Library › St Nestor the Chronicler › Primary Chronicle

Primary Chronicle

St Nestor the Chronicler, tr. Cross, 1930

d2

Nestor, to whom the Primary Chronicle has long been attributed, was actually a monk of the historic Crypt Monastery in Kiev at the close of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century. He is the undisputed author of two biographical works: (1) The Narrative of the Life, Death, and Miracles of the Holy and Blessed Martyrs Boris and Gleb; and (2) The Life of the Venerable Theodosius, Prior of the Crypt Monastery. One South-Russian chronicle text of the sixteenth century, the so-called Khlebnikovski, which is probably derived from the same prototype as the Hypatian, mentions Nestor specifically as the author.¹ The Laurentian redaction, however, contains in its title no characterization whatever of the author or of his monastic affiliations. Nestor was similarly mentioned as the author of the Chronicle in three lost chronicle texts used by the historian V. N. Tatishchev (1686–1750).² Apart from this somewhat questionable testimony, the only direct evidence of Nestor’s activity as an annalist is contained in two passages which occur in all versions of the Kiev Paterikon, a biographical work on the solitaries of the Crypt Monastery dating from the first half of the thirteenth century.³ In the second of these passages, it is also asserted that Nestor likewise wrote biographies of four celebrated monks of the Crypt Monastery (Damian, Ephraim, Matthew, and Isaac). If Nestor was the author or the compiler of the Povest, which contains extensive material dealing with SS Boris and Gleb, on the Prior Theodosius, and on various distinguished solitaries of his establishment, a general agreement in subject matter, as well as marked similarity in style, might be expected to characterize the products of the same pen.

The relation between the Nestorian Life of Boris and Gleb and the chronicle account of these saints has been variously viewed, though on the whole there is some reason to believe that Nestor’s work was one of the sources of the Povest account.⁴ An appreciable diversity in detail is evident, however, between the Nestorian Life and the Chronicle.

In the former, both Boris and Gleb are described as with Vladimir at the time of his fatal illness; in the Chronicle, Vladimir sends Boris forth to fight the Pechenegs, and the news of his father’s demise meets Boris upon his homeward journey. Similarly, while the Chronicle represents Vladimir as assigning to Boris and Gleb the respective domains of Rostov and Murom, the Life by Nestor reports that he assigned to Boris the city of Vladimir, but kept Gleb by his side. The Life also remarks that upon Vladimir’s death, Svyatopolk came to Kiev, but according to the Povest, he was present in the capital at the time. According to Nestor, Boris is killed at once by a thrust through the heart; the Chronicle shows him laid upon a cart mortally wounded, and dragged off to Svyatopolk, who despatches two Varangians to administer the coup de grâce. In the Nestorian Life, after the murder of Boris, Gleb flees northward, and is pursued by the minions of Svyatopolk, but the Povest account reports Gleb as summoned treacherously by Svyatopolk from Murom. On his way south, he is met and warned by messengers from his brother Yaroslav, but too late to escape Svyatopolk’s emissaries, who slay him near Smolensk. The Chronicle likewise supplies such factual details as geographical data and the names both of the brothers’ servants and of their murderers, all of which are absent from the narrative belonging to Nestor. There is, however, little resemblance in style and method between the Chronicle narrative and the Nestorian Life. The former is a detailed treatment of the circumstances surrounding the assassination of the two princes. The latter is a religious biography in the best manner of early Russian hagiography.

A comparative study of the two accounts presents no stylistic evidence that Nestor was in any way concerned with the composition or compilation of the Primary Chronicle, while the contradictions between the two narratives point rather in the opposite direction.

A somewhat more fruitful basis for comparison is provided by Nestor’s Life of Theodosius and by the double account of the foundation of the Crypt Monastery at Kiev and the death of Theodosius provided by the Povest under the years 1051 and 1074.

According to the Povest, Hilarion and Antonius were the founders of Russian asceticism. Antonius, after accepting and tonsuring twelve new brethren, retired as prior in favor of Barlaam, who arranged for the construction of the first small Church of the Assumption of the Virgin on the surface above the crypt. As the order grew in numbers, requiring additional quarters, Antonius from his retirement, and upon the request of the brotherhood, begged Prince Izyaslav to present the order with the hill above the crypt. Upon the receipt of this property, and while Barlaam was still prior, a new and larger church and a surface structure for the monastery itself were completed. Izyaslav then established a new monastery of his own, which he dedicated to St Demetrius, and to which he transferred Barlaam as prior. At Barlaam’s departure, and again upon the request of the brotherhood, Antonius designated Theodosius as the former’s successor.

