In the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library, along with other valuable manuscripts, the chronicle is kept, which is called Laurentian, named after the person who rewrote it in 1377. “I am a thin, unworthy and sinful servant of God Lavrenty mnih (monk),” we read on the last page.
This book is written in “ charter", or " veal“, - so they called in Russia parchment: specially treated calfskin. The chronicle, apparently, has been read a lot: its leaves are dilapidated, in many places there are traces of wax drops from candles, in some places beautiful, even lines have been erased, at the beginning of the book running across the entire page, further divided into two columns. This book has seen a lot in its six hundredth century.
The Manuscript Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg contains Ipatiev Chronicle... It was transferred here in the 18th century from the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma, famous in the history of Russian culture. It was written in the XIV century. it the big Book heavily bound in two wooden planks covered in darkened leather. Five copper “beetles” adorn the binding. The whole book is handwritten by four different handwritings- so four scribes worked on it. The book is written in two columns in black ink with cinnabar (bright red) capital letters. The second sheet of the book, on which the text begins, is especially beautiful. It is all written in cinnabar, as if on fire. The capital letters, on the other hand, are in black ink. The scribes worked hard to create this book. They set to work with reverence. “We are repairing the Russian chronicler with God. Good Father, ”the scribe wrote before the text.
The oldest list of the Russian chronicle was made on parchment in the XIV century. it Synod list Novgorod First Chronicle. It can be seen in the Historical Museum in Moscow. It belonged to the Moscow Synodal Library, hence its name.
Interesting to see illustrated Radzivilovskaya, or Konigsberg, chronicle. At one time it belonged to the Radziwills and was discovered by Peter the Great in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad). Now this chronicle is kept in the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. It was written in semi-ustav at the end of the 15th century, apparently in Smolensk. Semi-ustav - handwriting is faster and simpler than the solemn and slow charter, but it is also very beautiful.
The Radziwill Chronicle decorates 617 miniatures! 617 drawings in color - bright, cheerful colors - illustrate what is described on the pages. Here you can see the troops going on a campaign with fluttering banners, and battles, and sieges of cities. Here princes are depicted sitting on "tables" - tables that served as a throne, in fact, resemble the present small tables. And before the prince there are ambassadors with scrolls of speeches in their hands. Fortifications of Russian cities, bridges, towers, walls with “fences”, “logs”, that is, dungeons, “vezhi” - nomads' wagons - all this can be clearly visualized from the slightly naive drawings of the Radziwill Chronicle. And what to say about weapons, armor - they are depicted here in abundance. No wonder one researcher called these miniatures “windows to a vanished world”. Highly great importance has a ratio of pictures and sheet, pictures and text, text and margins. Everything is done with great taste. After all, each handwritten book is a work of art, and not just a monument to writing.
These are the most ancient lists of Russian chronicles. They are called “lists” because they were copied from older chronicles that have not come down to us.
How the chronicles were written
The text of any chronicle consists of weather (compiled by year) records. Each entry begins: "In the summer of such and such," and then follows a message about what happened in this "summer", that is, the year. (Years were counted "from the creation of the world", and to get the date according to modern chronology, you must subtract the number 5508 or 5507.) Messages were long, detailed stories, and there were also very short ones - like: “In the summer of 6741 (1230) signed (painted ) the church of the Holy Theotokos in Suzdal was built and paved with different marble "," In the summer of 6398 (1390) there was a plague in Pskov, as (as) there was no such; where one dug more, one and five and ten put "," In the summer of 6726 (1218) silence was. " They also wrote: “In the summer of 6752 (1244) nothing was done” (that is, nothing happened).
If several events happened in one year, then the chronicler combined them with the words: “the same summer” or “the same summer”.
Entries pertaining to one year are called an article... Articles went in a row, standing out only in a red line. Only some of them were given titles by the chronicler. These are the stories about Alexander Nevsky, Prince Dovmont, about the Don battle and some others.
At first glance, it might seem that the chronicles were kept in this way: year after year, more and more entries were added, as if beads were strung on one thread. However, it is not.
The chronicles that have come down to us are very complex works on Russian history. The chroniclers were publicists and historians. They were concerned not only with contemporary events, but also with the fate of their homeland in the past. They made weather records of what happened during their lifetime, and added new messages that they found in other sources to the records of previous chroniclers. They inserted these additions under the corresponding years. As a result of all the additions, insertions and use by the chronicler of the chronicles of his predecessors, “ vault“.
Let's take an example. The story of the Ipatiev Chronicle about the struggle of Izyaslav Mstislavich with Yuri Dolgoruky for Kiev in 1151. There are three main participants in this story: Izyaslav, Yuri and Yuri's oyn - Andrei Bogolyubsky. Each of these princes had their own chronicler. The chronicler Izyaslav Mstislavich admired the intelligence and military cunning of his prince. The chronicler Yuri described in detail how Yuri, unable to go down the Dnieper past Kiev, sent boats across Dolobskoye Lake. Finally, in the annals of Andrei Bogolyubsky, Andrei's valor in battle is described.
After the death of all participants in the events of 1151, their chronicles came to the chronicler of the new Kiev prince. He combined their messages in his vault. It turned out to be a vivid and very complete story.
But how did the researchers manage to isolate the older vaults from the later chronicles?
This was helped by the method of work of the chroniclers themselves. Our ancient historians had great respect for the records of their predecessors, as they saw in them a document, a living testimony of the “formerly”. Therefore, they did not alter the texts of the chronicles they received, but only selected the news of interest to them.
Thanks to the careful attitude to the work of predecessors, the news of the 11th-14th centuries has been preserved almost unchanged even in relatively late chronicles. This allows them to be distinguished.
Very often the chroniclers, like real scientists, indicated where they received the news from. “When I came to Ladoga, Ladoga residents told me…”, “Behold, I heard from the samovid,” they wrote. Passing from one written source to another, they noted: “And behold from another chronicler” or: “Behold, from another, old one,” that is, copied from another, old chronicle. There are many such interesting postscripts. The Pskov chronicler, for example, makes a note in cinnabar against the place where he talks about the campaign of the Slavs against the Greeks: "This is written in the miracles of Stephen of Surozh."
Chronicle writing from its very inception was not a personal matter of individual chroniclers, who, in the silence of their cells, in solitude and silence, wrote down the events of their time.
The chroniclers have always been in the thick of things. They sat in the boyar council, attended the veche. They fought "near the stirrup" of their prince, accompanied him on campaigns, were eyewitnesses and participants in the sieges of cities. Our ancient historians carried out ambassadorial assignments, followed the construction of city fortifications and temples. They have always lived the social life of their time and most often occupied a high position in society.
Princes and even princesses, princely warriors, boyars, bishops, abbots took part in the chronicle. But among them were both simple monks and priests of city parish churches.
Chronicle was caused by social necessity and answered social requirements... It was conducted at the behest of this or that prince, or bishop, or mayor. It reflected political interests equal centers - to the principality of cities. They captured the sharp struggle of different social groups. The chronicle has never been impassive. She testified of merit and virtues, she accused of violation of rights and legality.
Daniel Galitsky turns to the chronicle to testify to the betrayal of the "flattering" boyars, who "Daniel called themselves a prince;" but they themselves kept the whole earth ”-. At the acute moment of the struggle, Daniel's "printer" (keeper of the seal) set off "to write off the plundering of the wicked boyars." Several years later, Daniel's son Mstislav ordered to enter into the chronicle the treason of the inhabitants of Beryostia (Brest) “and I entered into the chronicle of their sedition,” the chronicler writes. The entire collection of Daniel Galitsky and his closest successors is a story about sedition and “many rebellions” of “crafty boyars” and about the valor of Galician princes.
The situation was different in Novgorod. The boyar party won there. Read the entry of the Novgorod First Chronicle about the expulsion of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1136. You will be convinced that this is a real indictment against the prince. But this is only one article from the collection. After the events of 1136, the entire chronicle was revised, which had previously been conducted under the auspices of Vsevolod and his father Mstislav the Great.
The former name of the chronicle, "Russian time book", was changed into "St. Sophia time book": the chronicle was kept at the Cathedral of St. Sophia - the main public building of Novgorod. Among some additions, the following entry was made: “First the Novgorod volost, and then the Kiev one”. The antiquity of the Novgorod “volost” (the word “volost” meant both “region” and “power”), the chronicler substantiated the independence of Novgorod from Kiev, its right to elect and expel princes at will.
The political idea of each set was expressed in its own way. It is very vividly expressed in the vault of 1200 of the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Moses. The code was drawn up in connection with the celebration on the occasion of the end of the engineering and technical construction, grandiose for that time - stone wall to protect the mountain near the Vydubitsky monastery from erosion by the waters of the Dnieper. You will probably be interested in reading the details.
The wall was erected at the expense of Rurik Rostislavich, the Grand Duke of Kiev, who had “an unfulfilled love for building” (for creation). The prince found “a suitable artist for such a job,” “a master is not simple,” Peter Milonega. When the wall was “completed”, Rurik came to the monastery with his entire family. After praying "for the acceptance of his labor," he made "a feast not small" and "fed the abbots and every order of the church." At this celebration, Abbot Moses made an inspired speech. “It is wonderful today that our eyes see,” he said. “For many who lived before us wanted to see what we see, and did not see, and were not worthy to hear”. Somewhat self-deprecating, according to the custom of that time, the abbot turned to the prince: “Take our scripture coarseness, as a gift of words to praise the virtue of your reign”. He spoke further about the prince that his "autocratic state" shines "more (more) than the stars of heaven", it "is known not only in the Russian ends, but also to those in the sea far away, for the glory of his Christ-loving deeds" passed through the whole earth. “Not standing on the shore, but on the wall of your creation, I sing you a victory song,” exclaims the abbot. He calls the construction of the wall “a new miracle” and says that the “kyans”, that is, the inhabitants of Kiev, are now standing on the wall and “from everywhere joy enters their souls and thinks that they have (as if) an aerial reached” (that is, that they are soaring in the air).
The abbot's speech is an example of the high flowering, that is, oratory, art of that time. It ends with the arch of Abbot Moses. The glorification of Rurik Rostislavich is associated with admiration for the skill of Peter Miloneg.
Great importance was attached to the annals. Therefore, the compilation of each new code was associated with important event v public life that time: with the entry of the prince on the table, the consecration of the cathedral, the establishment of the episcopal see.
The chronicle was an official document... She was referred to in all sorts of negotiations. For example, the Novgorodians, concluding a "row", that is, an agreement, with the new prince, reminded him of "old times and duties" (customs), of the "Yaroslavl letters" and their rights recorded in the Novgorod chronicles. Russian princes, going to the Horde, carried chronicles with them and based their demands on them, resolved disputes. Prince Yuri of Zvenigorod, the son of Dmitry Donskoy, proved his rights to Moscow reign "by chroniclers and old lists and spiritual (testament) of his father." People who could “speak” from the annals, that is, they knew their content well, were highly valued.
The chroniclers themselves understood that they were drawing up a document that was supposed to preserve in the memory of descendants what they had witnessed. “Yes, and this will not be forgotten in the last generations” (in the next generations), “Let us leave for us, but it will not be completely forgotten,” they wrote. They confirmed the documentary nature of the news with documentary material. They used the diaries of campaigns, reports of "watchmen" (scouts), letters, various diplomas(contractual, spiritual, that is, wills).
Certificates always impress with their authenticity. In addition, they reveal the details of everyday life, and sometimes the spiritual world of the people of Ancient Rus.
Such, for example, is the letter of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich (nephew of Daniil Galitsky). This is a will. It was written by a terminally ill person who understood that his end was near. The will concerned the prince's wife and his stepdaughter. In Russia there was a custom: after the death of her husband, the princess was tonsured into a monastery.
The diploma begins like this: "Seaz (I) Prince Vladimir, son of Vasilkov, grandson of Romanov, I write a letter." The following are the cities and villages that he gave the princess “on his belly” (that is, after life: “belly” meant “life”). At the end, the prince writes: “If he wants to go to the blue women, let him go, if he does not want to go, but as she likes. I will not rise up to see what someone will mend (do) on my belly ”. Vladimir appointed a guardian to his stepdaughter, but ordered him "not to give her in marriage forcibly to anyone."
The chroniclers inserted works of various genres into the vaults - teachings, sermons, lives of saints, historical stories. Due to the attraction of various material, the chronicle became a huge encyclopedia, including information about the life and culture of Russia at that time. “If you want to find out everything, read the chronicler of the old Rostov,” wrote the Suzdal Bishop Simon in a once widely known work of the early 13th century - in the “Kiev-Pechersk Patericon”.
For us, the Russian chronicle is an inexhaustible source of information on the history of our country, a true treasury of knowledge. Therefore, we are very grateful to the people who have preserved information about the past for us. Everything that we can learn about them is extremely precious to us. We are especially moved when the voice of the chronicler reaches us from the pages of the chronicle. After all, our ancient Russian writers, like architects and painters, were very modest and rarely called themselves. But sometimes, as if forgotten, they talk about themselves in the first person. “It happened that I was a sinner to be right there,” they write. "I have heard many words, and I wrote them down in this chronicle." Sometimes chroniclers bring in information about their life: “That same summer they made me a priest”. This entry was made by the priest of one of the Novgorod churches Herman Voyata (Voyata is an abbreviation from the pagan name Voyeslav).
From the chronicler's mentions of himself in the first person, we learn whether he was present at the described event or heard about what happened from the lips of the “samovids”, it becomes clear to us what position he occupied in the society of that time, what was his education, where he lived and much more ... So he writes, how in Novgorod the guards stood at the city gates, “and others are on this side,” and we understand that this is written by a resident of the Sofia side, where the “city” was, that is, the Detinets, the Kremlin, and the right, the Trade side was “Other”, “she is me”.
Sometimes the presence of the chronicler is felt in the description of natural phenomena. He writes, for example, how the frozen Rostov Lake “howled” and “knocked”, and we can imagine that he was somewhere on the shore at that time.
It happens that the chronicler betrays himself in a rude vernacular. "And he lied," - writes Pskov about one prince.
The chronicler constantly, without even mentioning himself, still seems to be invisibly present on the pages of his narrative and makes us look with his eyes at what was happening. The voice of the chronicler sounds especially clear in the lyrical digressions: "Oh woe, brothers!" or: "Who does not marvel at the one who does not cry!" Sometimes our ancient historians conveyed their attitude to events in generalized forms of folk wisdom - in proverbs or sayings. Thus, a Novgorodian chronicler, speaking of how one of the mayors was removed from office, adds: "He who digs a hole under another will fall into it himself."
The chronicler is not only a storyteller, he is also a judge. He judges by standards of very high morality. He is constantly worried about the issues of good and evil. He is rejoicing, now indignant, praising some and condemning others.
