text:
Primary Chronicle

The Russian Primary Chronicle, commonly shortened to Primary Chronicle (Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ, commonly transcribed Povest' vremennykh let (PVL), lit. 'Tale of Bygone Years'), is a chronicle of Kievan Rus' from about 850 to 1110. It is believed to have been originally compiled in or near Kiev in the 1110s. Tradition ascribed its compilation to the monk Nestor beginning in the 17th century, but this is no longer believed to have been the case.

The title of the work, Povest' vremennykh let ("Tale of Bygone Years") comes from the opening sentence of the Laurentian text: "These are the narratives of bygone years regarding the origin of the land of Rus', the first princes of Kiev, and from what source the land of Rus' had its beginning". The work is considered a fundamental source for the earliest history of the East Slavs.

The content of the chronicle is known today from the several surviving versions and codices, revised over the years, slightly varying from one another. Because of several identified chronological issues and numerous logical incongruities pointed out by historians over the years, its reliability as a historical source has been strictly scrutinized by experts in the field. (See .)

Authorship
Tradition long regarded the first compilation as the work of a monk named Nestor (c. 1056 – c.  1114), known to have written other works such as Life of the Venerable Theodosius. Writers of the time spoke of the Chronicle of Nestor, and of the author as Nestor "the Chronicler". Based on the 1661 Paterik of the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves, late 17th-century writers began to assert that Nestor "the Chronicler" wrote many of the surviving Rus' chronicles, including the Primary Chronicle, the Kievan Chronicle and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle, even though many of the events they described took place in the 12th and 13th century, long after Nestor's death c. 1114. Another reason given for belief in Nestorian authorship was the word нестера in the opening lines of the Khlebnikov Codex (discovered in 1809), which some readers took to refer to Nestor "the Chronicler". 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. The word is not found in any of the other five main versions of the PVL, and is thus an interpolation inserted into the text by an editor, perhaps guessing at the author's name. 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. 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.

A more likely candidate as author is Sylvester of Kiev, hegumen (abbot) of the St. Michael's Monastery in Vydubychi (a village near Kyiv), who may have compiled several sources in the year 1116. This attribution is based on the fact that the Laurentian text ends on page 286, lines 1 to 7, with the colophon "I wrote down (napisakh) this chronicle", after which he requests the readers to remember him in their prayers. Alternately, the real author may have been some other unnamed monk from the 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.

Editions
Wladyslaw Duczko (2004) argued that one of the central aims of the Chronicle's narrative is to 'give an explanation how the Rurikids 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.'

In the year 1116, Nestor's text was extensively edited by the hegumen Sylvester who appended his name at the end of the chronicle. As Vladimir Monomakh was the patron of the village of Vydubychi (now a neighborhood of Kyiv) where Sylvester's monastery was situated, the new edition glorified Vladimir and made him the central figure of later narrative. This second version of Nestor's work is preserved in the Laurentian codex (see ).

A third edition followed two years later, centered on Vladimir'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 ).

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. Studies by Russian 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. In compiling the Chronicle, some of Nestor's original sources definitely included but were not limited to:

There probably were no "earlier local chronicles". 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".
 * The chronological table in the Primary Chronicle was derived from the Chronographikon Syntomon written by patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople (died 829)
 * the Byzantine annals of John Malalas, a Greek chronicler, who in 563 produced an 18+book work of myth and truth intertwined.
 * the Byzantine annals of the monk George Hamartolus (literally "the Sinner", as he called himself; also known as "George the Monk") who tried to adhere strictly to truth, and whose works are the only contemporary source for the period 813–842
 * byliny, traditional East Slavic oral epic narrative poems
 * Norse sagas
 * several Greek religious texts
 * Rus'–Byzantine treaties
 * oral tradition, but how much "is very difficult to tell".

Linguistically speaking, the Primary Chronicle is written in Old East Slavic, with strong Old Church Slavonic (early South Slavic) elements. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Surviving manuscripts
Because the original of the chronicle as well as the earliest known copies are lost, it is difficult to establish the original content of the chronicle. The six main manuscripts preserving the Primary Chronicle which scholars study for the purpose of textual criticism are:
 * Laurentian Codex (1377)
 * Hypatian Codex (c. 1425)
 * Radziwiłł Chronicle (c. 1500)
 * Academic Chronicle (c. 1500)
 * Khlebnikov Codex (c. 1575)
 * Trinity Chronicle (c. 1450; excluded by some scholars who count only "five main witnesses")

Laurentian Codex
The Laurentian Codex was compiled in Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal by the Nizhegorodian monk Laurentius for the Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1377. The original text he used was a codex (since lost) compiled in 1305 for the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Mikhail of Tver. The account continues until 1305, but the years 898–922, 1263–83 and 1288–94 are missing for reasons unknown. The manuscript was acquired by the famous Count Musin-Pushkin in 1792 and subsequently presented to the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg.

Hypatian Codex
The Hypatian Codex dates to the 15th century. It incorporates much information from the lost 12th-century Kievan Chronicle and 13th-century Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. The language of this work is the East Slavic version of Church Slavonic language with many additional irregular east-slavisms (like other east-Slavic codices of the time). Whereas the Laurentian (Muscovite) text traces the Kievan legacy through to the Muscovite princes, the Hypatian text traces the Kievan legacy through the rulers of the Halych principality. The Hypatian codex was rediscovered in Kiev in the 1620s, and a copy was made for Prince Kostiantyn Ostrozhsky. A copy was found in Russia in the 18th century at the Ipatiev Monastery of Kostroma by the Russian historian Nikolai Karamzin.

Numerous monographs and published versions of the chronicle have been made, the earliest known being in 1767. Aleksey Shakhmatov published a pioneering textological analysis of the narrative in 1908. Dmitry Likhachev and other Soviet scholars partly revisited his findings. Their versions attempted to reconstruct the pre-Nestorian chronicle, compiled at the court of Yaroslav the Wise in the mid-11th century.

Stories
The early part of the PVL features many anecdotal stories, among them:

 * The supposed biblical origins of the Slavs from a son of Noah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible;
 * the early history of the Slavs, with the banks of the river Danube in the regions of Hungary, Illyria, and Bulgaria described as their place of original settlement;
 * the legendary founding of Kiev by Kyi, Shchek, Khoryv and Lybid';
 * the labors of Saints Cyril and Methodius among the Slavic peoples;
 * the calling of the Varangians;
 * the murder of Askold and Dir, by which Oleg the Wise conquered Kiev;
 * the death of Oleg in 912, the "cause" of which was allegedly foreseen by him;
 * the legendary vengeance taken by Olga, the wife of Igor, on the Drevlians, who had murdered her husband; (Her actions secured Kievan Rus' from the Drevlians, preventing her from having to marry a Drevlian prince, and allowing her to act as regent until her young son came of age.)
 * the Siege of Kiev (968) by the Pechenegs;
 * the legendary Conversion of Vladimir the Great;
 * the Kievan succession crisis after Vladimir's death, Yaroslav's rise to power, and the Battle of Listven.

Chronology
The chronology offered by the Primary Chronicle (PVL) is sometimes at odds with that of other documents such as the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL) and Byzantine literature. Sometimes the Primary Chronicle also contradicts itself, especially between narrative and chronological parts, which appear to have been written by two different authors. Several scholars including Aleksey Shakhmatov (1897), Mikhail Tikhomirov (1960), Ia. S. Lur’e (1970), and Constantin Zuckerman (1995) have concluded that the 9th- and 10th-century dates mentioned in the PVL were not added to the text until the 11th century, unless directly copied from the Chronicle of George the Monk.

Opening date error
The historical period covered in the Tale of Bygone Years begins with biblical times, in the introductory portion of the text, and concludes with the year 1117 in the chronicle's third edition. Russian philologist Aleksey Shakhmatov was the first one to discover early on that the chronology of the Primary Chronicle opens with an error. The Laurentian text of the Chronicle says: "In the year 6360 (852), the fifteenth of the indiction, at the accession of the Emperor Michael, the land of Rus' was first named". It is thus claimed that the reign of Byzantine emperor Michael III began in this year, but Byzantine sources (such as 11th-century Greek historian John Skylitzes' account ) point out that it began on 21 January 842. Shakhmatov (1897) demonstrated that an editor based himself on a miscalculation found in the Short History of Nikephoros I of Constantinople. Moreover, a few sentences later, the text states: 'from the birth of Christ to Constantine, 318 years; and from Constantine to Michael, 542 years. Twenty-nine years passed between the first year of Michael's reign and the accession of Oleg, Prince of Rus'.' However, Constantine the Great acceded in 313, not 318, and the resulting sum of 318+542 years leads to another erroneous accession of Michael III, this time in 860. This then leads to an internal contradiction, when "Michael the Emperor" is said to have mounted a campaign against the Bulgars in 853–858 (6361–6366), which could not have happened before he became Byzantine emperor in 860 according to the latter accession date.

