Jump to content

Rus' chronicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 8 September 2024 (→Copies: Ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rusʹ chronicle
Template:Lang-orv
Illustration from the illuminated 15th-century Radziwiłł Chronicle
Author(s)Primarily clergy
LanguageOld Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic
Date11–18th centuries
GenreHistory

The Rus' chronicle,[1][2][3] Russian chronicle[4][5]: 51 [6] or Rus' letopis (Template:Lang-orv) was the primary Rus' historical literature. Chronicles were composed from the 11th to the 18th centuries, generally written in Old East Slavic (and, later, Ruthenian and Muscovite Russian), about Kievan Rus' and subsequent Rus' principalities and history.[7][8] They were one of the leading genres of Old Rus' literature in medieval and early modern Eastern and Central Europe.[9]

The chronicle was distributed in Belarus, the Czech lands, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.[10] Chronicles were the main historical narrative until the mid-16th century (the reign of Ivan the Terrible), when they were superseded by chronographs.[9]

Terminology

The Old East Slavic лѣтопись (lě́topisʹ) has given rise to a number of Slavic-language 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. It is translated into English as "chronicle".[4][5]: 51 [11][12][13][3][14] The record of an event usually begins with the words "Въ лѣто ..." (Vŭ lě́to ..., "In the year..."; from them, the terms litopys, letopis and latopis were derived.[15][14] The chronicles contain historical documents, oral traditions (often of a mystical nature), excerpts from previous chronicles, and text by the chronicler.[7]

Origin

The construction of the oldest Russian chronicle generally accepted by modern scientists was developed by Alexey Shakhmatov. In Shakhmatov's view, the origin of the Russian chronicle was compiled c. 1039 (Mikhail Priselkov dated it to 1037) in the Kiev metropolis. According to scholarly consensus, the chronicles were originally a complete work and not divided into years.[8]

The Primary Chronicle was written c. 1113. Although its authorship is disputed, Nestor the Chronicler has traditionally been credited. In 1116, the chronicle was revised by Vydubychi Monastery abbot Sylvester. This edition is preserved as part of the Laurentian letopis. 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.[16]

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.[17]

Folk legends and stories were sources. Historical distortions were not permitted; according to Shakhmatov, any mystical motives or phenomena in a chronicle was because the author believed in their truth or significance.[8]

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 Alexey 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.[18]

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,[9][19][20] which includes the Kievan Chronicle (covering 1118 to 1200) and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (covering Galicia and Volhynia from 1201 to 1292).[21] Late 12th- and early 13th-century chronicles of Rostov, Pereyaslavl and Vladimir-Suzdal survive in the Laurentian Codex and the Radziwiłł Chronicle.[9][19][20]

The late-13th- and early-14th-century Hypatian Codex survives in 15th-to-18th-century сopies.[21] A 1377 copy of the 14th-century Laurentian Codex survives.[22]

The 1375 Tverian annals are part of the Rogozhskiy Chronicle and the 16th-century Tverian Collection.[9][19][20] 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.[23] A chronicle made in Tver c. 1412 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.[9][19][20]

The first known Grand Duchy of Moscow 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.[9][19][20][24][25]

Fourteenth-to-sixteenth-century Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles such as the Suprasl, Bykhovets, and Barkulabovo chronicles continued the tradition of Rus' chronicles.[26][27][28] A group of 17th- and early-18th-century Ukrainian chronicles 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 [uk] and Samiilo Velychko.[29] These chronicles describe 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.[29]

The oldest Polish chronicle written in Latin was Gesta principum Polonorum, at the beginning of the 12th century.[30] Maciej Stryjkowski wrote the Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all of Ruthenia (1582), generally considered the first printed history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[31]

Purpose

After the 12th and 13th centuries, Rus' chronicles were usually produced by monasteries or at the courts of princes and bishops.[14] Later editors were increasingly concerned with compiling and revising existing writings.[26]

Textual comparison indicates a pronounced political orientation and abrupt changes.[32] Shakhmatov and his colleagues sought to establish the identity and views of their authors and to place a chronicle in its contemporary political struggle.[8] D. S. Likhachev, V. G. Mirzoev, and A. F. Milonov wrote about the educational and didactic purposes of the old Russian chronicles.[33][34][35]

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.[36] 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.[37]

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.[14] The chronicler would sometimes provide an extended, embellished narrative on the most significant events of Rus' history.[9]

Aleksey Shakhmatov was the leading expert in the textual criticism of Rus' chronicles. Shakhmatov considered the main part of the chronicle texts svods (collections of records from different sources), with every new chronicle a collection of previous chronicles and newly-added historical records.[19][20]

Many of the chronicles have become viewed as annals produced in state or church offices. The hypothetical Novgorod Archbishop Chronicle is believed to have been prepared at the office of the Diocese of Novgorod from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and was the basis of the 15th-century Novgorod First Chronicle.[38]

