Editing Primary Chronicle (section)

== Authorship and composition ==
=== Authorship ===
[[File:The_Historian_Nestor.jpg|thumb|upright|''The Historian Nestor'' by [[Leo Mol]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://uartlib.org/downloads/VitrajiLeoMol_uartlib.org.pdf|title=Mol, Leo}}</ref>|alt=]] 
Tradition long regarded the first compilation as the work of a monk named [[Nestor the Chronicler|Nestor]] ({{circa}} 1056 – {{circa}} 1114), known to have written other works such as ''Life of the Venerable Theodosius''.{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=6}} Writers of the time spoke of the ''Chronicle of Nestor'',{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=3}} and of the author as Nestor "the Chronicler". Based on the 1661 ''[[Kyiv Caves Patericon|Paterik]]'' of the [[Kyiv Pechersk Lavra|Kyiv Monastery of the Caves]], late 17th-century writers began to assert that Nestor "the Chronicler" wrote many of the surviving [[Rus' chronicle]]s,{{sfn|Tolochko|2007|p=31}} including the ''Primary Chronicle'', the ''[[Kievan Chronicle]]'' and the ''[[Galician–Volhynian Chronicle]]'',{{sfn|Tolochko|2007|p=47}} even though many of the events they described took place in the 12th and 13th century, long after Nestor's death {{circa}} 1114.{{sfn|Tolochko|2007|p=47}} Another reason given for belief in Nestorian authorship was the word нестера in the opening lines of the ''[[Khlebnikov Codex]]'' (discovered in 1809{{sfn|Maiorov|2018|p=339}}), which some readers took to refer to Nestor "the Chronicler".{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=17}}{{sfn|Ostrowski|1981|p=28}} But as Ostrowski (1981) pointed out: "The word нестера was added in the ''[[Khlebnikov Codex]]'', and thus cannot be used as evidence for the name of the compiler of the PVL."{{sfn|Ostrowski|1981|p=28}} The word is not found in any of the other five main versions of the PVL,{{sfn|Ostrowski|1981|p=28}}{{efn|The often careless [[Vasily Tatishchev]] (1686–1750) claimed that three ''Chronicle'' texts that were somehow "lost" later also identified "Nestor" as the author.{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=17}} Modern scholars distrust all such "[[Tatishchev information]]" unless they are supported by another extant source.{{sfn|Tolochko|2005|pp=458–468}}{{sfn|Ostrowski|2018|pp=36, 38, 47}}}} and is thus an [[Interpolation (manuscripts)|interpolation]] inserted into the text by an editor, perhaps guessing at the author's name.{{sfn|Ostrowski|2003|pp=xvii–xviii}} From the 1830s to around 1900, there was fierce academic debate about Nestor's authorship, but the question remained unresolved, and belief in Nestorian authorship persisted.{{sfn|Tolochko|2007|pp=32–33}} The [[internal evidence]] of the PVL and the known works of Nestor often contradict one another, while the contents barely coincide in places where they seemingly should, so modern scholars have concluded that Nestor was not the author.{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|pp=6–12}}{{efn|'In any case, the internal evidence of the ''Povest{{'}}'', along with the lack of coincidence of its contents with Nestor's works wherever the two are related, is distinctly opposed to the tradition of Nestorian authorship.'{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=12}}}}

A more likely candidate as author is [[Sylvester of Kiev]], [[hegumen]] ([[abbot]]) of the [[Vydubychi Monastery|St. Michael's Monastery in Vydubychi]] (a village near [[Kyiv]]), who may have compiled several sources in the year 1116.{{sfn|Ostrowski|2003|p=xvii}} This attribution is based on the fact that the ''[[Laurentian Codex|Laurentian]]'' text ends on page 286, lines 1 to 7, with the [[Colophon (publishing)|colophon]] "I wrote down (''napisakh'') this chronicle",{{sfn|Ostrowski|2003|p=xvii}}{{efn|{{langx|cu|Игуменъ силивестръ стаг михаила· написах книгы си лѣтописець·|Igumenʺ silivestrʺ stag mikhaila· napisakh knigy si lětopisecʹ·|Abbot Silivestr" of St. Michael's Abbey – I wrote this chronicle [lit. "book of year writings"].{{sfn|Ostrowski|Birnbaum|2014|loc=286.1–2}}}}}} after which he requests the readers to remember him in their prayers.{{sfn|Ostrowski|2003|p=xvii}} Alternately, the real author may have been some other unnamed monk from the [[Kyiv Pechersk Lavra|Kyiv Monastery of the Caves]] mentioned in the title, and Sylvester completed his work, or was a very early editor or copyist of the PVL.{{sfn|Ostrowski|2003|p=xvii}}