Major events
Chronology of major events:
 * 852 (6360): The principal date mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, when the land of Rus' was first named in the Greek chronicle of George Hamartolos; this is evidence that the compiler used it as one of the sources for the Primary Chronicle.
 * 859: 'The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians, the Ves', and the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polyanians, the Severians, and the Vyatichians'.
 * 862: The calling of the Varangians. The various tributaries of the Varangians attempted to rid themselves of the Varangian lordship, which led to quarrels among the tribes and culminated in them inviting a knyaz ("prince") from the Varangians to rule over them. As a result, the three Varangian brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor and their kinsfolk crossed the sea and settled themselves in various localities, and it is claimed that it was after these Varangians that the land of Rus' would eventually be named. Around the same time, two other Varangians called Askold and Dir captured the town of Kiev.
 * 866 (6374): The Siege of Constantinople (860) by Rus' forces. According to Byzantine sources, this happened in 860, not 866.
 * 881/2 (6390): Rurik's successor, Oleg, sent messengers to Askold and Dir, representing himself as a stranger on his way to Greece on an errand for Oleg and for Igor', the prince's son, requesting a meeting. He then ambushed Askold and Dir, saying: "You are not princes nor even of princely stock, but I am of princely birth." Igor' was then brought forward, and Oleg announced that he was the son of Rurik. They killed Askold and Dir, and after carrying them to the hill, they buried them there, on the hill now known as Uhorska (Hungarian hill), where the castle of Ol'ma now stands.' Then 'Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev' (къняжа въ Киеве) 'and declared that it should be the mother of Rus' cities.' According to the text's aforementioned chronology of Oleg's accession 29 years after Michael III in 860, Oleg's reign should have begun in 889 rather than 881/2.
 * 883: Prince Oleg conquers the Derevlians.
 * 884–885: Prince Oleg defeats the Radimichians and the Severians, bringing them under his rule.
 * 907: Prince Oleg launched an incursion against the Greeks, resulting in a favorable treaty for Rus'. The Greek emperor Leo conceded to provide allowances for Oleg's men, award them a right to stay and trade in Constantinople free of tax, and to enter unconditional peace. This event is not mentioned in Byzantine sources.
 * 912: After Oleg's prophetic death from a snakebite, prince Igor succeeded him as the ruler of Rus' and was neither “successful in his military campaigns nor popular with people.” According to the Novgorod First Chronicle, Oleg died in 922; if Oleg (Helgi) is the same person as HLGW, "king of the Rus'", in the Genizah Letter, he would still have been alive in the 940s.
 * Ca. 945: Prince Igor was murdered in the act of uprising by the Derevlians. His wife Olga assumed the throne following her husband's death and brought revenge upon Igor's murderers. Some of the Derevlians were burned in their homes, others were buried alive, while the remaining were simply slaughtered. Olga later ruled as a regent for her young son Svyatoslav, who went on to have an extensive military career as an adult, venturing East against the Khazars and the Bulgars.
 * 972: Svyatoslav was killed in a Pecheneg ambush while returning from one of his frequent campaigns against the Greeks.
 * 973: The reign of Yaropolk began and was complicated by quarrels with his two brothers, Oleg and Vladimir.
 * 978–980: Yaropolk proved himself victorious against his brother Oleg but died at the hands of men of his other brother Vladimir. After inheriting the throne, Vladimir initially upheld pagan practices and worshipped Perun.
 * 986–988: The conversion of Volodimer: Vladimir was baptized into Orthodoxy, which later became referred to as the "Baptism of Rus'" because it was followed by a widespread Christianization of Kievan Rus'. The entire conversion story covers a large chunk of the Primary Chronicle: pages 84–121, or 37 out of a total of 286 pages (12.9%) of the entire text.
 * 1015: Following Vladimir's death, Svyatopolk inherited the title of the Prince of Kiev and became known as Svyatopolk the Accursed for his violent actions towards his siblings.
 * 1019: Svyatopolk was overthrown by his brother Yaroslav the Wise, whose reign brought an end to the unified kingdom of Rus but laid the foundation for the development of the written tradition in the Kievan Rus'.
 * 1054: After Yaroslav's death, the kingdom was split into five princedoms with Izyaslav ruling in Kiev, Svyatoslav in Chernigov, Igor in Volodymyr, Vsevolod in Pereiaslav, and Rostislav in Tmutarakan’.
 * 1076: Vsevolod held a victory over his four rivals and became the Grand Prince of Kiev.
 * 1093: After Vsevolod’s death, Svyatopolk reigned over the Kievan Rus.
 * 1113: Rise to power of Vladimir Monomakh, whose religious testament and prayers were appended at the end of the Chronicle by monk Sylvester, working from St. Michael’s monastery in 1116.

Christian elements
The Primary Chronicle is vibrant with Christian themes and biblical allusions, which are often said to reflect the text’s monastic authorship. Aleksandr Koptev remarks that the Chronicle belongs to the genre of Christian literature. In the introduction, the chronicler explores the biblical origin of the Slavic people, and traces their heritage back to Noah. On numerous occasions throughout the text, the chronicler discusses the pagan Slavs in a condescending manner, saying “for they were but pagans, and therefore ignorant.” Later in the Chronicle, one of the most pivotal moments of the narrative is Vladimir the Great's conversion to Orthodox Christianity, which ignited extensive Christianization of Kievan Rus'.

Biblical origin
The Primary Chronicle traces the history of the Slavic people all the way back to the times of Noah, whose three sons inherited the Earth:

 * Shem inherited the eastern region: Persia, Bactria, Syria, Media, Babylon, Cordyna, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Elymais, India, Coelesyria, Commagene, Phoenicia.
 * Ham inherited the southern region: Egypt, Libya, Numidia, Massyris, Maurentania, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Camalia, Lycia. Caria, Lydia, Moesia, Troas, Aeolia, Bithynia, Sardinia, Crete, Cyprus.
 * Japheth gained north-western territories: Armenia, Britain, Illyria, Dalmatia, Ionia, Macedonia, Media, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Scythia, and Thessaly.

The Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Rus, and others were named as descendants of Japheth. In the very beginning, humanity was united into a single nation, but after the fall of the Tower of Babel, the Slavic race was derived from the line of Japheth, “since they are the Noricians, who are identified with the Slavs.”

Korsun legend
According to the so-called "Korsun legend", presented in the Chronicle just preceding the conversion of Volodimer, the Prince took possession of the Greek city of Korsun (Chersonesus) in the Crimean Peninsula, in an attempt to gain certain benefits from Emperor Basil. Following Vladimir's successful conquest of the city, he demanded that the Emperor's 'unwedded' sister be given up for marriage with him. Upon hearing the news from Korsun, emperor Basil responded that "It is not meet for Christians to be given in marriage to pagans. If you are baptized, you shall have her to wife, inherit the kingdom of God, and be our companion in faith." The legend concludes with Vladimir's embrace of Christianity at the church of St. Basil in Korsun and his marriage to the Emperor's sister, Anna Porphyrogenita.

Archaeological findings
For centuries after the Chronicle’s creation, the legend's factuality was subject to extensive debate. Many historians, antiquarians, and archaeologists had attempted to determine the actual location of Vladimir's conversion by synthesizing textual evidence of the Chronicle with material evidence from Crimea. Their efforts became known in the realms of historical discipline as the “archaeology of the Korsun legend.” This search culminated under Archbishop Innokentii's diocesan administration (1848–57), when in the ruins of Chersonesos, archaeologists unearthed the foundations of three churches and determined that the one containing the richest findings was allegedly used for the baptism of the Kievan Prince. The unearthed material evidence proved sufficient to pinpoint the real location of the legend's events with reasonable accuracy.

In the early 1860s, the Eastern Orthodox Church began construction of The Saint Vladimir Cathedral in Chersonesos, which has been destroyed on three separate occasions after first being erected and was renovated each time thereafter. The cathedral last faced destruction during the October Revolution and was not restored until the fall of the Soviet Union. It has been argued that by honoring Vladimir the Great and his contribution to the Eastern Orthodoxy, the cathedral serves the purpose of validating Russia's historical ties with the Crimean Peninsula, the accounts of which are preserved by the Chronicle.

Assessment and critique
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. Its comprehensive account of the history of Rus' is unmatched in other sources, but important correctives are provided by the Novgorod First Chronicle. It is also valuable as a prime example of the Old East Slavonic literature.

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. 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."

According to Aleksey Shakhmatov (1916), some of the incongruities are a direct result of the fact that "the ruling Princes of Kiev had their own propagandists who rewrote the annals to make political claims that best suited their own purposes." Shakhmatov further described the Tale of Bygone Years as a literary creation that fell under heavy influence of the Church and the State. 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." 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.

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.

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.' 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. 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. The protagonists are frequently identified with biblical personages and so are ascribed certain relevant qualities and deeds that did not necessarily match the reality.

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 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." 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."

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.” 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.

Translations
August Ludwig von Schlözer produced a German translation with commentary of the Povest' vremennykh let through 980 in five volumes (Hecтopъ. Russische Annalen in ihrer Slavonischen Grund–Sprache. Göttingen, 1802–1809).

In 1930, Harvard professor Samuel Hazzard Cross published an English translation of the Laurentian Codex's version of the PVL under the title ''The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text.'', which became very influential amongst American readers. Cross was working on a revised edition when he died; it was completed and published by Georgetown University professor Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor in 1953. By the early 21st century, Primary Chronicle had become the common shortened English name for the text shared by the surviving five main manuscripts of the PVL. Nevertheless, Cross' translation was often found inaccurate, with Waugh (1974) writing that Perfecky (1973) had produced a more reliable English translation of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle than how Cross translated the PVL.

