Talk:Rus' chronicle

Renaming and editing the article.

Hi, I think we should edit this article heavily. After 07:30, 13 November 2019 it was renamed from Rus' Chronicles to Old Russian letopises After 12:56, 7 December 2020 and 16:46, 15 December 2020 it was vandalized by Kedr26, who renamed everything to Russia instead of Rus'. And after "11:57, 27 January 2021" it was edited by Norasku, who changed chronicles to letopises.--Kram333r (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed it. Noraskulk (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge Letopis (genre) → East Slavic chronicle

This appears to be a content fork. I can’t see why the other article was created. —Michael Z. 04:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to the Old Rus letopises, there are also Old Polish, Lithuanian and Kazakh letopises. I studied ancient Russian literature at the Institute for four years (an article on it is already being written) and I know exactly what I'm talking about. Noraskulk (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

  Which article is already being written? I read these two articles and they seem to be about the same thing. There is only one mention of Kazakhstan. Every Mention of Poland and Lithuania refers to East Slavic chronicles. —Michael Z. 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. How is this different from Letopis (genre)? If the is about East Slavic or Rus' letopises, then its title and lead should make that clear. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

“Chronicle”

User:Noraskulk reverted my move of East Slavic letopis → East Slavic chronicle with the edit summary “The article Letopis (genre) says that the letopis is NOT a chronicle.”[1] Indeed, that other article does say that (the reference links to what appears to be a Russian-language site for downloading a Windows executable file: WP:reliable source?), although this one does not. And both these article appear to be about chronicles, that one uses the word eighteen more times, this one sixteen times, and includes a list of chronicles. This is a confusing mess (and what does letopising mean??). The subject of both of these articles is called a chronicle in most academic literature.

Please explain clearly what this is about. —Michael Z. 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a copy of the cited source.[2] The cited page 410 seems to be a list of page-specific notes on the Slovo o Polku, and doesn’t seem to say “the letopis is NOT a chronicle.” —Michael Z. 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Z, this is not true. The source I refer to is a translation of ancient Russian works, including The Tale of Bygone Years. In this case, I refer to Dmitry Likhachev's scientific commentary on his own translation of The Tale of Bygone Years; the sentence that makes you question is an abbreviated quote from that comment. Noraskulk (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

I don’t know which line you mean. Please quote it. I am sceptical that a single mention in a note about a line in the Primary Chronicle is a sufficient basis to make this broad statement about the subject of this article. —Michael Z. 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant the sentence in the fourth paragraph: 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.[1] The letopis is more of a work of fiction, although it is based on svod (annual record). PS. Sorry for taking so long to answer. Noraskulk (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC).

I can’t find the text on the page you linked to. In the link that I found, in the PDF linked near the bottom, page 410, fourth paragraph starts with “STR. 91 . . .vstali stiagi Riurikovy, a drugie — Davydovy, no vroz'. . .” I cannot find the text you refer to at all.

Still, it doesn’t sound like a rationale for saying what every English-language source calls a Rus chronicle, or Old East Slavic chronicle, or Russian chronicle, is not. I notice that in the list under #Some chronicles you have pipe-linked nineteen articles about chronicles with the name “letopis.” —Michael Z. 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, I refer to the 84 printed edition of the book that I have. I could point to the appropriate page in your source, but the PDF link you mention won't open for me (probably because I'm working from the library's computer). Noraskulk (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

+ I also corrected a grammatical error in your translation of the title of the article into Ukrainian, but for some reason you returned your version. I want to warn you that all Ukrainian researchers (Rybas, Petr Tolochko) use the plural form of this term in their research. Noraskulk (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

Translating a singular title in singular is not incorrect grammar. It is clearer for the reader and wp:singular is our convention. —Michael Z. 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources in English give just 'chronicles'. See in this article (for example Britannica). It is standard translation for this term from Old or modern East Slavic languages. These are annals rather than chronicles, but we should use the conventional translation. If it's necessary, we can explain their differences. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

References

“letopising”

This word does not seem to appear in English at all.[3][4] It has no meaning and only confuses. From its use in a Russan-language reference,East_Slavic_letopis#cite_note-autogenerated2-2 it appears to be an attempt to translate the adjective form (летописных, “letopis” accusative plural). In English we use the ordinary noun as an attributive. Just letopis. —Michael Z. 19:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate article for Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle? Separate list of Rus' chronicles/manuscripts?

