Library › St Nestor the Chronicler › Primary Chronicle

Primary Chronicle

St Nestor the Chronicler, tr. Cross, 1930

d4

Reference has already been made to the presence in the Povest of numerous excerpts or reminiscences of Georgius Hamartolus, which appear in special profusion.¹ This Byzantine chronicle, dating from the ninth century, was carried by its author to 843, but from that point the text is derived from another author, Symeon the Logothete. This continuation extends to 948 so as to end with the death of Romanus Lecapenus on the island of Proti on July 15 of that year.

There is some difference of opinion as to the circumstances under which this work was first translated into Old Slavic. Istrin holds that the original translation was made toward the middle of the eleventh century by a Russian schoolman, though it is more probably a Bulgarian product.² The exact birthplace of the Slavic version or versions is of minor importance for the present study, since the fact is clear that such a translation existed before the first decade of the twelfth century and was extensively drawn upon by the compiler of the Povest either directly and verbatim or in modified form through various secondary chronographs.

The sections of the Povest either based wholly upon, or suggesting reminiscences of, Georgius Hamartolus are given on page 100.

Date — Subject — Text Page — Greek Text (von Muralt), Page — Slavic Text (Istrin, I), Page
(1) Apportionment of the earth — 136 — 39 — 58
(2) Tower of Babel — 137 — 36–39 — 57–58
(3) Customs of aliens — 142 — 26–28 — 49–50
858 — (4) Conversion of Bulgarians — 144 — 732 — 508
866 — (5) Raid by Askold and Dir — 145 — 736–737 — 511
868 — (6) Accession of Basil — 146 — 752 — 519
887 — (7) Accessions of Leo and Alexander — 147 — 766, 794 — 527, 540
902 — (8) Leo incites Huns against Bulgars — 149 — 772 — 529
907 — (9) Oleg attacks Constantinople — 149 — 841–842 — 567
911 — (10) Comet in west — 151 — 797 — 541
912 — (11) Apollonius of Tyana — 155 — 334–335 — 305–306
913 — (12) Accession of Constantine son of Leo — 157 — 799 — 542
914 — (13) Symeon at Constantinople — 157 — 802 — 544
915 — (14) Greeks win Pecheneg allies — 157 — 804–805 — 545–546
920 — (15) Accession of Romanus — 157 — 816 — 552
929 — (16) Symeon ravages Thrace — 157 — 824 — 557
934 — (17) Huns attack Constantinople — 157 — 840 — 566
941 — (18) Igor’s Greek expedition — 157 — 841–842 — 567
942 — (19) Symeon attacks Croats — 158 — 830 — 560
943 — (20) Second Hun attack — 158 — 844 — 568
1064 — (21) Portents — 233 — 208, 281; 540, 554; 653 — 200, 262; 421, 428; 479

The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus is twice specifically referred to as a source in the Povest; first, in the discussion of the various alien races (p. 142): “глаголеть Георгии въ лѣтописаньи” (“Georgius says in his Chronicle”); and second, under 852 (p. 144): “яко пишется въ лѣтописаньи Гречьстѣмь” (“as is written in the Greek chronicle”).

Among other borrowings from Greek sources is the lengthy Creed taught to Vladimir I (p. 200). This was first identified by Sukhomlinov,³ who reprints both the Greek text, dating from the ninth century, and an Old-Russian text deriving from a prototype written in 1073. The Creed is thus obviously one of the Greek works earliest translated into Slavic. Its author was Michael Syncellus, an associate of the metropolitan Thomas of Jerusalem, and friend of Theodore of Studion (died 826).⁴

Two additional items of Greek origin are presented by two reminiscences of the Revelations of Pseudo-Methodius of Patara on the Ishmaelites and the unclean peoples inclosed by Alexander the Great in the mountains of the north (pp. 275, 276). These reminiscences constitute, in fact, the earliest references in all Slavic literature to a text of which the influence in western Europe was well-nigh universal.⁵

