Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle — the primary source on the early history of Nizhny Novgorod.

Most of the sources drawn upon for the study of Nizhny Novgorod history in the period 1221–1237 are the same as those examined in the first part of this work. Of primary importance here, as in the study of the earliest period of Gorodets's history, are the monuments that preserved the chronicle tradition of the Vladimir-Suzdal land before the Mongol invasion. The most important of these compilations remains the Laurentian Chronicle, though the Radziwill Chronicle and the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal cannot be brought in for comparison, having preserved the text of Vladimir chronicle-writing only up to 1206 and 1214 respectively. The Moscow Grand-Princely Chronicle Compilation of 1479 retains its significance, as do the later compilations derived from it, which reflect — with varying degrees of completeness — the chronicle accounts of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes of the first third of the thirteenth century. Of partial interest are the Typographical Chronicle, which drew on the fifteenth-century Rostov archiepiscopal compilation; the reworkings of the Abridged Chronicle Compilation of the late fifteenth century — the so-called Pogodin and Mazurin versions ("compilations of 1493 and 1495"); and the reworkings of the "Russian Chronicler of Seventy-Two Peoples" — the Prilutskoye and Uvarov versions ("compilations of 1497 and 1518"). Among the later monuments that preserved the chronicle tradition of North-Eastern Rus, the Tver Miscellany — a sixteenth-century compilation containing a number of reports on the early history of Nizhny Novgorod — has been brought into the study. Sources reflecting the Novgorod chronicle tradition — Novgorod I and IV, the Sophia I Chronicle, and a number of compilations derived from them — must be excluded from consideration, as they contain no reports concerning the region of interest for the period 1221–1237. The silence of the Novgorod episcopal chronicle, which underlies the compilations mentioned, regarding events in the Nizhny Novgorod land — and in particular regarding the city founded at the mouth of the Oka — is itself a noteworthy fact.

The range of sources on the problem under examination should be broadened by drawing in the Trinity Chronicle and the closely related Simeonov Chronicle. The Trinity Chronicle, carried up to 1408, is now identified as a compilation assembled at the metropolitan see shortly after the death of Cyprian (d. 1406). The general pro-Muscovite tendencies of this monument's text indicate that it was compiled after Cyprian had been reconciled with the Grand Prince of Moscow, which occurred at the accession of Vasily Dmitrievich — that is, in 1389–1390. The sole known copy of the Trinity Chronicle, probably dating from the early fifteenth century — a parchment ("kharateynaya") manuscript from the library of the Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra (whence the scholarly name of the monument) — was known to eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century scholars, being drawn upon extensively by N. M. Karamzin, but was destroyed in the Moscow fire of 1812. Karamzin's surviving excerpts, the variant readings to the Laurentian Chronicle up to 907, and the Simeonov Chronicle discovered by A. A. Shakhmatov (discussed below) enabled M. D. Priselkov to reconstruct the text of the Trinity Chronicle. The textual reconstruction made it possible to characterize the compilation's content and identify its sources. The source of the Trinity Chronicle for the period up to the beginning of the fourteenth century is considered to be the all-Russian Vladimir chronicle compilation of 1305, to which the Laurentian Chronicle is also traced. At the same time, the Trinity Chronicle for the period up to 1305 in a number of instances provides more correct readings, which precludes tracing it directly to the Laurentian Chronicle (or to the Lavrentiy copy) — despite the close affinity between these two oldest monuments of Vladimir chronicle-writing. The unreliability of the reconstructed text of the Trinity Chronicle for the 1160s–1170s (since the Simeonov Chronicle text used for its reconstruction begins from 1177) made it inadvisable to draw upon it for the analysis of the earliest history of Gorodets-on-the-Volga; for the study of Nizhny Novgorod history in the period 1221–1230s, however, the Trinity Chronicle is simply indispensable. First, drawing upon the comparatively early Trinity Chronicle makes it possible to check the reliability of the Laurentian Chronicle's reports — given that Novgorod chronicle-writing, largely independent, is "silent" on these matters; second, the Trinity Chronicle contained a unique entry under the year 6738 concerning the Russo-Bulgarian truce that directly bears on our subject but is absent from the Laurentian Chronicle.

