>It reinforces the "complete absence" scenario
>which is the first implication of the Kyivan
>Chronicle.******
So if I understand well what you said: Sylvester (30 years after
Nestor) is completly a liar and Nestor not only that he always said
the truth but he said in his Chronicle everything that could be said
(-> in this case Nestor's first version of the Chronicle seems to be
self-sufficient in a higher degree than the Bible is considered to
be).
Good analysis!
In my opinion what you said above, is mainly an 'ideological'
interpretation, working with big black&white patterns: Sylvester-
black Nestor-white and this only to deny what is written by
Sylvester, regarding Wlachs ...
So first you need to prove that Sylvester is a liar...
I only want to add that if probably Sylvester didn't talk about
Walllachians, in his added paragraphs, you will fully trust him as in
Nestor case.
Only the Bests,
Marius