What features of the chronicles can you identify?
The chronicle arose back in Kievan Rus from the need of Russian society to have its own written history, and this was associated with the growth of the national self-awareness of the people. The chronicle was a historical document that included texts or transcriptions of treaty documents, wills of princes, resolutions of feudal congresses and other documents. Events of not only domestic but also world history and their interrelation became the subject of interest for chroniclers. This was especially evident in The Tale of Bygone Years, in which the question of the origin of the Russian people was explored in connection with global history. The chronicle was kept year by year, had collective authorship, and therefore in it we find diverse opinions about historical events, wider coverage, and a direct reflection of the people's point of view on these events. In it one can even notice differences in the political views and literary skills of its compilers.
Chroniclers often used folklore and book sources. One of the first chronicle collections - “The Tale of Bygone Years” - is a monument of collective creativity, on which, starting from the reign of Yaroslav the Wise in the 30s of the 11th century, more than one generation of Russian chroniclers, as a rule, monks or representatives of the princely-boyar environment, worked on it. The Monk Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, gained the greatest fame as a chronicler.
Chronicles, and especially “The Tale of Bygone Years,” allowed for a mixture of genres within one work. Thus, as part of the “Tale...” we find chronicle legends (for example, about the death of Prince Oleg from his horse, later used by A. S. Pushkin), closeness to hagiographic literature (about the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the repose of Theodosius of Pechersk) . In the depths of the chronicle, a military story begins to take shape, for example, about Yaroslav’s revenge on Svyatopolk the Accursed. The Tale of Bygone Years also included the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh. However, with all the eventual and genre mosaic of the chronicle, it is distinguished by thematic unity - the depiction of individual milestones in the history of Russia, the presentation of events in a strict time sequence. The chronological connection of events was supported in the chronicle by a genealogical line, that is, by showing the continuity of power of the Rurik princes. The chronicler necessarily points out the family relationships between the princes, whose glory each of them inherits.
The chronicles proclaim as their main ideas the assertion of the independence of Russia, the superiority of Christianity over paganism, the inseparability of Russian history from universal history, a call for unity of action in the fight against enemies, and the spiritual unity of Russian society.
Can you name the distinctive features of the “educational” genre?
In Ancient Rus', oratorical prose developed, which, in turn, is divided into solemn and teacher eloquence. Teaching belongs to teacher eloquence. Its purpose is instruction (edification), information, polemics. It is small in volume, often devoid of rhetorical embellishments, and was written or pronounced in the generally accessible, living, spoken Old Russian language.
“The monuments of didactic prose, often artless in style, contained many vivid everyday realities and scenes of “low” reality, especially in the description of human vices... Fostering Christian morality, “educational” literature condemned vices and glorified virtues, reminding believers of the Day of Judgment and the inescapable the torment that is prepared for sinners after death in hell.
Among the works of didactic eloquence, a group of “words” on the topic of “plagues of God” stands out, where any disaster that has befallen the country: drought or flood, epidemic or enemy invasion<…>regarded as Divine retribution for sins. Another group of “teachings” and “conversations” is addressed to monks and contains a number of rules that a monk must strictly follow: fasting, being meek in character, performing feats of prayer, resorting to repentance and communion as often as possible.” (L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov)
The chronicle is a detailed account of specific events. It is worth noting that the chronicles of ancient Rus' are the main written source on the history of Russia in (pre-Petrine time). If we talk about the beginning of Russian chronicles, then it dates back to the 11th century - the period of time when historical records began to be made in the Ukrainian capital. According to historians, the chronicle period dates back to the 9th century.
| http://govrudocs.ru/ |
Preserved lists and chronicles of ancient Rus'
The number of such historical monuments reaches about 5,000. The bulk of the chronicles, unfortunately, has not been preserved in the form of the original. Many good copies have survived, which are also important and tell interesting historical facts and stories. Also preserved are lists that represent certain narratives from other sources. According to historians, the lists were created in certain places, describing this or that historical event.
The first chronicles appeared in Rus' approximately 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 narrative. The people who compiled 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, Russian chronicle writing has a complicated history. Everyone knows the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years,” where various treaties were highlighted, including treaties with Byzantium, stories about princes, the Christian faith, etc. Particularly interesting are chronicle stories, which are plot stories about the most significant events in the history of the fatherland. It is worth noting that the first mention of the chronicle about Moscow can also be attributed to the Tale of Bygone Years.
