russian letopises. According to the most common opinion, the Russian chronicle is a kind of journalism that has the form of literary and historical works.

According to Igor Danilevsky, the letopises had an eschatological purpose. Since the second half of the XI century, they acquire the function of "books of life", which were supposed to appear at the Last judgment. His arguments, according to Timothy Himon, are indirect, however, The latter does not reject the possibility of an apocalyptic understanding of the letopises, which can be evidenced by the presence of a second, eschatological plan in a number of letopising texts and the very form of the letopis, recording facts from people's lives, as well as information about natural phenomena (signs).

Gimon suggests that the letopises had several goals at the same time: the recording of sacred and unusual events, the appeal of power, and the eschatological purpose of the letopis. The written word enjoyed greater authority than the spoken word in connection with ideas about the sacredness of writing. For this reason, strong political corporations sought to acquire their own letopises in order to ensure their own and their members' future, both in earthly life and at the Last Judgment. The letopis is thus considered one of the functions of political power.

Сharacteristics

The chroniclers (singular letopisets) were mainly churchmen. Rus' chronicles were composed in monasteries, at the princely (see: knyaz) courts (later at the courts of the tsars of Moscow and kings of Galicia-Volhynia) and in the offices of Metropolitans. Individual chronicles often contradicted each other. Chronicles typically consisted of collections of short factual entries for the preceding year, often including speeches and dialogues between princes. The Rus' chronicles contain narratives about the settlement of the Eastern Slavs and neighbouring peoples, how the Kyivan state was founded and developed, and its diplomatic relations, society, culture, and religion. In some instances the chronicler would provide an extended narrative on the most significant events of Rus' history, often embellished with literary phrases, including standard speech formulas, epithets, rhetorical figures and others.

Aleksey Shakhmatov was the foremost expert in textology of Rus' chronicles. He considered that the main part of the chronicle texts were svods, that is collections of separate records from different sources, and every new chronicle was a svod of some previous chronicles and newly added historical records.

In recent studies much of the chronicles have become viewed as collections of annual records, produced in certain state or church offices – as are West European annals. For example, the hypothetical "Novgorod Archbishop Chronicle" is believed to have been prepared at the office of Novgorod Archdiocese from 12th to 14th centuries and was the main basis of the Novgorod First Chronicle of the 15th century.

Sources

Sources for the oldest chronicles include Byzantine and South Slavic texts on sacred history and other subjects, the Chronicle of George Hamartolos on the Generations of Noah (in the Primary Chronicle), legends, legal documents such as the Rus'–Byzantine Treaties (in the Primary Chronicle) and the short redaction of Russkaya Pravda (in the Novgorod First Chronicle), historical records and others.

Copies

Rus' chronicles survive in some hundreds copies (codices). Some chronicles are known in multiple versions, but others are known from only a single copy. Every chronicle was a svod, or "collection" because it included materials from various earlier chronicle texts. Individual chronicles were revised, shortened or added to with entries on the events of the last year or even decades. There are probably several tens of svods in existence.

Genealogy

Further information: Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle

Genealogical scheme of the main Rus' chronicles

The Primary Chronicle of the beginning of the 12th century is the oldest surviving Rus' chronicle, narrating the earliest history of Kievan Rus'. However Aleksey Shakhmatov paid attention to the abundance of entries about the 11th century Novgorod, which are also present in the Novgorod First Chronicle (of the 15th century), but absent in the Primary Chronicle. This and some others textual facts were a base for Shakhmatov's theory that the beginning of Novgorod First Chronicle includes text that is older than that in the Primary Chronicle. The scholar named it "Primary Svod" (Collection) and dated it to the end of the 11th century. This svod was also a basis for the Primary Chronicle. If two or more chronicles coincide with each other up to a certain year, then either one chronicle is copied from another (more rarely) or these chronicles had a common source, an older svod. Shakhmatov discovered and developed a method of study on the chronicle (svod) genealogy. Based on textual analysis, Shakhmatov built extensive genealogy of the old Rus' chronicles. He connected most of these chronicles and created a genealogy table, in which the extant chronicles of the 14–17th centuries went back not only to the "Primary Svod", but also to earlier hypothetical svods of the 11th century and even to historical records of the end of the 10th century. Shakhmatov's method and theories became a mainstay in Rus' chronicle studies.

