[4][5]: 51 [11][12][13][3][14] The record of an event usually begins with the words "Въ лѣто ..." (Vŭ lě́to ..., "In the year..."; from them, the terms litopys, letopis and latopis were derived.

[7] The construction of the oldest Russian chronicle generally accepted by modern scientists was developed by Alexey Shakhmatov.

In Shakhmatov's view, the origin of the Russian chronicle was compiled c. 1039 (Mikhail Priselkov dated it to 1037) in the Kiev metropolis.

Dmitry Likhachov, following Nikolay Nikolsky, deduced the beginning of the Rus' chronicle from West Slavic Moravian legends.

Historical distortions were not permitted; according to Shakhmatov, any mystical motives or phenomena in a chronicle was because the author believed in their truth or significance.

[8] During the 1850s and 1860s it was thought that the Rus' chronicle originated as annals and evolved into a narrative, a view supported by Michael Sukhomlinov and Izmail Sreznevsky.

Over time their accuracy increased, dates appeared, the volume of information expanded, and narrative additions were made.

The 1430s Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod, compiled at the office of the Moscow Metropolitan, may have combined the Sofia First and Novgorod Fourth Chronicles.

[29] These chronicles describe the rebellions, society, policies and international relations of the Cossack Hetmanate and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and their wars with the Crimean Khanate and Ottoman Empire.

[29] The oldest Polish chronicle written in Latin was Gesta principum Polonorum, at the beginning of the 12th century.

[32] Shakhmatov and his colleagues sought to establish the identity and views of their authors and to place a chronicle in its contemporary political struggle.

Rus' chronicles were composed in monasteries, at the courts of princes, the tsars of Moscow and the kings of Galicia-Volhynia, and in the offices of metropolitan bishops.

The chronicles (often contradicting each other) typically consisted of collections of short factual entries for the preceding year and speeches and dialogues by princes.

Individual chronicles were revised, shortened or expanded with entries on the events of the last year (or decade), and dozens of such collections may exist.

[46] In her article, "The Genre of Visions in Ancient Russian Literature", Alla Soboleva notes the chronicles' unusual worldview.

[47] An illustration c. 1495 in the Slavic manuscript of Cosmas Indicopleustes' sixth-century Christian Topography depicts the sun going underground at sunset and, according to Yegor Redin, was incorporated into the Old Russian chronicles.

[49]Two wizards reportedly appeared in Novgorod in 1071 and began to sow unrest, saying that the Dnieper would soon flow backwards and the land would move.

[50] Most chronicles have digressions which predict the future, describe strange phenomena, and discuss their meaning from a mystical point of view.

[52] Study of the history of Old Russian chronicles was begun by Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Shcherbatov, whose work impacted the emergence of source criticism as a science.

Shakhmatov sought to learn about the circumstances of the creation of each chronicle through chronology, printing and language errors, and dialectic.

The method of Shakhmatov was developed by Mikhail Priselkov, who placed more emphasis on the historical aspect ("History of Russian Chronicles of the XI—XV centuries", 1940).

Shakhmatov's genealogy was developed and revised by his followers, among whom the greatest contribution to the study of Russian chronicles was made by Nikolai Lavrov, Arseny Nasonov, Lev Cherepnin, Dmitry Likhachev, Sergey Bakhrushin, Alexander Andreev, Mikhail Tikhomirov, Nikolai Nikolsky, Vasily Istrin, etc.

[54] The study and publication of the Belarusian-Lithuanian letopises were carried out by scientists from Poland (I. Danilovich, S. Smolka, A. Prohaska, S. Ptashitsky, Ya.

A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov, V. T. Pashuto, B. N. Florya), Ukraine (M. S. Grushevsky, F. Sushitsky), Belarus (V. A. Chemeritsky, N. N. Ulashchik), Lithuania (M. Yuchas, R.