In general, the main source of any knowledge in Ancient Rus' is medieval chronicles. Today, in many Russian libraries, 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. Chronicle writing has been in demand for almost seven centuries.
| http://kapitalnyj.ru/ |
In addition, chronicle writing is a favorite pastime of many scribes. This work was considered godly, as well as spiritually beneficial. Chronicle writing can easily be called an integral element of 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, it ideally reflected the history of Rus', starting from the reign of the Rurikovichs.
The most competent chroniclers can be called specially trained priests and monks. These people had a fairly rich book heritage, owned various literature, records of ancient stories, legends, etc. Also, these priests had almost all the grand ducal archives at their disposal.
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 is worth noting that the annals of ancient Rus' are a unique historical monument containing a lot of interesting facts about specific events. Among the widespread chronicles, one can highlight those that told about the campaigns of Kiy - the founder of Kyiv, the travels of Princess Olga, the campaigns of the equally famous Svyatoslav, etc. The Chronicles of Ancient Rus' are the historical basis thanks to which many historical books have been written.
Video: SLAVIC CHRONICLE in CHARTERS
Read also:
The question of the origin of the state of Ancient Rus' worries many scientists to this day. On this subject, you can find a large number of scientifically based discussions, disagreements, and opinions. One of the most popular in our time is the Norman theory of the origin of Old Russian
Traditionally, petroglyphs are images on stone that were made in ancient times. It is worth noting 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, scientists have not yet given
The origin of money is a very important and difficult issue that entails a lot of disagreement. It is worth noting that in Ancient Rus', at a certain stage of development, people used ordinary cattle as money. According to the oldest lists, in those years very often local residents
The history of chronicles in Rus' goes back to the distant past. It is known that writing arose before the 10th century. The texts were written, as a rule, by representatives of the clergy. It is thanks to ancient writings that we know. But what was the name of the first Russian chronicle? Where did it all start? Why is it of great historical significance?
What was the name of the first Russian chronicle?
Everyone should know the answer to this question. The first Russian chronicle was called “The Tale of Bygone Years.” It was written in 1110-1118 in Kyiv. Linguistic scientist Shakhmatov revealed that she had predecessors. However, this is still the first Russian chronicle. It is called confirmed, reliable.
The story describes a chronicle of events that occurred over a certain period of time. It consisted of articles that described each past year.
Author
The monk described events from biblical times to 1117. The title of the first Russian chronicle is the first lines of the chronicle.
History of creation
The chronicle had copies made after Nestor, which were able to survive to this day. They weren't very different from each other. The original itself was lost. According to Shchakhmatov, the chronicle was rewritten just a few years after its appearance. Big changes were made to it.
In the 14th century, the monk Lawrence rewrote the work of Nestor, and it is this copy that is considered the most ancient that has survived to our time.
There are several versions of where Nestor got the information for his chronicle. Since the chronology goes back to ancient times, and articles with dates appeared only after 852, many historians believe that the monk described the old period thanks to the legends of people and written sources in the monastery.
She corresponded often. Even Nestor himself rewrote the chronicle, making some changes.
The interesting thing is that in those days the scripture was also a code of laws.
The Tale of Bygone Years described everything: from exact events to biblical legends.
The purpose of the creation was to write a chronicle, record events, restore chronology in order to understand where the Russian people come from and how Rus' was formed.
Nestor wrote that the Slavs appeared a long time ago from the son of Noah. Noah had three in total. They divided three territories among themselves. One of them, Japheth, received the northwestern part.
Then there are articles about the princes, the East Slavic tribes that descended from the Noriks. It is here that Rurik and his brothers are mentioned. It is said about Rurik that he became the ruler of Rus' by founding Novgorod. This explains why there are so many supporters of the Norman theory of the origin of princes from the Rurikovichs, although there is no factual evidence.
It tells about Yaroslav the Wise and many other people and their reign, about wars and other significant events that shaped the history of Rus' and made it what we know it now.
Meaning
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is of great importance today. This is one of the main historical sources on which historians conduct research. Thanks to her, the chronology of that period has been restored.
Since the chronicle has an open genre, ranging from stories of epics to descriptions of wars and weather, one can understand a lot about the mentality and ordinary life of the Russians who lived at that time.