Subsequent "pimp" brings together the conflicting points of view of his predecessors. The presentation becomes fuller, more versatile, calmer. In our minds the epic image of the chronicler grows up - a wise old man who dispassionately looks at the vanity of the world. This image was brilliantly reproduced by A.S. Pushkin in the scene of Pimen and Gregory. This image already lived in the minds of Russian people in antiquity. So, in the Moscow Chronicle under 1409, the chronicler recalls the “initial chronicler of Kiev”, which all earthly “temporal riches” (that is, all earthly vanity) “does not obsessively show” and “without anger” describes “all good and unkind”.
Not only chroniclers, but also simple scribes worked on the annals.
If you look at an ancient Russian miniature depicting a scribe, you will see that he is sitting on “ chair”With a foot and holding on his knees a scroll or a bundle of sheets of parchment or paper bent in two or four times, on which he writes. In front of him, on a low table, is an inkwell and a sandbox. In those days, wet ink was sprinkled with sand. Right there on the table is a pen, a ruler, a knife for chipping feathers and erasing faulty places. On the stand is a book from which he is copying.
The scribe's work required a lot of effort and attention. Scribes often worked from dawn to dusk. They were hampered by fatigue, illness, hunger and a desire to sleep. To distract themselves a little, they made notes on the margins of their manuscripts, in which they poured out their complaints: "Oh, oh, my head hurts, I can't write." Sometimes the scribe asks God to make him laugh, because he is tormented by a slumber and he is afraid that he will make a mistake. And then there will come across "a dashing pen, involuntarily write to them." Under the influence of hunger, the scribe made mistakes: instead of the word “slab” he wrote “bread”, instead of “font” - “jelly”.
It is not surprising that the scribe, after finishing the last page, conveys his joy with the postscript: "Aki the hare is glad, he avoided the net, so the scribe is glad, having finished the last page."
A long and very imaginative postscript was made by the monk Laurentius, having completed his work. In this postscript, one can feel the joy of accomplishing a large and important deed: “The merchant rejoices when he has made his ransom, and the helmsman is the bailiff, and the wanderer has come to his fatherland; the book writer rejoices in the same way, having reached the end of books. Likewise, I’m a thin unworthy and sinful servant of God Lavrenty me ... And now, gentlemen, fathers and brothers, if he described or copied or did not finish writing where, honor (read), correcting God doing (for God's sake), and not swear, since early (since) the books are dilapidated, and the mind is young, has not reached. "
The oldest surviving Russian annalistic collection is called "The Tale of Bygone Years"... He brings his exposition to the second decade of the XII century, but he came down to us only in the lists of the XIV and subsequent centuries. The compilation of the "Tale of Bygone Years" refers to the 11th - early 12th centuries, by the time when the Old Russian state with its center in Kiev was relatively united. That is why the authors of The Tale had such a wide coverage of events. They were interested in questions of importance for all of Russia as a whole. They were acutely aware of the unity of all Russian regions.
At the end of the 11th century, thanks to the economic development of the Russian regions, they were separated into independent principalities. Each principality has its own political and economic interests. They are beginning to compete with Kiev. Each capital city seeks to imitate the “mother of Russian cities”. Achievements of art, architecture and literature of Kiev turn out to be a model for regional centers. The culture of Kiev, spreading to all regions of Russia in the XII century, falls on the prepared soil. Before that, each region had its own distinctive traditions, its own artistic skills and tastes, dating back to deep pagan antiquity and closely related to folk ideas, affections, customs.
From the contact of several aristocratic culture of Kiev with folk culture each area has grown diversified ancient Russian art, united both thanks to the Slavic community, and thanks to the common model - Kiev, but everywhere it is different, original, unlike its neighbor.
In connection with the isolation of the Russian principalities, chronicle writing is also expanding. It develops in such centers where, until the 12th century, only scattered records were kept, for example, in Chernigov, Pereyaslav Russky (Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky), in Rostov, Vladimir on the Klyazma, in Ryazan and in other cities. Each political center now felt an urgent need to have its own chronicle. Chronicle has become a necessary element of culture. You couldn't live without your cathedral, without your monastery. In the same way, it was impossible to live without your chronicle.
The isolation of lands affected the nature of the chronicle. The chronicle becomes already according to the scope of events, according to the horizons of the chroniclers. It encloses itself within the framework of its political center. But even during this period of feudal fragmentation, the all-Russian unity was not forgotten. In Kiev, they were interested in the events that took place in Novgorod. Novgorodians looked closely at what was happening in Vladimir and Rostov. Vladimirtsev was worried about the fate of Pereyaslavl the Russian. And of course, all regions turned to Kiev.
This explains that in the Ipatiev Chronicle, that is, in the South Russian code, we read about the events that took place in Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, etc. In the northeastern vault, the Laurentian Chronicle tells about what happened in Kiev, Pereyaslavl Russky, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky and in other principalities.
More than others, the Novgorod and Galicia-Volyn Chronicles closed within the narrow limits of their land, but even there we will find news of all-Russian events.
Regional chroniclers, compiling their vaults, began them with the "Tale of Bygone Years", which told about the "beginning" of the Russian land, and therefore, about the beginning of each regional center... “The Tale of Bygone Years * supported the consciousness of all-Russian unity among our historians.
The most colorful, artistic presentation was in the XII century Kiev Chronicle included in the Ipatiev list. She led a sequential account of events from 1118 to 1200. This presentation was preceded by the "Tale of Bygone Years".
The Kiev Chronicle is a princely chronicle. There are many stories in which the main actor there was one or the other prince.
Before us are stories about princely crimes, about breaking oaths, about the ruin of the possessions of warring princes, about the despair of the inhabitants, about the death of huge artistic and cultural values. Reading the Kiev Chronicle, we seem to hear the sounds of trumpets and tambourines, the crackle of breaking spears, we see clouds of dust hiding both horsemen and footmen. But the general meaning of all these full of movement, intricate stories is deeply humane. The chronicler persistently praises those princes who “do not like bloodshed” and at the same time are full of valor, a desire to “suffer” for the Russian land, “wish her well with all their hearts”. Thus, the chronicle ideal of the prince is created, which responded to the popular ideals.
On the other hand, in the Kiev Chronicle there is an angry condemnation of violators of the order, perjurers, princes who begin unnecessary bloodshed.
Chronicle writing in Novgorod the Great began as early as the 11th century, but finally took shape in the 12th century. Initially, like in Kiev, it was a princely chronicle. The son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, did a lot for the Novgorod Chronicle. After him, the chronicle was kept at the court of Vsevolod Mstislavich. But Vsevolod was expelled by the Novgorodians in 1136, and a vechevoy boyar republic was established in Novgorod. Chronicle writing passed to the court of the Novgorod ruler, that is, the archbishop. It was conducted at the Cathedral of St. Sophia and in some city churches. But from this it by no means became churchly.
The Novgorod Chronicle is rooted in the mass of the people. It is rude, figurative, interspersed with proverbs and even retained the characteristic "clatter" in writing.
Most of the narration is in the form of short dialogues, in which there is not a single superfluous word. Here is a short story about the dispute between Prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, the son of Vsevolod Big Nest, with the Novgorodians due to the fact that the prince wanted to remove the Novgorod mayor Tverdislav, which he did not like. This dispute took place on Vechey Square in Novgorod in 1218.
“Prince Svyatoslav sent his thousand to the veche, a speech (saying):“ I can’t be with Tverdislav and I take away the posadnichestvo from him. ” Rekosha, however, Novgorodians: "E (is) his fault?" He said: "Without guilt." Speech Tverdislav: “I am glad for her, even (that) there is no fault of mine; and you, brothers, in posadnichestvo and in princes ”(that is, Novgorodians have the right to give and withdraw posadnichestvo, invite and expel princes). The Novgorodians answered: “Prince, there is no zina for him, you kissed the cross to us without guilt, your husband should not be deprived (not removed from office); and we bow to you (we bow), and behold, our mayor; but into that we will not give in ”(otherwise we will not go for that). And fast the world. "
This is how briefly and firmly the Novgorodians defended their mayor. The formula “We bow to you” did not mean bows with a request, but, on the contrary, we bow and say: go away. Svyatoslav understood this perfectly.
The Novgorod chronicler describes the veche disturbances, the change of princes, the construction of churches. He is interested in all the little things in life. hometown: weather, crop failure, fires, prices for bread and turnips. Even about the struggle against the Germans and Swedes, the Novgorodian chronicler speaks efficiently, briefly, without unnecessary words, without any embellishment.
The Novgorod chronicle can be compared with Novgorod architecture, simple and harsh, and with painting - lush and bright.
In the XII century, the chronicle business appeared in the northeast - in Rostov and Vladimir. This chronicle was included in the collection rewritten by Lawrence. It also opens with the "Tale of Bygone Years", which came to the northeast from the south, but not from Kiev, but from Pereyaslavl Russian - the patrimony of Yuri Dolgoruky.
The Vladimir chronicle was conducted at the bishop's court at the Assumption Cathedral, built by Andrei Bogolyubsky. It left its mark on him. There are many teachings, religious reflections in it. The heroes say long prayers, but rarely have lively and short conversations with each other, of which there are so many in the Kiev and especially in the Novgorod Chronicle. The Vladimir Chronicle is dry and at the same time verbose.
But in the Vladimir chronicle, the idea of the need to collect the Russian land in one center sounded stronger than anywhere else. For the Vladimir chronicler, this center, of course, was Vladimir. And he persistently pursues the idea of the primacy of the city of Vladimir not only among other cities of the region - Rostov and Suzdal, but also in the system of Russian principalities as a whole. For the first time in the history of Russia, the title of Grand Duke was awarded to Prince Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest. He becomes the first among other princes.
The chronicler portrays the Vladimir prince not so much as a brave warrior, but as a builder, a zealous owner, a strict and fair judge, a kind family man. The Vladimir chronicle is becoming more and more solemn, as are the solemn cathedrals of Vladimir, but it lacks the high artistic skill achieved by the Vladimir architects.
Under the year 1237 in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the words burn in cinnabar: "The Massacre of Batyevo." In other chronicles it is also highlighted: “Batu's army”. After the Tatar invasion, chronicle writing ceased in a number of cities. However, having died out in one city, it was picked up in another. It becomes shorter, poorer in form and news, but does not freeze.
The main theme of the Russian chronicles of the 13th century is the horrors of the Tatar invasion and the subsequent yoke. Against the background of rather scanty records, the story about Alexander Nevsky, written by a southern Russian chronicler in the tradition of the Kiev chronicle, stands out.
The Vladimir Grand Ducal Chronicle passes to Rostov, it suffered less from the defeat. Here the chronicle was kept at the court of Bishop Cyril and Princess Mary.
Princess Maria was the daughter of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov, who was killed in the Horde, and the widow of Vasilka Rostovsky, who died in the battle with the Tatars on the City River. She was an outstanding woman. She enjoyed great honor and respect in Rostov. When Prince Alexander Nevsky came to Rostov, he bowed to “the Holy Mother of God and Bishop Kirill and the Grand Duchess” (that is, Princess Mary). She also "honored Prince Alexander with love." Maria was present at last minutes the life of Alexander Nevsky's brother, Dmitry Yaroslavich, when, according to the custom of that time, he was tonsured a monk and a schema. Her death is described in the annals in the way that they usually described the death of only outstanding princes: “That same summer (1271) there was a sign in the sun, as if (as if) all of him would perish before dinner and the packs (again) would be filled. (You understand, it comes about a solar eclipse.) The same winter passed away the faithful, Christ-loving princess Vasilkova on the 9th day of the month of December, like (when) the liturgy is sung throughout the city. And he will betray his soul quietly and easily, serenely. Hearing all the people of the city of Rostov her repose and all the people flocked to the monastery of St. tears ”.
Princess Maria continued the work of her father and husband. According to her instructions, the life of Mikhail Chernigovsky was compiled in Rostov. She built a church in Rostov “in his name” and established a church feast for him.
The chronicle of Princess Mary is imbued with the idea of the need to firmly stand for the faith and independence of the homeland. It talks about martyrdom Russian princes, persistent in the fight against the enemy. This is how Vasilyok Rostovsky, Mikhail of Chernigovsky, Ryazan prince Roman are derived. After describing his fierce execution, there is an appeal to the Russian princes: "O beloved Russian princes, do not be deceived by the empty and deceptive glory of this light ..., love the truth and patience and purity." The novel is set as an example to the Russian princes: by martyrdom he acquired the kingdom of heaven for himself together “with his relative Mikhail of Chernigov”.
In the Ryazan chronicle of the times of the Tatar invasion, events are viewed from a different angle. It sounds the accusation of the princes that they are the culprits of the misfortunes of the Tatar ruin. The accusation primarily concerns the Vladimir prince Yuri Vsevolodovich, who did not listen to the pleas of the Ryazan princes, did not go to their aid. Referring to biblical prophecies, the Ryazan chronicler writes that even “before these,” that is, before the Tatars, “the Lord took away our strength, and he put bewilderment and thunderstorm and fear and awe into us for our sins”. The chronicler expresses the idea that Yuri "prepared the way" for the Tatars by princely strife, the Lipetsk battle, and now for these sins the Russian people are being executed by God.
At the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century, chronicle writing developed in the cities, which, having advanced at this time, began to challenge each other for the great reign.
They continue the thought of the Vladimir chronicler about the supremacy of his principality in the Russian land. Such cities were Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and Moscow. Their vaults are wide. They combine the annalistic material of different regions and strive to become all-Russian.
Nizhny Novgorod became a capital city in the first quarter of the 14th century under the Grand Duke Konstantin Vasilievich, who “honestly and menacingly harrowed (defended) his fatherland from princes stronger than himself,” that is, from the princes of Moscow. Under his son, the Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich, the second archdiocese in Russia was established in Nizhny Novgorod. Prior to that, only the Vladyka of Novgorod had the rank of archbishop. The archbishop was subordinate in church terms directly to the Greek, that is, the Byzantine patriarch, while the bishops were subordinate to the metropolitan of All Russia, who at that time was already living in Moscow. You yourself understand how important it was from a political point of view for the Nizhny Novgorod prince that the church pastor of his land would not depend on Moscow. In connection with the establishment of the archdiocese, a chronicle was compiled, which is called Laurentian. Lawrence, a monk of the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, compiled it for Archbishop Dionysius.
The Chronicle of Lawrence paid great attention to the founder Nizhny Novgorod Yuri Vsevolodovich, Vladimir prince, who died in the battle with the Tatars on the City River. The Laurentian Chronicle is an invaluable contribution of Nizhny Novgorod to Russian culture. Thanks to Laurentius, we have not only the most ancient list of the Tale of Bygone Years, but also the only list of Vladimir Monomakh's Teachings to Children.
In Tver, the chronicle was conducted from the 13th to the 15th centuries and is most fully preserved in the Tver collection, the Rogozhsky chronicler and in the Simeonov chronicle. Scientists associate the beginning of the chronicle with the name of Bishop Simeon of Tver, under whom the “great cathedral church” of the Savior was built in 1285. In 1305, Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy laid the foundation for the grand ducal annals in Tver.