The same considerations prompted the use of the Simeonov Chronicle, which served as one of the sources for the reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle. The Simeonov Chronicle is an all-Russian compilation of Moscow grand-princely origin, surviving in a single sixteenth-century copy (Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 16.8.25, a manuscript of presumed Ryazan provenance; in the seventeenth century it belonged to the proofreader Nikifor Simeonov, whence the conventional name given to it by A. A. Shakhmatov). Judging by certain internal features (for example, the list of princes), the compilation was assembled in the late fifteenth century, between 1498 and 1502. The text of the Simeonov Chronicle, which begins with the year 6685 (1177) and ends with 7002 (late 1493), divides clearly into two parts on the basis of its sources. The first part (1177–1412) in its reports for 1177–1391 is textually close to the Trinity Chronicle and represents a reworking of the proto-graph compilation common to both the Trinity and Simeonov chronicles — understood by scholars to be the metropolitan compilation of 1408. The reworking, believed to have been carried out in Tver in 1412, accounts for the differences between the texts of the Trinity and Simeonov chronicles for 1392–1412, which greatly complicates the reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle. The second part of the Simeonov Chronicle — the entries for 6918 (1410)–7002 (late 1493) — traces back to the Moscow grand-princely compilations of 1479 and the late fifteenth century; traces of their influence appear, moreover, in the first part of the Simeonov Chronicle as well. Between the first and second parts of the Simeonov Chronicle there is a textological "seam" — a repetition (duplication) of entries for 1410–1412 — attesting to a change of source. On the whole, the sources of both parts of the Simeonov Chronicle rest on monuments of Vladimir chronicle-writing, albeit in a later (Tver and Muscovite) redaction. The fact of the chronicle's editing in the fifteenth century must be borne in mind when using the reports of the Simeonov Chronicle to analyze events of the first third of the thirteenth century.

In the interest of comparative-textological analysis of the Laurentian and Trinity chronicle reports for the 1220s–1230s, and in order to assess the reliability of their information, we considered it expedient to draw upon the Vladimir Chronicler — a sixteenth-century monument whose text is carried up to 7031 (1523). The sources of the Vladimir Chronicler, preserved in two sixteenth-century copies (State Historical Museum, Synodal Collection No. 793, and Chertkov Collection No. 362), were a chronicle of the Trinity-Simeonov type (with which the monument shows similarity up to 6887 [1379]), as well as the Novgorod IV Chronicle and a sixteenth-century Moscow chronicle tracing back to one of the grand-princely compilations. Individual correspondences in the text of the Vladimir Chronicler are also found with the Prilutskoye version of the "Russian Chronicler of Seventy-Two Peoples" (compilation of 1497) and with the Tver Miscellany.

For the same purpose — comparative-textological analysis and determination of the reliability of reports — the Bolshakov Chronicle Miscellany (Russian State Library, f. 37 [Bolshakov Collection], No. 97) was brought into the study. This unpublished source was first introduced into scholarly circulation, apparently, by B. M. Kloss, who mentioned it in the preface to the reissue of the Laurentian Chronicle: "…Clear traces are found of the Laurentian Chronicle's having been kept in the seventeenth century at the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersky Monastery, where it was directly used in the compilation of a special Pechersky Chronicler" — and went on to cite the manuscript's shelfmarks. The Bolshakov Chronicle Miscellany (as well as the copy cited by B. M. Kloss from the State Historical Museum, Moscow Uspensky Cathedral Collection No. 92, which unfortunately remains inaccessible to date) has not hitherto been used for analysis of Nizhny Novgorod events for the period 1220s–1230s. And yet the scribal colophon attests to the Nizhny Novgorod origin of the miscellany, and its chronicle articles show affinity with the reports of the Laurentian Chronicle and permit a number of interesting observations.