Christianity played a special role in the chronicle. All events are described through the prism of religion. Even the deliverance from idols and the adoption of Christianity are described as a period when people got rid of temptations and ignorance. And the new religion is light for Rus'.
In the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library, along with other most valuable manuscripts, there is kept a chronicle called Lavrentievskaya, named after the man who copied it in 1377. “I am (I am) a bad, unworthy and sinful servant of God, Lavrentiy (monk),” we read on the last page.
This book is written in “ charters", or " veal“, - that’s what they called in Rus' parchment: specially treated calf leather. The chronicle, apparently, was read a lot: its pages are worn out, in many places there are traces of wax drops from candles, in some places the beautiful, even lines that at the beginning of the book ran across the entire page, then divided into two columns, have been erased. This book has seen a lot in its six hundred years of existence.
The Manuscript Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg houses Ipatiev Chronicle. It was transferred here in the 18th century from the Ipatiev Monastery, famous in the history of Russian culture, near Kostroma. It was written in the 14th century. This is a large book, heavily bound from two wooden boards covered with darkened leather. Five copper “bugs” decorate the binding. The entire book is handwritten in four different handwritings, meaning four scribes worked on it. The book is written in two columns in black ink with cinnabar (bright red) capital letters. The second page of the book, on which the text begins, is especially beautiful. It is all written in cinnabar, as if it were on fire. Capital letters, on the contrary, are written in black ink. The scribes worked hard to create this book. They set to work with reverence. “Russian Chronicler and God make peace. Good Father,” the scribe wrote before the text.
The oldest list of the Russian chronicle was made on parchment in the 14th century. This Synodal list Novgorod First Chronicle. It can be seen in the Historical Museum in Moscow. It belonged to the Moscow Synodal Library, hence its name.
It's interesting to see the illustrated Radzivilovskaya, or Koenigsberg Chronicle. At one time it belonged to the Radzivils 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-character at the end of the 15th century, apparently in Smolensk. Half-rest - a handwriting that is faster and simpler than the solemn and slow charter, but also very beautiful.
Radzivilov Chronicle decorates 617 miniatures! 617 color drawings - bright, cheerful colors - illustrate what is described on the pages. Here you can see troops marching with banners flying, battles, and sieges of cities. Here the princes are depicted seated on “tables” - the tables that served as the throne actually resemble today’s small tables. And before the prince stand ambassadors with scrolls of speeches in their hands. The fortifications of Russian cities, bridges, towers, walls with “fences”, “cuts”, that is, dungeons, “vezhi” - nomadic tents - all this can be clearly imagined from the slightly naive drawings of the Radzivilov Chronicle. And what can we say about weapons and armor - they are depicted here in abundance. No wonder one researcher called these miniatures “windows into a vanished world.” The ratio of drawings and sheets, drawings and text, text and fields is very important. Everything is done with great taste. After all, every 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 more ancient chronicles that have not reached 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 is followed by a message about what happened in this “summer,” that is, the year. (The years were counted “from the creation of the world,” and to obtain a date according to modern chronology, one must subtract the number 5508 or 5507.) The messages were long, detailed stories, and there were also very short ones, like: “In the summer of 6741 (1230) signed (written ) there was a church of the Holy Mother of God in Suzdal and it was paved with various types of marble”, “In the summer of 6398 (1390) there was a pestilence in Pskov, as if (how) there had never been such a thing; where they dug up one, put five and ten there,” “In the summer of 6726 (1218) there was silence.” They also wrote: “In the summer of 6752 (1244) there was nothing” (that is, there was nothing).
If several events occurred in one year, the chronicler connected them with the words: “in the same summer” or “of the same summer.”
Entries related to the same year are called an article. The articles were in a row, highlighted only by a red line. The chronicler gave titles to only some of them. These are the stories about Alexander Nevsky, Prince Dovmont, the Battle of the Don and some others.
At first glance, it may seem that the chronicles were kept like this: year after year, more and more new entries were added, as if beads were strung on one thread. However, it is not.
The chronicles that have reached us are very complex works of Russian history. The chroniclers were publicists and historians. They were worried not only about contemporary events, but also about the fate of their homeland in the past. They made weather records of what happened during their lifetimes, and added to the records of previous chroniclers with new reports that they found in other sources. 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, the result was “ vault“.