In the Tver Chronicle, there are many records about the construction of churches, about fires and internecine strife. But the Tver chronicle entered the history of Russian literature thanks to vivid stories about the murder of the Tver princes Mikhail Yaroslavich and Alexander Mikhailovich.
We also owe the Tver Chronicle a colorful story about the uprising in Tver against the Tatars.
Initial chronicle of Moscow conducted at the Assumption Cathedral, built in 1326 by Metropolitan Peter, the first metropolitan who began to live in Moscow. (Before that, the metropolitans lived in Kiev, from 1301 - in Vladimir). The notes of the Moscow chroniclers were short and dry. They concerned the construction and painting of churches - in Moscow at that time was carried out big construction... They reported on fires, on illnesses, and finally, on the family affairs of the great dukes of Moscow. However, gradually - this began after the Battle of Kulikovo - the chronicle of Moscow was moving beyond the narrow framework of its principality.
According to his position as head of the Russian Church, the Metropolitan was interested in the affairs of all Russian regions. At his court, regional chronicles were collected in copies or in originals, chronicles were taken from monasteries and cathedrals. Based on all the collected material in In 1409, the first all-Russian vault was created in Moscow... It includes news from the chronicles of Veliky Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Suzdal and other cities. He covered the history of the entire Russian people even before the unification of all Russian lands around Moscow. The code served as an ideological preparation for this association.
Among the written monuments of Ancient Russia, one of the most honorable places rightfully belongs to the annals. Old Russian chronicles are a completely unique phenomenon of ancient Russian culture; they have made a unique and invaluable contribution to the treasury of world culture and writing. According to many scholars (A. Shakhmatov, D. Likhachev, A. Kuzmin, P. Tolochko), the Russian chronicle was strikingly different from the Byzantine chronicles and Western European annals. In the Byzantine chronicles, the narration was always carried out not according to the years, but according to the time of the reign of patriarchs, emperors and empresses, and in Russian annalistic collections already from the beginning of the 11th century. there was a "weather grid" of the most important historical events in Russian and even world history that took place in a particular "summer". In the Western European annals, there was also a "weather grid" of the most important historical events, but information about them was scarce and inexpressive. In the Russian annalistic collections, on the contrary, detailed narratives about various events and characters of ancient Russian and world history were often presented, which contained a very personal, expressive and extremely emotional assessment many historical events and characters. The annals themselves were filled with numerous texts of official documents and treaties, obituaries of prominent state and church figures, philosophical treatises and religious teachings, folk traditions and legends.
The question of the time of the appearance of the first annals is still controversial. This is due, first of all, to the fact that the most ancient copies of the "Tale of Bygone Years" have come down to us as part of the later compilations of chronicles, created in the 14th - 15th centuries. For a long time, the hypothesis of academician A.A. Shakhmatov, the author of the fundamental monograph "Investigations about the oldest Russian annalistic collections" (1908), that the first Russian chronicle collection was created in 1037―1039 in connection with the creation of a separate metropolitanate in Kiev and the arrival of the first Russian metropolitan, the Greek Theopemt, in the capital of Russia. On the basis of this "Ancient Kiev Arch" at the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in 1050, the "Ancient Novgorod Arch" was created. Then, in 1073, Nikon, the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, created the “First Kiev-Pechersk Arch”, and in 1095, on the basis of the “Ancient Novgorod Arch” and the “First Kiev-Pechersky Arch”, the “Second Kiev-Pechersky Arch” was created ", Which A.A. Shakhmatov called the "Initial Chronicle", which became the direct basis for the creation of the famous "Tale of Bygone Years" (PVL), which survived in three different editions of 1113, 1116 and 1118.
Almost immediately, the scheme of Academician A.A. Shakhmatova, who derived the entire PVL from a single chronicle tree, aroused sharp objections from a number of prominent scientists, in particular Academician V.M. Istrina, author of the famous work "Notes on the Beginning of Russian Chronicle Writing" (1922), and Academician N.K. Nikolsky, who created a generalizing fundamental work "The Tale of Bygone Years as a Source on the History of Russian Culture and Writing" (1930). In the second half of the 20th century, many famous scientists proposed different hypotheses for the beginning of Russian chronicle writing. But at the same time, all Soviet philologists and historians, with the exception of Professor A.G. Kuzmin, did not reject the very scheme of A.A. Shakhmatova "about a single tree", but only suggested different dating of the most ancient collection of chronicles and the place of its writing.
Academician L.V. Tcherepnin dated the origin of the Russian chronicle in 996 and directly linked it with the construction and consecration of the Tithe Church in Kiev. Academician M.N. Tikhomirov dated the appearance of the first collection of chronicles to 1007, when the solemn transfer of the relics of Princess Olga to the Church of the Tithes took place. Moreover, M.N. Tikhomirov believed that the historical basis of the first annals was the "Legend of the Russian Princes", created in Kiev shortly after the official Baptism of Rus in the 990s. Academician D.S. Likhachev argued that the first collection of annals arose in the 1030s-1040s. based on a collection of different "Lives" about the baptism of Princess Olga and Prince Vladimir, the death of two Christian Varangians and a number of other sources, which he combined under the general title "Legends about the initial spread of Christianity in Russia." It was this "Legend" created by Bishop Hilarion that later became the basis of the first Russian annals, created in 1073 by Nikon, the rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Academician B.A. Rybakov and his Ukrainian colleagues, academician P.P. Tolochko and Professor M.Yu. Braichevsky believed that the first weather records of the most important historical events arose during the time of Prince Askold, shortly after the baptism of the Dnieper Rus Patriarch of Constantinople Photius in 867. It was these records ("Chronicle of Askold") that formed the basis of the "First Kiev Chronicle Code", which was created by Anastas Korsunianin in 996-997. at the Tithe Church in Kiev.
A little later, this point of view was partially supported by Professor A.G. Kuzmin, but at the same time he especially emphasized a number of important circumstances.
1) All Old Russian chronicles were a generalized collection of different types and times, often contradicting each other, more ancient chronicle and extra-chronicle materials.
2) Almost all ancient chroniclers did not recognize the "copyright" of their predecessors, therefore they often edited the previous text, not paying special attention to the inevitable contradictions.
3) Most likely, the first chronicles created in the 10th century did not have absolute dates and the years were counted according to the years of the reign of a particular prince. Absolute dates appeared only in the 11th century, and different space eras (Antiochian, Constantinople, Old Byzintine) were introduced into various chronicle sources, which, obviously, was associated with different sources of Russian Christianity itself.
4) The centers of the Old Russian annals were not only such large cities as Kiev, Novgorod, Chernigov, Smolensk and Rostov, but also various monasteries and temples, in particular, the Kiev-Pechersky, Vydubitsky and Yuryevsky monasteries, the Church of the Tithes in Kiev, etc. ., where different chronicle traditions originally existed. Therefore, the "Tale of Bygone Years" did not flow from a "single chronicle tree", but was a polysyllabic compilation of chronicles.
A new all-Russian chronicle collection arose approximately in the 1060s-1070s. According to many scientists (A. Shakhmatov, M. Priselkov D. Likhachev, B. Rybakov, J. Lurie), work on this collection of chronicles in 1061 was begun by the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon the Great. In the course of this work, he collected a large number of new historical sources, including the legends "On the first Russian princes", "On the baptism of Princess Olga", "On the campaigns" of princes Oleg, Igor and Svyatoslav to Constantinople and a number of other materials. Moreover, according to many authors, it was then that the "Korsun legend" about the baptism of Prince Vladimir and the "Varangian legend", the author of which was the Novgorod voivode Vyshata, who took part in the last hike Russian squads against Byzantium in 1043. Most likely, the work on this collection of chronicles was completed in 1070/1072, during the congress of "Yaroslavichs" - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod in Vyshgorod. Although, I must say, some historians did not fully share this point of view. Some of them (A. Kuzmin, A. Tolochko) believed that the author of this collection of chronicles was the famous student of Theodosius of the Caves Sylvester, while others (M. Priselkov, N. Rozov, P. Tolochko) argued that the authors of this collection were several Pechersk monks-chroniclers, including Nikon the Great, Nestor and John.
During the reign of the Kiev prince Svyatopolk in 1093―1095. a new collection of chronicles was created, which became the direct basis of the "Tale of Bygone Years" itself. In the opinion of many scholars (A. Shakhmatov, M. Priselkov, D. Likhachev, P. Tolochko), the first edition of this "Tale" was created in 1113 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor, who, in addition to the previous annals of 1050 and 1070/1072 used the "Chronicle" of George Amartol, "Chronicle" of John Malala, "Life of Basil the New" and other chronicle and extra-chronicle sources. Back in the 1970s. a number of Soviet historians (A. Kuzmin) stated that Nikon not only had nothing to do with the creation of the PVL, but was not even familiar with this annalistic collection, and the real author of the first edition of the PVL was the future abbot of the Vydubitsky Mikhailovsky Monastery Sylvester, who continued the chronicle traditions Church of the Tithes, not the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery.
According to the same scientists (A. Shakhmatov, M. Priselkov, A. Orlov, D. Likhachev), the second edition of the PVL was created in 1116 by Abbot Sylvester, who was close to the new Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh. Probably, it was at the request of this prince that he revised the first edition of the PVL, especially in that part of it that covered the events of the 1090-1110s, and included in it the famous "Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh." A number of Soviet historians (M. Aleshkovsky, P. Tolochko) believed that Sylvester did not create the second edition of PVL, but was only a copyist of its first edition. In 1118, at a similar "request" of the Novgorod prince Mstislav the Great, the third and last edition of the PVL was created, the author of which was either some unnamed monk of the Novgorod Yuriev or Antoniev monasteries (A. Orlov, B. Rybakov, P. Tolochko), or the schismatic of the Kiev Andreevsky Monastery Vasily (D. Likhachev, M. Aleshkovsky).
5. Old Russian literature
A) General remarks
According to many historians of the literary heritage of Ancient Russia (N. Gudziy, D. Likhachev, I. Eremin, V. Kuskov, A. Robinson), the emergence and development of Russian literature was due to the fact that in the process of formation and development Old Russian state its role and importance in the ideological cementation of ancient Russian society increased sharply. Many scholars especially noted that the following main features were characteristic of Russian literature of that time.
1) It was synthetic literature that absorbed all the diversity of literary traditions, styles and trends of various peoples and ancient states. The overwhelming majority of scientists (A. Muravyov, V. Kuskov, V. Kozhinov) speaks of the determining influence of the Byzantine heritage in the formation and development of Old Russian literature... Their opponents (D. Likhachev, R. Skrynnikov) argue that much big role the development of Russian literature was influenced by neighboring Bulgaria, and its Old Bulgarian language became the literary language of Ancient Rus.
2) In the era Kievan Rus national literature was in the process of genre formation. If some authors (V. Kuskov, N. Prokofiev) asserted that Ancient Russia fully adopted the Byzantine genre system, then their opponents (I. Eremin, D. Likhachev) believed that only those literary genres that were directly connected with all religious dogma and the official Church, and with those worldview genres that reflected a new (Christian, not pagan) perception of the surrounding world. Therefore, only those works of early Christian and early Byzantine literature that corresponded to the level of its historical development during that period.
3) Speaking about the rich genre specificity of Old Russian literature, a number of important remarks need to be made.
First, in early middle ages literature was largely of a purely applied, utilitarian nature, therefore, many literary genres of that time - the annals, circulations, apocrypha and other works had, first of all, a cognitive orientation.
Secondly, syncretism was characteristic of Old Russian literature, i.e. interweaving of various purely literary and folklore genres, in particular epics, conspiracies, spells, proverbs, sayings, etc. In essence, historians of Old Russian literature, as a rule, distinguish church and secular literary genres separately. Church genres included “ Scriptures"," Gymnography "," Words "and" Lives of the Saints "(hagiography), and to the secular -" Princely Lives ", historical, military and didactic stories, chronicles and legends, etc. Many scholars (D. Likhachev, I. Eremin, V. Kuskov) note the fact that as literary creativity develops, there is a gradual transformation of traditional church genres, and secular literary genres undergo significant fictionalization, as a result of which the authors of works began to attach much more attention to psychological portraits of their literary characters, the motivation for their actions, etc. The literature of Kievan Rus did not yet know any fictional characters or fictional historical events, and the heroes of its works were real historical figures and real events of the past and present.
Thirdly, many works of Old Russian literature, including the Tale of Bygone Years itself, "The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky", "The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh", "The Prayer of Daniel Zatochnik", "Praise to Roman Galitsky" and many other works of a secular nature were outside the specific genre framework.
When studying the history of Russian literature of the era of Ancient Russia, scientists still argue over a number of key issues:
1) What was the specificity of the artistic method of ancient Russian literature. Some scholars (I. Eremin, V. Kuskov, S. Azbelev, A. Robinson) argue that one artistic method was inherent in Russian literature of that time. Professor S.N. Azbelev defined it as syncretic, academician I.P. Eremin - as pre-realistic, and Professor A.B. Robinson - as a method of symbolic historicism. Other scholars (A. Orlov, D. Likhachev) put forward the thesis of the diversity of artistic methods within the framework of all ancient Russian literature. Moreover, these authors argued that this diversity was noticeable in the works of the authors themselves, and in many works of various literary genres.
2) What was the style of ancient Russian literature. There are many different points of view on this score. For example, academician P.N. Sakulin said that in Ancient Russia there were two styles: realistic, or secular, and irrealistic, or ecclesiastical. Most scholars (V. Istrin, D. Likhachev, S. Azbelev, V. Kuskov) believed that the leading styles of Old Russian literature were the style of monumental historicism and the folk epic style. That is why many works of Russian literature of that time were characterized by numerous historical excursions into the past. different nations and states, discussion of complex philosophical, religious and moral problems, etc. It should be noted that, having adopted the theory of linear time and the biblical concept of the creation of the world from Byzantine chronography, many authors of that time paid great attention to practical, behavioral philosophy and moral education the brightest and most sublime feelings of their contemporaries and descendants.
3) What time should the birth of Old Russian literature be dated? Most scholars, as a rule, date the formation of Russian national literature to the first half of the 11th century, i.e. the time of the appearance of the first original works of Russian authors. Academician D.S. Likhachev argued that Old Russian literature appeared with the appearance of the first literary works, regardless of whether they were original or translated. Therefore, he dated the formation of Russian literature to the end of the 10th century.