The Bolshakov Chronicle Miscellany is a manuscript of the last third of the seventeenth century, consisting of several parts (though the copy is not a convolute). The first part (ff. 1–175v) constitutes a compilation tracing back to an all-Russian chronicle compilation of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It includes an extract of the chronographic type concerning Byzantine emperors, with insertions about Russian, Bulgarian, and Serbian princes who reigned concurrently (heading on f. 1: "Excerpted from many chronicles and from those that were and from the four kingdoms and concerning the kingdoms"); brief chronicle reports on the history of North-Eastern Rus in the twelfth through fifteenth centuries; an article on the genealogy of Russian princes (ff. 82v–83). Further in the first part are placed articles on Lithuanian princes, excerpts from the Palaea, several articles of a moral and ethical character, excerpts from the Physiologus, from various didactic books; a chronicle article on Prince David Igorevich's campaign against the Ugrians (ff. 148v–149v); the Epistle of Vasily Kalika to the Tver bishop Fyodor concerning Paradise (ff. 169–174); a report on the slaying of Batu by the Polish king Vladislav; a number of brief excerpts from writings of the Church Fathers; a chronicle entry under 6597 on the installation of Metropolitan Ioann in Kyiv; and a citation from the prophet Isaiah. More interesting is the second part (ff. 175v–263v), which is drawn upon in our study. In the manuscript this section of the miscellany is preceded by a rubric in cinnabar (f. 175v): "Excerpted from the Pechersky Chronicler. Let us begin this tale briefly and tell it" (opening words: "After Noah's flood, as people multiplied on earth…"). Here is placed a heavily abridged text of the Tale of Bygone Years, continued by a brief chronicler ending with the report of the death of Vasily the Dark. This is followed by numerous articles and excerpts of theological and religious-didactic content, a reckoning of how long each prince reigned, and genealogical notes. The register of reigns, with a brief account of the events of each rule, is carried up to the death of Boris Godunov in 1605. Then immediately (ff. 252v–263v) follows an account of the establishment of autocephaly, detailed discussion of the practice to be followed at the consecration of churches (proceeding eastward, not sunward), followed by excerpts from ritual books and collections of moral-ethical content; among the excerpts are glosses on difficult words. On f. 310 is placed the "Tale of Aphroditianus" (copied from a festal Menologion, as indicated by the note "25 December"; opening words: "In the days when the Lord God looked upon Egypt and saw the affliction of His people…"). On f. 325v a scribal colophon has survived: "Glory to the Consummate God glorified in the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. The name of the one who wrote this book is a quaternary, a fortyfold, an eightfold, three hundredfolds upon a hundredfold, and a fivefold with an eightfold. Written in Nizhny Novgorod in the year 7179, in the month of June on the [omitted] day." The encoded name of the scribe is easily read: "Dmitrey" (4 – 40 – 8 – 300 – 100 – 5 – 8), but far more important for our purposes is the indication that the manuscript was written in Nizhny Novgorod.

The Nizhny Novgorod provenance of the copy and the reference to the "Pechersky Chronicler" in the title of the monument might seem to provide grounds for identifying the second part of the Bolshakov Miscellany with a chronicle from the Nizhny Novgorod Voznesenskiy Pecherskiy Muzhskoy Monastery; this view was stated affirmatively by B. M. Kloss. However, among the articles of the chronicler there is not a single one narrating the history of the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersky Monastery itself — its founding, its early years, its first tonsured monks, and so on — which would be illogical had the chronicler been compiled in that house. Dionisy of Suzdal, the founder of the monastery and a locally venerated Nizhny Novgorod saint, is mentioned only in passing. These circumstances do not allow us to accept unreservedly the hypothesis that a chronicle textually close in a number of reports to the Laurentian Chronicle was kept at the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersky Monastery. Still less can the Bolshakov Miscellany serve as reliable evidence that the Pechersky monks had any hand in the compilation of the Laurentian Chronicle. It is more likely that the words "Excerpted from the Pechersky Chronicler" refer only to the excerpts from the Tale of Bygone Years placed here — that tale having been written at the Kyiv-Pechersky Monastery. Nevertheless, the Nizhny Novgorod provenance of the Bolshakov Miscellany is of sufficient interest for our study, even if the chronicle had no connection with the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersky Monastery: the text of the reports, which shows correspondences with the Laurentian and Trinity chronicles, gives an indication of the level of Nizhny Novgorod residents' knowledge about the earliest period of their region's history.

This last circumstance is also interesting in that it helps us understand what kind of local chronicles V. N. Tatishchev might have acquired when passing through Nizhny Novgorod in 1741. We recall that A. G. Kuzmin supposed that the regional chroniclers used by Tatishchev differed significantly in content from official chronicle-writing, and that this was his explanation for the appearance in the History of Russia of unique reports not found in the metropolitan compilations. The Bolshakov Chronicle Miscellany makes it possible to test the validity of this claim.