Let's take an example. The story of the Ipatiev Chronicle about the struggle of Izyaslav Mstislavich with Yuri Dolgoruky for Kyiv in 1151. There are three main participants in this story: Izyaslav, Yuri and Yuri’s son - Andrei Bogolyubsky. Each of these princes had their own chronicler. The chronicler of Izyaslav Mstislavich admired the intelligence and military cunning of his prince. The chronicler of Yuri described in detail how Yuri, being unable to pass down the Dnieper past Kyiv, sent his boats across Lake Dolobskoe. Finally, the chronicle of Andrei Bogolyubsky describes Andrei’s valor in battle.
After the death of all participants in the events of 1151, their chronicles came to the chronicler of the new Kyiv prince. He combined their news in his code. The result was a vivid and very complete story.
But how did researchers manage to identify more ancient vaults from later chronicles?
This was helped by the work method of the chroniclers themselves. Our ancient historians treated the records of their predecessors with great respect, since they saw in them a document, a living testimony of “what happened before.” Therefore, they did not alter the text of the chronicles they received, but only selected the news that interested them.
Thanks to the careful attitude towards the work of predecessors, the news of the 11th-14th centuries was preserved almost unchanged even in relatively later chronicles. This allows them to be highlighted.
Very often, chroniclers, like real scientists, indicated where they received the news from. “When I came to Ladoga, the Ladoga residents told me...”, “I heard this from a self-witness,” they wrote. Moving from one written source to another, they noted: “And this is from another chronicler” or: “And this is 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 Slavs’ campaign against the Greeks: “This is written about in the miracles of Stephen of Sourozh.”
From its very inception, chronicle writing was not a personal matter for individual chroniclers, who, in the quiet of their cells, in solitude and silence, recorded the events of their time.
Chroniclers were always in the thick of things. They sat in the boyar council and attended the meeting. They fought “beside the stirrup” of their prince, accompanied him on campaigns, and were eyewitnesses and participants in sieges of cities. Our ancient historians carried out embassy assignments and monitored the construction of city fortifications and temples. They 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, and abbots took part in the chronicle writing. But among them there were also simple monks and priests of city parish churches.
Chronicle writing was caused by social necessity and met social demands. It was carried out at the behest of one or another prince, or bishop, or mayor. It reflected the political interests of equal centers - the principality of cities. They captured the intense struggle of different social groups. The chronicle has never been dispassionate. She testified to merits and virtues, she accused of violations of rights and legality.
Daniil Galitsky turns to the chronicle to testify to the betrayal of the “flattering” boyars, who “called Daniel a prince; and they themselves held the whole land.” At the critical moment of the struggle, Daniil’s “printer” (custodian of the seal) went to “cover up the robberies of the wicked boyars.” A few years later, Daniil’s son Mstislav ordered the treason of the inhabitants of Berestya (Brest) to be entered into the chronicle, “and I wrote down their sedition in the chronicle,” writes the chronicler. The entire collection of Daniil Galitsky and his immediate successors is a story about sedition and “many rebellions” of “crafty boyars” and about the valor of the Galician princes.
Things were different in Novgorod. The boyar party won there. Read the entry in 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, which had previously been conducted under the auspices of Vsevolod and his father Mstislav the Great, was revised.
The previous name of the chronicle, “Russian temporary book,” was changed into “Sofia temporary book”: the chronicle was kept at St. Sophia Cathedral, the main public building of Novgorod. Among some additions, a note was made: “First the Novgorod volost, and then the Kiev volost.” With the antiquity of the Novgorod “volost” (the word “volost” meant both “region” and “power”), the chronicler substantiated the independence of Novgorod from Kyiv, its right to elect and expel princes at will.
The political idea of each code was expressed in its own way. It is expressed very clearly in the arch of 1200 by Abbot Moses of the Vydubitsky Monastery. The code was compiled in connection with the celebration of the completion of a grandiose engineering structure at that time - a stone wall to protect the mountain near the Vydubitsky Monastery from erosion by the waters of the Dnieper. You might be interested to read the details.