I'm generally glad with the recent merger of Letopis (genre) into this article. Even though there are also some Polish and Czech etc. "chronicles", there was already much WP:OVERLAP between them, as most content was about Rus' chronicles. But I do think it's now a bit long, confusing and repetitive in certain places. Just by size alone, it may need to be split per WP:TOOBIG. It has 68 KB (7,057 words). Articles bigger than 60 kB Probably should be divided, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

Content-wise, I think we should have a separate article on Textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle. In my recently published Calling of the Varangians, I've included a section Calling of the Varangians#Texts as an exploration into textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles for a particularly well-known story. But it is probably a good idea to explore the topic of textual criticism more broadly in general, in an article separate from this one, which should be an overview of what the Rus' chronicles are. The study of how they came to be, and the history of study how they came to be, is probably too much for an introductory text. Just like we've got Textual criticism of the New Testament and Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, I think it would be good to have Textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle. The following sections should or could be merged into such a spin-off:

• Rus' chronicle#Textual criticism and content
• Rus' chronicle#Sources
• Rus' chronicle#Copies
• Rus' chronicle#Genealogy
• Bits and pieces from Rus' chronicle#History and Rus' chronicle#Study of sources
• At Talk:Calling of the Varangians#Textual variants I have suggested some additional literature.

Finally, I was already in the process of converting the Rus' chronicle#List of Rus' chronicles into a Wikitable sortable, but I ran into several problems. One chronicle may appear in multiple manuscripts, and one codex can contain multiple manuscripts, and the terms "chronicle" and "manuscript" and even "codex" are sometimes used interchangeably when they are separate things. E.g. many people equate the Laurentian Codex (Lav.) with the Primary Chronicle (PVL), but the latter has been preserved in hundreds of different manuscripts and codices; Lav. is just the codex containing the oldest manuscript of the PVL that has survived. (Edit: I just read Lunt 1994 making the same point: In view of the ubiquitous differences, what are we to consider the text? Much of scholarly literature, even some very specialized studies, operates with the tacit assumption that (the Laurentian Codex) is the PVL, other evidence being of subordinate value. In fact, (the Laurentian Codex) is often obviously faulty and editors and interpreters rely on the other witnesses, preferably (the Hypatian Codex).)
I'm especially confused by the terms ""Radziwiłł Chronicle", "Königsberg Chronicle", "Königsberg Manuscript", "Academic Chronicle", "Moscow Academic Manuscript", "Moscow Academic Chronicle", "Suzdal' Chronicle" etc.

Then there is the sorting. Sorting them in general is difficult because, should we sort them chronologically or alphabetically? Should we sort them by chronicle, manuscript, or codex?

• Sorting them chronologically is difficult because the dating is disputed. And even though Lav. is usually taken as a sort of gold standard, we all know that the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL, N1) is older.
• Sorting them alphabetically is difficult because they have different names in both the Slavic languages and in English, and how do we present that? Perhaps the abbreviations are a solution here? But there appears to be no universal standard here either. Dimnik 2004 used several that I have applied in the list, but the e-PVL by Ostrowski at http://pvl.obdurodon.org/pvl.html (which I discovered yesterday and find awesome!) uses different ones.

I've been creating a list of User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Old East Slavic manuscripts to struggle with these issues outside the mainspace, but I soon got stuck anyway. Perhaps it should look something like Vetus Latina manuscripts, which User:Veverve and I created recently?

These are all still open questions, and I don't have all the answers. That's why I'm asking for your input. Because the articles were recently merged for good reasons of WP:OVERLAP, but these issues should probably still be addressed, I'm pinging the people involved in that RM: @Mzajac, Marcelus, Srnec, and MaterialWorks:, @Noraskulk: who commented above and has studied ancient Russian literature, and @Nikolay Omonov: who is also a major contributor to this article. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Still no comments? I would rather not be WP:BOLD, and there are problems I can't solve on my own. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: I do think that at least at first we should limit ourselves to Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle. The Novgorod, Sophia etc. chronicles can play a role in its analysis, but Lunt 1994 and Ostrowski et al. 2014(?) indicate that there are 5 main manuscripts scholars study for attempting to reconstruct the original text of the PVL: Lav (Laurentian), Rad (Radziwiłł), Aka (Academic), Ipat (Hypatian), and Xleb (Khlebnikov). Ostrowski et al. added Tro (Troytskaya/Trinity) as the 6th. As Lunt indicates quite well, it's only the Primary Chronicle that has a near-biblical status that has received as much scholarly attention as, for the example he mentions, Textual variants in the Gospel of Mark. Some Ukrainian writers may emphasise how important the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle is (which is no doubt true), but it's not the one at the centre of all Rus' chronicle controversies. The Primary Chronicle is. Let's focus on that first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I began a draft: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Textual PVL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Possibly it could be a topic. Are there many articles like this aside from for biblical texts? I think a draft for now is a good idea. Mellk (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well not as detailed on textual variants specifically, no. But Category:Textual criticism has several articles on textual criticism in general, which is like a step in between. E.g. Textual tradition of the Man'yōshū and Textual tradition of The Tale of Genji.