The 2001 German translation by Ludolf Müller has been called 'without doubt the best available rendering of the PVL into a modern language'. The 2015 Dutch translation by Hans Thuis (begun with Victoria van Aalst since 2000) was based on the main six textual witnesses, scholarly publications by Müller, Likhachev and Ostrowski, and by comparison to the German translation of Trautmann (1931), the English translation of Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1930, 1953), the Russian translation of Likhachev (1950), and the German translation of Müller (2001).

Critical editions of original texts

 * , from the Laurentian Codex
 * , from the Hypatian Codex
 * , from the Novgorod First Chronicle
 * (assoc. ed. David J. Birnbaum (Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature, vol. 10, parts 1–3) – This 2003 Ostrowski et al. edition includes an interlinear collation including the five main manuscript witnesses, as well as a new paradosis ("a proposed best reading").
 * – A 2014 improved digitised version of the 2002/2003 Ostrowski et al. edition.

Translations of original texts

 * Modern English
 * (First edition published in 1930. The first 50 pages are a scholarly introduction.)
 * Modern Russian
 * Modern German
 * Trautmann, Reinhold, Die altrussische Nestorchronik (Leipzig 1931, Wiesbaden 1948), pp. 76. Leipzig: Markert & Petters. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. (based only on the Laurentian Codex).
 * Modern Dutch
 * Modern Spanish
 * Trautmann, Reinhold, Die altrussische Nestorchronik (Leipzig 1931, Wiesbaden 1948), pp. 76. Leipzig: Markert & Petters. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. (based only on the Laurentian Codex).
 * Modern Dutch
 * Modern Spanish
 * Modern Spanish
 * Modern Spanish

Literature

 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)
 * (also published at Kritika, Kyiv, 2005)

title: Primary Chronicle


text:
Talk:Primary Chronicle

What language?
This article doesn't clearly explain in what language or languages the Primary Chronicle is written. Does anyone have a reliable source for this information? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is Old East Slavic with the strong South Slavic influence (i.e. it has words as well as phonetic, grammatic and syntactical forms from Old Church Slavic). Roughly speaking it's an old mixed East-South Slavic language.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In the three editions section, why does it not say what sources/manuscripts we find the first edition in? It does this for the other 2 editions. For the sake of continuity it is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.57.40 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Radziwiłł Chronicle
Why is Radziwiłł Chronicle not mentioned among the manuscripts? Isn't it as important as the Laurentian and Hypatian codex? --Off-shell (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent correction
, I appreciate for your attention and Merry Christmas. However, there is a big difference between Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic. It seems that you are not aware of it. Please, review your change by checking what is the matter. Moreover, the article itself states that the Russian Primary Chronicle is written in Old East Slavic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Aleksandr Grigoryev
 * Sorry for a slow reply, but Happy New Year!
 * Please read my edit summary: . It explains why I reverted your edit. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy New Your and to you, !
 * I guess my assumptions that for you Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic are one and the same language were not taken from your edit summer "Better to use a category which actually exists", since you are directing me back to it. Thank you, for your effort, though. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Aleksandr Grigoryev: the reason I reverted was simply WP:REDNOT.
 * I didn't form a view on which language would be more appropriate. Just that per WP:CAT, categories are for navigation, so categorising an article in a non-existent category is pointless.  It's a signpost to nowhere. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Title
I found this page due to a comment filed at ANI. What I'm somewhat to confused to is: why is the article titled "Russian Primary Chronicle", if the lead, and much of the body, refers to it as the "Tale of Bygone Years"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sic?
“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 Isle’s”. Should be 'isles' but can't check source perhaps it is like that in the source? Ubilaz (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Russia did not exist in those times. Kyiv should be written in the Ukrainian way, since it is a city in Ukraine.
It couldn't be "russian chronicles", as Russia didn't exist. State was called Rus'. Old Slavic name for Kyiv was Kyiev, not Kiev. @Mellk, @Onorem explain why you made changes to the article? Bodia1406 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Read WP:KIEV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there are many different ways of spelling the city's name in Old East Slavic, such as Кꙑевъ Kyevŭ (sort of a mix of "Kyiv" and "Kiev") and many others. Neither the modern Russian or Ukrainian spellings were used at the time. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So why should we use the Russian version of name then. If "Кꙑевъ" transcribed in Latin as "Kyiev"?
 * Why give Russian irredentism help for claims? Bodia1406 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, read WP:KIEV. There are historical reasons. When quoting a text, you can use whatever spelling is used in that text. When referring to (the location of) the present city, you can use Kyiv. Otherwise Kiev is the standard for pre-1991 situations. That this coincides with Russian irredentism may be unfortunate, but not for individual Wikipedians to fix (unless consensus changes,WP:CCC, which I expect will happen, but only in several years time).
 * I'd also like to remind you that you are the bazillionth user who is trying to change the spelling of Kiev to Kyiv in history articles, and otherwise not trying to make Wikipedia better. If you really care about Ukraine, go write something about the post-1991 period, like Category:Women's rights in Ukraine (as I have). There is so much more important and interesting stuff to write about than that silly spelling issue. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

PVL chronology versus PVL narrative
Ostrowski 2018 wrote (p. 44-45) about the differences between the PVL chronology and the PVL narrative for what they say about events in the 9th and early 10th century: What we seem to be dealing here with is two different time frames, one in the chronology part, the other in the narrative part of the PVL, and quite possibly two different authors of each. I'll try to put them in a table here to visualise what he is saying. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I must say that I find it highly suspicious that the PVL chronology never identifies either Olga (who is not mentioned at all, nor is Rurik) or Oleg as a regent, but says both Oleg and Sviatoslav were just princes. Meanwhile, both Oleg and Olga are described as regents in the PVL narrative. Given their similar names (Oleg/Olga; the declension of Oleg in Old East Slavic leads to forms like Ольгова Olgova, which looks even more similar to Olga) and the fact that neither is described as a regent in the chronology, I think there may have been some sort of mixup. A tradition that one of them was a regent for an underage prince may have been inserted twice, or it was present for one, and then carried over to the other. I would suggest that Olga was the original, and that the regency tradition was unintentionally copied to Oleg. In Lav., Ipat., and Rad., Igor was "very young" when Rurik supposedly "entrusted to Oleg's hands his son Igor'" in the 870s, and in 881/2, Oleg was reportedly "carrying the young Igor'" (Ostrowski) / "bearing the child Igor'" (Cross&SW). So little was Igor. It appears we should take "into Oleg's hands" literally. By contrast, the Igor of the Novgorod First Chronicle appears to be a lot older than the one found in Lav., Ipat. and Rad., personally telling Askold and Dir that he is of kingly lineage, killing them and becoming prince of Kiev, rather than Oleg doing all these things in Lav., Ipat. and Rad. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Calling of the Varangians)