The wall was erected at the expense of Rurik Rostislavich, the Grand Duke of Kyiv, who had “an insatiable love for the building” (for creation). The prince found “an artist suitable for such a task”, “not a simple master”, Pyotr Milonega. When the wall was “completed,” Rurik and his whole family came to the monastery. After praying “for the acceptance of his work,” he created “no small feast” and “fed the abbots and every church rank.” At this celebration, Abbot Moses gave an inspired speech. “Wonderfully today our eyes see,” he said. “For many who lived before us wanted to see what we see, but did not see, and were not worthy to hear.” Somewhat self-deprecatingly, according to the custom of that time, the abbot turned to the prince: “Accept our rudeness as a gift of words to praise the virtue of your reign.” He further said about the prince that his “autocratic power” shines “more (more) than the stars of heaven,” it is “known not only in the Russian ends, but also by those in the sea far away, for the glory of his Christ-loving deeds has spread throughout the whole earth.” “Standing not on the shore, but on the wall of your creation, I sing to you a song of victory,” exclaims the abbot. He calls the construction of the wall a “new miracle” and says that the “Kyians,” that is, the inhabitants of Kiev, are now standing on the wall and “from everywhere joy enters their souls and it seems to them that they have reached the sky” (that is, that they are soaring in the air).
The abbot's speech is an example of the high florid, that is, oratorical, art of that time. It ends with the vault of Abbot Moses. The glorification of Rurik Rostislavich is associated with admiration for the skill of Peter Miloneg.
Chronicles were given great importance. Therefore, the compilation of each new code was associated with an important event in the social life of that time: with the accession of the prince to the table, the consecration of the cathedral, the establishment of the episcopal see.
The chronicle was an official document. It was referred to during various types of negotiations. For example, the Novgorodians, concluding a “row”, that is, an agreement, with the new prince, reminded him of “antiquity and duties” (customs), about the “Yaroslavl charters” and their rights recorded in the Novgorod chronicles. Russian princes, going to the Horde, took chronicles with them and used them to justify their demands and resolve disputes. Zvenigorod Prince Yuri, the son of Dmitry Donskoy, proved his rights to reign in Moscow “with chroniclers and old lists and the spiritual (testament) of his father.” People who could “speak” from the chronicles, that is, knew their contents well, were highly valued.
The chroniclers themselves understood that they were compiling a document that was supposed to preserve in the memory of descendants what they witnessed. “And this will not be forgotten in the last generations” (in the next generations), “Let us leave it to those who live after us, so that it will not be completely forgotten,” they wrote. They confirmed the documentary nature of the news with documentary material. They used diaries of campaigns, reports of “watchmen” (scouts), letters, various kinds diplomas(contractual, spiritual, that is, wills).
Certificates always impress with their authenticity. In addition, they reveal details of everyday life, and sometimes the spiritual world of the people of Ancient Rus'.
Such, for example, is the charter of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich (nephew of Daniil Galitsky). This is a will. It was written by a terminally ill man who understood that his end was near. The will concerned the prince's wife and his stepdaughter. There was a custom in Rus': after the death of her husband, the princess was tonsured into a monastery.
The letter begins like this: “Behold (I) Prince Vladimir, son Vasilkov, grandson Romanov, am writing a letter.” The following lists the cities and villages that he gave to the princess “according to his belly” (that is, after life: “belly” meant “life”). At the end, the prince writes: “If she wants to go to the monastery, let her go, if she doesn’t want to go, but as she pleases. I can’t stand up to see what someone will do to my stomach.” Vladimir appointed a guardian for his stepdaughter, but ordered him “not to forcefully give her in marriage to anyone.”
Chroniclers inserted into the vaults works of various genres - teachings, sermons, lives of saints, historical stories. Thanks to the use of diverse material, the chronicle became a huge encyclopedia, including information about the life and culture of Rus' at that time. “If you want to know 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 “Kievo-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 extremely grateful to the people who have preserved information about the past for us. Everything we can learn about them is extremely valuable to us. We are especially touched 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 identified themselves. But sometimes, as if having forgotten themselves, they talk about themselves in the first person. “It happened to me, a sinner, to be right there,” they write. “I heard many words, hedgehog (which) I wrote down in this chronicle.” Sometimes chroniclers add information about their lives: “That same summer they made me priest.” This entry about himself was made by the priest of one of the Novgorod churches, German Voyata (Voyata is an abbreviation for the pagan name Voeslav).
From the chronicler’s references to himself in the first person, we learn whether he was present at the event described or heard about what happened from the lips of “self-witnesses”; 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 there were guards standing at the city gates, “and others on the other side,” and we understand that this is written by a resident of the Sofia side, where there was a “city,” that is, the Detinets, the Kremlin, and the right, Trade side was “other”, “she is me”.