Last year, I myself wrote the Correspondence between the Ottoman sultan and the Cossacks, a more modern East Slavic example of a famous text that has been examined critically, not because it is so holy and sacred and saintly, but quite the opposite... While many people on the Internet love throwing it around and changing it at liberty to suit any occasion, it appears that people have done so for centuries. It's very difficult to establish what the original text was, but thanks to some recent discoveries we are quite certain that the original text probably was made up, and not quite as... non-holy as later versions made it out to be. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Nederlandse Leeuw! English is not my native language, therefore, possible misunderstandings in my speech can be explained by the language barrier. Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle is a very good idea and your drafts is also well done I think. The Laurentian Codex is usually considered a chronicle, but it has been preserved in one manuscript. I cannot give a final answer on what is considered a chronicle and what is a manuscript (if a single manuscript has survived) and I cannot give a final answer on how to sort chronicles. There are no three categories in Russian (chronicle, codex and manuscript), there are two categories: chronicle (летопись) and manuscript (список = рукопись). I think it's better to sort by chronicles. If you're sorting alphabetically, then I think it's better to use the most common English name. In this sorting, I used the The dictionary of scribes and booklore of Old Rus' to determine what is a chronicle (and not just a manuscript) and what approximate dating to use. I have used this edition because it is an academic dictionary and a tertiary source on the subject (links to its volumes here). Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

English Wiktionary: кодекс
Russian Wiktionary: Титульный лист средневекового рукописного кодекса. ("Title page of a medieval manuscript codex.")

@Nikolay Omonov Thanks for your response! Don't worry, English is not my native language either (Dutch is; "Nederlandse" in my username means "Dutch"). :) I'm glad you like my idea of Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle!

I'm a bit surprised by the idea that there is no Russian equivalent for the word codex, because wikt:en:кодекс#Russian #3 has the exact same meaning as "codex" in English: wikt:en:codex (early manuscript book). Russian Wiktionary confirms this: wikt:ru:кодекс #2: истор. в античной и средневековой культуре: рукописная книга из разрезанных и сброшюрованных листов ("history in ancient and medieval culture : a handwritten/manuscript book of cut and stitched sheets"). Both entries use the image File:Dante Titelseite.jpg as an illustration of this exact same meaning. So the Russian language appears to have the same three categories as English; it just seems that Russian Wikipedia is not really applying the "codex/кодекс" category in practice, and (unhelpfully) equates it with "manuscript/список/рукопись". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In Russian literature, the term codex exists, but in the textual study of the literature of Rus' it is used rarely. I may be wrong, but the codex (кодекс) is usually a term of paleography, and the manuscript (список) is usually a term of textual criticism.

@Dmartyn80, colleague, I think you can clarify the question and point out my mistakes. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles is also a good idea for the future, because several hundred Rus' chronicles and about 5000 manuscripts known (for this stemma I used only key chronicles, mainly those that are in Yakov Lurie's scheme). There is also a huge amount of academic publications on textual criticism of the Rus' chronicles (here are just a few examples of publications). Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov I suppose you are correct about sorting by chronicles alphabetically, at least at Rus' chronicle#List of Rus' chronicles (the current English-language title of the chronicle in question will then determine the alphabetical order). I'll start carrying that out right now.