Alt names
Per WP:BOLDSYN, significant alternative names should be in bold. I do not see a good reason to hide significant alt names in a footnote, including those used more often than "Tale of Bygone Years" or even "Povest' vremennykh let". Mellk (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Interesting. I based the edits on the group of scholarly articles and Martin 2007 which I've been reading recently, and I gradually came to the conclusion that "Povest' vremennykh let" is quite widely used by scholars, with "Primary Chronicle" in second place, while virtually all other names are rare. I gotta admit that in this case it would have been a good idea to check Google Ngram (even though it is somewhat overrated), because scholarly publications do not necessarily represent all RS. I didn’t expect some of these statistics (especially how "Russian Primary Chronicle" is far more popular than "Tale of Bygone Years"), but they make sense. The only altname that may not warrant a mention in the lead section is "Rus' Primary Chronicle". Otherwise I think you were right to restore these altnames to the lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough recent usage for it to be possible to include as an alt name. Was it 10%? "Nestor's chronicle" seems to be used not enough, though. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:ALTNAME doesn't give us firm statistical rules as to how commonly used an alternative must be in order to be included. The most important bit is:
 * The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.
 * My edits to move some of the Altnames to a footnote were intended to clear up the first sentence for better readability. In my view the reader wasn't helped by 6 different names for the same thing in the opening sentence, but barely giving any substantive information about what the PVL really is. As we had already moved the modern Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian names to a footnote, I thought it appropriate to do the same with the variations of "Primary Chronicle", namely "Russian Chronicle" and "Rus' Chronicle". It is a bit surprising to me now to find that the article opens with the Altname "Tale of Bygone Years" which itself is not so commonly used at all. But it is the most commonly used translation of Povest' vremennykh let, so we kind of have to mention it in the opening sentence.
 * We could open the article with:
 * The Primary Chronicle or Russian Primary Chronicle (Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ, commonly transcribed Povest' vremennykh let (PVL), lit. "Tale of Bygone Years") is a chronicle of Kievan Rus' from about 850 to 1110.
 * I think that is a better balance between all these names than what we've currently got. (I think "Rus' Primary Chronicle" and "Nestor's Chronicle" are really too rare for the opening sentence anymore.)
 * Another alternative might be to create a "Name" section just after the lead to give ourselves all the space we might need in order to explain all these names and where they come from. We may be demanding the opening sentence to do too much work within such a small space. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A name section might work to include all the names, but yes I understand that clutter is a concern. I think 10% is used in another convention which does not necessarily apply here. In this case your suggestion could work for now. "Tale of Bygone Years" seems to be used slightly more often than "Povest' vremennykh let" so perhaps both should be in bold? Also I think Template:Lit can be used for the literal translation. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's do that. My suggestion plus boldening both plus Template:Lit. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the good points you made! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the infobox clarify the language? Currently it says OES but I think there are differing classifications. Mellk (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also in regards to the manuscripts, I think there should be clarification on this too. OES is generally regarded as having diverged into "Ruthenian" and "Russian" by the 1300s to 1400s. The Radziwill Chronicle for example was written in Church Slavonic of a Ruthenian variety Mellk (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are good questions. I recently agreed with Nikolay to change "Old East Slavic" to "Church Slavonic" in Calling of the Varangians. I've done that here in the opening sentence as well. Although some indeed regard there to have been a split between "Russian" and "Ruthenian" Church Slavonic around 1400, it's all still Church Slavonic, especially if people are copying old manuscripts instead of writing new ones. Perhaps the entries of the Radziwiłł Chronicle of the late 15th century are reasonably classified as "Ruthenian" / "Chancery Slavonic" because they are newly written. But here, we are concerned with copies of the Primary Chronicle, which was written in the 1090s-1110s in (Old) Church Slavonic. We do see that later and later copies (Lav 1377 - Xleb 1575) use increasingly modern spellings for the same words (the Early Cyrillic script is gradually abandoned, the younger a copy gets), but the grammar in PVL copies does not seem to change very much. (At least not that I can see, but I'm not an expert. I bet you can see such differences more easily than I). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is more Church Slavonic with significant borrowings from the vernacular. I think it could be explored further later. Indeed, even the term "Old Russian" is used up to the 17th or 18th centuries because writing was more based on Church Slavonic until that period. Mellk (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is probably justified, especially if the copying was done by someone influenced by the regional vernacular of Suzdalia, Muscovy, Tsarist or Imperial Russia. By the way, the current text says under Primary Chronicle that Ipat was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. Although especially the early 15th-century copy of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle of the late 13th century might be reasonably classified as early "Ruthenian", it seems to me that "Ukrainian lands" is a bit of an anachronism. Besides, the source doesn't say so (WP:FAIL), it only says: In the 14th century a new period in chronicle writing began in which Rus’-wide collections were compiled. The Laurentian Chronicle (ca 1377), the Hypatian Chronicle (beginning of the 15th century), and many others from this period have come down to us in later redactions (...) It says "Rus'-wide collections". The entry for "Rus'" itself has a bit of a contestable definition: Rus’ [Русь]. The former name of Ukraine. (...) Gradually it came to signify the entire realm of the grand prince of Kyiv (Kyivan Rus’). Given that the Laurentian Codex of 1377 was probably compiled on the orders of Dmitry of Suzdal in the Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal (not founded until 1341), long after the end of Kievan Rus' in 1240, these two entries in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine are incompatible.
 * Its entry for Hypatian Chronicle says The oldest redaction of the compendium, dating back to the early 15th century, was discovered by Nikolai Karamzin at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia. (I found out that this is incorrect, it was already transferred to the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg in 1767 on the orders of Catherine II, although she probably never knew just how important it was). There are two more redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus. So it doesn't say anything about where the original Hypatian Codex was written, just that the copy which came into the hands of Karamzin in 1809 was found at the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, Russia, and that the "second redaction" (of which I had never heard before) "was probably written in Belarus", not "in what are today Ukrainian lands".
 * Hypatian Codex does claim The codex was discovered in what is today's Ukraine in 1617 by Zacharias Kopystensky, and was then copied by monks in 1621. I'll try to verify that claim right now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it might be fine to mention more modern territorial definitions depending on if it is more useful and how the source phrases it. I do not expect most readers to know or be familiar with certain names of locations. For example, when referring to peoples like Cossacks or earlier nomadic peoples in Ukraine, we would probably use more modern definitions. I would imagine the eastern territories of Lithuania at the time are typically referred to as "Ruthenian".
 * I think there is a slight POV with that source you brought up. For example it refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state and mentions 'Ukrainian princes' from the 11th century but it is a tertiary source anyway. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'Ukrainian princes' from the 11th century is an anachronism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Lithuanian-Ruthenian state' or 'Lithuanian Rus'' is a common concept in Ukrainian historiography, and to a certain extent in English-language historiography about Ukraine, but outside those areas it is indeed rare. I haven't seen it in Lithuanian historiography (but I know very little about that in general), and only passing mentions in Russian historiography. It may be a legitimate concept, but it does have a certain perspective that is not universally accepted, so it should be used cautiously, if at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have heard about "Lithuanian Rus'" to refer to those territories (also referred to as Ruthenia), to distinguish from "Muscovite Rus'" or "Muscovite Russia", but not really of a "Lithuanian-Ruthenian state" outside of Ukrainian historiography. Mellk (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I do read now at Grand Duchy of Lithuania that Naming convention of both title of ruler (hospodar) and the state changed as it expanded its territory. Following the decline of the Kingdom of Ruthenia and incorporation of its lands into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Gediminas started to title himself as "King of Lithuanians and many Ruthenians", while the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia. Similarly the title changed to "King of Lithuanians and Ruthenians, ruler and duke of Semigallia" when Semigallia became part of the state. So it doesn't seem to be entirely made up, but have some legal basis. Moreover, IEU seems to closely connect it to the mixing of Lithuanian and Kievan Rus' law to "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law". It says: The systematic study of Lithuanian-Ruthenian law began in the first half of the 19th century. Polish historians considered it a local variant of Polish law, and Russian historians usually referred to it as ‘western Russian’ law and treated it as part of Russian law. Eventually, it was studied by Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian historians and legal scholars, who accepted it as part of the legal history of all three nations. I suppose "Lithuanian-Ruthenian law" is a reasonable compromise term. The state was Lithuanian, but the legal language was Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic. It's also not unhistoric to consider at least a certain phase of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, namely the 13th to 16th centuries, as a "Lithuanian-Ruthenian state". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While both the sources it cites for the name of the state became the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia instead say "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia". Mellk (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted! So those sources also WP:FAIL. I do note that both are relatively old (1947 and 1969), written during Soviet times. When I google-book the term "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia", I do get lots of sources, including more recent ones: 2022, 2013, 2001, 1999, 1997, 1996, 1983, 1954, 1944, 1861. I also see that the 1947 book which says "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia" (Latin: Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae at [sic] Russia [sic]) also says Rex Litwinorum Ruthenorumque ("King of the Lithuanians and Ruthenians"). People in the late Middle Ages and early modern period were just really inconsistent in how they translated Русь and its derivates into Latin, and thus what kind of translations we get in English.
 * Same with King of Ruthenia, it varied from Russiae to Rusiae to Rusciae to Rutheniae to Ruteniae to Ruthenorum etc. It seems like the Rus(s)(c)iae was more common as a toponym while Rut(h)enorum was more common as a demonym/ethnonym, and they were used interchangeably without any sort of standard. And it's pretty difficult to translate that into modern English without accusations of anachronism, original research or invented tradition. Obviously lots of modern Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians claim the Русь heritage exclusively for themselves. E.g. I see some Ukrainians claim that the title Rex Russiae of Daniel of Galicia means he / Galicia/Volhynia was the real successor of Kievan Rus', and the real "Russia". In other cases with Ukrainians they seem to prefer Ruthenia(n)(s) rather than Russia(n)(s) to dissociate themselves from modern Russia while still being able to claim credit for Русь.
 * The primary sources allow for both interpretations, and as a historian I can't really say who is "right" or "wrong", or at which point Ruthenia(n)(s) and Russia(n)(s) are no longer synonyms. That seems to have been a complicated centuries-long process, during which Ruthenian eventually split into Ukrainian and Belarusian, and Russian became synonymous with the language spoken in Suzdalia/Muscovy/Tsardom/Empire.
 * Anyway, I guess adding some more recent sources to support "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia" as an altname alongside "Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia" for this middle period seems a good idea. We could do an Ngram on it if we wanted to, but neither is going to be the article title anyway, so that seems unnecessary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tried Ngram anyway just because I'm curious. It doesn't work with more than 5 words and for some reason rejects "Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia", so I had to take out "Duchy", but I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison then. Do you know how to fix this tech issue? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, this dissertation of Mary A. Gembicki 2004 from Columbia University has virtually the same text in the Abstract and Themes sections, but the former says [This study] is concerned with the territories that comprised the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Belorus/White Russia and which were designated as the "Polish Provinces", and the latter says [This study] is concerned with the territories which comprised the lands of the historic Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia/White Russia and which became designated as the "Polish Provinces" within the Russian empire. So she treats Belorus, Ruthenia and White Russia as synonyms that can all be attached to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I guess Ruthenia is the least misleading / politically sensitive of the three... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Belarus has a harder time with forms, rather than just Belarusian you will see Belarussian, Belorussian, Belorusian etc. for just the adjective. Mellk (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the Latin church preferred the Ruthenia form while others preferred the Russia form.
 * I do not know Lithuanian, but it seems in Lithuanian the equivalent is written as "Didžioji Lietuvos, Rusijos ir Žemaitijos kunigaikštystė". Mellk (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This last sentence appears to refer to the Chetvertyn/Pogodin copy that is dated to c. 1620. It seems like the "later redactions" of the Hypatian Codex which the IEU refers to are identical with the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. So far I haven't seen anything other than internal linguistic evidence in order to argue that the Hypatian Codex was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. Given that (early) "Ruthenian" is also commonly applied to the ancestor of modern Belarusian ("White Ruthenian"), and the second and third redactions from the 16th century, the first of which was probably written in Belarus (Khlebnikov c.  1575?), it seems an unsafe assumption that the original was written in what are today Ukrainian lands. I'm going to remove those words for now until we can find confirmation, because it is possible that the Hypatian Codex of c.  1425 is claimed to have been written in "Old Ukrainian"/"what are today Ukrainian lands" while actually being Old Belarusian/written in what is today Belarus. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I realize now I made a mistake with the Ngram viewer. The results for "Primary Chronicle" there also include "Russian Primary Chronicle". The correct version should be this then.. Hopefully this is the correct notation. Mellk (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