The beginning of chronicling in Russia is directly related to the spread of literacy among the Eastern Slavs. Within the framework of this manual, the following indisputable facts of the assimilation of writing by the Slavs, including the Eastern ones, can be noted. Before the appearance of two alphabets - Glagolitic and Cyrillic - in the 9th century. the Slavs did not have a written language, which is directly reported in the Legend of the 10th century. "On the writings" of the monk Brave: "After all, before the Slavs, when they were pagans, did not have letters, but (read) and guessed with the help of lines and cuts." It is worth paying attention to the fact that the verb "read" is in parentheses, that is, in the early lists of the Legend this word was absent. Initially, it was read only "guessing with the help of lines and cuts." This initial reading is confirmed by the subsequent statement in the Legend: “When they were baptized, they tried to write down Slavic speech in Roman and Greek letters, without order. But how can you write well Greek letters"God" or "belly" (the Slavs have letters, for example - "g", which are absent in these languages). Further, the monk (monk) Brave reports about Constantine (Cyril) the Philosopher, who created the alphabet for the Slavs: "thirty letters and eight, some according to the model of Greek letters, others in accordance with the Slavic speech." Together with Kirill, participated in the creation Slavic alphabet His elder brother, the monk Methodius, also accepted: “If you ask the Slavic scribes who created the letters for you or translated the books for you, then everyone knows and answering, they say: Saint Constantine the Philosopher, named Cyril, he created the letters and translated the books, and Methodius , his brother "(Legends of the beginning Slavic writing... M., 1981). Quite a lot of their Lives, created in connection with their canonization, are known about the brothers Cyril and Methodius, the creators of Slavic writing. Cyril and Methodius are saints for all Slavic peoples. The elder Methodius (815-885) and Constantine (827-869) were born in the city of Soluni. Their father, a Greek, was one of the commanders of this city and the surrounding areas, where many Bulgarians lived at that time, therefore it is assumed that they knew from childhood Slavic language(there is also a legend about their mother - a Bulgarian). The fate of the brothers was initially different. Methodius early becomes a monk; he is known only by his monastic name. Constantine received an excellent education at that time in Constantinople, where he attracted attention for his abilities as emperor and patriarch Photius. After several brilliantly executed trips to the east, Constantine was assigned to lead the Khazar mission (861). Together with him, his brother Methodius went to the Khazars. One of the mission's goals was to spread and promote Orthodoxy among the Khazars. An event took place in Kherson (Crimea), which gave rise to endless scientific disputes in modern times. This event in the Life of Constantine is described as follows: “I found here the Gospel and the Psalter, written in Russian letters, and found a person speaking that language, and talked with him, and understood the meaning of this speech, and, comparing it with his own language, distinguished the letters vowels and consonants, and, making a prayer to God, soon began to read and expound (them), and many were amazed at him, praising God ”(Legends. pp. 77-78). It is not clear what language is meant in the expression "Russian letters", some suggest the Gothic language, others Syrian, etc. (there is no definite answer). The brothers successfully completed the Khazar mission.
In 863, at the invitation of Prince Rostislav, the Moravian mission was sent to Moravia, led by the brothers Constantine and Methodius, whose main goal was to spread Christianity among the Slavs of the Moravian state. In the course of this mission, the brothers created an alphabet for the Slavs, and Constantine "translated the entire church rite and taught them Matins, Hours, Mass, Vespers, Compline, and Secret Prayer." In 869, the brothers visited Rome, where Constantine died, before he died taking monasticism under the name of Cyril.
For a long time it was believed that our modern alphabet is based on the alphabet created by Cyril, hence its name - Cyrillic. But after doubts and disputes, a different point of view became generally accepted: Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolitic alphabet, and the Cyrillic alphabet appeared at the end of the 9th century. on the territory of Bulgaria. Glagolic writing is the original Slavic (primarily Western Slavs) writing, based on the alphabet, the origin of which has not yet been clarified. It is quite possible that this is an artificial alphabet, and therefore, it must have a clue to an explanation. It is curious that some signs found on stones and objects found in the Black Sea steppes are very similar to individual letters of the Glagolitic alphabet.
From the end of the IX century. the Slavs had two alphabets at the same time and, therefore, two written systems - Glagolitic and Cyrillic. The first was distributed mainly among the Western Slavs (Croats used this original script for many centuries), the second among the South Slavs. The Glagolitic alphabet developed under the strong influence of the Roman Church, and the Cyrillic alphabet - the Byzantine one. All this is directly related to the written culture of Ancient Rus. In the 11th century, when the first and fairly thorough steps were taken to assimilate writing by the Eastern Slavs, they simultaneously used both writing systems - Glagolitic and Cyrillic. This is evidenced by the inscriptions on the walls (graffiti) of the Cathedrals of St. Sophia in Kiev and Novgorod, which became the property of science only in the XX century, where, along with the inscriptions in the Cyrillic alphabet, there are also Glagolic ones. The Latin influence on the Glagolic writing can be judged, for example, by the "Kiev Glagolic Leaves", which is a Slavic translation of the Latin Missal. Around the XII century. the Glagolitic alphabet falls out of use among Russian people, and in the 15th century. it is perceived as one of the options for cryptography.
The adoption of Christianity under Prince Vladimir in 988 was of decisive importance in the appearance of writing among them, the spread of literacy, and the birth of an original national literature. The adoption of Christianity is the starting point of the written culture of the Russian people. For the divine services, books were needed, which were originally in churches and cathedrals. The first church in Kiev was the Church of the Virgin (the full name is the Church of the Assumption Mother of God), the so-called Church of the Tithes (Prince Vladimir gave her a tenth of all his income for the maintenance). It is assumed that it was at this church that the first Russian annalistic collection was compiled.
Studying the history of Russian chronicle writing of the 11th century, it is necessary to remember the simultaneous existence of two scripts, which had different rows of numbers, which could lead to confusion when translating numbers from Glagolitic to Cyrillic (in Ancient Russia there was a letter designation of numbers borrowed from Byzantium ).
The reading circle of the Russian people at the time of the inception of the chronicle was quite extensive, as evidenced by the manuscripts of the 11th century that have come down to us. These are primarily liturgical books (the Gospel of Aprakos, the service menaea, the paremian, the psalter) and books for reading: (The Gospel of the tetras, the lives of the saints, the collection of Chrysostom, where there are many words and teachings of John Chrysostom, various collections, the most famous of which are collections of 1073 g and 1076, Patericon of Sinai, Pandects of Antiochus Chernorizets, Parenesis of Ephraim the Syrian (Glagolitic), Words of Gregory the Theologian, etc.). This list of books and works that existed in Ancient Russia in the XI century should be expanded by those books and compositions that have come down to us in later lists. It is to such works created in the XI century, but which have come down to us in the manuscripts of the XIV-XVI centuries, that the early Russian chronicles belong: not a single Russian chronicle of the XI-XIII centuries. has not survived in manuscripts synchronous to these centuries.
The range of chronicles that researchers have used to characterize the early history of Russian chronicle writing has long been outlined. The most significant of them are noted here. In the first place are two chronicles that have come down to us in manuscripts on parchment of the XIV century. - Lavrentievskaya and Novgorodskaya Kharateynaya. But the latter, due to the loss of sheets at the beginning of the manuscript (weather records begin with a half-phrase of the news of 6524 (1016)) and because of the brevity of the text (the description of the events of the 11th century occupies three pages of printed text, and in other chronicles several dozen pages ), is almost not involved in the restoration of the first stages of chronicle writing. The text of this chronicle can be used to show one feature of the Russian chronicles, namely: years that had no news were put down in the text, and sometimes the list of "empty" years occupied a significant place in the manuscript, and this despite the fact that the parchment was very expensive material for writing ... Sheet 2 of the Novgorod Kharateynaya Chronicle is as follows:
“Into 6529. Defeat Yaroslav Brychislav.
In summer 6530.
Into 6531.
Into 6532.
Into 6533.
6,534.
Into summer 6535.
In summer 6536. The sign of the serpent appears in heaven. " Etc.
A similar arrangement of news is sometimes found in the Easter tables (determination of the day of Easter for each year). In such tables, short notes were made in the fields of the chronicle type. M.I. Sukhomlinov in the 19th century. suggested that it was from the Easter tables that the Russian tradition of designating years without event records originated. An unambiguous explanation for this has not been found, perhaps this is an invitation for subsequent chroniclers to fill these years with events according to new sources?
The second oldest Russian chronicle is Laurentian, its code: RNB. F. p. IV. 2 (the code means: the manuscript is in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg; F - the size of the manuscript (in folio) in a sheet; the letter "p" - denotes the material of the manuscript - parchment; IV - the fourth section, where the manuscripts of historical content are placed; 2 is a serial number in this section). For a long time it was believed that the text of the Laurentian Chronicle within the IX-XII centuries. the most authoritative among the rest of the annals, but as the analysis carried out by A.A. Shakhmatov, its text is very unreliable for restoring the original text of the PVL from it.
The following chronicle monuments are also involved in the restoration of early chronicle vaults: the chronicles of the Ipatievskaya, Radzivilovskaya, Novgorodskaya first junior edition (N1LM), the chroniclers of Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Suzdal and Ustyug. Not all of these monuments are considered equal. For example, the use of the last three chroniclers remains controversial for characterizing early chronicles. The assessment of the significance of the annalistic monuments has changed over time, for example, the authority of N1LM is recognized by everyone after many years of research by A.A. Shakhmatova. Its text turned out to be key for solving many issues of the Russian chronicle writing of the 11th century. The main position of the scientist is that the chronicle collection of the 70s is presented in N1LM. XI century, which preceded the PVL, presented in the Laurentian (LL) and Ipatiev (IL) chronicles.
Laurentian Chronicle according to M.D. Priselkov
In the initial part of LL and IL, the news is given without specifying any dates: the resettlement of the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, Afet), between whom the whole land was divided. Russia and other tribes were in the Afetov part. This is followed by messages about the resettlement of the Slavs, about the way from the Varangians to the Greeks, about the stay of the Apostle Andrew in Russia and about his blessing of this land, about the founding of Kiev, about the neighbors of the Eastern Slavs, about the coming of the Khazars to the Russian land. Part of this news is taken from translated Byzantine chronicles, the other part is based on legends and traditions. The initial text of Н1ЛМ differs significantly from the text of LL-IL, it opens with a small preface, which is immediately followed by the first weather record under 6362 (854) with the indication "The beginning of the Russian land", which tells the legend about the founding of Kiev, the arrival of the Khazars to the Russian land ... Н1ЛМ does not know the legend about the stay of the Apostle Andrew on the Russian land. This is followed by the news that is in the LL-IL in the introduction. The beginning of the Ustyug chronicler is closer to the text of N1LM, but there is no title, no preface, no introductory part, the chronicler begins right from the news 6360 (852) - "The beginning of Ruskiy land". The text of the Ustyug chronicler also lacks the legend about the Apostle Andrew. When comparing the beginnings of the listed chronicles, it is clear that they have significant differences. It is rather difficult to decide the question of the primary or secondary readings of one or another chronicle, especially with an established historiographic tradition that continues to recognize the primacy of the Laurentian and Ipatiev chronicles. Most often, the most weighty arguments in favor of the primacy of a particular chronicle in a given historiographic situation can be obtained with the involvement of other written sources of the 11th century. For example, when comparing the texts, it was found that the legend about the Apostle Andrew appears only in the LL-IL texts, which are based on different editions of the PVL, which was not in the earlier chronicle compilations. We find confirmation of this in the Life of Boris and Gleb, written by the monk Nestor in the 70s. XI century, where it is stated that none of the apostles on the Russian land preached and that the Lord himself blessed the Russian land.
As already noted, the most effective method for analyzing written historical sources is the comparative textological one. Only on the material obtained by comparing two or more texts with each other, you can prove your point of view. You cannot limit yourself to the results of comparing the lists of the monument you are interested in; you need to correlate them with the data of other literary and historical monuments that are synchronous with the text you are analyzing, while it is always necessary to look for the same type of phenomena and facts in the written heritage of other cultures. Let me explain the last statement by the example of the legend about the founding of the city of Kiev by three brothers Kiy, Schek and Khoriv. A.-L. Schlözer noted that the legend of the three brothers accompanies the emergence of new cities in many European countries. Comparison of the data of the Russian chronicles with the data of other cultures makes it possible to unambiguously perceive the news of the three brothers as a legend.
Comparison of the texts provides material for analysis, reveals various additional sources of the chronicler, allows us to talk not only about the methods of work of this or that chronicler, but also to recreate, restore the text written by him.
The textual analysis of any monument requires from the researcher a broad intellectual background, without the help of which the text will not reveal its content, and if it does, it will be in a distorted or simplified form. For example, to study the Russian chronicle of the XI century. it is necessary, if possible, to know all Russian manuscripts and monuments of the 11th century, as well as works of the historical genre created at that time in Byzantium and Europe.
A significant volume of chronicles makes their analysis and use much more difficult. Suppose you are interested in some news of the 11th century, in different chronicles it is read in different ways, you can understand the essence of these discrepancies only in the context of discrepancies in the entire chronicle as a whole, that is, you must understand for yourself the history of the text of the entire chronicle in order to use for its historical constructions one piece of her news. An indispensable help in this case is the work of A.A. Shakhmatova, which describes the texts of almost all Russian chronicles.
The first annals... The question of the first compilation of chronicles, of the first historical work dedicated to the Russian land, from which all the chronicles and all of Russian historiography originate, has always been one of the most difficult. In the XVII-XIX centuries. The first Russian chronicler was considered the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor, who allegedly wrote his chronicle at the beginning of the 12th century. In the second half of the XIX century. I.I. Sreznevsky suggested that already at the end of the 10th century. in Russia, some kind of historical essay was created with news about Russian history. The assumption of I.I. Sreznevsky was further developed in the works of M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnin, B.A. Rybakova and others. For example, M.N. Tikhomirov believed that at the end of the 10th century. was created in Kiev by one of the secular people "The Legend of the Russian Princes." The arguments in favor of this assumption are taken from the texts of the LL-N1LM-Ustyug chronicler. These are general arguments that run counter to such well-known facts as: that the written language of the Eastern Slavs appeared in connection with the adoption of Christianity in 988, therefore, it took time for the spread of literacy; that church people (priests, monks) were the first literate people, since the first Russian books were liturgical or theological. The indisputable fact remains that only from the XI century. written monuments of the Eastern Slavs have come down to us. The inscription on the korchaga from Gnezdovo, represented in one word ("goroukhshcha") and allegedly dated to the 10th century, cannot serve as an argument for the existence of a developed written culture, and this is what is meant when it comes to creating an original historical work.
D.S. Likhachev calls the hypothetical monument “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity” the first work devoted to the history of Russia, referring its creation to the end of the 40s. XI century
When deciding the question of the first Russian historical work, a researcher should proceed from the analysis of chronicle material, without resorting to the creation of scientific fictions in the form of hypothetical monuments. The introduction of hypothetical monuments into scientific circulation is possible, but they cannot be abused, just as one of the the most difficult questions of our historiography - the creation of the first national historical work.
