Talk:Trinity Chronicle

Manuscript?

@Nederlandse Leeuw: You added the category "Primary Chronicle manuscripts", but a chronicle is not a manuscript and in this case the only actual manuscript of the chronicle is long gone. I suppose you mean that because the lost MS contained material taken from the PC, it is a MS in the text critical sense. I am concerned because I have seen the word 'manuscript' misused and misunderstood so many times on Wikipedia. Perhaps the (sub)category should be 'Textual witnesses of/to the Primary Chronicle'. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec first of all thanks for creating this article yesterday! You raise a very valid point, "textual witnesses" would be more correct in this case. I actually considered naming this category "Primary Chronicle witnesses" or "Primary Chronicle textual witnesses". But such a category name would be unprecedented. I compared it to Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts, Category:Septuagint manuscripts etc. and other categories, which are all about manuscripts. The only time "textual witnesses" as a term is invoked is in articles about New Testament book chapters, e.g. Mark 1#Textual witnesses. So in the end, I chose Category:Primary Chronicle manuscripts. If you prefer renaming the whole category to Category:Primary Chronicle textual witnesses, I would support you. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I also share your concern that the word 'manuscript' misused and misunderstood so many times on Wikipedia, because I have seen it too. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see no better case for setting a new precedent than the confusing world of Rus' chronicles. Also, what does Priselkov's reconstruction must be used cautiously because we do not know whether he always checked his readings against the manuscripts mean? I suppose it to mean that his work may be contaminated by other witnesses (i.e., checking is bad)? No MSS of the Trinity Chronicle existed for him to check. The only independent textual sources of any value were the quotations in Karamzin and the apparatus of the Laurentian. Or are the manuscripts in view those (drafts, notes) of Karamzin and the editors of the Laurentian? In which case, checking would be good. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see no better case for setting a new precedent than the confusing world of Rus' chronicles. I strongly agree. I've lamented my own confusion over at Talk:Rus' chronicle, and vainly tried to put everything right at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Old East Slavic manuscripts. Some of it has been cleared up now, but a lot more is left to do.

According to our fellow Wikipedian Nikolay Omonov (with whom I've cooperated very well in recent days), the modern Russian language has no word for "codex". I noted that it does have кодекс, but nobody over at Russian Wikipedia seems to be using it. They only use letopis ("chronicle"/"annals") and spisok ("manuscript" AND "codex"). Such carelessness breeds confusion.

Anyway, I'm gonna CfR it to "Primary Chronicle textual witnesses" then.

Tomorrow I'll check exactly what Ostrowski meant by that quote about Priselkov; he gave an example which may clarify this. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec Ostrowski (1981) p. 21: In addition, L and those few readings of the Trinity copy (t) that are attested show a greater similarity between the two than with R and A,³²

Footnote 32: 32. For a brief discussion of this point, see A. A. Shakhmatov, Obozrenie russkikh letopisnvkh svodov XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1938), p. 40. Readings for t are taken from Priselkov's reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle, which had been destroyed in the Moscow fire of 1812. Priselkov's reconstruction must be used cautiously because we do not know whether he always checked his readings against the manuscripts. For example, in the entry for 1064 Priselkov assigns the reading "всеславъ же въ лѣто пать почалъ." to t with the assertion that all the other copies arrange the phrase differently: Troitskaia letopis', p. 142, fn. 3. But R has exactly the same wording that Priselkov assigns to t: Radzivilovskaia ili Kenigsbergskaia letopis', fol. 95. This suggests that Priselkov relied on Bychkov or Karski, who do not report the variant wording in R: Letopis' po Lavrentievskomu spisku, p. 160; PSRL, 1 (1926): 164. It is interesting that Berednikov does report it: PSRL, 1 (1846): 71, variant d. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding Ostrowski correctly, Priselkov assigned readings he found in published editions of the PVL that he could not locate in certain manuscripts to Trinity, but in some cases those readings are in fact found in other manuscripts and so need not be assigned to Trinity. I think the article needs to reworded to make sense. Nobody will know what that sentence means. It is important to keep clear the distinction between the reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle (based on a mix of evidence and guesswork) and the critical editing of the PVL (based in part on the reconstructed Trinity Chronicle). The latter may end up viciously circular if it relies on Trinity readings that themselves rely on editions of the PVL! ...is what Ostrowski is saying, I think.