Finally, for the study of events in the Nizhny Novgorod land in the 1220s–1230s, a later chronicle source of local origin was also drawn upon — the "Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle." In recent years, through the work of M. Ya. Shaydakova, the textual history of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle has been established and its interrelationship with the so-called "Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod" — three copies whose substantive differences from the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle made it possible to attribute them as an independent monument — has been demonstrated. Textological analysis of a number of reports indicates, in Shaydakova's view, that the "Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod" is dependent on a special redaction of the Typographical Chronicle. The sole copy of this special redaction (Russian State Library, f. 178 [Moscow Theological Academy Collection], inv. III, No. 146) was first identified by A. N. Nasonov, who drew attention to its unique Nizhny Novgorod reports absent from the standard text of the Typographical Chronicle. These same unique reports were reflected in the text of the later Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle, which gave Shaydakova grounds to trace the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle — through the "Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod" — back to the Typographical Chronicle in its special redaction. The history of the composition of the latter remains unclear: the sole copy currently known contains no indications of Nizhny Novgorod or any other specific origin. What is beyond doubt is only the provenance of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle and the "Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod," which explains why they are drawn upon in our study — despite the fact that the reliability of their reports for the period before the seventeenth century (and often after it as well) is low. Nevertheless, source-study practice shows that the oldest manuscript does not always contain the best readings — sometimes a later copy proves more correct (the canonical example being the copies of the Zadonshchina). Therefore the distinguished historian and source scholar S. M. Kashtanov rightly considers it "theoretically unacceptable" to presume "the greater reliability of early sources compared with late ones, though the reverse is frequently the case — everything depends on the specific instance." Equally just, however, is the judgment of Ya. S. Lurie, grounded in many years of work with chronicle sources: "…When the time interval between an event and its reflection in a source is considerable, exceeding the lifespan of a given generation, proof is required that the author had access to an earlier monument." Source-critical and comparative-textological analysis of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle's reports relating to the earliest period of Nizhny Novgorod history is precisely what makes it possible to determine whether the compiler drew on earlier monuments, and how reliable his testimony is. This is necessary above all for the entry mentioning the "Old Gorodok," since that chronicle article — the key link in the chain of evidence for the hypothesis of a city that preceded Nizhny Novgorod — has not previously been subjected to detailed analysis. Examination of the evidence of the later chronicle sources thus becomes obligatory in the study of the pre-Mongol period of Nizhny Novgorod history.

The chronicle sources drawn upon — compilations of the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries and later monuments of local origin — make it possible to establish the historical circumstances that led to the founding of Nizhny Novgorod, as well as to trace the main events that took place in the region throughout 1221–1237. Analysis of the chronicle reports, even of brief mentions and of the silences of sources, allows us to approach an understanding of the intentions of the city's founders and the peculiarities of the administrative arrangements, and ultimately to add further detail to the portrait of the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Yuri Vsevolodovich, as it has taken shape in the historical literature.

Critique

Among the sources on the history of Nizhny Novgorod in the period before the Mongol invasion, the local chronicle monuments compiled in the mid-to-second half of the seventeenth century and copied through to the nineteenth century stand somewhat apart. One of these local chroniclers, bearing in the manuscripts the heading "Excerpted from the Chronicler of the Sixth Thousand concerning Nizhny Novgorod," was published by A. S. Gatsiskiy under the title "Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle"; another was introduced into scholarly circulation and published by M. Ya. Shaydakova under the title "Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod." The reports of these monuments relating to the Nizhny Novgorod land were excerpted from all-Russian chronicles of the sixteenth century (of the Voskresensky type), so that the compilatory character of both the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle and the Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod placed them in a position, as it were, midway between the late Old Russian chronicles and the provincial historiographical writings of the eighteenth century. These chroniclers are characterized by numerous errors in the chronology of Nizhny Novgorod historical events — sometimes deviating from the true dates by decades. Thus the entry that opens the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle, concerning the founding of Nizhny Novgorod — which in its text largely coincides with the corresponding entry in the Old Russian chronicles ("Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich laid the foundation of a city at the mouth of the Oka River and named it Novgorod Nizhny") — is placed under the year 6720. The reason for such divergence in dates lies in the particular manner in which the Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod and the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle were compiled: the seventeenth-century compilers excerpted reports relating to the Nizhny Novgorod land from all-Russian monuments where these reports, placed not at the beginning of the annual entry, began with the words "In the same year…" As a result, the compilers were forced to determine the date of a report themselves, and errors were inevitable. The nature of the chroniclers' compilation and their chronological errors make it impossible to treat their reports with confidence, and in cases of discrepancy preference should of course be given to the more ancient sources.