=== Editions ===
[[:pl:Władysław Duczko|Wladyslaw Duczko]] (2004) argued that one of the central aims of the ''Chronicle's'' narrative is to 'give an explanation how the [[Rurikid]]s came to power in the lands of the Slavs, why the dynasty was the only legitimate one and why all the princes should terminate their internal fights and rule in peace and brotherly love.'{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}} 

In the year 1116, Nestor's text was extensively edited by the [[hegumen]] [[Sylvestr of Kiev|Sylvester]] who appended his name at the end of the chronicle. As [[Vladimir II Monomakh]] was the patron of the village of [[Vydubychi]] (now a neighborhood of Kyiv) where Sylvester's monastery was situated, the new edition glorified Monomakh and made him the central figure of later narrative.{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=17}} This second version of Nestor's work is preserved in the [[Laurentian Codex]] (see {{Section link||Surviving manuscripts}}).{{cn|date=September 2022}}

A third edition followed two years later, centered on Monomakh's son and heir, [[Mstislav the Great]]. The author of this revision could have been Greek, for he corrected and updated much data on Byzantine affairs. This revision of Nestor's work is preserved in the [[Hypatian Codex]] (see {{Section link||Surviving manuscripts}}).{{cn|date=September 2022}}

=== Composition ===
The organization, style, and narrative flow of the ''Primary Chronicle'' shows signs of compilation, different historical elements are brought together into a single cohesive historical account.{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}} Studies by Russian [[Philology|philologist]] [[Aleksey Shakhmatov]] and his followers have demonstrated that the ''PVL'' is not a single literary work but an amalgamation of a number of ancestors accounts and documents.{{sfn|Isoaho|2018|p=642}} In compiling the ''Chronicle'', some of Nestor's original sources definitely included but were not limited to:{{cn|date=September 2022}}

* The chronological table in the ''Primary Chronicle'' was derived from the ''Chronographikon Syntomon'' written by patriarch [[Nikephoros I of Constantinople]] (died 829){{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=30}}
* the [[Byzantium|Byzantine]] annals of [[John Malalas]], a Greek chronicler, who in 563 produced an 18+book work of  myth and truth intertwined.{{cn|date=September 2022}}
* the Byzantine annals of the monk [[George Hamartolus]] (literally "the Sinner", as he called himself; also known as "George the Monk"){{sfn|Ostrowski|2018|p=43–44}} who tried to adhere strictly to truth, and whose works are the only contemporary source for the period 813–842{{cn|date=September 2022}}
*[[bylina|byliny<!-- plural of bylina -->]],{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=18}} traditional East Slavic oral epic narrative poems
*[[Norse saga]]s{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=43}}
* several Greek religious texts{{cn|date=September 2022}}
*[[Rus'–Byzantine Treaty (disambiguation)|Rus'–Byzantine treaties]]{{cn|date=September 2022}}{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}} 
* oral tradition, but how much "is very difficult to tell".{{sfn|Duczko|2004|pp=202–203}} 
There probably were no "earlier local chronicles".{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}} The hypothesis that a local chronicle was written before the late 980s at the St Elias church in Kiev "has to remain an unproven speculation".{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}}

Linguistically speaking, the ''Primary Chronicle'' is written in [[Old East Slavic]], with strong [[Old Church Slavonic]] (early South Slavic) elements.{{sfn|Thuis|2015|p=246}} Although these two languages were quite similar up to the early 12th century, with few phonological, morphological and lexical differences at that point, scholars have noted a general pattern of religious passages and moral teachings featuring strong Old Church Slavonic elements, whereas entries on events in specific years are dominated by Old East Slavic elements.{{sfn|Thuis|2015|p=246}} Nevertheless, there are no clear linguistic boundaries between the two, as profane (secular) passages sometimes feature Old Church Slavonicisms, while devotional passages sometimes feature Old East Slavicisms.{{sfn|Thuis|2015|pp=246–247}} In the view of many modern linguistics, the authors (and editors) of the ''Primary Chronicle'' probably considered the language they wrote in to be one single language.{{sfn|Thuis|2015|p=247}} However, this literary language likely differed significantly from the Old East Slavic spoken [[lingua franca]] in contemporary Kiev, which appears to have been an amalgamation of several Old East Slavic dialects, with relatively few Old Church Slavonic influences.{{sfn|Thuis|2015|p=247}}