Textual criticism and content

Further information: Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle

The number of preserved letopis monuments, according to conditional estimates, is about 5,000.

Most of the letopises have not been preserved as originals; only their copies and partial reworkings (the so-called spisok) created in the 13th-19th centuries are known. Only these reworkings were preserved, including the oldest chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. All revised texts are classified by type, (editions), and type. Many parts of the letopis narrative are known as separate works, and the text of the letopis often traces connections from different sources. All these features suggest that the surviving letopises are collections of various materials, many of the original sources of which have not reached our time. This idea, first expressed by Pavel Stroyev, now forms the General opinion. It is now recognized that most of the surviving letopises are collections of previous texts.

The oldest surviving lists (manuscripts) of the letopises are the parchment "The letopisets soon" by patriarch Nikephoros with Rostov news (the last quarter of the XIII century), Synodal list of the Novgorod first letopis of the elder izvod (second half of the XIII century, second quarter of the XIV century), the Laurentian letopis (list of 1377) and the paper Hypatian letopis (1420s). Earlier letopis vaults are reconstructed by scientists based on the study of preserved written monuments.

Each Letopis or letopising svod is considered an independent whole literary work, which has its own structure, intent and ideological orientation.

Many of the most ancient letopises have not reached us. It is known that each principality had its own court letopisetses describing the history of only this principality and defending its views. The fact that in the 15th century there were letopises hostile to the Moscow Principality is proved by the presence in the Pskov Letopises of anti-Moscow judgments and attacks against the Moscow governors. Outright attacks against Moscow are also found in a number of Western Russian Letopises.

As a rule, the letopises tell Russian history from its beginning, sometimes relying on pagan ideas about the creation of the world. New Letopises were often created as collections of previous letopis monuments and various materials (historical tales, lives, Epistles, etc.) and included records of contemporary events. Most Russian letopises contain documents (international agreements, private and public acts), independent literary works ("stories", "words", lives of saints and other hagiographic texts, legends) or their individual fragments, records of folklore origin.

Literary works were often used as historical sources. Many works of old Russian literature have been preserved in the letopis texts: "The teachings of Vladimir Monomakh", "the Legend of the battle of Mamaev", "Walking across the three seas" by Afanasy Nikitin, etc.

Letopisets. Novoseltsev A. N.

Influence on the genre of Visions

Illustration from the Slavic edition of "Christian Topography". Caption at the bottom: "World on the other side of the door"

Main article: Dream visions

In many Old Russian letopises, as was noticed by Nikolai Prokofiev and Rosalia Shor, there is a motif of "visions", which is atypical for this historical genre.

Alla Soboleva in her work "The genre of visions in ancient Russian literature" draws attention to the idea of the letopisetses about the creation of the world and their unusual worldview in general. Great attention is drawn to the illustration of the Slavic manuscripts of the "Christian topography" of Cosmas Indicopleustes. Unlike the original, the Old Russian editions are full-fledged reworkings, in which there are also rather strange illustrations that are not related to the content.
In the Uvarov and archival editions (created in Novgorod around 1495), in one Thumbnail (conventionally called "the movement of the sun"), the artist depicted his view of the structure of the world: according to his idea, the sun goes underground at sunset. In the center of the miniature is a "world mountain", the meaning of which is not clear. The Uvarov editorial office is the oldest; it is named in honor of Aleksey Uvarov, who opened it. According to Yegor Redin, from the later editions of the Christian Topography, the thumbnail also got into the Old Russian letopises.