It is also barely possible to extract any additional information on the earliest history of the region from the articles of the local seventeenth-century chroniclers. As an example, let us examine the opening article of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle: "In the year 6720, Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich laid the foundation of a city at the mouth of the Oka River and named it Novgorod Nizhny, and erected in it a cathedral church of the Archangel Michael, of wood. And the pagan Mordva possessed that land." Compared with the corresponding entry in the Old Russian chronicles, the only addition here is a report about the laying down of a wooden Church of St. Michael the Archangel at the time the city was founded. And although this report is not confirmed by other, earlier sources, two arguments can be advanced in favor of its reliability. First, it is entirely obvious that before the construction of the stone cathedral, a wooden church — and possibly more than one — must have been erected in the city. Second, the name of the church — St. Michael the Archangel — indicates that the church was in all likelihood a princely one: Archangel Michael ("the Terrible Archangel, Commander of the Hosts") was perceived in Old Rus as the leader of the heavenly armies and patron of military commanders ("the wise warrior and terrible battle-commander and vanquisher of enemy forces"). A princely church may rightfully be regarded as the earliest church in Nizhny Novgorod in point of time. And the appearance of the entry in question in the text of the later chroniclers makes highly plausible Shaydakova's hypothesis that the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle was compiled in circles close to the clergy of that very church. Indeed, the construction in 1631 of the stone tent-roofed Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel may have served as the impetus for the compilation of a chronicle monument intended, among other things, to glorify the antiquity of the church. It is not impossible that the wooden church erected at the founding of the city is described in the chronicle entry as "cathedral" precisely under the influence of the 1631 cathedral.

The very next annual entry of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle, however, raises serious doubts as to its reliability: "In the year 6735 [sic! — B.P.], Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich laid the foundation in Nizhny Novgorod of a stone church of the Archangel Michael. The same Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich drove away the pagan Mordva and destroyed their dwellings and winter quarters." The source for the report about the laying of the stone Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel is the Typographical Chronicle in its special redaction, which contains a unique entry: "In the year 6733, Grand Prince Yuri laid the foundation of a stone church in Nizhny Novgorod, at the mouth of the Oka, of the holy Archangel Michael." Doubts as to the reliability of this entry are well founded. The fact is that under this same year 6733 (1225), all other all-Russian chronicles (including earlier ones) place a report about the laying of the stone Cathedral of the Savior in Nizhny Novgorod. The simultaneous laying of two stone churches — in the same year, in the same city, at the expense of the same prince — is practically inconceivable in the conditions of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus in the first third of the thirteenth century. This entry therefore cannot be taken at face value or used in scholarly constructions.

The reports about the Mordva in the opening entries of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle clearly trace back to earlier and well-known sources ("drove away the pagan Mordva and destroyed their dwellings and winter quarters" — cf. the reports of the Moscow chronicle compilations and the Voskresensky Chronicle under the years 6734, 6736, 6740, discussed above). It is noteworthy that the text of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle reads: "And the pagan Mordva possessed that land" — there is not a word here about any "Abram's Gorodok." After the report of the victory over the Mordva, an interesting remark appears in the text: "And the Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets principality originated from Suzdal…" These words have served as the basis for the claim that Nizhny Novgorod was founded… in the time of Yuri Dolgoruky (twelfth century) — since Suzdal was that prince's capital. The absurdity of such speculations becomes apparent if one continues the quotation from the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle: "…and Grand Prince Konstantin Yuryevich ruled Nizhny and Gorodets." It turns out that the chronicler was speaking of the very different "Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets principality" — the fourteenth-century Grand Principality of Nizhny Novgorod, which comprised Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod, and Gorodets. The Suzdal princely house ruled there; the progenitor of the dynasty was Prince Konstantin, and his descendants, regardless of their appanage, were called "Suzdal princes." Thus, the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle and the Chronicler of Nizhny Novgorod cannot be seriously regarded as sources of new information on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod land in the first third of the thirteenth century.

