Editing Primary Chronicle (section)

==Assessment and critique==
{{Further|Textual criticism of the Primary Chronicle}}
Unlike many other medieval chronicles written by European monks, the ''Tale of Bygone Years'' is unique as the only written testimony on the earliest history of East Slavic people.{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=23}} Its comprehensive account of the history of [[Kievan Rus|Rus']] is unmatched in other sources, but important correctives are provided by the ''[[Novgorod First Chronicle]]''.<ref>[[Serge Aleksandr Zenkovsky|Zenkovsky, Serge A.]]: ''Medieval Russia’s epics, chronicles, and tales.'' A Meridian Book, Penguin Books, New York, 1963, p. 77</ref> It is also valuable as a prime example of the [[Old East Slavic#Old East Slavic literature|Old East Slavonic literature]].{{sfn|Cross|Sherbowitz-Wetzor|1953|p=}}{{pn|date=May 2023}}

However, its reliability has been widely called into question and placed under careful examination by contemporary specialists in the field of the Old East Slavonic history. The first doubts about trustworthiness of the narratives were voiced by [[Nikolay Karamzin]] in his ''[[History of the Russian State]]'' (1816–26), which brought attention to Nestor's questionable chronology and style of prose.<ref>Karamzin, Nikolaj Mihajlovič. ''Istoriâ gosudarstva Rossijskogo''. Moskva: OLMA Media Group, 2012, v. I, Chapter II.</ref> Building upon Karamzin's observations, further inquiries into the philology of the ''Rus Primary Chronicle'' shined more light on various weaknesses in the text's composition. According to [[Dmitry Likhachov]] (1950), the chronicle exhibits the presence of plentiful "fillers" that were added ''post factum'' and, in effect, "destroyed the narrative's logical progression."<ref>Likhachov, Dmitry. ''[https://www.livelib.ru/book/1001185740-velikoe-nasledie-klassicheskie-proizvedeniya-literatury-drevnej-rusi-zametki-o-russkom-dmitrij-lihachev. Velikoe nasledie: Klassicheskie proizvedenija literatury Drevnej Rusi. Zametki o russkom]''. Moscow, Russia: Logos, 2007, p. 342.</ref>

According to [[Aleksey Shakhmatov]] (1916), some of the incongruities are a direct result of the fact that "the ruling [[Grand Prince of Kiev|Princes of Kiev]] had their own [[propagandists]] who rewrote the annals to make political claims that best suited their own purposes."{{sfn|Isoaho|2018|p=642}} Shakhmatov further described the ''Tale of Bygone Years'' as a literary creation that fell under heavy influence of the Church and the State.<ref>Konstantonovich, Konstantin, and Aleksey Shakhmatov. [https://www.prlib.ru/item/358033 ''Povest’ Vremennikh Let.  Introduction''.] Petrograd, Russia: Izdanie Arheograficheskoj Komissii, 1916, v. I.</ref> 
Dmitry Likhachov famously wrote in his 1950 critique of the ''Rus Primary Chronicle'', "No other country in the world is cloaked in such contradictory myths about its history as Russia, and no other nation in the world interprets its history as variously as do the Russian people."<ref name="Likhachov 1993">Likhachev, D.S, Deming Brown, and et al. “Russian Culture in the Modern World.” ''Russian Social Science Review'' 34, no. 1 (1 February 1993): 70.</ref> The need to interpret the ''Chronicle'', mentioned by Likhachov as essential to making sense of its narrative, stems from the facts that the text was initially compiled and edited by multiple authors with different agendas and that it had to be translated from Old East Slavic language, which proved to be an arduous task.<ref name="Likhachov 1993"/>

[[Harvard University|Harvard]] linguist [[Horace G. Lunt]] (1988) found it important to "admit freely that we are speculating" when tales – such as [[Yaroslav the Wise]] being more than just "a patron of Slavonic books" – are reconstructed and the logical incongruities of the text are faced.{{sfn|Lunt|1988|p=261}} 

Polish historian Wladyslaw Duczko (2004) concluded that the compiler of the ''Primary Chronicle'' 'manipulated his sources in the usual way: information that was not compatible was left aside, while the elements that should be there but did not exist, were invented.'{{sfn|Duczko|2004|p=202}} Russian historian and author [[Igor Danilevsky]] mentioned that the ''Rus Primary Chronicle'' was more concerned with exploring the religious significance of the events rather than conveying to the reader the information about how it actually happened.<ref name=":3">Danilevskiy, I.N. ''[http://noogen.su/_oldroot/danilevsky-diss.pdf Povest’ vremennyh let: Germenevticheskie osnovy izuchenija letopisnyh tekstov]''. Monography - Moscow: Aspekt-Press, 2004, p. 133.</ref> As a result, a sizable portion of the text was directly borrowed from earlier works that contained a religious undertone like some Byzantine sources, and most notably, the [[Bible]].<ref name=":3" /> The protagonists are frequently identified with biblical personages and so are ascribed certain relevant qualities and deeds that did not necessarily match the reality.<ref name=":3" />

Ukrainian historian [[Oleksiy Tolochko]] in 2015 upheld the conclusion reached by his many predecessors that the ''Chronicle’s'' contents are more or less fictional. Tolochko argued that some of the tales, like the story of the [[Rurik dynasty|Rurikid]] clan's entry into Kiev, were invented "so as to produce a meaningful reconstruction of past events and include these well-known names" in the author's "historical scenario."{{sfn|Isoaho|2018|p=643}} Tolochko called the ''Rus Primary Chronicle'' an outstanding work of literature with an untrustworthy story and concluded that "there is absolutely no reason to continue basing our knowledge of the past on its content."<ref>Romensky A.A. [[doi:10.24411/2219-8857-2017-00024|“Primary Rus’ Without The Primary Chronicle: New Round Of Debate About The Early History Of Eastern Europe]] (Book Review: Tolochko A. P. 2015. Ocherki Nachalnoj Rusi. Kiev; Saint Petersburg: 'Laurus' Publ.).” ''Materialy Po Arheologii i Istorii Antičnogo i Srednevekovogo Kryma'', no. 9 (2017): 543.</ref>

Paul Bushkovitch (2012) from [[Yale University]] writes “the author was serving his rulers, identifying princes and people and leaving historians with a muddle virtually impossible to sort out.”<ref name="Bushkovitch">{{Cite book|title=A Concise History of Russia|last=Bushkovitch|first=Paul|publisher=Cambridge Press|year=2012|pages=4}}</ref> He also mentions that there are discrepancies when overlapping Scandinavian history with the narrative of the ''Primary Chronicle''. For example, “archeological evidence does not fit the legends of the ''Primary Chronicle”'' such as: “in Scandinavia itself, there were no sagas of Viking triumphs and wars in Russia to match those recounting the conquest of Iceland and the British Isles”. The credibility of the ''Primary Chronicle'' should be taken with a grain of salt for its undertone of being a political tool to justify rule.<ref name="Bushkovitch"/>