Historian Igor Froyanov cites as an example a scene from the Novgorod first letopis and the Tale of Bygone Years, where the Volkhvs (Magi) talk about the creation of man. According to legend, under the year 1071, two Magi appeared in Novgorod and began to sow turmoil, claiming that soon the Dnieper will flow backwards and the land will move from place to place.

Yan Vyshatich asked: "how do you think man came to be?" The Volkhvs answered: "God bathed in the bath and sweated, wiped himself with a rag and threw it from heaven to the earth; and the devil created man, and God put his soul into him. Therefore, when a person dies, the body goes to the earth, and the soul goes to God"

— Novgorod first letopis

In most letopises there are digressions where it is said about the future, describe the strange phenomena that have occurred, and discuss their meaning from a mystical point of view. According to Nikolai Prokofiev, these digressions are "Signs" (the name of a literary genre that existed in ancient Russia), inserted by the author in the text of the chronicle or written by him personally.

Study of sources

Most scholars (both Russian and foreign) recognize that the letopises are valuable not only as works of art, but also as detailed historical sources. 18th-century philologist Vasily Tatishchev was one of the first to include the letopises in one of the sources for the study of the Old East Slavic and Church Slavonic languages, thanks to which later it was possible to distinguish the morphological and syntactic features of the Old East Slavic language (since the language of Rus' letopises is heterogeneous and the manner of presentation of the northern letopisetses differs from the southern and eastern ones).

Vasily Klyuchevsky used the letopises as a historical source along with the lives of the saints.

The initial period

Alexey Shakhmatov, creator of a large-scale genealogy of letopis lists

The study of the history of Old Russian letopises is one of the most difficult sections of source studies and philology. The study of Old Russian letopises was initiated by Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Shcherbatov. Later, their works had a huge impact on the world study of ancient documents, and on the emergence of source studies as a science. Using the method of Tatishchev and Stroev, Mikhail Pogodin discovered a large number of facts about the letopis construction. Mikhail Sukhomlinov ("On the ancient Russian Chronicle as a literary monument", 1856) made an attempt to establish the literary sources of the initial svod. Bestuzhev-Ryumin ("On the composition of Russian Chronicles until the end of the XIV century", 1868) was the first to experience the decomposition of the letopis text into annual records and legends. In general, general preliminary observations were made, the scale of the old Russian letopis and the complexity of its analysis were established.

A new stage in the study of Russian chronicles was opened by Alexey Shakhmatov (1864-1920). His comparative textual method consisted in comparing various lists and in-depth analysis of the text. The scientist sought to find out the circumstances of the creation of each letopis monument and svod, took into account various chronological indications, typos, errors of language and dialectisms. Aleksey Shakhmatov first built the genealogy of almost all the letopis lists, the history of old Russian letopises of the XI—XVI centuries, and at the same time — the picture of the development of Russian social consciousness ("all-Russian letopises of the XIV and XV centuries", 1901; "a Review of Russian letopises of the XIV—XVI centuries", 1938 — Feature all the most significant Russian letopises).

The Soviet period

Starting with Shakhmatov, the main analysis of the text of the chronicles recognizes the comparison of two or more chronicles throughout their length, and not fragmentary observations. The method of Shakhmatov was developed by Mikhail Priselkov, who placed more emphasis on the historical aspect ("History of Russian Chronicles of the XI—XV centuries", 1940).

Shakhmatov's genealogy was developed and revised by his followers, among whom the greatest contribution to the study of Russian chronicles was made by Nikolai Lavrov, Arseny Nasonov, Lev Cherepnin, Dmitry Likhachev, Sergey Bakhrushin, Alexander Andreev, Mikhail Tikhomirov, Nikolai Nikolsky, Vasily Istrin, etc. Shakhmatov's methodology formed the basis of modern textology. Arseny Nasonov, a disciple of Priselkov, was more active than the latter in making archaeological surveys in the ancient repositories, and discovered a large number of new letopis monuments for science.

