Library › St Nestor the Chronicler › Primary Chronicle

Primary Chronicle

St Nestor the Chronicler, tr. Cross, 1930

d5

It was early discovered that the chronology of the Povest opens with an error. Michael III did not begin his reign in 852, but on January 21, 842. The origin of this initial error as to Michael’s accession has been satisfactorily established by Shakhmatov,¹ who points out that, while the compiler of the Povest could find mention both of the accession of Michael and of the first Russian raid upon Constantinople in Georgius Hamartolus, the only chronographic work available in translation in Russia at the beginning of the twelfth century was the Χρονογραφικὸν Σύντομον of Nicephorus the Patriarch (died 828). The chronological table included in the Povest (p. 144) is, in fact, derived from this source. The compiler of the Povest, taking Nicephorus’ erroneous figure of 318 for the interval separating the Nativity from the accession of Constantine the Great (actually A.D. 313), added to it, first, 530 — the elapsed time given by Nicephorus between Constantine the Great and Theophilus — and then 12 — the number of years of Theophilus’ reign. He thus secured a total of 860, which would accordingly be the year of the Christian era in which, on the basis of this computation, Michael came to the throne. Adding to this figure the number 5500 which Nicephorus, following the Alexandrian era, gives as the number of years from Creation to Nativity, the compiler thus arrived at the year 6360 from Creation. If this be properly reduced to the reckoning of the Christian era by subtracting 5508, the result is the erroneous year 852.²

Shakhmatov also devoted another highly ingenious study to the chronology of the Povest through 945, which, though written on the basis of his earlier hypotheses as to the primitive versions of the Povest, still possesses marked value.³ As Shakhmatov points out,⁴ the only variations in chronology among the various extant texts of the Povest occur prior to 945. In the present study, the position has been taken that the Povest as we have it is a homogeneous work, the compilation of which occupied a period of several years toward the close of the eleventh and the opening of the twelfth century. Even a cursory examination of the text shows, moreover, that the last long series of “empty years” occurs just prior to the narrative of Svyatoslav’s campaigns beginning with 964 (p. 170). In fact, the material contained in the Povest between 945 and this date, relating to Igor’s campaign against the Derevlians and the picturesque revenge of Olga, is largely legendary in nature. It is thus during the first century of his narrative that the compiler had the greatest difficulty in composing a connected account with the limited material at his disposal, so that he was obliged to depend almost entirely upon Byzantine sources for the framework upon which to hang the scanty data preserved by native Russian tradition. This observation is clearly corroborated by the fact that the dates in the Povest prior to 945 fall into two classes: (a) those which could be derived from Greek sources or computed from data contained in the latter; and (b) those relating to Russian events, which are conventionally inserted among the Greek data at points which appeared logical to the compiler.

In view of the extensive excerpts from the expanded text of Georgius Hamartolus occurring in the Povest, but exclusively from its beginning to 943, it may be safely assumed that this work was the compiler’s basic source for this period, particularly since the Chronograph of Nicephorus was utilizable only to its conclusion at the accession of Michael III. The compiler could thus derive from Hamartolus the date upon which Romanus Lecapenus crowned his wife Theodora, viz., January 6, 6428, and therefore A.D. 921. He could also conclude from the passage immediately preceding that Romanus was named Caesar in the same year, viz., on September 24, 6428, or A.D. 920.⁵ With the latter date as a starting point, it was a simple matter for the compiler of the Povest to compute the dates for the accessions of Leo the Wise and of Basil the Macedonian. Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 799) states that the youthful Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, after the death of Leo the Wise, ruled seven years with his guardians and his mother, after being associated one year as βασιλεύς with Leo’s brother Alexander (ibid., p. 795). The death of Leo the Wise is thus correctly dated as of 912. Hamartolus records (ibid., p. 766) that Leo’s reign lasted twenty-five years and eight months. By using twenty-six years as a computing basis, the compiler thus obtained 886–887 (6394–6395) as the date of Leo’s accession, and reading (von Muralt, p. 752) that Basil the Macedonian ruled for nineteen years, he thus deduced that Basil came to the throne in 867–868 (6375–6376). Curiously enough, if the compiler had continued with this method, he would probably have obtained the correct date (842) for the accession of Michael III, but he appears to have contented himself with the original erroneous figure derived from Nicephorus. Beginning thus with the initial date of 852, the compiler found in Hamartolus (ibid., p. 732, l. 15, variant), the attribution of Michael’s expedition against the Bulgarians to the fourth year of his reign, and therefore made mention of this event as of 853–858 (6361–6366). The attack upon Constantinople by Askold and Dir, of which the historical original took place in 860,⁶ is set by the compiler in the fourteenth year of Michael’s reign, i. e., 866 (6374). This appears to be a case of purely arbitrary fixation. The compiler may conceivably have had before him a text of Hamartolus dating the Rus raid in the ninth year of Michael.⁷ With Michael’s accession fixed in 852, the ninth year of this emperor’s reign would have brought the date of the raid to 861, which would have conflicted with the date chosen for the legendary “calling of the princes.” The compiler thus seems to have moved the raid sufficiently forward to allow the evolution of the traditional process by which the Scandinavian Russes were supposed to have become established.⁸