The record preserved by the Nestorian Life of Theodosius is radically different. Therein it is asserted that Antonius himself tonsured none of the brethren, who were thus initiated by his colleague Nikon. Antonius retired to solitude when the brethren numbered fifteen, and not twelve, as stated in the Chronicle. In the Povest, Antonius designated Barlaam as his successor before entering into retirement, but according to Nestor, he first shut himself up in his cell, named Barlaam as his successor, and only somewhat later removed to another hill, where he dug a new crypt. Likewise, in Nestor’s account, Barlaam constructed only the one small surface church before his transfer to St Demetrius’, while the brethren themselves, after unanimously choosing Theodosius as Barlaam’s successor, notified Antonius of their action. The new prior, finding the previous quarters too small, selected a location not far from the old crypt, where he built a large church dedicated to the Immaculate Virgin, together with numerous cells. Though the Povest recounts that the rules of the Studion Monastery were obtained by Theodosius from the monk Michael, who had come to Kiev from Greece with the Metropolitan George, the Nestorian Life represents Theodosius as sending a special messenger to Ephraim the Castrate at Constantinople to obtain them. Finally, the Povest mentions briefly in 1073 Theodosius’ foundation of a stone church, which was brought to completion by the Prior Stephen in 1075. The Life in this instance enters into extensive detail as to the selection of the site for this church by Prince Svyatoslav.⁵

Additional indication of a diversity of authorship between the Chronicle account of the early history of the Crypt Monastery and the Nestorian Life of Theodosius may be gleaned from the statements of the writers themselves. The Chronicle narrative of 1051 ends thus:

While Theodosius was living in the Monastery, governing his righteous flock, observing the monastic rule, and receiving whosoever came to him, I too, poor and unworthy servant that I am, came before him, and he received me on the seventeenth year of my age. I have accordingly set down and established in what year the monastery began its existence.

Nestor, on the contrary, writes (Yakovlev, op. cit., p. lxiii):

I, the sinful Nestor, least of all those in the monastery of our father Theodosius, wrote down these facts concerning our great and blessed father, which I learned by inquiry from fathers older than myself, who lived in his day. And I was received into the monastery by the venerable Prior Stephen, by whom I was also tonsured, invested with the monastic garb, and later advanced to the rank of deacon, though I was unworthy of it, being coarse and ignorant, and filled from my youth by a multitude of sins.

Thus Nestor, by his own statement, did not know Theodosius personally, and was admitted into the Crypt Monastery only after the great prior’s death in 1074. Equally striking divergences in fact appear from any comparison of the Povest account of Theodosius’ death and the recital of the same events prepared by Nestor.

In the words of the Povest, Theodosius, on the eve of the Lenten fast (Quinquagesima Sunday, March 2, 1074), according to his habit, admonished the brethren in a brief address concerning their observance of Lent, and then retired to his cell, where he remained in solitude and abstinence until the Friday before Palm Sunday (April 11). He then came forth to celebrate Holy Week and Easter, but on the Saturday following (April 26), he fell ill. On the evening of Wednesday (April 30), after five days’ sickness, he requested the brethren to carry him out into the courtyard, and upon informing them that during Lent the imminence of his death had been revealed to him, bade them nominate his successor. The monks, however, left the choice to Theodosius, who in turn begged them to name anyone from their ranks except the brothers Nicholas and Ignatius. A second time, they requested Theodosius to make the nomination, which then fell upon the presbyter James. This choice failed to meet the approval of the community, who forthwith recommended the cantor Stephen. After Theodosius had blessed the new prior, he was borne back to his cell. In the course of the following day, Theodosius was visited by Prince Svyatoslav and his son Gleb. On the seventh day (Friday, May 2), he gave his final admonition to Stephen and the brethren, and then died on Saturday, May 3. He was buried the same night.