In Soviet times, there was an intensification of the study of letopises in connection with the resumption of the activities of the Archaeographic Commission and the publication of the "Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles" on the initiative of Mikhail Tikhomirov.

The modern period

The study of letopis texts has become widespread in modern Russia and other countries. Among the researchers of the second half of the XX century, the greatest contribution to the study of old Russian letopises was made by I. A. Tikhomirov, D. S. Likhachev, Ya. S. Lurie, V. I. Koretsky, V. I. Buganov, etc.

The study and publication of the Belarusian-Lithuanian letopises were carried out by scientists from Poland (I. Danilovich, S. Smolka, A. Prohaska, S. Ptashitsky, Ya. Yakubovsky, E. Okhmansky), Russia (I. A. Tikhomirov, A. A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov, V. T. Pashuto, B. N. Florya), Ukraine (M. S. Grushevsky, F. Sushitsky), Belarus (V. A. Chemeritsky, N. N. Ulashchik), Lithuania (M. Yuchas, R. Yasas).

List of Rus' chronicles

This list alphabetically sorts Rus' chronicles (that is, texts with the same narrative that may have been found in multiple manuscripts, in multiple codices) according to their English Wikipedia article titles.

Medieval chronicles

• Academic Chronicle (Moscow Academic Chronicle; continues the Radziwiłł Chronicle from 1206 up to the year 1418/9, with the text covering 1207–1237 being identical to that found in the Sofia First Chronicle)
• Ermolin Chronicle (compilation, c. 1490)
• Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (continuation of the Kievan Chronicle, covering the years 1200–1292, written in the 13th century.)
• Ioachim Chronicle (17th-century compilation); authenticity disputed.
• Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible or Tsar Book (c. 1570)
• Kazan Chronicle or Kazan History (written c. 1560–1565, first printed in 1790)
• Kholmogory Chronicle (mid-16th century)
• Kievan Chronicle (Kiev/Kyiv/Kyivan Chronicle, "KC"; commissioned by Rurik Rostislavich as a continuation of the Primary Chronicle)
• Lvov Chronicle ("LL"; 16th century), not to be confused with the 17th-century Lviv Chronicle
• Nikon Chronicle (mid-16th-century compilation)
• Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL; one of the oldest and most important Rus' chronicles, contains information older than the Primary Chronicle, and sometimes differs from it)
• Novgorod Fourth Chronicle ("N4"; 15th century; hypothetical source: Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod)
• Novgorod Second Chronicle ("N2"; 16th century)
• Primary Chronicle (PVL, Tale of Bygone Years; covering the years 852–1110s. One of the oldest and most important Rus' chronicles, found in many manuscripts and codices including the Laurentian Codex, Hypatian Codex, Königsberg Manuscript (of the Radziwiłł Chronicle), and others)
• Pskov Chronicles (15th–17th century): First, Second and Third.
• Radziwiłł Chronicle (continuation of the Primary Chronicle up to the year 1206)
• Rogozh Chronicle (c. 1450)
• Simeon Chronicle ("Sim."; written c. 1490s, earliest extant manuscript 16th century)
• Sofia First Chronicle ("S1"; last quarter of the 15th century; covering the years 852–1418, with sporadic additions up to 1471. Hypothetical source: Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod)
• Sofia Second Chronicle (16th century)
• Suzdalian Chronicle (14th century; preserved in Lav., Rad., Aka, and LPS)
• Trinity Chronicle ("TL"; early 15th century)
• Tver Chronicle ("Tver"; 16th century, includes material from c. 1400)
• Typographic Chronicle (c. 1500)
• Vladimir Chronicler (Vladimirskiy letopisets; "Vlad."; 16th century)
• Volyn Short Chronicle (c. 1500, covering the years 852–1500)

Lithuanian Chronicles

The (Belarusian-)Lithuanian Chronicles are a 14th–16th-century grouping of chronicles written in the Ruthenian language for the purpose of Lithuanian patriotism.