The date 869 (6387), to which is assigned the conversion of the Bulgarians, appears to be derived, not from Hamartolus, where the conversion is connected with Michael’s expedition (dated in the Povest as of 858), but from some source giving the death of St Cyril (Constantine) as having occurred in 869, which year the compiler took as the date of the Bulgarian adoption of Christianity.

The date 902 (6410), in which Leo the Wise is reported to have used the Huns as his allies against the Bulgarians, is explained by reading a paragraph number into the text, since in the Slavic translation of Hamartolus (Istrin, I, 529), the numeral д̅ (4) precedes the paragraph, and was read by the compiler of the Povest as the year of Leo’s reign. In the two items of 914–915 (6422–6423) concerning Symeon of Bulgaria, the date is derived from an adjacent item in Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 805: “Σεπτεμβρίῳ δὲ μηνὶ ἰνδικτιῶνος γ΄, Παγκρατούκας ὁ Ἀρμένιος τὴν Ἀδριανούπολιν τῷ Συμεὼν παρέδωκε”). The compiler identified the third indiction as 915 (6423), probably because the year of Romanus’ succession, his basic date (920 or 6428), is referred to in Hamartolus as the eighth indiction. Since the first expedition of Symeon is mentioned in Hamartolus (ibid., p. 802) as having taken place in August, the compiler of the Povest simply referred it to the previous year (914). The year 929 (6437), given as the date of a third raid by the Bulgarian prince, is manifestly wrong, since Symeon died on May 27, 927. The error is due to the text of Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 824: “Σεπτεμβρίῳ δὲ μηνὶ ἰνδικτιῶνος β΄ Συμεὼν ὁ ἄρχων Βουλγαρίας πανστρατὶ κατὰ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκστρατεύει,” where β΄ [2] is erroneously written for ιβ΄ [12], i. e., the second indiction [929–6437] for the twelfth [924–6432]). The Russian compiler quite logically figured that if 6428 (920) was the eighth indiction, the next following second indiction should be 6437 (929). Symeon, as it happens, actually died in the fifteenth indiction (927). Similarly, the date 934 (6442), to which is attributed the Hunnish attack upon Constantinople, is figured back from the number of the indiction given by Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 840: “ἐγένετο δὲ ἐκστρατεία πρώτη τῶν Τούρκων κατὰ Ῥωμαίων ἰνδ. ζ΄ Ἀπρ. μηνί”). The next seventh indiction after 920 (6428) would thus be 934 (6442). In the same way, the date of Igor’s expedition of 941 (6449) is derived from the indiction in Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 841: “Ἰουνίῳ μηνὶ ια΄ κατέπλευσαν οἱ Ῥῶς,” without indiction, but cf. Istrin, I, 567: “Иоуня же м̅ц̅а и̅і̅ д̅н̅ь д̅і̅ [14] индикъ приплоу Роусь.” The erroneous date supplied for Symeon’s death (6450–942) goes back to the mistake in the text of Hamartolus applying to the Povest date of 929 which, as has just been shown, should be 924. The death of Symeon is correctly referred by Hamartolus to the fifteenth indiction (von Muralt, p. 830: “Μαίῳ δὲ μηνὶ κς΄ ἰνδικτιῶνος ιε΄, Συμεὼν ὁ ἄρχων Βουλγαρίας ἐτελεύτησε”). The Russian scribe argued that if the last second indiction was 929 (6437), the next fifteenth would be 942 (6450), though actually the previous fifteenth indiction was the correct one for his purposes (927–6435). Finally, the date of the second Hun advance upon Constantinople is also supplied from Hamartolus (von Muralt, p. 844: “Ἰνδικτιῶνι δὲ α΄, Ἀπριλλίῳ μηνὶ ἐπῆλθον πάλιν οἱ Τοῦρκοι μετὰ πλείστης δυνάμεως”), since the next first indiction was naturally 943 (6451). All dates thus referring to items derived from Greek sources are now accounted for except the treaties of 907, 912, and 945, the dates of which are generally assumed to be derived from the texts of these instruments themselves.

