Talk:Battle of Skornishchevo

Sources

Just 1 source from 1858 is really meagre. The Chronicle mentioned appears to be the Nikon Chronicle, but I have yet to confirm that. While the battle may have taken place, chronicles must be examined critically and cannot be taken at face value. NLeeuw (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ruwiki provides this relevant source: Трофимова, Я. Д. Повесть о битве на Скорнищеве в летописании XV—XVI веков Русская речь, 2008. № 3, 75—80. (Y. V. Trofimova, "The story of the battle on Skornishchevo in the chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries". Russkaya Rech 2008. No. 3, p. 75-80). It states: The early version of the story is contained in the Simeon Chronicle and Rogozh Chronicle, and in a longer version in the Sofia I and Novgorod IV chronicles.
• In the subsequent tradition, chroniclers reworking the text of the story went in two directions. In the Moscow Academic Chronicle, which in this part reflects the text of the Rostov Vladychny svod [4. pp. 724-732], and in abbreviated svods (Moscow 1497 and 1518, Vladimir), the Tver collection, the all-Russian provincial Ustyug chronicler according to Matsievich’s list, and the local Arkhangelsk Chronicle, scribe editors reduce its volume to varying degrees. (...) In the Tver collection, instead of a story, a single phrase appears for it: “In the winter, grand prince Dmitry went to Oleg of Ryazan, and drove him from Ryazan, and put Volodimer of Pronsk in his place” [8. P. 431]. (На зиму поиде князь великій Дмитрей на Олега Рязавьского, и съгна его съ Рязаны, а посади Пронскаго Володимера. p. 431, sub anno 6879. PSRL Volume 15, 1863) In this case, the abbreviation of the story could have been influenced by the local position of the chronicler: At the time of the battle described, the prince of Moscow was competing with the prince of Tver in the struggle for the grand principality [of Vladimir], and a detailed description of his victory probably did not appeal to the Tverian chronicler. On the whole, the appearance of abridged versions of the story was caused, apparently, by the remoteness of the event from the chroniclers' writings in time and, in general, its insignificance for the subsequent history of Rus'.
• In the lengthy Moscow chronicles (the Grand Princely Chronicle of 1479, Voskresensky and Nikon svods) we find the exact opposite tendency. If the author of the Sofia svod expanded the negative characterisation of the Ryazans in comparison with the Rogozh Chronicle, the editor of the Moscow Codex strengthened this characterisation.

So, this battle has been quite extensively reported in lots of northeastern Rus' chronicles, each of them in a different version for different reasons. The Nikon version is very late, and has a staunchly pro-Moscow and anti-Ryazan stance. In other words, this is one of the least reliable and impartial sources to base our information on. If anything, our attention should focus on scholarly examinations of the earliest versions: the Simeon Chronicle and Rogozh Chronicle. Sofia I and N4 could serve as comparisons. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, when Trofimova says "Tverian chronicler" he may mean the Rogozh Chronicle, which was produced in Tver. Also, it is notable that Rogozh and Simeon preserve a shorter and probably earlier version of the story than S1 and N4, which heavily expand on them by adding new elements, just like with the Battle of Kulikovo#Literary works of the Kulikovo cycle. NLeeuw (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the 1820 PSRL edition of the Sofia First Chronicle version. I think I'll leave it here for now. Suffice to say critical examination of the primary sources by modern scholars is needed. NLeeuw (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)