• Bychowiec Chronicle (Bykhovets Chronicle)
• Chronicle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (1520s)

Ukrainian Chronicles

The Ukrainian Chronicles are a 17th–18th-century grouping of chronicles written in Late Ruthenian (early modern Ukrainian).

• Chroniclers of Volyn and Ukraine (17th-century collection of twelve chronicles)
• Hustyn Chronicle (17th century)
• Lviv Chronicle (17th century)
• Mezhyhirya Chronicle (17th century)
• Ostroh Chronicler (17th century)

Cossack Chronicles

The Cossack Chronicles are a 17th–18th-century subgroup of the early modern Ukrainian Chronicles.

• Chronicle of Hrabyanka by Hryhoriy Hrabyanka
• Chronicle of Samiilo Velychko by Samiilo Velychko
• Eyewitness Chronicle

Siberian Chronicles

The Siberian Chronicles were written from the end of the 16th century to the 18th century:

• Kungur Chronicle
• Remezov Chronicle
• Stroganov Chronicle
• Yesipov Chronicle

See also

• Nestor the Chronicler
• Kormchaia
• Merilo Pravednoye
• Russkaya Pravda
• De moribus tartarorum, lituanorum et moscorum
• Freising manuscripts

Bibliography

• Dimnik, Martin (January 2004). "The Title "Grand Prince" in Kievan Rus'". Mediaeval Studies. 66: 253–312. doi:10.1484/J.MS.2.306512. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
• Halperin, Charles J. (2001). "Text and Textology: Salmina's Dating of the Chronicle Tales about Dmitrii Donskoi". Slavonic and East European Review. 79 (2): 248–263. doi:10.1353/see.2001.0046. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
• Likhachov, Dimitry Русские летописи и их культурно-историческое значение. — М.; Л., 1947.
• Nasonov Насонов А.Н. История русского летописания XI — начала XVIII века. — М., 1969
• Ostrowski, Donald (2018). "Was There a Riurikid Dynasty in Early Rus'?". Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 52 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1163/22102396-05201009.
• Plokhy, Serhii (2006). The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 378. ISBN 978-0-521-86403-9.
• Priselkov Приселков М.Д. История русского летописания XI—XV вв. — Л., 1940.
• Priselkov Приселков М.Д. Троицкая летопись: Реконструкция текста. – 2-е изд. – СПб.: Наука, 2002. – 512, [2] с.
• Aleksey Shakhmatov. Investigation on the Oldest Rus' 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. (Template:Lang-ru).
• Aleksey Shakhmatov. Review of Rus' 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. (Template:Lang-ru).
• Suhomlinov Сухомлинов М.И. О древней русской летописи как памятнике литературном. — СПб., 1856.
• Дмитриева Р.П. Библиография русского летописания. — М.; Л., 1962
• Творогов О.В. Сюжетное повествование в летописях XI—XIII вв. / Истоки русской беллетристики: Возникновение сюжетного повествования в древнерусской литературы. — Л.: Наука, 1970. — С. 31—66.
• Лурье Я.С. К изучению летописного жанра // Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы. — 1972. — Т. 27. — С. 76—93.
• Лурье Я.С. Общерусские летописи XIV—XV вв. — Л., 1976.
• Корецкий В.И. История русского летописания второй половины XVI — начала XVII века. — М., 1986.
• 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. 234—251; Л.: Наука, 1989. — Вып. 2, ч. 2. — С. 17—18, 20—69.
• Лурье Я.С. Две истории Руси XV века. — СПб., 1994.
• Literature of Old Rusʹ. Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary / ed. by Oleg Tvorogov. - Moscow: Prosvescheniye ("Enlightenment"), 1996. (Template:Lang-ru).
• Бобров А.Г. Новгородские летописи XV века. — СПб.: Дмитрий Буланин, 2000. — 287 с.
• Гиппиус А.А. К истории сложения текста Новгородской первой летописи // Новгородский исторический сборник. — СПб., 1997. — Вып. 6 (16) / Рос. акад. наук, Институт рос. истории, С.-Петербургский филиал; отв. ред. В.Л. Янин. — C. 3–72.
• Гиппиус А.А. К характеристике новгородского владычного летописания XII–XIV вв. // Великий Новгород в истории средневековой Европы: К 70-летию В.Л. Янина. — М.: Русские словари, 1999. — С. 345–364.
• Гимон Т.В. События XI – начала XII в. в новгородских летописях и перечнях // Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы: 2010 год: Предпосылки и пути образования Древнерусского государства / отв. ред. серии Е.А. Мельникова. Институт всеобщей истории РАН. — М.: Рус. Фонд Содействия Образ. и Науке, 2012. — С. 584–706.
• Сергеев В.И. Сибирские летописи // Жуков Е.М. Советская историческая энциклопедия: В 16 т. - М.: Государственное научное издательство «Советская энциклопедия», 1961-1976.
• Alexander Zamaleev [in Russian] (2005). History of Russian culture (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Official Publishing House of St. Petersburg University. p. 256. ISBN 5-288-03632-2.
• D.S.Likhachov; N. Ponyrko (1986). Izbornik: The Stories Of Ancient Rus (in Russian). Moscow: Художественная литература. p. 410. ISBN 3-515-07560-7.
• Himon, Timothy (1998). What was written in the Russian Letopises? № 1 (2) (in Russian). Moscow: «ФИПП». pp. 8–16.
• Mikhail Tikhomirov (1978). Letopis // Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia.
• Aleksey Shakhmatov (1938). Review of Russian letopising svods of the XIV-XVI centuries. Moscow: АН СССР.
• Katchanovski, Ivan; Kohut, Zenon E.; Nesebio, Bohdan Y.; Yurkevich, Myroslav (2013). "Chronicles". Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. Lanham, Maryland; Toronto; Plymouth: Scarecrow Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 9780810878471. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
• Likhachov, Dmitry S. (1947). Russian letopises and their cultural and historical significance (in Russian). Moscow: АН СССР. p. 410.