Sometimes the presence of a chronicler is felt in the description of natural phenomena. He writes, for example, how the freezing Rostov Lake “howled” and “knocked,” and we can imagine that he was somewhere on the shore at that time.
It happens that the chronicler reveals himself in a rude vernacular. “And he lied,” writes a Pskovite about one prince.
The chronicler constantly, without even mentioning himself, still seems to be invisibly present on the pages of his narrative and forces us to look through his eyes at what was happening. The voice of the chronicler is especially clear in the lyrical digressions: “Oh woe, brothers!” or: “Who will 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, the Novgorodian chronicler, speaking about how one of the mayors was removed from his post, adds: “Whoever 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 very high moral standards. He is constantly concerned about questions of good and evil. He is sometimes happy, sometimes indignant, praising some and blaming others.
The subsequent “compiler” combines the contradictory points of view of his predecessors. The presentation becomes fuller, more versatile, and calmer. An epic image of a chronicler grows in our minds - 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 ancient times. Thus, in the Moscow Chronicle under 1409, the chronicler recalls the “initial chronicler of Kyiv,” who “shows without hesitation” all the “temporary riches” of the earth (that is, all the vanity of the earth) and “without anger” describes “everything good and bad.”
Not only chroniclers, but also simple scribes worked on chronicles.
If you look at an ancient Russian miniature depicting a scribe, you will see that he is sitting on “ chair” with a footstool and holds on his knees a scroll or a pack of sheets of parchment or paper folded two to four times, on which he writes. In front of him on a low table there is an inkwell and a sandbox. In those days, wet ink was sprinkled with sand. Right there on the table there is a pen, a ruler, a knife for mending feathers and cleaning up faulty places. There is a book on the stand from which he is copying.
The work of a scribe required a lot of stress and attention. Scribes often worked from dawn to dark. They were hampered by fatigue, illness, hunger and the desire to sleep. To distract themselves a little, they wrote notes in 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 drowsiness and is afraid that he will make a mistake. And then you come across a “dashing pen, you can’t help but write with it.” Under the influence of hunger, the scribe made mistakes: instead of the word “abyss” he wrote “bread”, instead of “font” - “jelly”.
It is not surprising that the scribe, having completed the last page, conveys his joy with a postscript: “Like the hare is happy, he escaped the snare, so is the scribe happy, having completed the last page.”
Monk Lawrence made a long and very figurative note after finishing his work. In this postscript one can feel the joy of accomplishing a great and important deed: “The merchant rejoices when he has made the purchase, and the helmsman rejoices in the calm, and the wanderer has come to his fatherland; The book writer rejoices in the same way when he reaches the end of his books. Likewise, I am a bad, unworthy and sinful servant of God Lavrentiy... And now, gentlemen, fathers and brothers, what (if) where he described or copied, or did not finish writing, honor (read), correcting God, sharing (for God's sake), and not damn it, it’s too old (since) the books are dilapidated, but the mind is young, it hasn’t reached.”
The oldest Russian chronicle that has come down to us is called “The Tale of Bygone Years”. He brings his account up to the second decade of the 12th century, but it has reached us only in copies of the 14th and subsequent centuries. The composition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” dates back to the 11th - early 12th centuries, to the time when the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was relatively united. That is why the authors of “The Tale” had such a wide coverage of events. They were interested in issues that were important for all of Rus' 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 became independent principalities. Each principality has its own political and economic interests. They are beginning to compete with Kyiv. Every capital city strives to imitate the “mother of Russian cities.” The achievements of art, architecture and literature in Kyiv turn out to be a model for regional centers. The culture of Kyiv, spreading to all regions of Rus' in the 12th century, fell on prepared soil. Each region previously had its own original traditions, its own artistic skills and tastes, which went back to deep pagan antiquity and were closely connected with folk ideas, affections, and customs.
From the contact of the somewhat aristocratic culture of Kyiv with the folk culture of each region, a diverse ancient Russian art grew, unified both thanks to the Slavic community and thanks to the common model - Kyiv, but everywhere different, original, unlike its neighbor.
In connection with the isolation of the Russian principalities, chronicles are also expanding. It develops in centers where, until the 12th century, only scattered records were kept, for example, in Chernigov, Pereyaslav Russky (Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky), Rostov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Ryazan and other cities. Each political center now felt an urgent need to have its own chronicle. The chronicle has become a necessary element of culture. It was impossible to live without your cathedral, without your monastery. In the same way, it was impossible to live without one’s chronicle.