The oldest annalistic collection of 1037 (1039) Most researchers agree that the first annalistic collection in Russia was created in Kiev in the first half of the 11th century. The most reasoned point of view is A.A. Shakhmatova. The key point in his argumentation was the analysis of the text of the chronicle article LL-IL 6552 (1044), consisting of two pieces of information, which allowed him to outline two stages of chronicle work in the 11th century. The first news of this year says: "In summer 6552. I scooped up 2 princes, Yaropolk and Olga, the son of Svyatoslavl, and baptized the bones with it, and I put it in the church of the Holy Mother of God." This news of 1044 was compared with the news of 6485 (977) about the tragic death of one of the brothers, Oleg, near the city of Vruchev: "And Olga was buried in the place near the city of Vruchog, and his grave is still at Vruchev's." The researcher drew attention to the expression "to this day", which is often found in Russian chronicles and is very important for the analysis of the chronicle text, and made the following assumption: it belongs to the chronicler who knew about the existence of the grave at Vruchev and did not know about the reburial of the remains of the princes in 1044 ., which means that it worked until 1044. This is how the first step was made in substantiating the annals. Further A.A. Shakhmatov and after him M.D. Priselkov specified the time of the creation of the vault, indicating 1037 as the year of foundation of the Metropolitan's chair in Kiev. According to Byzantine tradition, the establishment of a new metropolitan see was accompanied by the compilation of a historical note about this event. It was such a note that was the first annalistic compilation, compiled in Kiev, surrounded by the metropolitan in 1037. So, in substantiation of the 1037 compilation, two arguments were put: the existence of the grave before 1044 and the Byzantine tradition when drawing up documents. Both arguments are flawed. Under the grave, the researcher means a grave in the modern sense of the word - a burial pit, but the pagan grave of a prince is a mound. The burial mound (grave) could have remained even after the reburial of the remains, so the expression “to this day” in relation to the grave could have been used by any chronicler of the 11th century. and even the 12th century, who saw him near the city of Vruchev. As already noted, reference to dictionaries when analyzing chronicles is mandatory. The meaning of words changes over time. In the Dictionary of the Russian language XI-XVII centuries. (Issue 9. M., 1982. S. 229) about the word "grave" it is said: 1) a burial place, a grave mound, a mound; 2) a pit for the burial of the dead. This word is common Slavic - a hill, an elevation, a grave mound. (See: Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages: Proto-Slavic lexical fund. 19.M, 1992. S. 115-119). In the Ustyug chronicler, the reserved words of Princess Olga, spoken to her son Svyatoslav before her death, are conveyed as follows: "And Olga's commandment should not create a funeral or a grave." The argument about the establishment of a metropolitanate is also imperfect, since questions about the first Russian metropolitan, about the founding of a metropolitanate in Kiev remain controversial and unclear, that is, these data cannot be used for any statements. (See: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. T. 1. First half of the volume. M., 1997. S. 257-332.)
The solution to the question of the first annalistic collection is carried out in different directions: the assumption of hypothetical monuments, the analysis of general political and cultural events of the first half of the 11th century, the search for any indicative readings in the annalistic text. One of the directions was identified by A.A. Shakhmatov when analyzing the text “Memory and praise to Prince Volodimer of Russia, how Volodimer and his children were baptized, and the whole Rus land from end to end, and how Volodimerova’s woman was baptized, Olga, before Volodimer. Written off by Jacob ”(hereinafter -“ Remembrance and Praise ”by Jacob). This is a work of the mid-11th century. and when writing it, some kind of chronicle was used, as evidenced by the chronicle news relating to the reign of Vladimir (the spelling of the name of the prince differed from the modern one). If these annalistic news from "Memory and Praise" are put together, you get the following picture: "And Sede (Volodimer) is in the place of his father Svyatoslav and his grandfather Igor. And I killed Svyatoslav the prince of Pechenesi. And Yaroplk is sitting Kyeve in the place of his father Svyatoslav. And Olga walking with the voi near Vruch grad, break off the bridge with the voi, and Olga the boa constrictor in rowing. And Yaropalka killed Kyev's husband Volodimerovi. And prince Volodimer in the next summer after the death of his father Svyatoslav, the month of June at 11, in the summer of 6486. Krysti prince Volodymer in the 10th summer after the murder of his brother Yaropalk. And the blessed prince, who repent and wept, and Prince Volodymer, only do a great deal in trash, not knowing God. According to the holy canon, live the blessed prince Volodimer for 28 years. Next summer, walk to the doorsteps. On the third Karsun entered the city. Lay Pereyaslal for the fourth summer. In the ninth year of tithes, the blessed Christ-loving Prince Volodimer entered the church of the Holy Mother of God and on his behalf. About Tom, the Lord himself speaks: if the hedgehog is your treasure, that and your heart will be. And sleep in peace in the month of July at 15 days, in the summer of 6523 about Christ Jesus, our Lord. " (Quoted from the book: M.D. Priselkov, History of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-15th centuries, 2nd ed. SPb., 1996, p. 57.)
None of the chronicles that have come down to us contains exactly the same text. There are several discrepancies, one is the most significant: the message that Prince Vladimir took Korsun in the third summer after his baptism. All other chronicles unanimously report on the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Korsun after the capture of this city. It is assumed that in "Memory and Praise" some chronicle text that has not come down to us is reflected. But another assumption can be made: "Memory and Praise" by Jacob's opinion is one of the first historical works of Ancient Rus, it was created before the appearance of the first compilation of chronicles and the Korsun legend, which is in it, it was one of the sources of the first compilation of chronicles. It is easy to make such an assumption, but it is very, very difficult to prove it. In the historical and philological science, as well as in the exact sciences, any position must be proved, and such statements can be proved only on the basis of modern textual criticism.
The question of the first historical essay, the first compilation of chronicles has not yet been resolved, the proposed options are unproven, but we can say with confidence that such a solution will be found.
Are there irrefutable data on the maintenance of chronicles in the 11th century? Such an indication is in the text of the already mentioned chronicle article 6552 (1044), where the Polotsk prince Vseslav is mentioned as alive, and his death was reported under 6609 (1101). Therefore, the entry under 1044 was made before 1101, then there is in the XI century. until the creation of PVL. When checking the date of death (any chronological indication should be checked), it turned out that April 14 was not Wednesday either in March or September 6609. An explanation for this discrepancy has not yet been found.
On the creation of the annals in the XI century. topographical indications of Kiev buildings also speak. For example, about the place where Kiy was sitting, it is said “now is the Borichov court” (Ustyug chronicler under 6360 (852)); about the grave of Askold, who was on the mountain - “Ugorskoe is now called, but there is also the courtyard of Almel, on that grave put Alma the goddess of St. Nicholas. And Dirov's grave is behind Saint Irina "(Ustyug chronicler under 6389 (881), in LL, not" Alma ", but" Olma "). In the Ustyug chronicler under 6453 (945) we read: “... and the pristasha (Drevlyans) near Borichev, then the water was flowing, near the Kiev mountain, and to the fault of the gray people on the mountain. The city would then be Kiev, but now the court of Goryatin and Nikiforov, and the court is the princes in the city, but now the court is Wrotislavl, one outside the city. And there are other courtyards outside the city, like the courtyard of the domestics behind the Holy Mother of God over the mountain, the courtyard of the tower, where the tower is stone. " In LL, in addition to discrepancies in the names of the owners, there is a small addition - "dvor Vorotislavl and Chyudin", "Chyudin" is also in N1LM. It is difficult to say whether "Chudin" was in the original text, or was added by a subsequent chronicler. The detail is important, since this Chyudin was a prominent figure in the 60-70s. XI century It is he who, along with Mikyfor Kyyanin, is mentioned in Pravda Yaroslavichi (“Truth is set on the Rus land when Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav, Kosnyachko, Perent, Mikyfor Kyanin, Chyudin Mikula bought sympathy”). In LL 6576 (1068), voivode Kosnyachko and his court are mentioned, which confirms the approximate dating of topographic indications in the 60s of the 11th century.
Another indication of the keeping of chronicles in the 60s. the exact dating of non-church events (year, month, day) appearing at this time can serve. Under 6569 (1061) we read: “When the Polovtsy came to fight the first on the Rus land; Vsevolod Isis is opposed to the month of February on the 2nd day. "
All of the above observations made by different researchers indicate one thing - in the 60s. XI century in Kiev, a collection of chronicles was compiled. In the literature, it has been suggested that around these years the famous Hilarion, the first Russian metropolitan, worked on the chronicle.
Chronicle of 1073 The dating of events with an accuracy of the day, appearing in the text since the 1060s, the researchers attribute to the annalistic collection of 1073. Here are some of them: February 3, 1066 - the day of the death of Prince Rostislav in Tmutarakan, July 10 of the same year - the seizure Prince Vseslav Yaroslavich; September 15, 1068 - the release of Prince Vseslav, November 1 of the same year - the victory of Prince Svyatoslav over the Polovtsy; May 2, 1069 - the day of the return of Prince Izyaslav to Kiev, etc.
Chronicle of the 1070s. none of the researchers has any doubts. It was compiled in the Pechersky Monastery, which since that time has become one of the centers of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-12th centuries. The Kiev-Pechersky Monastery was founded by the monk Anthony during the reign of Prince Yaroslav the Wise. One of the first abbots were Theodosius of the Caves and Nikon, who consecrated Theodosius himself to the priesthood. It was to this Nikon that the compilation of the chronicle collection of 1073 was attributed to A.A. Shakhmatov, who drew attention to one curious circumstance. From the "Life of Theodosius of the Caves", written by the monk of the monastery Nestor in the 80s. XI century, we learn that Nikon in the 60-70s. made several trips from Kiev to Tmutarakan, where he founded the monastery of the Holy Mother of God. In the annals from the 60s. there are detailed stories about the events that took place in the distant Tmutarakan. A.A. Shakhmatov, comparing the data of the Life of Theodosius of the Caves with the annals submitted, made an assumption about Nikon's participation in the compilation of the annalistic collection of 1073. This collection ended with a description of the events of 1073 (the expulsion of Prince Izyaslav from Kiev), after which Nikon in last time fled to Tmutarakan. Tmutarakansky news The life of Theodosius of the Caves and the chronicles are unique. Basically, only thanks to them we have at least some idea of the events that took place in the Tmutarakan principality. To some extent, we owe the appearance of this news in the Life and Chronicle to chance - the biography of one of the Russian chroniclers was associated with this city. It is impossible to correlate all the news about Tmutarakan 'with Nikon, since he died in 1088, and the last event was entered in the chronicle under 1094. The question of this news and the chronicler who introduced them into his work has not yet been finally resolved. Some of the records clearly indicate, if not an eyewitness to the described events, then a person who is well acquainted with them. The events of 6574 (1066), which tell about the circumstances of the death of Prince Rostislav, are especially vividly, with knowledge of the details: “To the real Rostislav of Tmutorokan and who eats a tribute at the Kasot and in the other countries, he was afraid of the greedy people, sending a cotopan with flattery. He who came to Rostislav and entered into him, honor and Rostislav. The same drinker Rostislav with his retinue, in the words of a cotopan: “Prince! I want to go to cha pity. " On the same I ask: "Piy". He drank half of it, and half gave the prince pity, damping his finger into the cup, having mortal dissolution under his fingernail, and give it to the prince, urek death until the day of the semago. I will drink to him, but I will come to Korsun, hang him, as if Rostislav would die on this day, as if it were. This cotopana has beaten the stone of the people of Korsunstya. Bѣ Bo Rostislav is a valiant husband, a raten, grow up a lp and a blushing face, and merciful to the wretched. And I will die on the month of February on the 3rd day, and there will be the Holy Mother of God in the church. " (Cotopan is the head, leader, some kind of official in Korsun. Quoted from the book: Literature Monuments of Ancient Russia. XI - early XII century. M., 1978. S. 180.)
Chronicle Code 1093 (1095) After the vault of 1073 in the Pechersk Monastery, the next annalistic vault was compiled - 1093 by A.A. Shakhmatov at one time considered this text to be the initial one in the history of Russian chronicle writing, therefore it is sometimes called the Primary Code. The compiler of this monument, according to the researcher's assumption, was the abbot of the Pechersk monastery, Ivan, therefore it is sometimes also called the vault of Ivan. V.N. Tatishchev had a now-lost list of chronicles, in which the description of the events of 1093 ended with the word "amen", that is, an indication of the completion of the work.
In the annals of 1093, new features of record keeping appeared. The dating of events began to be given with maximum accuracy: the death of the Abbot of the Pechersk Monastery was indicated with an hour's accuracy - at 2 pm on May 3, on the second Saturday after Easter, 6582; with the same accuracy, the time of death and successor of Theodosius, the second abbot of the Caves Monastery Stephen, who became Bishop of Vladimir (in southern Russia), is indicated at 6 o'clock in the morning on April 27, 6612. All these dates of events are related to the Pechersky Monastery and were made, possibly , by the same person.
The corpus of 1093 contains a whole series of masterfully executed literary portraits. For example, under 6586 (1078) we read: “God, Izyaslav is a man with a glance of redness and greatness, a gentle temper, a crooked hate”, loving the truth. There is no more flattery in him, but just a man with his mind, not taking evil for evil. Koliko bo mstvorisha kiyane: you have driven out yourself, and you have robbed his house, and not against that evil ”(Monuments. P. 214). Or, for example, under 6594 (1086) about Prince Yaropolk: “We will receive many bad things, we will drive them out of our brothers without guilt, we will offend, plundered, other things, and death is a bitter pleasure, but honor the eternal life and peace. So byashe the blessed prince is quiet, meek, smurren and brotherly loving, giving tithes to the Holy Mother of God from all her name for the whole year, and praying to God always ... "(Monuments of the literature of Ancient Rus. XI - beginning of XII century. M., 1978. P. 218). The chronicler created a similar portrait for Prince Vsevolod in the message about his death under 6601 (1093), after which such descriptions disappear from the chronicle text for a long time.
A rare compilation of annals has as many data confirming its existence as the annalistic compilation of 1093. Here is the word "amen" at the end of V.N. Tatishchev, and a series of news about Tmutarakan, ending in the region of this chronicle article, and a double dating at the beginning of the weather record (Summer 6601, indict 1 summer ...). And, perhaps most importantly, it is here that the use of one of the extra-chronicle sources - the Paremiynik - ceases. Paremiynik is an Old Russian liturgical collection made up of various readings of the Old Testament and New Testament books; it was read during the celebration of the Liturgy or Vespers. The pareminic was used in Russian liturgical practice until the 15th century, after which it began to fall out of use. For the first time, the most complete question of the use of the Paremiynik as an extra-chronicle source in the Russian chronicle of the XI century. was developed by A.A. Shakhmatov (See: A. Shakhmatov "The Tale of Bygone Years" and its sources // TODRL. T. 4. Moscow; Leningrad, 1940. S. 38-41). The main provisions of his observations are as follows: borrowings from the Paremiynik were made by one chronicler, the borrowings can be traced back to 1093. If the first position can be disputed to some extent (the readings from the Paremiynik in the Vladimir chronicler are original and differ from borrowings in LL-IL), then the second - indisputably. After 1093, borrowings from the Paremiynik are not found in the Russian annals, therefore, this observation serves as another argument in favor of the end of the annalistic collection of 1093. Borrowings from the Paremiynik are presented in the following chronicle articles: 955, 969, 980, 996, 1015, 1019, 1037, 1078, 1093. This list of weather records borrowed from the Paremiynik can serve as good example of how one of the chroniclers, who brought his work to 1093, actively worked with the material of his predecessors, in this case, supplementing it.