Nevertheless, a "stumbling block" for a number of local historians has been and remains the report in the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle about a landslide, which mentions the "Old Gorodok." The text of this report in one of the earliest copies reads:

"In the same year in Nizhny Novgorod, below the old fortlet, upstream along the Oka River, there was a settlement on the bank of the Oka River. And by the will of God, for the sins of men, a hill slid down with its forest upon the settlement, and buried in that settlement 150 homesteads together with the people and all their livestock. And that fortlet had been built when the great princes of Suzdal went out to seek where to establish a fortlet and extend their Suzdal principality in the Nizovskaya land beyond the Volga and the Oka rivers, where great forests stood and in which lived the pagan Mordva, whom they drove away, took their land, and settled it with Russians."

The textual variants here differ minimally from the version published by N. F. Filatov, but neither copy contains the passage cited by P. I. Melnikov: "the hill slid down with its forest upon the settlement and upon the old town, and buried in the settlement…" (emphasis Melnikov's). Copies that would contain the insertion "and upon the old town" in this passage are entirely unknown to us, which strongly suggests the kind of literary invention typical of Melnikov-Pechersky: it appears that the writer used this insertion to explain the disappearance of the "Old Fortlet." On the whole, the text of the account — which remains undated in the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle — makes it clear that the landslide destroyed the settlement belonging to Blagoveshchensky Monastery; the reference to the "Old Fortlet" is self-contained and attached to the account in a largely artificial manner. Furthermore, from the text concerning the "Old Fortlet" itself, only three reasonably clear pieces of testimony can be extracted: 1) the fortlet was founded by princes referred to as "Suzdal princes"; 2) these princes engaged in town-building; and 3) they conducted campaigns against the Mordva. Taken together, all three pieces of testimony correspond, perhaps, only to the Konstantinovich brothers — princes of the Suzdal dynasty who ruled the Nizhny Novgorod Grand Principality in the second half of the 14th century. In the Old Russian chronicles they were indeed called "Suzdalian" and did indeed extend their principality to the Zasurye region; there are references to their town-building activity and construction of military fortifications (under the years 6871 [1363] and 6880 [1372]); the campaigns of the Konstantinoviches against the Mordva are also mentioned (for example, under 6885 [1377]). The attribution of the account of the "Old Fortlet" to the 14th century is further supported by the fact that the accompanying story of the landslide appears in the Rogozhsky Chronicle (an authoritative Old Russian compilation from the early 15th century) under the year 6878 (1370). The landslide passage there is somewhat shorter than in the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle, but whether it was abridged by the compiler of the Rogozhsky Chronicle (which is brief in its opening sections) or, conversely, expanded by the compiler of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle is difficult to say. Finally, the placement of this account within the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle also supports treating the "Old Fortlet" ("old" relative to the 17th century) within the framework of local history no earlier than the 14th century: it is preceded by accounts of Grand Prince of Moscow Vasily Dmitrievich receiving a yarlyk from Tokhtamysh for Nizhny Novgorod, Gorodets, Meschera, and Tarusa (under the year 6899); of a storm in Nizhny Novgorod (under 6904); of Prince Semyon Dmitrievich's attack on Nizhny Novgorod with Tatars (under 6907); of the surprise capture of Vladimirskoye by a detachment sent by Prince Daniil Borisovich (under 6918); and of famine in Rus (with mention of Nizhny Novgorod). The account of the landslide and the "Old Fortlet" follows, after which comes the heading "The Seventh Millennium" and an account of fortress construction (under the year 7017). As we can see, accounts for the years 6930–7017 are absent from the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle, as the compiler of the monument found no reports mentioning the Nizhny Novgorod Region in his sources for that period. Moreover, the "Chronicle of Nizhny Novgorod" likewise contains not a single entry for the entire 15th century — which is unsurprising, since Old Russian chronicles of the Voskresenskaya and Typographical types with special redactions are sparse in their coverage of the Nizhny Novgorod Region for this period.

Thus, the text of the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle's entry on the landslide, the context of the reference to the "Old Fortlet," and the literary environment of this article all allow the described events to be attributed to the final third of the 14th century. The general conclusion is therefore quite discouraging: the Nizhny Novgorod Chronicle and the "Chronicle of Nizhny Novgorod" contain no accounts that could clarify, supplement, or lead to a revision of the entries in chronicle compilations of the 14th–16th centuries concerning the early history of the Nizhny Novgorod Region. On the contrary, it is the Old Russian chronicle compilations — above all the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles — that allow us to make sense of the accounts in the later local chronicles and to refine the chronology of their entries.