The isolation of lands affected the nature of chronicle writing. The chronicle becomes narrower in the scope of events, in the outlook of the chroniclers. It closes itself within the framework of its political center. But even during this period of feudal fragmentation, all-Russian unity was not forgotten. In Kyiv they were interested in the events that took place in Novgorod. Novgorodians looked closely at what was happening in Vladimir and Rostov. The Vladimir residents were worried about the fate of Pereyaslavl Russky. And of course, all regions turned to Kyiv.
This explains that in the Ipatiev Chronicle, that is, in the South Russian code, we read about events that took place in Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, etc. In the northeastern arch - the Laurentian Chronicle - it tells about what happened in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl Russian, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky and other principalities.
The Novgorod and Galicia-Volyn chronicles are more confined to the narrow confines of their land than others, but even there we will find news about all-Russian events.
Regional chroniclers, compiling their codes, 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 our historians’ consciousness of all-Russian unity.
The most colorful and artistic presentation was in the 12th century. Kyiv 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 Kyiv Chronicle is a princely chronicle. There are many stories in it in which the main character was one or another prince.
Before us are stories about princely crimes, about breaking oaths, about the destruction of the possessions of warring princes, about the despair of the inhabitants, about the destruction of enormous artistic and cultural values. Reading the Kyiv Chronicle, we seem to hear the sounds of trumpets and tambourines, the crack of breaking spears, and see clouds of dust hiding both horsemen and foot soldiers. But the overall meaning of all these moving, intricate stories is deeply humane. The chronicler persistently praises those princes who “do not like bloodshed” and at the same time are filled with valor, the desire to “suffer” for the Russian land, “with all their hearts they wish it well.” In this way, the chronicle ideal of the prince is created, which corresponds to the people's ideals.
On the other hand, in the Kyiv Chronicle there is an angry condemnation of order breakers, oathbreakers, and princes who begin needless bloodshed.
Chronicle writing in Novgorod the Great began in the 11th century, but finally took shape in the 12th century. Initially, as in Kyiv, it was a princely chronicle. The son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, did especially a lot for the Novgorod Chronicle. After him, the chronicle was kept at the court of Vsevolod Mstislavich. But the Novgorodians expelled Vsevolod in 1136, and a veche boyar republic was established in Novgorod. The chronicle was transferred to the court of the Novgorod ruler, that is, the archbishop. It was held at the Hagia Sophia and in some city churches. But this did not make it at all ecclesiastical.
The Novgorod chronicle has all its roots in the people. It is rude, figurative, sprinkled with proverbs and even in its writing retains the characteristic “clack” sound.
Most of the story is told in the form of short dialogues, in which there is not a single extra word. Here is a short story about the dispute between Prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, the son of Vsevolod the Big Nest, and the Novgorodians because the prince wanted to remove the Novgorod mayor Tverdislav, whom he disliked. This dispute took place on the veche square in Novgorod in 1218.
“Prince Svyatoslav sent his thousand to the assembly, speaking (saying): “I can’t be with Tverdislav and I’m taking away the mayorship from him.” The Novgorodians asked: “Is it his fault?” He said: “Without guilt.” Speech Tverdislav: “I am glad that I am not guilty; and you, brothers, are in the posadnichestvo and in the princes” (that is, Novgorodians have the right to give and remove posadnichestvo, invite and expel princes). The Novgorodians answered: “Prince, he has no wife, you kissed the cross for us without guilt, do not deprive your husband (do not remove him from office); and we bow to you (we bow), and here is our mayor; but we won’t go into that” (otherwise we won’t agree to that). And there will be peace.”
This is how the Novgorodians briefly and firmly defended their mayor. The formula “We bow to you” did not mean bowing with a request, but, on the contrary, we bow and say: go away. Svyatoslav understood this perfectly.
The Novgorod chronicler describes veche unrest, changes of princes, and the construction of churches. He is interested in all the little things in life in his hometown: the weather, crop shortages, fires, prices for bread and turnips. The Novgorodian chronicler even talks about the fight against the Germans and Swedes in a businesslike, brief manner, 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 12th century, chronicle writing began in the northeast - in Rostov and Vladimir. This chronicle was included in the codex rewritten by Lawrence. It also opens with the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which came to the northeast from the south, but not from Kyiv, but from Pereyaslavl Russky, the patrimony of Yuri Dolgoruky.