[Moved off-topic comments to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex from here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)]
 * Interesting. Well, we have kind of drifted off-topic. Maybe we should move this last bit to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex? It's no longer about Primary Chronicle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

✅. Moved to Talk:Khlebnikov Codex from here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 * OK, that makes sense. Mellk (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Varangians in 852, 862, and "Russian Primary Chronicle"
The article gives an information that the 852 was the year when Varangians first attacked Constantinople, while the chronicle doesn't mention that. The article declares the Land of Rus' was founded by Varangian Brothers in 862, while the Primary Chronicle associates the start of Rus' with 852. The Article's name "Russian Primary Chronicle" is incorrect since there was no such state as "Russia" at that time. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 * You've got a point. I'm gonna fact-check this, because the entry says something else. In the Cross & SW 1953 translation:
 * In the year 6360 (852), the fifteenth of the indiction,$[16]$ at the accession of the Emperor Michael, the land of Rus' was first named. We have determined this date from the fact that in the reign of this Emperor Russes attacked Tsar'grad, as is written in the Greek Chronicle.$[17]$
 * On page 24, the editors note: 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: glagolet Georgiy v letopisan'i ("Georgius says in his Chronicle") and second, under 852: yako pishetsya v letopisan'i Grech'stem ("as is written in the Greek chronicle"). So, the compiler of the PVL ("We", probably Sylvester of Kiev) is saying that (I'm paraphrasing): "The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus names the land of Rus' for the first time at the accession of emperor Michael (III), which happened in the fifteenth year of the indiction." He calculated that to be in the year '6360' from the day of Creation, which later scholars have calculated to mean 852 AD/CE (although they found that date to be historically incorrect).
 * More importantly, Sylvester is saying that the Russes [Rus'] attacked Tsar'grad in the reign of this Emperor. Byzantine sources do corroborate a Siege of Constantinople (860), rather than in 866 as the PVL says. Both dates fall within the reign of emperor Michael III (20 January 842 – 24 September 867), but unlike what this article currently says, this didn't happen already in the year 852. Someone has been reading incorrectly. Thanks for pointing it out! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the chronicle basically associates the beginning of Rus' with Kyivan Princes attack on Constantinople, and therefore makes a conclusion that the naming of Rus' people(Polanians) were somewhere in 852. It is important since russian nationalists always use the 862 quote in order to twist its meaning completely, so everything will look like Rus' began in Russia. And it's not "Russian Primary Chronicle" by the way, I hope you will deal with that too. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I dealt with the 852 issue. More information can be found in calling of the Varangians, were I dealt with the origin narrative of (Kievan) Rus' more generally.
 * We should not remove the alt name "Russian Primary Chronicle" because of the consensus we reached in the section above per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:ALTNAME. As long as this name is found frequently in English-language literature, we should keep it. Only when it becomes obsolete per WP:AGEMATTERS, we should remove it. Have a good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw your corrections, but there are fundamental mistakes again. Rus' land will not be "eventually called", this name was taken from Varangians by Polanians already in 852 as chronicle says, even before arrival of Askold and Dir. Askold and Dir are not Varangians, the chronicle specifically marks "they are not from Rurik's tribe". Chronicle doesn't say Askold and Dir captured Kyiv. And you named Kyiv incorrectly as "Kiev".
 * Okay, so what will you do with 862?
 * About "Russian Primary Chronicle", is it still used? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:KYIV. I don't care what the Chronicle literally/specifically says, this is not Bible class. We need secondary sources to interpret it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. What is the reason for not using Kyiv for historical topics as well as modern? What secondary sources specifically? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:KYIV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I wrote yet again. I asked what is the reason for not using Kyiv for historical topics as well as modern? And for a long time I still didn't get the answers in the Kyivan Rus' topic to in which format should I provide sources for you . I thought wikipedia would listen on article improvement suggestions? 109.237.92.26 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We listen to article improvement suggestions if they are useful. 95% of what you're saying isn't useful, because you don't seem to care about our policies and guidelines. You never seem to read them, because after I tell you to read WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS, you're still asking in which format should I provide sources for you. You should know by now what kind of sources Wikipedia needs if you read the rules. And when I tell you twice to read WP:KYIV, you say "I don't get it", and continue to insist that we should spell it as Kyiv in pre-1991 articles. We can't do that, and if you actually read WP:KYIV, you would know why. Nor can we follow your Normanist, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian WP:POV. Every time you pointed out an error, it was a coincidence. In all other cases your "improvement" suggestions do not lead to improvement. So I am kind of done wasting my time with you. Bye. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant in which form it should be provided to you, but oh ok, just to not waste any more time on it I will provode it as I want.
 * About WP:KYIV, there was simply no reason described for that decision of keeping "Kiev" for historical things in this page, that's why I had asked you. Of course it is confusing for me and not only just for me when official name is Kyiv, but the editor doesn't only keep "Kiev", but prints even more "Kiev" instead of using just Kyiv.
 * If you haven't noticed, I didn't mention word "Ukraine" a single time. I read some ukrainian studies, true, as well as some russian. Oh, please, I'm not normanist, anti normanist, pro ukrainian, and I didn't tell you to promote anything of that. I am against any russian propaganda things though, yes, and I saw plenty of them in your articles, you deleted some of those things already. All I want is non biased article improvement, that's all. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. Please keep reading, you may eventually understand the relevant policies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After that "good", I get an another unclear response from you to secondary source I provided. Aren't you an administrator here or what? If so, I would like to have a normal discussion with you about changing and improving the article, but you are trying to avoid it, tell me to "read" something, ignoring what I am providing to you. Maybe I would have to deal with other administrators who actually follow the rules of their own website, because you as it seems deliberately try to lead all discussions to a dead end. 109.237.92.26 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I am no longer the right person to help you. Even if you do mean well and want to contribute constructively, I notice that I simply do not have the patience/skills to explain to you, as a newcomer, how Wikipedia works. At the Teahouse, there will probably lots of nice people who are willing to take the time to patiently explain to you how Wikipedia works. I recommend you ask your questions about the relevant policies and guidelines at the Teahouse before coming back here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus is twice specifically referred to as a source" George Hamartolos as a source? He was primarily interested in church history and Byzantine Iconoclasm. His chronicle ends at the year 842, and various writers wrote different continuations of his work until the 12th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm so letopisan'i Grech'stem "the Greek chronicle", which mentions the Rus' attack on Constantinople during the reign of Michael (namely 860, misdated to 866), cannot refer to Georgiy v letopisan'i "George's chronicle" because that stopped in 842? Then Cross & SW have misidentified these two as the same source. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, they are referring to the Continuation of Hamartolus by Symeon Logothete? In any case, a preliminary seach for source texts does find the following 1863 publication of Chronicon breve quod ex variis chronographis with Latin translation under the year 841 (p. 1179): Ιουνίω δε μηνί ια κατέπλευσαν οι Ρώς κατά Κωνσταντινούπολεως μετα πλοιον χιλιαδες. / Junii porro mensis die undecimo, indictione decima quarta, Russi ad millia decem adversus Constantinopolim classem paraverunt. The Greek text (presumably the original) says And in the month of June the Rus' sailed against Constantinople with a thousand ships., but the Latin roughly translates to On the eleventh day of the month of June, the fourteenth indiction, the Rus' prepared a fleet of ten thousand against Constantinople. Not sure if this is part of Hamartolos original text or a later continuation / interpolation, but if this attack happened in 860, Hamartolos couldn't have reported it, and the '841' date is wrong. Certainly the Latin text inserts more a precise date not found in the Greek, and increases the number of Rus' ships tenfold. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No reason for mention Russian in the name of this chronicle
It is not called as russian primary chronicle, this name for Primary Chronicle is complete history falsification since late of XX century Tokach (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Read the footnote. It is the result of a 20th-century development in English-language historiography on the subject. Originally it was Russian Primary Chronicle by Cross 1930, then shortened to Primary Chronicle, but a few 21st-century sources still use "Russian" in the name. NLeeuw (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it was not originally Russian Primary Chronicle, it is literally 1 (one) sentence in his work, where, btw, he says: "The Russian Primary Chronicle, formerly referred to as the Chronicle of Nestor but in modern Slavic critical literature most frequently termed The Tale of Bygone Years (Povest' Vremennykh Let) from the title occurring at the beginning of the traditional text, thus covers the period which extends from the year 852, the conventional dawn of Russian history, to the second decade of the twelfth century"
 * In this book he says it is Povest' hundreds times across the book, why then we use name ocurred once (and obviously made up by him) but omit name used often in the book and that is most frequently used by others according to him?
 * This mention of 'Russian' in nowadays context gives too much weight which is against wiki, as it used for interpreation of facts, not describing facts. For interpreation of facts there must be many secondary sources.
 * I insist Russian must be removed. Thank you Tokach (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many secondary sources. The first 10 references and first 3 footnotes are fully dedicated to explaining the title, and variations thereof. The current situation is the result of a careful and balanced discussion of the relevant recent English-language scholarly literature. See above for a full explanation. NLeeuw (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not going to pretend that this is not a widely used name. Mellk (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Contents" section
What do we think should be in the Primary Chronicle section? Right now, subsection 1 "Stories" is a bulletlist with a random sampling of stories contained in the PVL, followed by Opening date error, followed by subsection 3 "Major events", another bulletlist of random sampling of stories contained in the PVL, but now with dates added. Both the first and third subsections have many unsourced bulletpoints (part of which I myself am responsible for).