Some editions

• Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles: Template:Lang-ru. — СПб.; М, 1843; М., 1989. — Т. 1—38.
• Новгородская первая летопись старшего и младшего изводов. — М.; Л., 1950.
• Псковские летописи.— М.; Л., 1941—1955. — Вып. 1—2.
• Рассказы русских летописей XII—XIV вв. / Перевод и пояснения Т.Н. Михельсон. — М., 1968; 2-е изд. — М., 1973.
• Рассказы русских летописей XV—XVII вв. / Перевод и пояснения Т.Н. Михельсон — М., 1976,
• Севернорусский летописный свод 1472 года / Подг. текста и комм Я.С. Лурье; Перевод В.В. Колесова // Памятники литературы Древней Руси: Вторая половина XV века. — М., 1982. — С. 410—443, 638—655.
• The Rus' Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953.
• Excerpts of Primary Chronicle, including founding of Novgorod by Rus', Attacks on Byzantines, and Conversion of Vladimir. Also mentions several Slavic tribes by name.
• A collation of Primary Chronicle by Donald Ostrowski in Cyrillic is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20050309022812/http://hudce7.harvard.edu/~ostrowski/pvl/ together with an erudite and lengthy introduction in English. This is an interlinear collation including the five main manuscript witnesses, as well as a new paradosis, or reconstruction of the original.
• The Chronicle of Novgorod 1016-1471. Intr. C. Raymond Beazley, A. A. Shakhmatov (London, 1914).
• Savignac, David (trans). The Pskov 3rd Chronicle.