Apart, however, from the echoes of Georgius Hamartolus, the largest body of obviously extraneous material appearing in the Povest is the account of alien religions, accompanied by a critique of these faiths and a synopsis of Biblical history supplied to Vladimir by the Greek missionary (pp. 185–197). Complete agreement does not as yet prevail as to the source of this material, which has been connected by most investigators with the so-called Palea. This term is, of course, a slightly modified form of παλαιά, after which διαθήκη should be supplied. By the Palea,⁶ in Old-Russian literature, is understood a synopsis of Old Testament history supplemented by material from apocryphal books and various interpretative accretions. The Palea shows pronounced hostility to Jews and Mohammedans, and thus belongs to the literature of propaganda. As there was no complete translation of the Bible available in Russia till the fifteenth century, this work, based largely on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, and Chronicles, possessed particular importance. The earliest extant text is that written at Kolomna in 1406.⁷ As Sukhomlinov pointed out in 1856 (op. cit., pp. 60 ff.), the major portion of the discussion of foreign religions found in the Povest occurs also in the Palea. The same source is indicated for the synopsis of Biblical history, in which departures from the Old Testament account may, for the most part, be explained from the Palea, though the compiler of the Povest appears also to have had before him certain books of the Bible in their full text.⁸ Of the foreign material contained in the narrative of Vladimir’s conversion, the critique of alien faiths and the synopsis of Biblical history are thus derived from the Palea, while the source of the Creed has been defined above. There remains for explanation the reference to the oecumenical councils (p. 203). Discussions of these councils occur elsewhere in Old-Russian literary monuments, and specifically in the Sbornik copied in 1073 for Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev (son of Yaroslav the Wise) from a Bulgarian original, where an enumeration of the councils follows immediately upon the Creed of Michael Syncellus and, with few exceptions, mentions the same participants in the councils as are detailed in the Povest. Seven councils are also described in scattered passages of Georgius Hamartolus.⁹ A detailed account presenting close analogy with the Povest narrative likewise occurs in an epistle of the Patriarch Photius to Michael, Tsar of Bulgaria.¹⁰ It is not possible to attach the Povest account of these councils directly to any one of these originals, but it is obvious that plenty of basis in translations from the Greek was available at the time of its composition.

The compiler of the Povest could hardly consider his work as complete without reference to Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, the protoapostles to the Slavs. His account is based upon the so-called Pannonian Life of Methodius,¹¹ with modifications of later Bulgarian origin. It is at variance with the accepted version of the events described in disregarding the implications of Rostislav’s application to Michael III for missionaries and in associating with this request his nephew Svatopluk as well as Kotzel, the contemporary prince of Pannonia. Svatopluk, in fact, was allied at the time with the Roman element in Moravia, and therefore by no means a consistent friend of the Slavic liturgy. Constantine and Methodius first came into contact with Kotzel on their journey of 867 from Moravia to Rome, where Constantine died on February 14, 869. Kotzel subsequently requested Rome to name Methodius bishop of Pannonia. There is thus no basis for the statement in the Povest that Constantine continued his missionary activity in Bulgaria, though the influence of Methodius and his disciples was eventually strong in that state. The Povest also makes no distinction between the first contact of both brothers with Rome and Methodius’ later journey thither during the papacy of John VIII. The tradition supplied by the Povest, on the basis of the Pannonian Legend, that Methodius translated the previously unrendered sections of the Bible between March 20 and October 6 of one year is generally regarded as apocryphal. It is, on the other hand, conceded that Constantine, at some early stage of his mission, did invent a Slavic alphabet. This was not the so-called Cyrillic alphabet, a derivative of which is still used by Russians, Ruthenes, Serbs, and Bulgarians, but the more curious and difficult Glagolica, devised from ninth-century Greek cursive with some supplementary letters from other sources.¹²

The only documentary material included in the Povest consists of the various treaties with Byzantium, and the Testament and the Letter of Vladimir Monomakh. The textual and archival history of the treaties of 907, 912, 945, and 971 is completely obscure, and it has never been satisfactorily determined whether the copies preserved in the Povest represent Old-Russian texts of the treaties made when they were negotiated, or whether they are translations afterward prepared from Greek originals which subsequently came to light in Kiev itself. It is not likely that the Russian princes of the tenth century, who were by no means superior to Scandinavian freebooters elsewhere on the Continent, attached any grave significance to these scraps of paper, and the fact that there is but one Greek allusion to them would indicate that to the Byzantine authorities they were more a gesture than a contract. The obscurity, the grammatical uncertainty, and the general disregard of style shown by these treaty-texts leads to the conclusion that they were translated at a moment when they had no further value except as casual relics of the past.¹³