But what do we really think this section should contain? Should subsection 1 have a thematic focus, and subsection 3 a chronological focus, or somesuch (that seems to have been the original intention)? Or should it be a summary of the structure of the PVL, a bit like Kievan Chronicle? If so, we need some authoritative scholar to subdivide it for us, lest we stoop into WP:OR territory.
 * Cross & SW 1930/1953 never divided the PVL into chapters (it's just "Laurentian Text" + Appendix I & II).
 * Hans Thuis (2015) does have a chapterisation (divided by reigning periods of princes of Kiev, just like Lisa Lynn Heinrich did for Kievan Chronicle), but only from the killing of Boris in 1015 onwards; the intro and narrative from 852 to 1015 is not partitioned into chapters. Thuis' table of contents is as follows:
 * These are the tales of the bygone years... (page 7)
 * On the murder of Boris (p 105)
 * On the murder of Gleb (p 108)
 * The beginning of the reign of Yaroslav in Kiev (p 113)
 * The beginning of the regime of Iziaslav in Kiev (p 128)
 * Beginning of the reign of Vsevolod in Kiev (p 159)
 * Continuation of the chronicle according to the Hypatian manuscript (p 206)
 * Beginning of the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodich (p 216)
 * The writings of Vladimir Monomakh (p 223)
 * A. The instruction (p 223)
 * B. Letter to Oleg, son of Sviatoslav (p 236)
 * C. Prayer attributed to Vladimir Monomakh (p 239)
 * I myself have been trying to give a bit of structure to Textual variants in the Primary Chronicle by grouping subsections by stories that we've got stand-alone articles (or subsections) for. I find that very convenient for navigation, as unlike with the Bible, the page and line subdivision of the PVL is not used outside of professional scholarly circles, and easily checkable and navigable. I'm using 3 or 4 sources at a time to find and connect all these data, to make it easier for myself, other editors and last but not least our readers to understand which part of the PVL they are actually reading. But as a Wikipedian, I'm not an authoritative scholar who can divide the PVL in, say, 15 chapters as Lisa did in 1977 with the Kievan Chronicle. Be that as it may, the following connections to existing articles may be made so far (numbers indicate page and line):

 * 0 Introduction ("the tales of the bygone years...")
 * 1–6 Generations of Noah: mixture of recyclings of the Bible, Hippolytus of Rome, George Hamartolos, John Malalas and other sources. An ethnogenesis of the Slavs on the river Danube, allegedly descending from Noah's son Japheth, mixed up with Central/Southeastern/Eastern European late antique and early medieval legends and Christian hagiography.
 * 4.12 Swedes, Urmane, Rus', Agnjane, Galichane, 4.13 Volokhove, 5.22 Nortsi who are Slovenes.
 * 5.23–25, 6.6–8 Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin § Second phase (900–902)
 * 7.1–21 Route from the Varangians to the Greeks
 * 7.21–9.4 Journey of Andrew the Apostle along the Dnieper from Korsun via the future site of Kyiv towards the future site of Veliky Novgorod. Christianization of Kievan Rus'.
 * 9.5–10.30 Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv
 * 9.5–21 The legendary founding of Kyiv
 * 9.26–10.30 The acts of Kyi, and the death of the four siblings.
 * 10:31–16:20 Polyane-centric history and ethnography (12 Dulebes)
 * 16.21–17.3 Apparent denial of the concept of a Kyi dynasty, as the four siblings deaths are immediately followed by periods of Derevlian, other, and Khazar domination.
 * 17.4–24 Prediction of Khazar downfall.
 * 17.25–29 Primary Chronicle § Opening date error. Starting year 852: biblical and Byzantine chronology & Kievan regnal list starting from Oleg the Wise.
 * 19.4–20:19 Calling of the Varangians
 * 23 Askold and Dir
 * 25.10–21 Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin § Second phase (900–902)
 * 29–32 Rusʹ–Byzantine Treaty (907)
 * 32–37 Rusʹ–Byzantine Treaty (911)
 * 46–53 Rusʹ–Byzantine Treaty (945)
 * 55–61 Olga's revenge on the Derevlians. Olga of Kiev § Drevlian Uprising.
 * 65.19–67.20 Siege of Kiev (968)
 * 75–76 Rogneda of Polotsk
 * 79 Slavic paganism
 * 82–83 Theodore the Varangian and his son John
 * 84–121 Conversion of Volodimer
 * 132–134 Killing of Boris and aftermath. See Boris and Gleb.
 * 135–141 Killing of Gleb and aftermath. See Boris and Gleb.
 * 142–144 Feud of the Volodimerovichi. Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis
 * 147–149 Battle of Listven
 * 167–173 Kiev uprising of 1068
 * 215.27–218.5 Eulogy of Vsevolod Yaroslavich I of Kiev. Accession of Vladimir II Monomakh.
 * 218.6–226.3 Cuman (Polovtsi) invasion of Rus' (1093).
 * 226.3–255 Chernigov war of succession (1093–1097).
 * 256–257.13 Council of Liubech.
 * 257.13–263.17 The blinding of Vasilko Rostislavich.
 * 263.17–273.19 Internecine war in Rus' 1097–1100, Council of Uvetichi.

Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Primary Chronicle


text:
Atonality

Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about the early 20th-century to the present day, where a hierarchy of harmonies focusing on a single, central triad is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another. More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized European classical music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments".

The term is also occasionally used to describe music that is neither tonal nor serial, especially the pre-twelve-tone music of the Second Viennese School, principally Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Anton Webern. However, "as a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal, although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal music to which this definition does not apply. "Serialism arose partly as a means of organizing more coherently the relations used in the pre-serial 'free atonal' music. ... Thus, many useful and crucial insights about even strictly serial music depend only on such basic atonal theory".

Late 19th- and early 20th-century composers such as Alexander Scriabin, Claude Debussy, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Sergei Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse have written music that has been described, in full or in part, as atonal.

History
While music without a tonal center had been previously written, for example Franz Liszt's Bagatelle sans tonalité of 1885, it is with the coming of the twentieth century that the term atonality began to be applied to pieces, particularly those written by Arnold Schoenberg and The Second Viennese School. The term "atonality" was coined in 1907 by Joseph Marx in a scholarly study of tonality, which was later expanded into his doctoral thesis.

Their music arose from what was described as the "crisis of tonality" between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in classical music. This situation had arisen over the course of the nineteenth century due to the increasing use of "ambiguous chords, improbable harmonic inflections, and more unusual melodic and rhythmic inflections than what was possible within the styles of tonal music. The distinction between the exceptional and the normal became more and more blurred. As a result, there was a 'concomitant loosening' of the synthetic bonds through which tones and harmonies had been related to one another. The connections between harmonies were uncertain even on the lowest chord-to-chord level. On higher levels, long-range harmonic relationships and implications became so tenuous, that they hardly functioned at all. At best, the felt probabilities of the style system had become obscure. At worst, they were approaching a uniformity, which provided few guides for either composition or listening." The first phase, known as "free atonality" or "free chromaticism", involved a conscious attempt to avoid traditional diatonic harmony. Works of this period include the opera Wozzeck (1917–1922) by Alban Berg and Pierrot lunaire (1912) by Schoenberg.

The second phase, begun after World War I, was exemplified by attempts to create a systematic means of composing without tonality, most famously the method of composing with 12 tones or the twelve-tone technique. This period included Berg's Lulu and Lyric Suite, Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, his oratorio Die Jakobsleiter and numerous smaller pieces, as well as his last two string quartets. Schoenberg was the major innovator of the system. His student, Anton Webern, however, is anecdotally claimed to have begun linking dynamics and tone color to the primary row, making rows not only of pitches but of other aspects of music as well. However, actual analysis of Webern's twelve-tone works has so far failed to demonstrate the truth of this assertion. One analyst concluded, following a minute examination of the Piano Variations, op. 27, that "while the texture of this music may superficially resemble that of some serial music ... its structure does not. None of the patterns within separate nonpitch characteristics makes audible (or even numerical) sense in itself. The point is that these characteristics are still playing their traditional role of differentiation." Twelve-tone technique, combined with the parametrization (separate organization of four aspects of music: pitch, attack character, intensity, and duration) of Olivier Messiaen, would be taken as the inspiration for serialism.