It may still have added value to have a separate list of codex and/or manuscripts sorted alphabetically, as I am trying to do at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Old East Slavic manuscripts, but it should not replace the chronicle-based list at Rus' chronicle#List of Rus' chronicles. Whether to take manuscripts or codices as our starting point will have to be determined later. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've sorted Rus' chronicle#List of Rus' chronicles alphabetically. That solves our first issue. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've published Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle. It's only a start, but I'd like to open it up for everyone to improve and expand now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Rybakov and Tatishchev

I think it's done well.

I will write a few of my thoughts on the subject. NPL is considered the earliest surviving text (although its manuscripts are only from the 13th and 15th centuries) due to the publications of Alexei Shakhmatov, who was the most famous researcher of the Rus chronicles. He wrote about a hundred years ago, but through the use of complex methods of textual criticism, many of his ideas have become mainstream and persist to this day. Nevertheless, there are a number of publications in which the Primary Chronicle is considered primary surviving text. I wrote about it here. In fact, this is a very important problem not only in textual criticism, but also in history, because it depends on which episodes from the early history of Rus' are more authentic.

There may be terminological confusion between Russian and English terms: Primary Chronicle = Tale of Bygone Years (Повесть временных лет), but Начальный свод (literally Primary Chronicle) is the early text that Shakhmatov singled out in the NPL. That is, this is not the Primary Chronicle (Повесть временных лет). Свод (летописный свод) in this case means something like a chronicle compilation, because Shakhmatov believed that most of the surviving chronicles are compilations of earlier chronicles and various literary texts. That is, these were large editorial works, separated by periods of time, which were made periodically (like editions of the Britannica). But now it is clear that at least the early Rus' chronicles were written as annals. Another topic. As can be seen from the stemma, the majority of chronicles begin from the 15th century, and the period of the 11th-14th centuries is almost empty. This is explained in various ways. Some authors think that there was a great literature of Rus', but it died during the invasion of the Mongols and the burning of cities. But the explanation may be less romantic: in the 15th century, paper became widespread in Rus' (it was known before). In the same century, the Rus' birch bark manuscripts disappeared. This situation, that the NPL, the Laurentian and Hypatian codices are considered the most authentic for early texts, is the result of the research of Shakhmatov and his followers, up to modern authors (Alexei Gippius, Timothy Gimon, etc.). And this is the scholar mainstream. However, there are a number of publications (often not entirely scientific) in which, without textual analysis, various chronicles, from some late ones (Nikonovskaya and others) to overtly speculative texts such as the Ioachim Chronicle, are called more authentic because they contain some "apocryphal" details on the early history of Rus'. Boris Rybakov and other authors wrote about this, for whom it was important to prove that the Varangians (варяги) were not Scandinavians. These hypotheses are not accepted by most researchers, but they are widely accepted in popular culture.

This is all of course how I understood the scholar literature, and I can be wrong. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov Thanks so much for this elaboration. Indeed, Shakhmatov did crucially important ground-breaking work, and many (but not all) of his ideas still seem to hold up to this day, or at least have considerable influence amongst present-day scholars.

I doubt that Начальный свод is often confused with the PVL and mistranslated as Primary Chronicle; this term first first arose as an abbreviation of the title of Cross & SW's 1930 English translation of the Laurentian Codex, namely, The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text. Translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1930). (Horace G. Lunt 1988: The major source of information about early East Slavic history is the Повесть временных лет (= PVL). Americans usually know it as the Russsian Primary Chronicle, for that is the title Samuel Hazzard Cross gave to his 1930 translation into English.)

In the English texts that I have been reading, the term Начальный свод is only transcribed as Nachal'nyy svod and otherwise left untranslated. (Martin Dimnik 2004: "The Novgorod First Chronicle" (Novgorodskaya pervaya letopis' starshego i mladshego izvodov) [NPL] has the earliest version of PVL known as the Nachal'nyy svod, which contains information up to the early 1090s, when it was compiled.) Similarly, the term Новгородско-Софийский свод coined by Shakhmatov has been transcribed to the Latin script, but otherwise left untranslated here on English Wikipedia: Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod. Indeed as you say, compilation is probably a good working translation of свод / svod. At any rate, it's possible that some English writers confuse the Nachal'nyy svod and the Primary Chronicle / PVL, but I think it's probably less of a problem than you fear.