Here is an example of comparing the texts of the Paremiynik (according to the XII century manuscript) and the chronicle:
This paremic reading also includes another example of borrowing, noted by A.A. Shakhmatov (Proverbs 1, 29-31 under the year 955), since he splits one whole text into two fragments.
When comparing the texts, it becomes obvious that Paremiynik was the source of the chronicle, from where the chronicler borrowed the materials he needed, and quoting them almost word for word.
Paremiya borrowings in the chronicle articles of 1037, 1078, 1093 are in extensive digressions made by one of the ancient Russian chroniclers. In the first two cases, when characterizing the personality and activities of the two princes Yaroslav and Izyaslav, and in the third case - in the story about the third invasion of the Polovtsy on Kiev (by the way, the count of the invasions of the Polovtsians stops there). All three digressions, in contrast to the rest of the borrowings from the Paremiynik, complete the weather accounts of events.
Between the chronicle collection of 1093 and the first edition of the PVL (1113), one can note the work of another chronicler - priest Vasily, the author of the chronicle article in 1097, where he announced his name, calling himself the namesake of Prince Vasilko. This article, according to M.D. Priselkov, describing the princely struggle and the blinding of Prince Vasilko, should be considered a masterpiece not only of Old Russian, but of all medieval literature.
PVL and its editions... At the beginning of the XII century. in Kiev, a compilation of chronicles was compiled, which at its beginning had an extensive heading: "Behold the timeless years, where did the Rus land go, who went to Kiev at the beginning of the first princes, and where did the Rus land begin to eat." At the time of the compilation of the first edition of the PVL, the list of princes is indicated, placed under 6360 (852), which has the following ending: "... from the death of Svyatoslavl to the death of Yaroslavl lѣ 85, and from the death of Yaroslavl to the death of Svyatopolchi lѣ 60". After Prince Svyatopolk, who died in 1113, no one is mentioned. The end of the list on Svyatopolk and the fact that after it none of the princes who ruled in Kiev were mentioned, made it possible for researchers to assert that the chronicler worked in 1113, immediately after the death of Prince Svyatopolk. He brought his work, judging by the text of LL (second edition of PVL), to the events of 6618 (1110) inclusive. It is assumed that the author of the first edition of the PVL was the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor (see about him below). Judging by the exact dating of the events to the nearest hour (1113) of the IL and the indication of the indict at the beginning of the weather record 6620 (1112), the author of the first edition of the PVL could bring the account of events to 1113 inclusive.
The beginning of the Russian chronicle according to M.D. Priselkov
The author of the first edition of PVL continued the work of his predecessor and supplemented it with various additional sources. Among them, not the last place is occupied by the stories of eyewitnesses or participants in the events. For example, the chronicler was familiar with representatives of one of the most prominent families of Kiev - the Vyshatichi. About the son of the voivode Vyshata Yana, he writes in the chronicle article 6614 (1106): “In the meantime, Yan, good old man, is dead, he is 90 years old, mastitis in old age; live according to the law of God, not a bad one, a righteous one. From him I heard a lot of words, hedgehogs and inscribed in seven chronicles, from him I heard. Bѣ Bo is a good husband, and meek, smѣren, frightening of all things, his own coffin is in the Pechersky Monastery, in the vestibule, where his body lies, the month of June is set at 24 ”. Considering the long years spent by Elder Jan, he could tell the chronicler a lot.
One of the written additional sources of the author of the first edition of the PVL was the Byzantine Chronicle of George Amartolus and his successors. The author of the chronicle collection of the 70s did not know this Chronicle, since there are no borrowings from it in the text of Н1ЛМ. The Chronicle of George Amartol is a monument of Byzantine literature of the 9th century, which tells the world history. It was compiled by the monk George and in the XI century. was translated into Russian. For the first time, P.M. Stroyev. A.A. Shakhmatov collected all the borrowings from the Chronicle in the annals, there are 26 of them. In the introductory part of the PVL, the chronicler directly pointed to his source - "To verb George in chronology." Borrowings are often literal, for example, after the reference to the chronicle of George, the text follows:
(An example of text comparison is given in the work of AA Shakhmatov "The Tale of Bygone Years" and its sources // TODRL. T. 4. Moscow; Leningrad, 1940. P. 46).
Borrowings from the Chronicle are distributed by the chronicler throughout the entire text of the chronicle, sometimes a large fragment of the work is taken, sometimes a small clarifying detail. It is impossible to find all these borrowings without knowing their source, at the same time, without knowing about them, one can accept the fact of someone else's history as an event in Russian reality.
Presumably, at the stage of creating the first edition of the PVL, contracts between Russians and Greeks (6420, 6453, 6479) were included in the text of the chronicle.
The compiler of the first edition of the PVL entered into his chronicle the news of various kinds of heavenly signs, some of which can be verified according to astronomy data. For example, under 6599 (1091) we read: "In the meantime, the sign is in the sun, as if it will be destroyed, and there is not much of it left, as the month was, in hour 2 days, the month of May 21 days." It was on this day that an annular eclipse was reported to astronomy. (Svyatskiy D.O. Astronomical phenomena in Russian annals from a scientific-critical point of view. SPb., 1915. S. 104.) Similar entries were made in the annals under 6614 (1106), 6621 (1113), 6627 ( 1115) - IL. All these records must be checked against astronomical data to determine the accuracy of the chronology of the chronicle.
The second edition of PVL is presented in LL. We learn about the time, place and circumstances of its compilation from the postscript found after the chronicle article 6618 (1110): “Hegumen Silivestr of Saint Michael wrote the books si the Writer, hoping from God to receive mercy, under the princes Vlodimer, reigning Kyev for him, and many at that time the abbess of Saint Michael in 6624, indict 9 years; and if you like to read these books, then wake up in your prayers. "
For all its brevity, this postscript requires a lot of attention, implying various kinds of verification and clarification. From the postscript it is clear that the chronicler was the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester in 6624. First of all, it is necessary to check whether the indicated chronological data correspond to each other. Yes, they do: this year, Prince Vladimir (1113-1125) was on the Kiev throne, and 6624 corresponds to 9 indications. It is also necessary to clarify each part of this postscript, paying attention to even minor details. For example, Vladimir is called a prince, not a grand duke, as his title is called in textbooks and various monographs. Is this a coincidence? No, if we turn to the primary sources (written monuments, synchronous to the analyzed time), it turns out that everywhere, with one controversial exception, there is a title - prince, and the title of Grand Duke appears only in the 13th century. Sylvester called his work "Writer", and at the beginning of the chronicle there is a different name - "Celebrate the Temporal Years ...", therefore, Sylvester probably did not own the title - PVL.
At the very first acquaintance with the postscript, it becomes obvious the need for various knowledge on the history of the Russian Church, which can be gleaned from special books. For example, it is useful to have on the table the Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary (in two volumes, pre-revolutionary edition, reprinted by reprint in 1992). Using the dictionary, you can clarify the meaning of the word "abbot" and its difference from the word "archimandrite", get a first idea of the history of Orthodox monasteries. You should definitely inquire about the name "Sylvester" - in honor of St. Sylvester the Pope of Rome (314-335) the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery was named: the Orthodox honor his memory on January 2, and the Catholics - on December 31. There is also an exhaustive work dedicated to Christian names: Archbishop Sergius (Spassky). Full Monthly Vostok (In 3 volumes. Vladimir, 1901. Reprint. 1997). Having found out the origin of the name, one should get acquainted with the biography of the abbot. You can learn about all the participants in the literary process of Ancient Rus from the dictionary: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus (Issue 1. XI - first half of the XIV century L., 1987. S. 390-391). This dictionary will give us scant facts from the life of Sylvester: after hegumenhip he was made bishop in Pereyaslavl Yuzhny, where he died in 1123. An important question in this case is the unanswered question: what was Sylvester's name before he became a monk? At a later time, there was a tradition to preserve the first letter of a secular name in the first letter of a monastic name. But it is not known whether this tradition was active in the 11th century. The Monastery of St. Michael is the Vydubitsky Mikhailovsky Monastery, located not far from Kiev on the banks of the Dnieper. Podania, it was founded by Prince Vsevolod in 1070, on the place where the idol of Perun, thrown into the Dnieper, sailed from Kiev. The church in the monastery was consecrated in 1088. The monastery, founded by Prince Vsevolod, became the spiritual center of the princely branch, the ancestor of which was Vsevolod. Almost all the princely branches had their own monasteries in Kiev or in its suburbs. During the reign of the son of Vsevolod, Prince Vladimir, in Kiev, the chronicle began to be kept in the Vydubitsky monastery, and, naturally, the chronicler, who wrote in the Vsevolodovich monastery, defended the interests of this dynasty in his work.
In Sylvester's postscript, perhaps the most key word is "write". What degree of participation in the work on the chronicle does it mean? The question, as it turns out, is not an easy one. In the XI century. “In writing” could mean and “rewrote”, that is, the work of a scribe, and, in the literal sense, “wrote”, that is, created a new original text. It was in the latter sense that one of the Russian chroniclers perceived Sylvester's postscript, inserting the following words into the description of Edigey's invasion of Moscow in 1409: “Sia, all written, even if and for someone else is seen, just like what happened in our land, is not sweet and unkind to us, but obnoxious and crawling, reclaiming and restoring to blessings and unforgettable; we are not annoyingly, nor abhorrently, nor enviously honoring the honest, such is in fact, as if we are looking at the beginnings of the Kievskii literary word, like all the temporal life of the Zemskaya, will not be obnoxious to show; but even our rulers without ruling dominate all the good and the bad that came to write; PSRL.Vol. 11. Nikon Chronicle. M., 1965. S. 211). An earlier text of this digression is in the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL. T. 15. M., 2000. S. 185). From the quote it is clear that one of the Russian chroniclers considered Sylvester the author of the Kiev chronicle, calling him a "literary word." In the scientific literature, the question of the degree of participation of Abbot Sylvester in the creation of one of the Russian chronicles remains controversial, some consider him only a scribe, others - the author of the original work.
The third edition of the PVL is presented in the text of the IL, in which, unlike Lavrentievskaya, the events after 6618 (1110) are not interrupted by Sylvester's postscript. The time of this edition is determined as follows. The researchers drew attention to the fact that one of the Kiev chroniclers under 6604 and 6622 speaks of his presence in the north, in the Novgorod land. Under 6604 (1096), we read: “Behold, I want to say, I have heard before these 4 years, even the tales of Gyuryat Rogovich Novgorod, verb sice, like“ The messengers of their youth to the Pecher, people, who are the essence of a tribute to Novgorod. And I will come to my youth to them, and from there I will go to Ougru. Ougra is the essence of human language, and they sit together with Samoѣdyu on the midnight sides ... ”(PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 224-225). This is followed by a story about what was seen in the north, about the customs of Ugra, about their legends. The expression “I have heard before now 4 years” is understood by researchers as follows: the author wrote his chronicle 4 years after his trip to Novgorod land. The answer to the question - in what year this chronicler visited the north - is the chronicle article 6622 (1114) (it is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, but absent in the Laurentian Chronicle): prince Mstislav. I came to Ladoga, killed Ladozhans ... ”(PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 277). It can be seen from the text that the chronicler arrived in Ladoga in 6622 (1114), therefore, he worked on the chronicle in 6626 (1118). The proximity of information about the north to 6604 (1096) and 6622 (1114). is obvious, both articles are about Ugra, about Samoyad, and their customs.
At the stage of creating the third edition of the PVL, the legend about the founder of the princely dynasty, Rurik, was included in the chronicle. This was convincingly shown in his studies by A.A. Chess.
What caused this legend to appear? For all the controversy of the issue of Prince Rurik, the vocation of the Varangians, written monuments of the 11th century. allow us to give the following explanation.
In some ancient Russian works of the second half of the XI century. the ancestor of the Russian princely dynasty is not named Rurik, but Oleg, sometimes Igor. Prince Rurik is unknown to either Metropolitan Hilarion or the monk Jacob. For example, in the "Word of Law and Grace" Metropolitan Hilarion calls Igor the oldest Russian prince ("We will also praise<...>the great kagan of our land Volodymyr, the grandson of the old Igor, the son of the glorious Svyatoslav "). There is no name for Rurik in the painting of the Russian princes, placed under 6360 (852), where the chronicler, speaking of the beginning of the Russian land, mentions the first Russian prince, who, in his opinion, was Prince Oleg.
Thus, various historical and literary works of Ancient Rus give us several versions about the ancestor of the princely dynasty: according to one - this is Rurik, according to others - Oleg, according to the third - Igor.
In the first centuries of Russian history, as in later times, there was a tradition to name newborns in honor of their glorious ancestors. According to the Laurentian Chronicle, 8 princes (11 according to the Nikon Chronicle) were named after Oleg in the pre-Mongol period, and 5 princes were named after Igor (6 according to Nikonovsky). In honor of Rurik, allegedly the ancestor of the Russian princely dynasty, in the entire history of Russia, only two princes are named: one in the XI century, the other in the XII century. (the number of princes named Rurik is taken from the literature on Russian genealogy).
On the basis of the chronicle material, we will try to deal with the princes who bore the name Rurik. The first mention of the real Rurik is in the chronicle article 6594 (1086): V.Z.) Przemyshl to Rurikov ... "It is believed that this Rurik, who was in Przemysl, was the brother of Volodar and Vasilko Rostislavichi. But in the chronicle article 6592 (1084), it is said not about three, but about two brothers Rostislavich ("Rostislavich has run out two from Yaropolk"). It can be assumed that the same prince is mentioned under two different names: the prince's name is Rurik, the Christian name is Vasilko. It happened in the following way: one of the chroniclers (in the first case) traditionally called the prince by the prince's name, and the other chronicler preferred to call him a Christian name. It is even possible to explain the preference of the second chronicler: he was a priest and namesake of the prince by his Christian name (under 6605 (1097), the chronicle contains a detailed story about the blinding of Prince Vasilko, recorded by priest Vasily).
No matter how the issue of the names of the prince of the 11th century was decided, the second undisputed prince Rurik, also Rostislavich, lived in the second half of the 12th century and was a descendant of Vsevolod Yaroslavich (by the way, christian name this Rurik - Vasily).