Atonality emerged as a pejorative term to condemn music in which chords were organized seemingly with no apparent coherence. In Nazi Germany, atonal music was attacked as "Bolshevik" and labeled as degenerate (Entartete Musik) along with other music produced by enemies of the Nazi regime. Many composers had their works banned by the regime, not to be played until after its collapse at the end of World War II.

After Schoenberg's death, Igor Stravinsky used the twelve-tone technique. Iannis Xenakis generated pitch sets from mathematical formulae, and also saw the expansion of tonal possibilities as part of a synthesis between the hierarchical principle and the theory of numbers, principles which have dominated music since at least the time of Parmenides.

Free atonality
The twelve-tone technique was preceded by Schoenberg's freely atonal pieces of 1908 to 1923, which, though free, often have as an "integrative element...a minute intervallic cell" that in addition to expansion may be transformed as with a tone row, and in which individual notes may "function as pivotal elements, to permit overlapping statements of a basic cell or the linking of two or more basic cells". The decay of the sense of tonality and the subsequent distribution into individual elements brought three concepts into play: 1. Musical elements that had since been secondary to tonal form groups now became autonomous. 2. The absence of tonal coherence prompted the search for a unity that could connect the disjointed musical language in an alternative way. 3. Due to the replacement of diatonic principles, new concepts of form arose.

The twelve-tone technique was also preceded by nondodecaphonic serial composition used independently in the works of Alexander Scriabin, Igor Stravinsky, Béla Bartók, Carl Ruggles, and others. "Essentially, Schoenberg and Hauer systematized and defined for their own dodecaphonic purposes a pervasive technical feature of 'modern' musical practice, the ostinato."

Composing atonal music
Setting out to compose atonal music may seem complicated because of both the vagueness and generality of the term. Additionally George Perle explains that, "the 'free' atonality that preceded dodecaphony precludes by definition the possibility of self-consistent, generally applicable compositional procedures". However, he provides one example as a way to compose atonal pieces, a pre-twelve-tone technique piece by Anton Webern, which rigorously avoids anything that suggests tonality, to choose pitches that do not imply tonality. In other words, reverse the rules of the common practice period so that what was not allowed is required and what was required is not allowed. This is what was done by Charles Seeger in his explanation of dissonant counterpoint, which is a way to write atonal counterpoint.

Kostka and Payne list four procedures as operational in the atonal music of Schoenberg, all of which may be taken as negative rules. Avoidance of melodic or harmonic octaves, avoidance of traditional pitch collections such as major or minor triads, avoidance of more than three successive pitches from the same diatonic scale, and use of disjunct melodies (avoidance of conjunct melodies).

Further, Perle agrees with Oster and Katz that, "the abandonment of the concept of a root-generator of the individual chord is a radical development that renders futile any attempt at a systematic formulation of chord structure and progression in atonal music along the lines of traditional harmonic theory". Atonal compositional techniques and results "are not reducible to a set of foundational assumptions in terms of which the compositions that are collectively designated by the expression 'atonal music' can be said to represent 'a system' of composition". Equal-interval chords are often of indeterminate root, mixed-interval chords are often best characterized by their interval content, while both lend themselves to atonal contexts.

Perle also points out that structural coherence is most often achieved through operations on intervallic cells. A cell "may operate as a kind of microcosmic set of fixed intervallic content, statable either as a chord or as a melodic figure or as a combination of both. Its components may be fixed with regard to order, in which event it may be employed, like the twelve-tone set, in its literal transformations. … Individual tones may function as pivotal elements, to permit overlapping statements of a basic cell or the linking of two or more basic cells".

Regarding the post-tonal music of Perle, one theorist wrote: "While ... montages of discrete-seeming elements tend to accumulate global rhythms other than those of tonal progressions and their rhythms, there is a similarity between the two sorts of accumulates spatial and temporal relationships: a similarity consisting of generalized arching tone-centers linked together by shared background referential materials".

Another approach of composition techniques for atonal music is given by Allen Forte who developed the theory behind atonal music. Forte describes two main operations: transposition and inversion. Transposition can be seen as a rotation of t either clockwise or anti-clockwise on a circle, where each note of the chord is rotated equally. For example, if t = 2 and the chord is [0 3 6], transposition (clockwise) will be [2 5 8]. Inversion can be seen as a symmetry with respect to the axis formed by 0 and 6. If we carry on with our example [0 3 6] becomes [0 9 6].

An important characteristic are the invariants, which are the notes which stay identical after a transformation. No difference is made between the octave in which the note is played so that, for example, all C♯s are equivalent, no matter the octave in which they actually occur. This is why the 12-note scale is represented by a circle. This leads us to the definition of the similarity between two chords which considers the subsets and the interval content of each chord.

Controversy over the term itself
The term "atonality" itself has been controversial. Arnold Schoenberg, whose music is generally used to define the term, was vehemently opposed to it, arguing that "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone... to call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis".

Composer and theorist Milton Babbitt also disparaged the term, saying "The works that followed, many of them now familiar, include the Five Pieces for Orchestra, Erwartung, Pierrot Lunaire, and they and a few yet to follow soon were termed 'atonal,' by I know not whom, and I prefer not to know, for in no sense does the term make sense. Not only does the music employ 'tones,' but it employs precisely the same 'tones,' the same physical materials, that music had employed for some two centuries. In all generosity, 'atonal' may have been intended as a mildly analytically derived term to suggest 'atonic' or to signify 'a-triadic tonality', but, even so there were infinitely many things the music was not".

"Atonal" developed a certain vagueness in meaning as a result of its use to describe a wide variety of compositional approaches that deviated from traditional chords and chord progressions. Attempts to solve these problems by using terms such as "pan-tonal", "non-tonal", "multi-tonal", "free-tonal" and "without tonal center" instead of "atonal" have not gained broad acceptance.

Criticism of the concept of atonality
Composer Anton Webern held that "new laws asserted themselves that made it impossible to designate a piece as being in one key or another". Composer Walter Piston, on the other hand, said that, out of long habit, whenever performers "play any little phrase they will hear it in some key—it may not be the right one, but the point is they will play it with a tonal sense. ... [T]he more I feel I know Schoenberg's music the more I believe he thought that way himself. ... And it isn't only the players; it's also the listeners. They will hear tonality in everything".

Donald Jay Grout similarly doubted whether atonality is really possible, because "any combination of sounds can be referred to a fundamental root". He defined it as a fundamentally subjective category: "atonal music is music in which the person who is using the word cannot hear tonal centers".

One difficulty is that even an otherwise "atonal" work, tonality "by assertion" is normally heard on the thematic or linear level. That is, centricity may be established through the repetition of a central pitch or from emphasis by means of instrumentation, register, rhythmic elongation, or metric accent.

Criticism of atonal music
Swiss conductor, composer, and musical philosopher Ernest Ansermet, a critic of atonal music, wrote extensively on this in the book Les fondements de la musique dans la conscience humaine (The Foundations of Music in Human Consciousness), where he argued that the classical musical language was a precondition for musical expression with its clear, harmonious structures. Ansermet argued that a tone system can only lead to a uniform perception of music if it is deduced from just a single interval. For Ansermet this interval is the fifth.

In France, on December 20, 2012, french pianist Jérôme Ducros gave a conference at the Collège de France entitled “Atonalism. And after ? » as part of Karol Beffa's chair of artistic creation,. He compares the discursive properties of tonal language and non-tonal languages, largely giving the advantage to the former, and considers the return of tonality as inevitable. This conference sparked a heated controversy in the french musical world.

Examples
An example of atonal music would be Arnold Schoenberg’s “Pierrot Lunaire”, which is a song cycle composed in 1912. The work uses a technique called “Sprechstimme” or spoken singing, and the music is atonal, meaning that there is no clear tonal center or key. Instead, the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of each other, and the harmonies do not follow the traditional tonal hierarchy found in classical music. The result is a dissonant and jarring sound that is quite different from the harmonies found in tonal music.

title: Atonality


text:
User:BryceHarrington

Homepage: http://www.bryceharrington.org {Broken Link} I was originally part of the GNUPedia project, but switched to WikiPedia as soon as I learned of it, and helped lay out some of the early category structure and flesh out many pages. A list of the articles I originated are listed below; unfortunately, most of my early edit history is lost, due to pages getting moved around and stuff.

I am employed by the Open Source Development Laboratory ( http://www.osdl.org/ ). I am one of the founders and am an active developer in Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org) and the Open Clip Art Library ( http://www.openclipart.org ), and was the lead coordinator of the WorldForge Project (http://www.worldforge.org/). I used to be a spacecraft propulsion engineer, and worked in the financial industry developing online trading software for Morgan Stanley.