What you are saying about the Rus' birch bark manuscripts is quite interesting and new to me. It seems to me that these "apocryphal" chronicles are very similar to the New Testament apocrypha. Virtually all scholars regard virtually all of them as not containing any authentic information that is not also recorded in the New Testament itself (with the possible exception of some sayings recorded in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, which some serious scholars believe to be authentic), but in popular culture, anything these apocrypha say is regarded as more "true" than what the New Testament says, but "censored" because the Church somehow tried to hide this "truth" by declaring it non-canonical. Especially the idea that Judas was a good guy after all, or that Jesus had a wife, are extremely popular, but have no evidence-based leg to stand on. This appeal is readily explainable as attractive anti-establishment sensation(alism), but not something Wikipedia should take very seriously.

I'm glad that you have hereby warned me for the anti-Normanist motivations that some of these advocates of apocryphal Rus' birch bark chronicles have. Until you told me about it today, I had no idea that Rybakov was a staunch anti-Normanist, but now I'm on my guard. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

About birch bark letters, I meant that they disappear with the spread of paper. Perhaps I expressed my thought incorrectly. Birch bark letters are not apocrypha, but simply business letters. Apocrypha I called the later chronicles, starting around the 16th century. Birch letters are just business letters. There is nothing apocryphal about them. They appear in the 11th century and disappear in the 15th century. "Chronicle Apocrypha" are chronicles that were written in the 16th century and later. They were written on paper, not on birch bark. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Rybakov is not called a pseudo-scientist only because of his formal authority: he was a member of the Academy of Sciences and for many years was the de facto head of Soviet historiography and archeology. But most of his ideas are dismissed by researchers as unscientific. That is, his ideas are not just wrong (the researcher can be wrong), his ideas violate the scolar method. Rybakov himself wrote that he rejected the accepted methods (in archeology, ethnography, linguistics, folklore, etc.). Some researchers believe that Russian nationalism was his motivation, because his main idea was to prove that Russian history began 5-7 thousand years ago. Here are many opinions of different authors about his ideas and their criticism. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea! Perhaps we should expand his English Wikipedia page Boris Rybakov? Currently it has no criticism of his work at all, but it does list a bunch of honours and awards he received for his work. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A vivid example of Rybakov's technique. This is not related to chronicles, but his working with chronicles have something similar. Everything written below is not my interpretation, it is described by the authors in the link that I wrote (there are links to Rybakov himself and to his critics).

There is an episode in Russian epics (bylinas): the hero meets a monster on a bridge over a fiery river. The monster is called чудище хоботисто. Rybakov did not know that хобот in the old Russian language (18-19th centuries, when the bylinas were recorded) does not mean the elephant's trunk as in modern Russian. Хобот is the tail in old language. Чудище хоботисто is a monster with a tail (a dragon or other monster). Rybakov decided that a хобот is a trunk (as in modern Russian), and чудище хоботисто was a mammoth. And he decided that the fiery river was a chain of cave hunters with torches who drive the unfortunate mammoth into a trap. Rybakov considered this episode one of the proofs that (not the Russian people themselves) the historical memory of the Russian people and Russian culture dates back to the Paleolithic. Enough said. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Whahahaha! Okay those are not the kind of mistakes that a good scholar should make. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To get back on topic: I would really like to cooperate with you on textual criticism. You obviously know a lot more about Russian and Old East Slavic / Church Slavonic than I do. With my training and skills as a historian, and my experience with textual criticism of the New Testament and Hebrew Bible, we could form a good team. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In Askold and Dir#Primary Chronicle and Novgorod First Chronicle I've created another side-by-side comparison. This one is a bit simpler than the Calling of the Varangians#Texts, but it can still be expanded later. I think it's high time that we break the de facto monopoly of Lav. (and especially the 1930 Cross&SW English translation) in telling how everyone single episode of early East Slavic history happened. At the very least, the NPL should provide some contrast to just assuming Lav. got it all right. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to expand the page about Boris Rybakov.

Thank you. I would like to cooperate with you on textual criticism too. Unlike me, you know better the scholar literature from different countries.

I agree that NPL should always be given along with PVL. Monopoly of PVL is not the approach that should be in Wikipedia. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Among the "apocryphal chronicles" (this is just my term, there is no this term in the literature), probably the most "apocryphal" is the Ioachim Chronicle and other so-called "Tatishchev's information" (татищевские известия). You may know this topic well, but I would be interested in summarizing my understanding of sources and literature. Also, I recently wrote in Wikipedia about this topic. And I think this is a good example of what an "apocryphal chronicle" is.