If you trace the genealogy of Rurik XI century. and Rurik of the 12th century, it turns out that they are representatives of the same princely branch, which originated from the marriage of Yaroslav the Wise with the daughter of the Swedish "king" Ingigerda: one Rurik is a descendant of Vladimir Yaroslavich, the other is Vsevolod Yaroslavich. The Icelandic sagas and annals are most detailed about Yaroslav's second marriage and his offspring: “1019. King Olav the Saint married Astrid, the daughter of King Olav of Sweden, and King Yaritsleiv in Holmgard - Ingigerd "," ... Ingigerd married King Yaritsleiv. Their sons were Valdamar, Vissivald and Holti the Bold "(T. Jackson. Icelandic royal sagas as a source on the history of Ancient Russia and its neighbors in the X-XIII centuries. // Ancient states in the USSR: Materials and research (1988-1989). ). M., 1991, p. 159). Researchers believe that Valdamar and Vissivald can be identified with the sons of Yaroslav Vladimir and Vsevolod, the third son, Holti the Brave, remains a controversial figure.
Summarizing everything known to us, we get the following results: for the first time, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise Rostislav named his son Rurik (approximately in the 70s of the XI century). Only the descendants from the marriage of Yaroslav and the daughter of the Swedish king Ingigerd have the name Rurik. At least two Russian chroniclers (priest Vasily and hegumen Sylvester), who took part in the creation of the PVL, knew well the representatives of this particular princely branch (priest Vasily is the namesake of Vasily-Rurik, and Sylvester is the hegumen of the monastery of the princely branch of Vsevolodovich) and, as one might assume , defended their political interests. One of the chroniclers, as we know, visited Ladoga. According to Icelandic sources, Ingigerda, having married Yaroslav, received Aldeygyuborg, that is, Ladoga, as a dowry.
In the second half of the XI century. there could be two legends about Rurik: a generic one associated with one of Ingigerda's ancestors (we are talking about her grandfather Erica, whose nickname Victorious is close in meaning to the name of one of the brothers of the Russian legend - Sineus; some researchers consider the word "Sineus" not a name, but one of the nicknames of Rurik and translate him as "victorious"), and the legend about the founder of the city of Ladoga. Both legends initially have a single basis - Swedish. They lack any chronology, which is typical of legends. Within the framework of Swedish history, chronological landmarks could most likely be found, but the Swedish “historical texture”, when transferred to Russian soil, completely lost these landmarks.
Two legends of the second half of the 11th century about Rurik and served as the initial material for one of the Russian chroniclers to create a legend about Prince Rurik - the founder of the Russian princely dynasty. The chronicler was a supporter of this particular princely branch, moreover, he personally knew one of the "real" Ruriks of the second half of the 11th century. The main goal of creating the legend is clear: the rationale for the primacy and, thereby, the primacy of the representatives of the princely branch, descended from the marriage of Prince Yaroslav with Ingigerda. In the Laurentian and close to it in their initial history chronicles asserts that Prince Vladimir was the eldest son of Yaroslav. Yes, to the elders, but from the second marriage. In the Ustyug chronicler, the list of the sons of Prince Yaroslav is rightfully headed by Prince Izyaslav.
This legend, as already noted, was included in the Russian chronicle around 1118 by one of the Kiev chroniclers. It was at this time that the grandson of Ingigerda, Prince Vladimir Monomakh, ruled in Kiev. The chronicler introduced the legend into the story about the beginning of Russian history created by his predecessors, taking as a basis the first mentions of Oleg and Igor.
The annalistic collection, known as the PVL, which included the legend of Rurik, is presented in almost all Russian chronicles, in connection with which the artificially created legend, consecrated by a centuries-old tradition, ultimately turned into a historical fact. In addition, the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh ruled in the northeast. In turn, the artificial historical fact became a reference point both for ancient Russian people and for researchers of modern times when they created other artificial intellectual constructions.
On the example of the legend of Rurik, one can see how the chronicler, defending the interests of one princely branch of the 12th century, actively changed the text of his predecessors, introducing artificial facts into their work, and thereby into the history of Rus. It follows that any historical fact in the chronicle requires a preliminary painstaking analysis, the basis of which is the history of the text of the chronicle as a whole and a clear knowledge of the stage at which the historical fact of interest to us was entered into the chronicle. Before attracting this or that fact, which is within the framework of PVL, for historical constructions, one should find out the textological characteristics given to it in the works of A.A. Shakhmatova.
Sources of PVL. The identification of individual non-annular sources of PVL was carried out by several generations of domestic scientists. The final work, deep and detailed, on this topic is the study of A.A. Shakhmatova "The Tale of Bygone Years and Its Sources" (TODRL. T. IV. M .; L., 1940. S. 5-150), which provides an overview and characteristics of 12 extra-annular sources. These are the following monuments and works: 1) Books "St. Scriptures ”, where, in addition to the mentioned Paremiynik, all quotations from the Psalter, the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles are noted; 2) Chronicle of George Amartol and his successors; 3) The Chronicler Soon by Patriarch Nicephorus (d. 829), which is a chronological list of the main events in world history from Adam to the death of the author. This monument would have been translated into Latin in 870, and into Slavic (in Bulgaria) at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. There is a modern research devoted to "The Chronicler Soon": Piotrovskaya E.K. Byzantine chronicles of the 9th century and their reflection in the monuments of Slavic-Russian writing ("The chronicler soon" by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus) / Orthodox Palestinian collection. Issue 97 (34). SPb., 1998). From the Chronicler Soon, the first date of Russian history was taken into the chronicle - 6360 (852), and also some data for the chronicle articles of 6366, 6377, 6410 were transferred; 4) The life of Vasily the New. This source was first pointed out by A.N. Veselovsky in 1889. Borrowing made in article 6449 (941); 5) Chronograph of a special composition - a hypothetical monument of Russian historiography of the 11th century, containing a story about world history; 6) An article by Epiphanius of Cyprus about 12 stones on the vestment of the Jerusalem high priest. The expression “Great Scythia” is taken from this work (in the introduction and in article 6415 (907));
7) "The Legend about the translation of books into the Slavic language", borrowings from it are in the introduction and in article 6409 (896);
8) "Revelation" of Methodius of Patarsky, the chronicler refers to it twice in the story about Ugra under 6604 (1096). This is the chronicler who traveled to Ladoga in 6622 (1114);
9) "The Teaching about the Executions of God" - this name was given to A.A. Chess teaching, which is in article 6576 (1068). The chronicle teaching was based on "The Word about the Bucket and the Executions of God" (it is in the Simeonovsky Zlatostruya and other Zlatostruya lists - a collection of works by various authors, including John Chrysostom ). The Insertion of the Teachings breaks the single chronicle story about the invasion of the Polovtsy and about the Yaroslavichs' attack against them (Beginning: "For the sake of our people, let God let the rotten ones on us, and the Rus princes have gotten rid of ..."). The lesson takes about two pages of text and ends with the traditional phrase in such cases: "We will return to the presented packs"; 10) Agreements between Russians and Greeks; 11) "Speech of a Philosopher" under 6494 (986); 12) Legend of the Apostle Andrew (it is in the introduction). The work on identifying citations from extra-chronicle sources was continued after A.A. Shakhmatova (G.M.Barats, N.A. Meshchersky).
Nestor- a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery is traditionally considered the author of the most significant chronicle collection of the Old Russian period - the Tale of Bygone Years. This collection, which has come down to us in the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles, was allegedly created by Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century, more precisely, in 1113. In addition, Nestor wrote two more works: the Life of Boris and Gleb and the Life of Theodosius of the Caves. After a long study of Nestor's written heritage, it turned out that many of the historical facts described in two Lives diverge from the corresponding chronicle facts: in the Life of Boris and Gleb, Prince Boris reigned in Vladimir Volynsky, and according to the chronicle he reigned in Rostov; According to the Life of Theodosius of the Caves, Nestor came to the monastery under the abbot Stephen, that is, between 1074 and 1078, and according to the chronicle article in 1051, he entered the monastery under the abbot Theodosius. There are up to 10 such examples of various kinds of contradictions, all of them have long been known in the literature, but have no explanation.
The authentic data of the biography of Nestor are few, we learn about them from the Life of Theodosius: he came to the Caves Monastery under Abbot Stephen (1074-1078) and before writing the Life of Theodosius he wrote the Life of Boris and Gleb. In the records of the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery at the beginning of the XIII century. (meaning the original edition of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon that has not come down to us) it is twice mentioned that Nestor worked on the chronicle: in the second message of the monk Polycarp to the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Akindin we read "Nester, the chronicler like wrote", and in the story Polycarp about Saint Agapit the physician - "Blessed Nester wrote in the chronicler." Thus, we see that the monks of the monastery, albeit in the form of a legend, knew about the work of Nestor to create some kind of chronicler. Note the chronicler, not the Tale of Bygone Years. To these indisputable data from the biography of Nestor, one can add one more fact, obtained by researchers when analyzing the text of the Life of Theodosius. They drew attention to the fact that the Life does not report the transfer of the relics of Theodosius in 1091, and at the same time Abbot Nikon (1078-1088) is mentioned as the acting head of the monastery. From all this, a conclusion was drawn about Nestor's work on the Life in the late 80s. XI century So, there is not much biographical information. Then the question arises, where did all the researchers of the XVIII-XX centuries come from? take other data from the biography of Nestor (the time of his birth - 1050, death - the beginning of the 12th century), including the fact of his work on the Tale of Bygone Years at the beginning of the 12th century? All these data were taken by researchers from two published in the 17th century. books, from the Patericon of the Kiev-Pechersk and Synopsis, where all the information of the chronicle articles of 1051, 1074 and 1091 was used without preliminary critical analysis to characterize Nestor. It should be noted that as the text of the Patericon changed, starting from the XIII century. and up to the 17th century, a wide variety of facts from the life of monks of the 11th century appeared in it. For example, in the edition of the Paterikon in 1637, among other additional data, a mention of the younger brother Theodosius appeared. As V.N. Peretz, this fact of the biography of Theodosius, like other similar facts, is a figment of the imagination of the publisher Paterik Sylvester Kossov. In 1661, in a new edition of the Paterikon, a specially written life of Nestor was published (at that time the local canonization of Nestor was taking place). In the Patericon, Nestor is credited with writing the entire first part of the monument, which, of course, does not correspond to reality. In the text of the Life of Nestor, no dates are indicated, his biography is characterized on the basis of chronicle articles of 1051. , 1074, 1091, the analysis of which shows that they belong to the pen of not one, but at least two monks of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, and therefore it is impossible to use the data of these articles to characterize Nestor. It is curious how the compiler of the Life of Nestor, who worked in the 17th century, managed to remove the contradiction between the message of the chronicle under 1051 about the appearance in the monastery of a 17-year-old monk under the abbot Theodosius and the Life of Theodosius about the arrival in the monastery of Nestor under the abbot Stephen: Nestor allegedly came in the monastery under Feodosia as a 17-year-old youth and lived in the monastery as a layman, and he took the monastic form under Stephen. It should be noted that outwardly such an explanation is quite convincing, but such reasoning when removing various kinds of contradictions in written historical sources- interfere with the real analysis of this source. About the time of death in the Life is reported very vaguely - "after the years of the contented, have passed away for eternity." The Life also gives a general description of the chronicle, which Nestor allegedly compiled: "I wrote to us about the beginning and the first structure of our Russian world", that is, all the first events of our history described in the chronicle belong to Nestor. An indirect indication of the time of Nestor's death is found in the first part of the Patericon, in the story about the circumstances of the introduction of the name of Theodosius into the Synodik for a nationwide commemoration, the author of this Synodik was also allegedly Nestor. This story contains the names of specific historical figures, for example, Prince Svyatopolk, who was sitting in Kiev in 1093-1113, and the date (the extreme date is 6620 (1114) - the year of the appointment of the abbot of the Caves Monastery Theoktist, on whose initiative the name of Theodosius and was introduced to the Synodikon, to the episcopacy in Chernigov). If you collect all the biographical data of the Patericon, you get a fairly complete biography of Nestor: at the age of 17 he came to the Pechersk monastery under the abbot Theodosius and until his death he lived at the monastery, remaining a layman; under Abbot Stephen (1074-1078) he was tonsured a monk and became a deacon; in 1091 he was a participant in the uncovering of the relics of Theodosius; died after 1112 About the contents of the chronicler, written by Nestor, the Patericon also gives general, but comprehensive information: the whole story about the initial history of Russia, together with the title - The Tale of Bygone Years - belongs to Nestor, he also owns all the messages about the Pechersk Monastery up to 1112. inclusive. This biography of Nestor and the characteristics of his chronicler is the result of the creative activity of several generations of monks of the Pechersk Monastery, their conjectures, assumptions, guesses, mistakes. An irrepressible thirst for knowledge, despite the complete lack of data, about one of his glorious fellows - this is the basis of the search.
All researchers of the XVIII-XX centuries, speaking about Nestor, directly or indirectly used the data of the Life of Nestor, created, as already noted, in the XVII century, while they often supplemented it on the basis of their fantasies and assumptions. For example, the day of memory of Nestor - October 27 in some books is indicated as the day of his death, which, of course, is not true. I will give one more example of how new facts from the biography of Nestor were found. V.N. Tatishchev first wrote that Nestor was born in Beloozero. As it turned out, this imaginary fact of Nestor's biography is based on a misunderstanding, more precisely, on an incorrect reading of the Radziwil Chronicle, where under 6370 (862) the following text is read in the story about Prince Rurik and his brothers: “... and the other side is on Beleozero, and the third is Truvor in Izborsk. " V.N. Tatishchev considered the wrong reading of the Radzvil Chronicle - "we have a side on Beleozero" (it must be Sineus on Beleozero) - he considered Nestor's self-characteristic. This is an erroneous opinion of V.N. Tatishchev allowed one of the Beloselsky-Belozersky princes to consider Nestor his fellow countryman.
Speaking about the Patericon, it is necessary to mention another edition of the 17th century, where for the first time various kinds of conjectures regarding the biography of Nestor appeared - Synopsis. Patericon and Synopsis were the most popular books among Russian readers of the 17th-19th centuries, thanks to them the fantastic biography of Nestor deeply entered the minds of several generations of Russian people.
If we compare the facts of his real biography and the events described by him, which are in the Life of Theodosius, with the data of the chronicle text of N1LM, it turns out that not only will all the contradictions in the works of Nestor known until recently disappear, but the unity of views expressed by him in these works will become obvious ... Nestor initially worked on the chronicle in 1076, bringing the weather description of events to 1075. In N1LM, the end of the chronicler Nestor was not preserved (in it, the description of events, more precisely, the death of Theodosius, is cut off, this happened, most likely, due to the loss of the last sheet the original), the ending is preserved in the Tver Chronicle, where we read: “Въ лто 6583<...>the abbot Stefan Demestvenikom, abbot Stefan Demestvenikom, built the stone church in the Pechersk monastery, on the foundation of Feodosievo. " The completion of the creation of the church is not indicated in the annals, but this happened in 1077.