I copied in many of the 'A' articles in from the BritannicaPublicDomain text. Here's a list:

 * Aa River
 * Aardvark
 * Aaron
 * Abacus
 * Abalone
 * Abbadides
 * Abbess
 * AbbevilleFrance
 * Abbot
 * Abbreviation
 * Abdomen
 * AbdominalSurgery
 * Abduction
 * Abecedarian
 * Abel
 * AbensbergGermany
 * Aberdeen
 * AberdeenSouthDakota
 * George Hamilton Gordon Aberdeen
 * A
 * Pierre Abélard

Here are some other articles on various topics that I've written:

 * Audi
 * Oregon
 * Apple (disambigulated)
 * Potato
 * Alchemy
 * Bryce Canyon
 * Call of Cthulhu
 * Gamma World
 * Gladstone Oregon
 * Shadowrun
 * Software documentation
 * Spacecraft Propulsion
 * Traveller
 * Techno-democracy
 * Battle of Guadalcanal
 * Battle of Normandy
 * Wikipedia NEWS
 * Cultural movement
 * Cascade Mountain Range
 * Astoria Oregon
 * Kabul
 * Terrorism
 * Geography
 * Oregon City, Oregon
 * Manifest Destiny

Essays
 * Wikipedia commentary/Proposal for an Encyclopdian Recycling Endeavor
 * Wikipedia commentary/Kill the Stub Pages
 * Wikipedia commentary/Improving Portal Pages

User:BryceHarrington/Notes

Yer back, Bryce! Cool! --User:LMS

Thanks for Wikipedia NEWS; it's great! --loh

title: User:BryceHarrington


text:
User:Buttonius

Buttonius is a Latinized translation from Dutch (my native language) of my family name "Knoppers".

Peter Knoppers - P.Knoppers@tudelft.nl

Welcome Buttonius!

Thanks for fixing the link to the Ariane 5 report in the Ada programming language article. My browser refused to do it right. I had to put the URI on one line and the rest of the link on another. The preview seemed to be alright. -- Buz Cory

title: User:Buttonius


text:
User:Carlesm

Describe the new page here.

Welcome to Wikipedia! As I can see, u're from Catalunya, aren't u? :)

I'm from Catalunya too. It's nice to see some people of here working on wikipedia, some people more than me... As u can see there's a Catalan language wikipedia at http://ca.wikipedia.com and a spanish one at http://es.wikipedia.com. Please give us a hand ;) I'm practically alone working in Catalan Wikipedia :/.

What can i do ??

--User:Tuxisuau

title: User:Carlesm


text:
User:Cayzle

An avid role-playing gamer, Cayzle runs a Web site devoted to wemics, a fantastical race of lion-human hybrids that echo centaurs. You can contact him directly by writing to cayzle at yahoo dot com.

These days, Cayzle's edits are sporadic and infrequent, mostly serving to correct errors found while using the site.

A few of Cayzle's ancient contributions include:
 * Leaf by Niggle -- created a detailed page with plot and analysis
 * Moria -- substantial revision and rewrite
 * Christian mythology -- created page, engaged in much debate, indirectly triggered edit war and vandalism report, eventually inspiring Wikipedia Religion and Mythology standards page (ooo boy!)
 * Sauron -- substantial revision and rewrite

External link Cayzle's Wemic Site: http://www.cayzle.com/

Most recently: (24 May 02) Took a bit of a Wikipedia sabbatical, but now I'm back. I just have to try not to do too much!

comments

Welcome to Wikipedia! I found your wemic article quite entertaining. I especially appreciate the fact that you separated traditional folklore and contemporary fantasy; it's often easy to mash the two together. --Stephen Gilbert

"I'm excited and frightened!"
 * That, IMO, is a very healthy Wikipedia attitude. :) --Stephen Gilbert

Since we've been bumping into each other in a couple of articles already, I should probably add my own "welcome to Wikipedia!" message here as well. I hope my questions and corrections haven't been taken in a bad light, I think it's mainly a result of us having some common interest in these things. A good thing, I hope. :) -BD

 * Thanks very much for your help and welcome! -- Cayzle

Great work on the Sauron article. I was about to fix the outright errors, and kablam, you'd rewritten the entire piece, brilliantly. Thanks! -- Zork.

 * And thank you for your kind words!

The role-playing stuff is better split apart. Good move :-) Alex

 * Thanks for the positive feedback!

I really like your Leaf by Niggle article! Gimlifangirl

title: User:Cayzle


text:
User:Ceiriog

Hi, Ceirog, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for picking up the Welsh spelling of one of your heroes, should have thought to do it myself. sjc

title: User:Ceiriog


text:
User:CF~enwiki

CF is Chris Flaaten from Oslo, Norway.

--- Welcome to the 'pedia Chris! User:maveric149

title: User:CF~enwiki


text:
User:Clemens Fruhwirth

Clemens Fruhwirth (1980-Still Alive)

An austrian citizien. Student of computer science and economics. He'd like to contribute to sections of mathematics. He is interested in the fundamentals of algebra and reasoning, cryptography, economics, microkernel GNU systems and much more. He is frequently encountered to train Nippon Jujitsu (See Martial arts).

Feel free to send him a mail. clemens@endorphin.org. Beware of the spam filter.

title: User:Clemens Fruhwirth


text:
User:Colin dellow

Resident of Dawson Creek, British Columbia, Canada.

I like to tinker with programming, which probably stems from an interest in all languages, binary or not. Wikipedia's a great concept and one to which I hope I can offer something, especially in the area of Canada and British Columbia.

Currently working on creating a useful stub entry for all the PMs in Canada/Prime Ministers and then hopefully expanding said stub entries into a medium length article on the PM. See John A. Macdonald for the medium length article idea and John Joseph Caldwell Abbot for a stub entry. Actually, configuring and playing with my new installation of Linux will probably prevent me from updating them until the fall. :(

Hi Colin. The CRTC will be pleased to see more Canadian content. :) When I created the list of Prime Ministers, I fully intended to make stub articles for each one. Let's just say I'm glad you came along... -- Stephen Gilbert

5Aug01. Colin, I haven't been able to reach your host site for the last couple of days, so I can't send you e-mail. I wanted to let you know that I knew about the shortcomings of blocking software, but thanks for describing some examples. Thanks especially for the pointer to http://www.peacefire.org/. <>< tbc

title: User:Colin dellow


text:
User:Cpt~enwiki

CPT is a (computer) network engineer and security consultant in New York City. His email is x .at. slack.net

title: User:Cpt~enwiki


text:
User:Craig Pennington

 * location: Arlington, Virginia, USA
 * occupation: Computer Programmer
 * recreation: Mathematics, Programming, Running, Philosophy, Hiking, Biking
 * email: [mailto:cpenning@milo.org cpenning@milo.org]

Pages to which I've contributed or in which I am interested:
 * theism
 * atheism
 * ethics
 * Seperation of Church and State
 * Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

title: User:Craig Pennington


text:
User:JoeAnderson

A fortysomething chemist-cum-computer go-to guy, with delusions of usefulness to basic biological research.

I've been using Wikipedia, and making light edits, since almost the very beginning, in the UseMod days.

As such, I'm often bemused to get tips on what Wikipedia is, how it works, etc from Johnnies-come-lately. Which isn't to say that the work of welcoming true newcomers and of building the community and its tools and its standards isn't valuable. Just that, well, a little perspective seems to be lacking, sometimes.

Anyway, thanks for checking in.

title: User:JoeAnderson


text:
User:Dave McKee

drop off messages at will. Moon, Phases, Floppy disk, Chess clock

Funny message you left. Well Philip Glass is mentioned on the movie entry, if that's any consolation. :-) --KQ

Response on talk:Falsifiability: Lamarck, etc. --JG

I saw Philip Glass in concert from January 29 2002 to Feb. 2. They played Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, various film shorts, Beauty and the Beast, and Dracula; Glass was there with his group (?) and they played the soundtracks live while the film was projected on a screen on the other side. An intense experience. --KQ

I dropped something in talk:Falsifiability I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems like it has degenerated into an argument about God and Evolution over actually trying to explain falsifiabilty and its more complex aspects to people. I feel that a few people on both sides are there to grind a religious axe and not to better the article. I'm not taking sides, even if I do think evolution is a great deal less preposterous than hardline creationism.

Maybe I shouldn't have butted in. As it is, I'll leave the editing up to people who know a lot more about the philosophy of science than I do.

Foxgemini

HTML
The following was moved from Talk:HTML:

Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is a markup language designed for creating web pages, that is, information presented on the World Wide Web. Derived from SGML, which was used by the publishing industry, it is now an Internet standard maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium. The specification for version 4.01 is available there.

HTML generally appears in text files either stored or created by computers, and then sent over the internet to a web browser. These files contain marked-up text, that is, instructions for how a web browser should render the page. There are a number of different kinds of markup tag in HTML - perhaps the most important being the hyperlink tag, <a>, which allows links to be made between documents on the World Wide Web. Other tags tell the browser exactly how to render the text, such as <b> and <i>, which should produce embolden and italicised text respectively, others give more general instructions, such as <em> and <strong>, which instruct the browser to emphasise the text or to make it stronger than the rest of the text. Other tags allow for metadata to be included, such as the title of the page, or delimiting the header and body sections, which are all included within the <html> .. </html> tags. Other tags which have been added later as the specification evolved allow in-line pictures and video, tables and other enhancements required.

Why doesn't this work?

HTML generally appears in text files either stored or created by computers, and then sent over the internet to a web browser. These files contain marked-up text, that is, instructions for how a web browser should render the page. There are a number of different kinds of markup tag in HTML - perhaps the most important being the hyperlink tag, <a>, which allows links to be made between documents on the World Wide Web. Other tags tell the browser exactly how to render the text, such as <tt><b></tt> ; <tt>&lt;b&gt;</tt>

WHAT??? Grr. I'm off to bed. Message me if you have any ideas. Dave McKee

 * This doesn't make sense! Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 07:05, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

title: User:Dave McKee