Vasily Tatishchev was not an academic historian. He was an engineer and politician in the 18th century. In fact, Tatishchev was a Russian colonialist. He founded cities and factories in those territories that the Russians colonized; he also was governor. But he was also fond of collecting various historical texts. He found that different chronicles differ from each other, and he decided to create his own chronicle by combining those fragments from the chronicles that he considered the most authentic. He called his work History of Russia (Исторія Россійская). His books were not published during his lifetime. He died in 1750. Part of his work was published only in 1767 by Gerhard Friedrich Müller (academic Russian historian, German by birth). Tatishchev's work was fully published only in the middle of the 19th century. Even from the first publication (1767), scolars became interested in the work of Tatishchev. They found that Tatishchev used some chronicles known to them. But some of the sources were unknown. Gradually most of the sources were identified. But a part of the text of unknown origin remained. These are different texts, from whole stories to a couple of added words. These fragments of Tatishchev's work were called "Tatishchev's information" (татищевские известия, literally: "Tatishchev's messages" or "Tatishchev's reports") or "minus-text" ("минус-текст"). For large texts, Tatishchev usually indicated the source. The largest and most dubious such text is the Ioachim Chronicle. Tatishchev wrote that this is a chronicle older than PVL. He wrote that the Ioachim Chronicle was written by Ioachim in the 11th century, who was the first bishop of Novgorod. Some scolars believed this, but most modern scolars believe that this is a chronicle created by scribes of Moscow patriarch Ioachim in the 17th century. There are a number of scolars who believe that "Tatishchev's information", including the Ioachim Chronicle, is simply invented by Tatishchev. Others believe that it was invented by another late author.

Indeed, if you read "Tatishchev's information", you will see that the princes of early Rus' make colorful political speeches, the text gives vivid descriptions of the princes, the princes know the European theory of economics and politics, they draft political reforms and they are highly educated European monarchs, the princes doubt the Christian ideas and suggest moving on to the principles of reason and the public good. This is clearly not an 11th or 12th or 13th century text. Most likely, this is not even a text of the 17th century, when free-thinking and European ideas were forbidden in Russia. This is a text of the Tatishchev era, that is, the 18th century. Ukrainian historian Oleksiy Tolochko wrote about this in detail in a large study (I think the largest on this topic) (see here). Nikolay Omonov (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nikolay Omonov That's so interesting! I did run into the term "Tatishchev information" in Ostrowski 2018, where he mentioned some of the things you're saying, and Tolochko as a good scholar who refutes it. Ostrowski p. 47:

The eighteenth-century Russian historian Vasilii N. Tatishchev reported that Rostislav, the father of Riurik, married around the year 1060 to the daughter of the king of Hungary.[74] Other historians have supposed this was Lanka, the daughter of Bela i (r. 1060–1063), but no other source confirms or refutes this “Tatishchev information.”

Ostrowski p. 36:

Vasilii Tatishchev mentions a “Riurik Ol’govich” twice, once under 1211 and once under 1212, but, according to Tolochko, this “Riurik Ol’govich” must be considered “Tatishchev information” and thus suspect, for he is“completely unknown in other sources ….” Aleksei Tolochko,“Istoriia Rossiiskaia” Vasiliia Tatishcheva: istochniki i izvestiia (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie; Kiev: Kritika, 2005), 458–468. This is the exact same book you linked to on Google Books!

Ostrowski p. 38:

Tatishchev cites the non-extant Ioakim Chronicle that Oleg was Riurik’s shurin (brother of his wife) and thus the uncle of Igor’. (...) But this evidence is suspect. See Tolochko (...)

But I didn't have the full picture yet. Thanks to you, now I do. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I added this information about Ostrowski to ru:Татищевские известия and ru:Иоакимовская летопись. Nikolay Omonov (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Title

I think the plural "Rus' chronicles" would be clearer. This is not an open genre, but a closed set of historical texts. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

How does this relate to WP:PLURAL?  —Michael Z. 21:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I would call this a group or class of specific things. In fact, the plural is more common on GBooks and GScholar, which is not what I think you'd expect if it were a genre and discussed as such. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I’m not 100 percent confident I have a handle on the exceptions in PLURAL, but Old East Slavic chronicles are individual things. Many specific ones probably meet GNG while others probably do not. The article is about a genre which is not tightly defined and I do not think a closed set: there may be disagreement about which examples belong to it and new ones could be discovered.