The Testament (literally Pouchenie, “instruction”) of Vladimir Monomakh, contained solely in the Laurentian MS. (pp. 301–309) under the year 1096, is in itself a literary monument of some consequence. While Shakhmatov supposed that the Testament was interpolated into one of his hypothetical redactions of the Povest during the second decade of the twelfth century, it would appear intrinsically more probable that it was preserved among Vladimir’s descendants in the northern principalities and injected into the text of the Povest at a fairly late date.¹⁴ In fact, the Testament seems to have been written toward the close of Vladimir’s life, in view of its references to his advanced age and decrepitude, and, if we accept the tempting emendation of и̅г̅ (13; L², 247) to н̅г̅ (53), purports to outline his active career during a period of more than half a century. The most reasonable explanation for its appearance in the Laurentian MS. is provided by Istrin’s suggestion that it was preserved, along with Vladimir’s Letter to Oleg and the Prayer attributed to him, among his descendants at Suzdal, where it was found by the scribe Lawrence or one of his precursors, who arbitrarily attached the Pouchenie and the other documents to the narrative for the year 1096 because it was clear that the Letter to Oleg was associated with the events there recounted.¹⁵

The lengthy account of the blinding of Vasilko included in the Povest under the year 1097 occupies a somewhat exceptional position. The author mentions himself by name as Vasili (p. 284), and includes in his narrative events which are briefly recorded in the purely chronological items of the Povest under 1098, 1099, and 1100. The narrative of Vasili has apparently exercised some influence on the form of the item for 1100, since both end with the same statement that to David the son of Igor was assigned the domain of Dorogobuzh, where he died (p. 289), while the city of Vladimir was given to Svyatopolk’s son Yaroslav. Of the personality of Vasili so much is clear: he was an intimate of Vasilko, possibly his father-confessor, and was probably a native of Galicia or of Volhynia, in view of his familiarity with the geography of both and particularly of the country around Przemysl. The motives leading Vasili to describe at some length the misfortune of his patron, and the circumstances governing the insertion of his account in the Povest, are matters for conjecture only. His narrative was prepared, in any case, after David’s death, which occurred May 25, 1112 (H³, 270). In view of the imputations against Svyatopolk, it is not impossible that Vasili may not have written until after that prince’s death as well (April 16, 1113; H³, 271). Istrin (loc. cit., p. 243) has suggested that Vasili’s account became known in Kiev contemporaneously with the accession of Vladimir Monomakh, whom Vasili depicts in a favorable light, and that the compiler of the Povest, writing at the beginning of Vladimir’s principate, was able to use this narrative very effectively in his compilation, though he retained his year-by-year narrative for the period 1098–1100. It may also be suggested that the detailed account of Vladimir’s reaction to the news of the blinding of Vasilko may very well be an interpolation in Vasili’s account.

Apart from the Greek materials employed and the sections of the Povest which, like the Testament of Vladimir Monomakh and the narrative of Vasili, are deliberate reproductions of extraneous documents, the Povest also stands in close relationship to certain extant native Russian literary works which are preserved independently of the Chronicles. Among these is the Discourse on the Law of Moses and Grace through Christ, attributed to the metropolitan Hilarion and thus dating from the middle of the tenth century.¹⁶ This work was apparently inspired by contemporary discussions regarding the canonization of Vladimir I, which revolved principally around the question whether the adoption of Christianity by this prince resulted primarily from Greek influence or from Vladimir’s own laudable initiative. The Slovo is important for the Povest in view of the fact that the Biblical quotations put in the mouth of the Greek missionary and beginning at p. 192 (“Hosea was thus the first”) and extending as far as p. 194 (“Then Vladimir inquired”), are not taken directly from the Bible, but borrowed bodily from the Slovo (Sreznevski, pp. 45 ff.). The answer of the missionary to Vladimir’s question regarding Christ’s crucifixion (p. 195) is also influenced by Hilarion’s discourse (ibid., p. 35).