Both in the annals and in the Life of Theodosius, Nestor draws special attention to the events that took place in Tmutarakan. It can be assumed that all the Tmutarakan news belongs to the pen of one person - Nestor. The fact that confirms the existence of the chronicler, compiled by Nestor in the 1070s, is the very existence of the chronicle text Н1ЛМ, where, after the news of 1074, we see random brief records of events, which even allowed A.A. Shakhmatov suppose the loss of the text in this place of the chronicle. The chronicler created by Nestor in the second half of the 70s. XI century, was laid at the basis of all subsequent Novgorod chronicles and therefore preserved in it in a more "pure form" than in the Laurentian and Ipatiev chronicles.
It is known that Nestor's work took place in the 70s and 80s. XI century, so it is appropriate to ask the question: did Nestor continue to work on the chronicle after the creation of his chronicler in 1076? I answer this question positively on the basis of the following observations: Nestor, when writing his work in 1076, used an extra-chronicle source - Paremiynik, the same source in the form of quotations is found in the annals until 1094, after which there are no more borrowings from it. A.A. Shakhmatov analyzed quotations from the Paremiynik and assumed that they were all made by the same author. It is quite possible that two chroniclers referred to this work. The first chronicler, who worked before Nestor, cited only the first sentences from a particular pair, while the insignificant amount of quotations did not violate the integrity of the chronicle story, quotations only made clarifications when describing the prince or the event. Nestor worked with Paremiinik in a slightly different way: all his quotes are an integral and, to some extent, inseparable part of quite extensive digressions, most often of theological content, with which he completed the chronicle articles of a particular year. When Nestor began to describe events as an eyewitness, and he made such records from the 70s to the mid-90s. XI century, then he used quotations from the Paremiynik also in voluminous digressions, most often in praises to the princes, while creating literary portraits of the "praised". Like quotes from Paremiynik, news of the events that took place in Tmutarakan can be traced back to 1094 inclusive.
The version of Nestor's biography presented in this tutorial is preliminary, but only on the basis of the restored text entered by Nestor in the Russian chronicle, it will be possible to recreate in general terms his life path, which will differ significantly, at least in chronology, from that which is widespread in literature.
Sources of : PSRL. T. 1. Laurentian Chronicle. Issue 1-2. L., 1926-1927; PSRL. T. 2. The Ipatiev Chronicle. M., 1998; The first Novgorod chronicle of the senior and junior revisions - Ed. and with the pre. A.N. Nasonov. M .; L., 1950 (reprint in 2000 as the 3rd volume of PSRL); The life of Theodosius of the Caves // Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. - Ed. prepare O.A. Knyazevskaya, V.G. Demyanov, M.V. Lapon. Ed. S.I. Kotkova. M., 1971; The Tale of Bygone Years // Literature Monuments of Ancient Rus: the beginning of Russian literature: XI - beginning of XII century. M., 1978; The Tale of Bygone Years / Preparation of the text, translation and comments by D.S. Likhachev. SPb., 1996.
Literature : Schlötser A.-L. Nestor: Russian chronicles in Old Slavonic ... Part I-III. SPb., 1809-1819; A.A. Shakhmatov Investigations about the most ancient Russian chronicle vaults. SPb., 1908; Review of Russian chronicle vaults of the XIV-XVI centuries. M .; L., 1938; Priselkov M.D. Nestor the Chronicler: An Experience of Historical and Literary Characteristics. Pb., 1923; Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Time Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Rus. M., 1971; Kuzmin A.G. The initial stages of the Old Russian annals. M. 1977; Likhachev D. S. Textology: on the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. 2nd ed. L., 1983; Danilevsky I.N. Biblicalisms of the Tale of Bygone Years // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature X-XVI centuries. Sat. 3. M., 1992. S. 75-103; Ziborov V.K. About the chronicle of Nestor. The main collection of chronicles in Russian annals. XI century L., 1995; The Romanovs and Rurikovichs (about the genealogy of the legend of the Rurikovichs) // Collection: House of the Romanovs in the history of Russia. SPb., 1995.S. 47-54.
Notes (edit)
. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicle writing XI-XV centuries. SPb., 1996, p. 166, fig. 3.
. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicle writing XI-XV centuries. SPb., 1996, p. 83, fig. 1.
When quoting the letter "ѣ" has been replaced by the letter "e".
Culture of Russia X - early XIII century.
Chronicle
Chronicles are the focus of the history of Ancient Russia, its ideology, understanding of its place in world history - they are one of the most important monuments of writing, literature, history, and culture in general. For the compilation of chronicles, i.e. weather statements of events, only the most literate, knowledgeable, wise people were taken, capable not only of presenting different matters year after year, but also giving them an appropriate explanation, leaving posterity with a vision of the era as the chroniclers understood it.
The chronicle was a state affair, a princely affair. Therefore, the commission to compose the chronicle was given not only to the most literate and intelligent person, but also to the one who could carry out ideas close to this or that princely branch, to this or that princely house. Thus, the objectivity and honesty of the chronicler came into conflict with what we call "social order." If the chronicler did not satisfy the tastes of his customer, they parted with him and transferred the compilation of the chronicle to another, more reliable, more obedient author. Alas, work for the needs of the authorities arose already at the dawn of writing, and not only in Russia, but also in other countries.
Chronicle writing, according to the observations of domestic scientists, appeared in Russia soon after the introduction of Christianity. The first chronicle may have been compiled at the end of the 10th century. It was intended to reflect the history of Russia from the time the new dynasty of Rurikovich appeared there and until the reign of Vladimir with his impressive victories, with the introduction of Christianity in Russia. From that time on, the right and duty to keep the chronicles was given to the leaders of the church. It was in churches and monasteries that the most literate, well-trained and trained people were found - priests, monks. They had a rich book heritage, translated literature, Russian records of ancient legends, legends, epics, traditions; they also had the grand ducal archives at their disposal. The best thing for them was to carry out this responsible and important work: to create a written historical monument of the era in which they lived and worked, linking it with the past, with deep historical sources.
Scientists believe that before the chronicles appeared - large-scale historical works covering several centuries of Russian history - there were separate records, including church, oral stories, which at first served as the basis for the first generalizing works. These were stories about Kiev and the founding of Kiev, about the campaigns of Russian troops against Byzantium, about the journey of Princess Olga to Constantinople, about the wars of Svyatoslav, the legend about the murder of Boris and Gleb, as well as bylinas, the lives of the saints, sermons, traditions, songs, all sorts of legends. ...
Later, already at the time of the existence of the chronicles, more and more new stories were added to them, legends about impressive events in Russia, such as the famous feud of 1097 and the blinding of the young prince Vasilko, or about the campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsy in 1111. memories of Vladimir Monomakh about life - his "Instructions for Children".
The second chronicle was created during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise at a time when he united Russia, laid the foundation for the temple of St. Sophia. This chronicle has absorbed the previous chronicle and other materials.
Already at the first stage of the creation of the chronicles, it became obvious that they represent collective creativity, are a collection of previous chronicle records, documents, various kinds of oral and written historical evidence. The compiler of the next collection of chronicles acted not only as the author of the corresponding newly written parts of the chronicle, but also as a compiler and editor. It was his ability to direct the idea of the vault in the right direction that was highly valued by the Kiev princes.
Another annalistic Code was created by the famous Hilarion, who wrote it, apparently under the name of the monk Nikon, in the 60-70s of the 11th century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. And then the Arch appeared already in the time of Svyatopolk in the 90s of the XI century.
The vault, which was taken up by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor and which entered our history under the name "Tale of Bygone Years", thus turned out to be at least the fifth in a row and was created in the first decade of the 12th century. at the court of Prince Svyatopolk. And each collection was enriched with more and more new materials, and each author contributed to it his talent, his knowledge, erudition. Nestor's code was in this sense the pinnacle of early Russian chronicle writing.
In the first lines of his chronicle, Nestor posed the question "Where did the Russian land come from, who began to reign in Kiev first, and where did the Russian land come from." Thus, already in these first words of the chronicle, it is said about those large-scale goals that the author set for himself. Indeed, the chronicle did not become an ordinary chronicle, of which there were many in the world at that time - dry, dispassionately fixing facts, but an agitated story of the then historian, who introduced philosophical and religious generalizations, his own figurative system, temperament, and his own style into the narrative. The origin of Russia, as we have already said, Nestor draws against the background of the development of the entire world history. Russia is one of the European nations.
Using the previous collections, documentary materials, including, for example, the treaties between Russia and Byzantium, the chronicler deploys a wide panorama of historical events that cover both the internal history of Russia - the formation of an all-Russian statehood with the center in Kiev, and the international relations of Russia with the outside world. Whole gallery historical figures takes place on the pages of the Nestorov Chronicle - princes, boyars, mayors, thousand, merchants, church leaders. He talks about military campaigns, about the organization of monasteries, the laying of new churches and about the opening of schools, about religious disputes and reforms in Russian life. He constantly touches Nestor and the life of the people in general, his moods, expressions of dissatisfaction with the princely policy. On the pages of the chronicle, we read about uprisings, murders of princes and boyars, brutal social battles. The author describes all this thoughtfully and calmly, tries to be objective, as much as a deeply religious person can be objective, guided in his assessments by the concepts of Christian virtue and sin. But, frankly, his religious assessments are very close to universal human assessments. Nestor condemns murder, betrayal, deceit, perjury uncompromisingly, but extols honesty, courage, loyalty, nobility, and other wonderful human qualities. The entire chronicle was imbued with a sense of the unity of Russia, a patriotic mood. All the main events in it were assessed not only from the point of view of religious concepts, but also from the standpoint of these all-Russian state ideals. This motive sounded especially significant on the eve of the incipient political disintegration of Russia.
In 1116-1118. the chronicle was rewritten again. Then reigning in Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav were unhappy with the way Nestor showed the role in Russian history of Svyatopolk, on whose order the "Tale of Bygone Years" was written in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery. Monomakh took the chronicle from the monks of the Caves and transferred it to his ancestral Vydubitsky monastery. His abbot Sylvester became the author of the new Code. Positive assessments of Svyatopolk were moderated, and all the deeds of Vladimir Monomakh were emphasized, but the main body of the Tale of Bygone Years remained unchanged. And in the future, Nestorov's work was an indispensable part of both the Kiev chronicle and the chronicles of individual Russian principalities, being one of the connecting threads for the entire Russian culture.
Later, as the political disintegration of Russia and the rise of individual Russian centers, the chronicle began to split up. In addition to Kiev and Novgorod, their chronicle vaults appeared in Smolensk, Pskov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Galich, Vladimir-Volynsky, Ryazan, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl-Russky. Each of them reflected the peculiarities of the history of their region, their own princes were brought to the fore. So, the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles showed the history of the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest; Galician chronicle of the beginning of the XIII century. became essentially a biography of the famous warrior prince Daniel Galitsky; about the Chernigov branch of the Rurikovichs was mainly narrated by the Chernigov Chronicle. And yet, in the local chronicle, the general Russian cultural origins were clearly visible. The history of each land was compared with the entire Russian history, "The Tale of Bygone Years" was an indispensable part of many local chronicle collections. Some of them continued the tradition of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th century. So, shortly before the Mongol-Tatar invasion, at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries. in Kiev, a new collection of chronicles was created, which reflected the events that took place in Chernigov, Galich, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, Ryazan and other Russian cities. It can be seen that the author of the collection had at his disposal the chronicles of various Russian principalities and used them. The chronicler knew well and European history... He mentioned, for example, the III Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. In various Russian cities, including Kiev, in the Vydubitsky Monastery, entire libraries of chronicles were created, which became sources for new historical works of the 12th-13th centuries.
The preservation of the all-Russian chronicle tradition was shown by the Vladimir-Suzdal annalistic collection of the early 13th century, which covered the history of the country from the legendary Kyi to Vsevolod the Big Nest.
The chronicle is a detailed account of specific events. It should be noted that the chronicles of ancient Russia are the main written source on the history of Russia in (pre-Petrine time). If we talk about the beginning of the Russian annals, then it refers to the XI century - the period of time when they began to make historical records... According to historians, the chronicle period dates back to the 9th century.
| http://govrudocs.ru/ |
Preserved lists and chronicles of ancient Russia
The number of such historical monuments reaches about 5000. The main part of the chronicles, unfortunately, has not been preserved in the original form. Many good copies have survived, which are also important and tell interesting historical facts and stories. Lists have also survived, which represent some narratives from other sources. According to historians, the lists were created on certain places describing this or that historical event.
The first chronicles appeared in Russia, approximately, in the period from the 11th to the 18th centuries during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. It is worth noting that at that time the chronicle was the main type of historical narration. The people who made up the chronicles were not private figures. This work was carried out exclusively by order of secular or spiritual rulers who reflected the interests of a certain circle of people.
History of Russian chronicles
More precisely, the Russian chronicle has a difficult history. Everyone knows the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years", where various treaties were highlighted, including treaties with Byzantium, stories about princes, Christian denomination, etc. Chronicle stories are especially interesting, which are story stories about the most significant events in the history of the fatherland. It should be noted that the first mention of the chronicle about Moscow can also be attributed to the "Tale of Bygone Years".
In general, medieval chronicles are the main source of any knowledge in Ancient Rus. Today, in many libraries in Russia, as well as in archives, you can see a large number of such creations. It is surprising that almost every chronicle was written by a different author. The chronicle was in demand for almost seven centuries.
| http://kapitalnyj.ru/ |
In addition, chronicle writing is a favorite pastime of many scribes. This work was considered a godly as well as a soulful work. Chronicle writing can easily be called integral element ancient Russian culture. Historians claim that some of the first chronicles were written thanks to the new Rurik dynasty. If we talk about the first chronicle, then it ideally reflected the history of Russia, starting from the reign of the Rurikovichs.
The most literate chroniclers are specially trained priests and monks. These people had a fairly rich book heritage, owned various literature, records of old stories, legends, etc. Also at the disposal of these priests were almost all of the grand ducal archives.
Among the main tasks of such people were the following:
- Creation of a written historical monument of the era;
- Comparison of historical events;
- Working with old books etc.
It should be noted that the annalistic collection of ancient Russia is a unique historical monument containing a lot interesting facts about specific events. Among the common chronicles, one can single out those that talked about the campaigns of Kiy - the founder of Kiev, the travels of Princess Olga, the campaigns of the not less famous Svyatoslav, etc. The Chronicle of Ancient Rus is the historical basis, thanks to which many historical books have been written.
Video: Slavic Chronicle in GRAMOTA
Read also:
The question of the origin of the state of Ancient Russia and to this day worries many scientists. On this occasion, you can find a large number of scientifically based discussions, disagreements, opinions. One of the most popular in our time is the Norman theory of the origin of Old Russian
Traditionally, petroglyphs are stone images that were made in ancient times. It should be noted that such images are distinguished by the presence of a special system of signs. In general, the petroglyphs of Karelia are a real mystery for many scientists and archaeologists. Unfortunately, until scientists have given
The origin of money is a very important and difficult issue that entails a lot of controversy. It is worth noting that in Ancient Rus at a certain stage of development, people used ordinary livestock as money. According to the most ancient lists, in those years very often local residents