Be that as it may, I think we can agree that chronicles of Rus are a subclass of chronicles, restricted to those from a certain imperfectly defined place and time. The title for the subject should probably be consistent with the broader subject’s title, barring some really exceptional argument to the contrary.

(“What I think you’d expect” is not really evidence that can be confirmed or denied.)  —Michael Z. 02:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't think from a certain ... place and time defines a genre. It defines a class, as in the Burmese chronicles. That is, it's a subset of (all) chronicles, not a subgenre of the chronicle. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support for now Srnec has a good point. When compared with, say, Category:European chronicles, and the main category Category:Old East Slavic chronicles, I think a plural title is better. Singular might suggest this is about a single document. |Especially the Primary Chronicle (PVL) is sometimes (confusingly/misleadingly/incorrectly) called "the Rus' Chronicle", as if it is the only one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Names of subcategories of Category:Chronicles are plural because they are WP:SETCAT. The main article is singular Chronicle. Of its subcategories, Illuminated manuscript in Category:Illuminated histories, but Welsh chronicles in Category:Welsh chronicles, [[Serbian chroniclesj in Category:Serbian chronicles, Irish annals for (a subset of?) Category:Irish chronicles. There are also List of Danish chronicles and List of English chronicles, and sever of these have X chroniclers subcategories.

  I suggest we expand this discussion to include the entire category tree. WP:CONSISTENCY should be maintained unless there is a good reason for exceptions.

  or is there a cogent argument for the two top-level subjects to be singular while the national varieties are plural?  —Michael Z. 13:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well yes, a chronicle is a type of text / a literary genre, so it should be in singular, compare epistle, gospel, saga etc. All the others are groupings of chronicles, so they should be in plural. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is not directly related to the plural/singular question, but I feel like I should point out that every other element of the title could be contested as well for one reason or another. E.g. the main category is currently called Category:Old East Slavic chronicles; should we rename that to Category:Rus' chronicles per WP:C2D? Letopis (genre) was recently merged into this article; shouldn't that be our title? What about the repeatedly returning argument that "annals" is a better translation of letopis because it actually has to do with "years", i.e. лѣт = annus? What best captures the contents of this article? Of course, I have suggested in the talk section above that certain parts of this article should probably be WP:SPLIT off, and I'm working on that, but it takes time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would favour OES c., as it refers to a language that classifies the literature, not an extended country where it occurred, and we also have Category:South Slavic chronicles and Category:West Slavic chronicles. On the other hand, R' c. has absolutely more usage.[5]  —Michael Z. 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac You make a great point. Does Rus' mean "language" or "country" (or perhaps something else) in this case? It looks like certain category trees have been mixed up.

  • By location: Category:Old East Slavic chronicles > Category:European chronicles > Category:European literature > Category:Literature by continent > Category:Literature by location
  • By language: Category:Old East Slavic chronicles > Category:Church Slavonic manuscripts > Category:Medieval literature by language > Category:Literature by language

  The problem is that language and location can be independent. E.g. some of the Siberian Letopises were, strictly speaking, probably not written inside Europe, but they were written in an (Old) East Slavic language. So we may categorise them as Category:Old East Slavic chronicles, but that is a child of Category:European chronicles, which is in the location-based tree.

  My own reasoning would prefer language-based categorisation, as the language of a text can usually be reasonably identified. (Although people may argue about what exactly to call it, e.g. "Old East Slavic", just "East Slavic", "Old Church Slavonic", just "Church Slavonic", "Old Russian", "Ruthenian", etc., probably nobody is gonna dispute that these texts are linguistically "Slavic".) On the other hand, determining where the text was originally written is a question that often cannot be answered (definitively), especially when copies of the text spread across bordes for centuries after it was written.

  But even if we are talking about modern literature, why does location matter? If someone in Denmark publishes a book in English tomorrow, and that gets distributed online or appears in hardback and paperback copies in countries around the world (where it may be sold and read more widely than in Denmark itself), what makes it "European literature"? The "Denmark" part? The "English" part? Both seem to be WP:NONDEFINING for the book in question. I feel a CfD coming up.... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_26#Category:European_chronicles there we go. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Rus refers to people and land (there is also the synonym Ruthenian language, usually used for Middle Ukrainian and Middle Belarusian). The contemporary definition of Rus and Rus Land changed over time, but I think we can use an encompassing definition in this kind of categorization.