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,[39] legends, legal documents (such as the Rus'–Byzantine Treaties in the Primary Chronicle and a short version of Russkaya Pravda in the Novgorod First Chronicle), and historical records.[19][20]

Copies

Rus' chronicles survive in codices. Some chronicles have several versions, but others are known from only one copy. Every chronicle was a collection of materials from earlier chronicles. Individual chronicles were revised, shortened or expanded with entries on the events of the last year (or decade), and dozens of such collections may exist.[9]

Genealogy

Further information: Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle
Genealogical scheme of the main Rus' chronicles[40][41]

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.[19][20][38][42]

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.[43]

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.[44] 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed]

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

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.[45]

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.[citation needed]

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.[46]

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.[47] 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.[48]

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.[49]

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[50]

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.[51]

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).[citation needed]

Vasily Klyuchevsky used the letopises as a historical source along with the lives of the saints.[52]

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.[citation needed]

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).[citation needed]

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.[53] 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed]

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.[54]

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).[10]

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

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.[61]

Ukrainian Chronicles

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

Cossack Chronicles

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

Siberian Chronicles

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

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Russian Chronicles.

References

  1. ^ Lunt, Horace G. (1995). "What the Rusʹ Primary Chronicle Tells Us about the Origin of the Slavs and of Slavic Writing". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 19: 335–357. ISSN 0363-5570. JSTOR 41037009.
  2. ^ The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471. Royal Historical Society. 1914.
  3. ^ a b Sužiedėlis, Simas, ed. (1970–1978). "Chronicles, Lithuanian". Encyclopedia Lituanica. Vol. I. Boston, Massachusetts: Juozas Kapočius. pp. 519–521. OCLC 95559.
  4. ^ a b "The Russian Primary Chronicle". Britannica.
  5. ^ a b Cross, Samuel Hazzard; Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P., eds. (1953). The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America.
  6. ^ Lunt, Horace G. (1988). "On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037". The Slavic and East European Journal. 32 (2): 251–264. doi:10.2307/308891. JSTOR 308891.
  7. ^ a b D.S.Likhachov; N. Ponyrko (1986). Izbornik: The Stories Of Ancient Russia (in Russian). Moscow: Художественная литература. p. 410. ISBN 3-515-07560-7.
  8. ^ a b c d 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.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i Lurye, Yakov. Chronicles // Literature of Old Rusʹ. Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary / ed. by Oleg Tvorogov. - Moscow: Prosvescheniye ("Enlightenment"), 1996. (Template:Lang-ru).
  10. ^ a b Polenov S. V. (2010). The letopises of the Belarusian-Lithuanian / of Polenov S. V. // Las Tunas. Moscow. p. 350. ISBN 978-5-85270-350-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  11. ^ Lunt, Horace G. (1988). "On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037". The Slavic and East European Journal. 32 (2): 251–264. doi:10.2307/308891. JSTOR 308891.
  12. ^ Lunt, Horace G. (1995). "What the Rus' Primary Chronicle Tells Us about the Origin of the Slavs and of Slavic Writing". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 19: 335–357. ISSN 0363-5570. JSTOR 41037009.
  13. ^ The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471. Royal Historical Society. 1914.
  14. ^ a b c d e f Katchanovski et al. 2013, p. 75.
  15. ^ Mikhail Tikhomirov, "Letopis". Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Мoscow: Soviet Encyclopedia (1969—1978).
  16. ^ Dmitry Likhachev. "Russian letopises and their cultural and historical significance" M.-L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1947. 499 p. 5 vols.
  17. ^ Alexander Zamaleev [in Russian] (2005). History of Russian culture (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Official Publishing House of Saint Petersburg University. pp. 71–72. ISBN 5-288-03632-2.
  18. ^ Letopises (in Russian). Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia. 2010. pp. 346–350. ISBN 978-5-85270-350-7.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h 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. (Template:Lang-ru).