Another early work associated with the Povest is the Memory and Eulogy of Vladimir (Памятъ и Похвала Владимиру), attributed to the monk James, who mentions himself in the text as its author. It differs from the Povest, however, in the essential point that the baptism of Vladimir is reported as occurring prior to the prince’s expedition against Kherson and his marriage to the Princess Anna. This variation from the Povest account would seem to rest upon an earlier tradition, while the later narrative of Vladimir’s baptism in Kherson appears to have evolved naturally from the information available regarding his attack upon that city, his negotiations with the Greek emperors for the hand of their sister, and the arrival of the Princess Anna with a numerous suite, including a goodly array of ecclesiastics. In consequence of the confusion caused by Shakhmatov’s theories concerning lost chronicle redactions preceding the Povest in its extant form, the relation of the Povest account to the various early biographies of Vladimir cannot yet be viewed as satisfactorily determined.¹⁷

A problem of similar complexity is presented by the comparison of the Povest account of SS Boris and Gleb with the Life of these saints by Nestor and the additional work concerning them attributed to the monk James.¹⁸ The source-relationships between these three works have never been determined with entire certainty. Shakhmatov (Разыскания, p. 34) emphatically rejects the idea that the Povest narrative is based upon the account of the monk James, on the ground that, apart from facts which it recounts in common with the Povest, the latter contains nothing but rhetorical effusions. He therefore considers it superfluous to search for any other source for the Jacobean Life except the Povest. Sukhomlinov (op. cit., p. 84) had, however, considered the Povest account to be an abbreviation of the Jacobean Life. Shakhmatov’s contention that James’s work is based upon the Povest can be valid only if we admit his thesis that a chronicle text existed in some form prior to 1100, since the monk James, concerning whom next to nothing is known, is usually believed to have lived during the second half of the eleventh century. On the other hand, in spite of the discrepancies already noted between the Nestorian Life and the Povest (supra, p. 83), the general resemblance in content and arrangement between the two leads naturally to the conclusion that the Nestorian Life, written in all probability in the ’eighties of the eleventh century, was known and used by the compiler of the Povest, who supplemented Nestor’s information with data derived from other sources. Shakhmatov, however (op. cit., pp. 65, 66), rejects this conclusion in favor of the assumption that both the Nestorian Life and the Povest used the same earlier source, which, in harmony with his general theory, he considers to have been a primitive chronicle text of the earlier eleventh century.

Reference should finally be made to the discourse under the year 1068 (pp. 235–237) on the religious significance of barbarian incursions, shown by I. I. Sreznevski to be derived from the Zlatostrui, an anthology of the writings of John Chrysostom prepared by or for Tsar Symeon of Bulgaria from a Greek original.¹⁹

Apart from these textual reminiscences of Greek and earlier Russian authors, the compiler of the Povest, in combining his scanty material for the first century of his narrative, included a series of early traditions of considerable interest. Prominent among these is the legend of Kii and his brethren, followed by that of the calling of the Varangians, the occupation of Kiev by Askold and Dir,²⁰ and the elimination of the latter by Oleg. This prince is himself surrounded by an aura of legend, as is apparent from the account of his death by the bite of a serpent which issued forth from the skull of his dead charger, against which his soothsayers had warned him.²¹ Further legendary material may be discerned in the Povest account of the death of Igor and Olga’s complicated procedure of revenge upon the Derevlians.²² Popular tradition also plays a distinguishable réle in the narratives concerning Svyatoslav I and, in a slighter degree, St Vladimir and Svyatopolk I.²³ The traditional nature of the introductory account of the migrations of the Slavs and their contacts with Huns and Avars is also apparent. From the accession of Yaroslav, however, the Povest rests largely on the personal reminiscences of contemporaries, and thus has the merits and defects of eyewitness narrative.

Previous · Contents · Next