  I believe original language is an inherent attribute of a text (and even affects translations), while place can be uncertain or undetermined, and could be problematic in the case of multiple copies made in different places.  —Michael Z. 16:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I agree with all that, but does Rus' mean "language" or "country" (or perhaps something else) in this case, i.e. in Rus' chronicle? Because what I've been reading about these chronicles in recent months suggests it refers to русская земля ("the Rus' land"), especially in the opening lines of the PVL ("Tale of bygone years by the monk of Theodosius, regarding the origin of the land of Rus', the first princes..."). Not to the language they spoke. And I can't remember which codex it was, or where I read it, but I believe either the Hypatian or Khlebnikov Codex had the title "Rus' Chronicle" on its cover when it was found or something (but I can't find it anymore, aargh! Haha). So if I understand it correctly, Rus' refers to the setting of the story, not the language it was written in. That would mean it may be at odds with the language-based Category:Old East Slavic chronicles we have placed it in, and it may also question the validity of the merger of Letopis (genre) into Rus' chronicle. I must say this is all a bit confusing, and I don't have all the answers either. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Halperin (2001) speaks of 'the corpus of the East Slavic chronicles'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Uh-oh. Your nomination over there reminded me that these chronicles are written in both Old East Slavic and Church Slavic (OES recension), as well as the descendant languages. I believe it may be defined as a literature of East Slavic-speaking peoples.  —Michael Z. 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, tentatively. Okay, I can accept that chronicle is a type of literature while the Rus chronicles are a group or class of specific examples of it (although I’m not sure I could explain the distinction).  —Michael Z. 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we could compare it to Prayer book being a genre, and Category:Christian prayer books‎ and Category:Jewish prayer books‎ being a group or class of specific examples of it. The defining difference here is religion.

Most children of Category:European chronicles appear to be defined by language, such as Category:South Slavic chronicles, but others by location/setting, such as Category:Swiss chronicles, Category:Low Countries chronicles, Category:Scandinavian chronicles. Still others seem to want to have it both ways, such as Category:Scottish chronicles, which is in Category:History books about Scotland (location/setting) AND Category:Scottish literature (language).

Or the more complicated Category:Welsh chronicles, which is in

• Category:Medieval Wales (location/setting);
• Category:Welsh books > Category:British books > Category:Books by country (location/setting), but also
  • Category:Works by Welsh people > Category:Works by British people > Category:Works by nationality, (author nationality)
• Category:Medieval Welsh literature > Category:Welsh-language literature (language).

So, what does "Welsh" in Category:Welsh chronicles mean? Well, apparently it means this text was by definition written in Welsh in medieval Wales by a person who lived in the United Kingdom and had British nationality! Obviously the latter two did not apply to the author of the Brut y Saeson (written before Wales was conquered and annexed by England in 1284), and the "Welsh-language" part doesn't apply to Annales Cambriae (written in Latin).

It appears that a lot of incorrect assumptions and generalisations are being made here. Marcocapelle previously made me aware of the fact that the earliest so-called Category:Polish chronicles were actually written in Latin. So these texts are not defined by the Polish language, but the fact that their setting is Poland / the Polish princes makes them "Polish" chronicles. Something similar goes on with the so-called (Belarusian-)Lithuanian Chronicles: written in Ruthenian, but mostly set in Lithuania (and Belarus) about the Lithuanian nobility. What makes them "Lithuanian"? Not language, but setting. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps this means that Rus' chronicles should be in Category:Works set in former countries, namely, Kievan Rus', or the subsequent Rus' principalities. Although in practice they will also almost all be Category:Old East Slavic chronicles/Category:Church Slavonic manuscripts, Rus' is about setting, not language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

PPS: In other words, I am considering whether Category:European chronicles should be split into Category:Chronicles set in Europe (re-parent to Category:Works by country of setting?), and Category:Chronicles by language (re-parent to Category:Literature by language; its children should have names such as Category:Hebrew-language chronicles, which already exists). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect you mean the cultural setting in which it was produced, and not the setting of its subject. (For example, the Primary Chronicle starts by talking about the Holy Land.)  —Michael Z. 14:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think a chronicle can be described as having a "setting". Srnec (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you’d like to call the locations where its subject matter takes place.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)