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h 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. (Template:Lang-ru).
  21. ^ a b 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
  22. ^ 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.).
  23. ^ Приселков М.Д. Троицкая летопись: Реконструкция текста. – 2-е изд. – СПб.: Наука, 2002. – 512, [2] с.
  24. ^ (in Russian) [1] Archived 2020-02-20 at the Wayback Machine Sergei Soloviev about chronicle authenticity.
  25. ^ Сергеев В.И. Сибирские летописи // Жуков Е.М. Советская историческая энциклопедия: В 16 т. - М.: Государственное научное издательство «Советская энциклопедия», 1961-1976.
  26. ^ a b c Katchanovski et al. 2013, p. 75–76.
  27. ^ Лурье Я.С. Летописи белорусско-литовские (западнорусские) // Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси / АН СССР. ИРЛИ; Отв. ред. Д.С. Лихачев. — Л.: Наука, 1987-.
  28. ^ Марченко М. І., Українська історіографія (З давніх часів до сер. XIX ст.), К., 1959; Українські письменники. Біо-бібліографіч. словник, т. 1, К., 1960.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Katchanovski et al. 2013, p. 76.
  30. ^ J DRZEJEWICZ, WACŁAW. The Polish Review, vol. 12, no. 1, 1967, pp. 107–10. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25776700. Accessed 1 Feb. 2023.
  31. ^ Czesława Osipowicz. "Polacy - twórcy na Litwie (Poles - Creating in Lithuania)". Świat Polonii (in Polish). Wspólnota Polska. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
  32. ^ Timothy Gimon What was written in the Russian Letopis? // «ФИПП» magazine. М., 1998. № 1 (2), pp. 8—16.
  33. ^ Dmitry Likhachov Russian letopises and their cultural and historical significance. М. ; L., 1947, pp. 71, 97.
  34. ^ 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.
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ 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)
  37. ^ Himon 1998, pp. 8–16.
  38. ^ a b 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.
  39. ^ Petrukhin, Vladimir. Rusʹ in the 9-10th centuries. From Varangians Invitation to the Сhoice of Faith / 2nd edition, corrected and supplemented. — Moscow: Forum; Neolit, 2014. — 464 p. Template:Lang-ru).
  40. ^ Yakov Lurie The history of Russia in the chronicle and perception of the New time// Ancient Russia and New Russia: (favorites). SPb. : Dmitry Bulanin (publishing house), 1997.
  41. ^ The dictionary of scribes and booklore of Ancient Rus / Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushkin House ; ed. Dmitry Likhachev. L. : Nauka, 1987—2017.
  42. ^ Бобров А. Г. Новгородские летописи XV века. — СПб. : Дмитрий Буланин, 2000. — 287 с.
  43. ^ Victor Zibhorov Russian letopises of the XI-XVIII centuries (in Russian). — SPb.: Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg state University, 2002.
  44. ^ Mikhail Tikhomirov (1978). Letopis // Great Soviet Encyclopedia (in Russian). Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia.
  45. ^ Anatoly Sakharov. Historical knowledge / Essays on Russian culture of the XVI century. Part two. Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1976. p. 140.
  46. ^ Nikolai Prokofiev. Vision as a genre in Old Russian literature // Scientific Notes of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after V. I. Lenin. Moscow, 1964. - Vol. 231: Questions of the style of fiction. - p. 47
  47. ^ Alla Borisovna Soboleva. THE GENRE OF VISIONS IN ANCIENT RUSSIAN LITERATURE (article). 2016, p. 161-163
  48. ^ Piotrovskaya E. K. To the study of the Old Russian version of the" Christian Topography " of Kozma Indicoplov / / Byzantine vremennik. - M., 1991. - Vol. 51. - pp. 106-111
  49. ^ Igor Froyanov. About the events of 1227-1230 in Novgorod // Ancient Russia
  50. ^ Novgorod first letopis. P.172
  51. ^ Nikolai Prokofiev. Vision as a genre in ancient Russian literature. // Scientific notes of the Moscow state pedagogical Institute named after V. I. Lenin. - M., 1964. - Vol. 231: Questions of the style of fiction. - Pp. 37-38
  52. ^ See: Vasily Klyuchevsky. Old Russian lives of saints as a historical source. Moscow. 1871
  53. ^ Alexey Shakhmatov. Letopises // Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Moscow: Sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1969-1978.
  54. ^ Viktor Ziborov. Russian letopis of the XI-XVIII centuries (in Russian). - St. Petersburg: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, 2002.
  55. ^ Timberlake 2000, p. 239.
  56. ^ a b c d e Dimnik 2004, p. 257.
  57. ^ a b Dimnik 2004, p. 255.
  58. ^ a b c d e f g h Dimnik 2004, p. 256.
  59. ^ Ostrowski 2018, p. 36.
  60. ^ a b c Halperin 2001, p. 256.
  61. ^ Zinkus, Jonas; et al., eds. (1986). "Lietuvos metraščiai". Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Vol. 2. Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija. pp. 584–585. OCLC 20017802.
  62. ^ Jonynas, Ignas (1934). "Bychovco kronika" (PDF). Lietuviškoji enciklopedija (in Lithuanian). Vol. 3. Kaunas: Spaudos fondas. OCLC 1012854.
  63. ^ Gudmantas, Kęstutis (2012). "Lietuvos metraščio Vavelio nuorašas (fragmentas)" (PDF). Senoji Lietuvos literatūra (in Lithuanian). 34: 122, 126. ISSN 1822-3656.

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.
  • Timberlake, Alan (2000). "Who Wrote the Laurentian Chronicle (1177–1203)?". Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie. 59 (2). Universitätsverlag WINTER: 237–265. JSTOR 24003133.

Selected editions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rus%27_chronicle&oldid=1244697817"