Such carelessness breeds confusion. To be honest, I'm not sure what distinction you are making between codices and manuscripts. I would have said that a codex was just a type of manuscript in the artefactual sense. I suspect that you are using "manuscript" in a text critical sense, so that a codex (physical object) can be many manuscripts (textual witnesses). But you'll have to clarify. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed also how I understand Ostrowski's comment. If you think it requires further clarification in this article, go ahead.

you are using "manuscript" in a text critical sense, so that a codex (physical object) can be many manuscripts (textual witnesses). Yes, or to be more exact: a codex as a physical object can contain multiple manuscripts. E.g. the Hypatian Codex contains the second-oldest manuscript of the Primary Chronicle (PVL), the only known manuscript of the Kievan Chronicle, and the oldest (but not the best; the best is found in the Khlebnikov Codex) manuscript of the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. In this sense, "manuscript" is a synonym of (handwritten, paper) "copy". As far as I know, apart from the autograph/holograph itself, manuscripts are the most valuable type of textual witness, followed by photocopies, facsimiles, printed publications of later-lost manuscripts (which is the case of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, the Bychowiec Chronicle etc.), and lastly quotations (which is mostly the case for the Trinity Chronicle). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Although the parent category name Category:Manuscripts by works contained suggests a single "manuscript" can also contain multiple "works"... I would say that if a manuscript contains multiple works of others but has been copy-edited and assembled by the same person, it is a "compilation" but not necessarily a "codex" (yet). If instead a physical compilation consists of multiple distinct texts, copy-edited by multiple different people, with different writing styles and perhaps even different writing materials (ink, paper etc.), with the folios stichted together to form a (non-printed) "book", it is a "codex". But I'm not sure if I'm applying these terms correctly. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that a (physical) manuscript can contain multiple works. In fact, in some places and times, that is the norm. Whether all by the same hand or different doesn't matter. I would distinguish between codices that are in their original bound form and what I would call "composite manuscripts" in which originally separate and physically distinct manuscripts have been bound together. I would not call a copy of a text found within a codex a "manuscript" in itself, except insofar as one will often refer text-critically to "a manuscript of [text]" without regards to other contents in the same manuscript. To me, a codex is merely a form of binding distinct from, e.g., a scroll. But it is possible that 'codex' is used in more subtle ways within different subdisciplines, since by medieval times almost every manuscript is a codex. Srnec (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that is good to know. I'll be more careful with applying the terms from now on, trying to understand what is meant in each context. I'm still getting confused.

Meanwhile, I've expanded Hypatian Codex, Khlebnikov Codex, and somewhat Radziwiłł Chronicle. That last one is probably still the most confusing. The terms "Radziwiłł manuscript" and "Königsberg manuscript" probably only refer to document "34.5.30" kept in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg. But "Radziwiłł Chronicle" or "Königsberg Chronicle" appear to refer to the text it shares with the Academic Chronicle, which is a different document, with similar but not identical texts. And I'm just bothered by the fact that writers do not seem to know how important it is to make this distinction, or at least I don't understand what they mean whenever they use the name "Radziwiłł" in combination with some other word. (If you do see the logic, please explain it to me.)

Perhaps if I read more literature and start adding more information, the picture will get clearer eventually. Someone's got to do it, I guess. I'm glad I'm not alone though, I'm glad you started this page about Tro. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Example of such confusion-breeding statements in literature (Janet Martin 2007, p. 97-98):

But the Primary Chronicle (...) formed the first part of the Laurentian Chronicle, whose later sections, as it was copied in 1377, contained entries that focused on Suzdalian events. The Primary Chronicle also comprised the first section of the early fifteenth-century Hypatian Chronicle, which added the Kievan chronicle that extended the coverage to the end of the twelfth century and a Galician-Volynian chronicle for the thirteenth century.

I really wish writers would not call the Laurentian and Hypatian "chronicles", but would stick to "codices". In fact, I'm beginning to favour the term Povest' vremmenikh let instead of Primary Chronicle in recent days, as I see that scholars generally use that term instead of Primary Chronicle, which is still tied up with Cross&SW's 1930/1953 English translation of the Laurentian PVL. After all, the abbreviation PVL is universal, and it comes from Povest' vremmenikh let. The majority of scholars just transcribe it, without translating it ("Tale of Bygone Years"), nor do they use the term Primary Chronicle very often. The latter is mostly a term for non-specialised historical literature such as the works of Janet Martin. It's still a valid term, but it is specifically English, and has a dubious Laurentian-centric legacy, which has really hampered scholarship and the wider public understanding of the PVL. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)