In the Nestorian Life of Theodosius, the narrative of his demise is abruptly introduced by the observation that he foresaw his approaching death. Theodosius thereupon summoned the brotherhood and admonished them as to their Christian duties. He then retired to his cell, beat his breast, and prayed both for his own salvation and for the monastery. The monks did not understand the purport of his admonition, but thought that, like Antonius, he was perhaps about to leave them to carry out his oft-expressed plan to live in retirement, from which he had previously been dissuaded by the Prince and his associates. Theodosius, however, was attacked by a violent fever, and for three days lay speechless in a comatose state, so that some even thought he was already dead. On the fourth day, he arose, summoned the brotherhood, and made known that the time of his death had been revealed to him during Lent. He therefore requested the monks to name his successor, whereupon, after consulting together privately, they immediately elected Stephen. The following day, Theodosius once more assembled them, and approved their choice. After admonishing the order, the prior then foretold that his death would occur after sunrise on the following Saturday. On the morning of that day, he gathered the brethren about him to take their final leave, and then withdrew to his cell. One of the monks saw through a crevice how he uttered his last prayer, and then, after laying himself upon his pallet, calmly passed away. Prince Svyatoslav, who happened to be in the vicinity of the monastery, saw a miraculous pillar of fire above it, and understood from the sign that Theodosius was dead. The brethren were momentarily prevented by the presence of crowds about the monastery from giving Theodosius the quiet burial he had desired, until a miraculous shower came up and scattered the assemblage.

Apart from the diversity of fact between the Povest narrative and the Nestorian Life of Theodosius as indicated by the foregoing summaries, there are discernible certain variations in emphasis which point to divergent views of the respective authors regarding important details in the history of the Crypt Monastery. In the Povest, Antonius is the great initiator; for Nestor, Theodosius is naturally the dominant figure immediately preceding Nestor’s own admission to the monastery. Furthermore, Nestor is better informed than the Chronicle as to the relations between Theodosius and the Princes Izyaslav and Svyatoslav, as well as regarding the internal political aspects of the succession to the priorate in the years following Theodosius’ death. Since these matters are of some importance, it is not easy to explain why Nestor, if the author or the compiler of the Povest, did not make use of them in that work. An attentive study of the original texts of the two productions also amply justifies Bugoslavski’s observation (loc. cit., p. 163) that the style of the Chronicle narrative is markedly different from the Nestorian Life in conciseness, wealth of factual detail, and simplicity of literary technique. It is devoid of the quotations and comparisons with Biblical episodes, and free from the repetitions with which Nestor’s style abounds.

A juxtaposition of Nestor’s attested works with the portions of the Povest dealing with similar subjects thus offers little ground for any assumption that Nestor had any connection with its composition.

It remains to be seen whether the other instances in the Povest where the first person is used by author or compiler (apart from the passage of 1051 quoted above) point in any way to Nestorian authorship. The first (1091), dealing with the discovery of the remains of Theodosius, reports that the narrator was instructed by the prior to dig for the relics and was himself eyewitness and participant in all the events here recounted in considerable detail. In view of its general stylistic resemblance to the preceding accounts of the monastery and of Theodosius and a consequent departure from Nestor’s ornate verbiage, this passage shows far more kinship with the author of the foregoing items concerning the monastery than with any product of Nestor’s pen. Next in order of importance is the account of 1097 which relates the blinding of Vasilko, in which the narrator refers to himself by name as Vasili (Basil). The fact that the same events described in this section are covered again briefly under 1098–1100 leads naturally to the supposition that the Vasili account represents an interpolated episode. The remaining three are of more restricted interest. The first (1065) has to do with a monster-child fished out of the Sĕtoml River, which the narrator and his companions “gazed upon till evening.” The next (1096) relates to the raid upon Kiev by the Polovcian chief Bonyak, whose nomads surrounded the monastery “while we [the inmates] were resting in our cells after matins.” The writer was thus evidently present in the monastery when the raid took place, and his account is followed by a report concerning a personal conversation with Gyurata Rogovich of Novgorod on the subject of certain barbarians of the north. The final item (1106) reports the death of the venerable Yan, “from whom,” says the chronicler, “I too learned many things which I have included in these annals as I heard them from his lips.”

These seven passages in the first person cast but little light upon the authorship of the Chronicle. Along with the account of the foundation of the Crypt Monastery, however, they all fall between the years 1051 and 1106, thus within the lifetime of one man. Even if we assume that the author of the narrative dealing with the beginnings of the monastery joined that community about 1057, as soon as Theodosius became prior, and, according to his own statement, was seventeen years old at the time, he would thus have been only seventy years old at the date upon which the Povest concludes (1110). If we disregard for a moment the Sylvestrian colophon, it is not intrinsically impossible that the entire Povest was written or compiled by one monk of the Crypt Monastery in the course of the second half of the eleventh century. In any case, the internal evidence of the Povest, along with the lack of coincidence of its content with Nestor’s works wherever the two are related, is distinctly opposed to the tradition of Nestorian authorship.

Previous · Contents · Next