The actual extent of the subject-matter with which the compiler of the Povest was working as far as 945 must be regarded as relatively limited. The native written sources for this period were obviously nil, and legends apparently very scanty. The early traditions covering this epoch centre upon Rurik, the capture of Kiev by Oleg and his subjugation of the adjacent tribes, his Greek expedition, his mythical death (possibly derived from a Scandinavian source), and Igor’s raids upon Constantinople. For the period following 945, there were available by the late eleventh century other literary accounts of Olga and her conversion (supra, p. 108, n. 3), highly developed traditions and Greek sources concerning Svyatoslav, and a considerable body of material concerning Vladimir I. Where the compiler’s ingenuity was principally required was thus in the course of the first century of his narrative. We may suppose that the names of Rurik and his kin, of Askold and Dir, and of Oleg and Igor survived in popular legend at Kiev in somewhat the same fashion as the heroes of the later byliny. The problem for the chronicler was to extract from these fragmentary survivals the semblance of an historical account. While there may be some conceivable doubt whether Rurik and his relatives, and possibly Askold and Dir, were actual personages, Oleg and Igor are soundly attested, presumably with dates, by the treaties with the Greeks in which they are mentioned by name. The chronicler could thus work back from these treaties and attach the subjects of tradition, wherever possible, to a related item of Greek chronology. Regarding Igor he had no material apart from the fact that he was Rurik’s son and the husband of Olga, that he made a treaty with the Greeks, and that he fought consistently with the Derevlians, in one fatal campaign against whom he met his death. From the treaty of 945, he was known to have been a contemporary of Romanus Lecapenus. If there were no traditions as to his age at marriage and accession, it was a simple matter to associate the latter event conventionally with the accession of Constantine VII (913), and date his marriage just before Oleg’s Greek expedition of 907. Oleg himself is personally identified by the accords of both 907 and 912. Apart from these two instruments, the only traditions available concerning Oleg were that he was Rurik’s kinsman and heir, that he obtained possession of Kiev by slaying the Varangian chiefs then dominating that centre, exacted tribute from the neighboring Slavic tribes, and finally met a curious death against which the soothsayers had warned him. His campaigns against three distinct tribes are used to account for three successive years after his capture of Kiev, and all these events, which the compiler either assumed or were traditionally reported to have occurred after the death of Rurik, are used to cover a stretch of seven years. Prior to Igor, nothing remains for which an approximate date could be fixed, apart from the “calling of the princes” and the raid upon Constantinople attributed to Askold and Dir. The former tradition and the implications of the Norman theory are discussed in some detail in the following section, while the latter, as recounted in the Povest, shows evidence of an attempt to combine a native tradition with a Greek historical account. Such material as survived in legend concerning the early migratory movements of the Slavs on Danube and Vistula could scarcely be reduced to even an elementary chronology.

An analysis of the chronological content of the Povest prior to 945 indicates that the skeleton of dates is entirely derived from Greek sources, and that the content of surviving traditions has been overlaid upon this framework. The fragmentary nature of the extant native information covering the epoch preceding the middle of the tenth century points less to the composition of the primitive text suggested by Shakhmatov for 1039, when some survivors of the younger generation of Svyatoslav’s day must still have been alive, than to a conscious literary effort made considerably later to preserve in the Povest what few historical débris of the earlier period still remained at hand.

It may be assumed that from the conversion of Vladimir sufficient chronological material was preserved in ecclesiastical records to serve as a satisfactory basis for the compiler’s work as far as the point where his own notes and reminiscences provided his chronological outline.

Previous · Contents · Next