The Vladimir chronicle was written at the court of the bishop at the Assumption Cathedral, built by Andrei Bogolyubsky. This left its mark on him. It contains a lot of teachings and religious reflections. The heroes say long prayers, but rarely have lively and short conversations with each other, of which there are so many in the Kyiv and especially in the Novgorod Chronicle. The Vladimir Chronicle is rather dry and at the same time verbose.
But in the Vladimir chronicles, the idea of the need to gather the Russian land in one center was heard more powerfully 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 Rus', Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest of Vladimir was awarded the title of Grand Duke. 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, and a kind family man. The Vladimir chronicle is becoming more and more solemn, just as the Vladimir cathedrals are solemn, but it lacks the high artistic skill that the Vladimir architects achieved.
Under the year 1237, in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the words burn like cinnabar: “The Battle of Batyevo.” In other chronicles it is also highlighted: “Batu’s army.” After the Tatar invasion, chronicle writing stopped 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 message, but does not freeze.
The main theme of Russian chronicles of the 13th century is the horrors of the Tatar invasion and the subsequent yoke. Against the background of rather meager records, the story about Alexander Nevsky, written by a southern Russian chronicler in the traditions of Kyiv chronicles, stands out.
The Vladimir Grand Ducal Chronicle goes to Rostov, which suffered less from the defeat. Here the chronicle was kept at the court of Bishop Kirill and Princess Maria.
Princess Maria was the daughter of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov, who was killed in the Horde, and the widow of Vasilko of Rostov, 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 “honored Prince Alexander with love.” Maria was present at the last minutes of the life of Alexander Nevsky's brother, Dmitry Yaroslavich, when, according to the custom of that time, he was tonsured into the Chernetsy and into the schema. Her death is described in the chronicle in the way that the death of only prominent princes was usually described: “That same summer (1271) there was a sign in the sun, as if all of him would perish before lunch and the pack would be filled (again). (You understand, we are talking about a solar eclipse.) The same winter, the blessed, Christ-loving princess Vasilkova passed away on the 9th day of December, as (when) the liturgy is sung throughout the city. And he will betray the 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 the Holy Savior, Bishop Ignatius and the abbots, and the priests, and the clergy, sang the usual hymns over her and buried her at the Holy Savior, in her monastery, with many tears."
Princess Maria continued the work of her father and husband. On her instructions, the life of Mikhail of Chernigov was compiled in Rostov. She built a church in Rostov “in his name” and established a church holiday for him.
The chronicle of Princess Maria is imbued with the idea of the need to stand firmly for the faith and independence of the homeland. It tells about the martyrdom of Russian princes, steadfast in the fight against the enemy. This is how Vasilek of Rostov, Mikhail of Chernigov, and the Ryazan prince Roman were bred. After a description of his fierce execution, there is an appeal to the Russian princes: “O beloved Russian princes, do not be seduced by the empty and deceptive glory of this world..., love truth and long-suffering and purity.” The novel is set as an example for the Russian princes: through martyrdom he acquired the kingdom of heaven together “with his relative Mikhail of Chernigov.”
In the Ryazan chronicle of the time of the Tatar invasion, events are viewed from a different angle. It accuses the princes of being the culprits of the misfortunes of the Tatar devastation. The accusation primarily concerns the Vladimir prince Yuri Vsevolodovich, who did not listen to the pleas of the Ryazan princes and 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 placed bewilderment and thunder and fear and trembling in us for our sins.” The chronicler expresses the idea that Yuri “prepared the way” for the Tatars with princely strife, the Battle of Lipetsk, and now for these sins the Russian people are suffering God’s execution.
At the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century, chronicles developed in cities that, having advanced at this time, began to challenge each other for the great reign.
They continue the idea of the Vladimir chronicler about the supremacy of his principality in the Russian land. Such cities were Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and Moscow. Their vaults differ in width. They combine chronicle material from 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 Vasilyevich, who “honestly and menacingly harrowed (defended) his fatherland from princes stronger than himself,” that is, from the princes of Moscow. Under his son, Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich, the second archbishopric in Rus' was established in Nizhny Novgorod. Before this, only the Bishop of Novgorod had the rank of archbishop. The archbishop was subordinate in ecclesiastical terms directly to the Greek, that is, the Byzantine patriarch, while the bishops were subordinate to the Metropolitan of All Rus', who at that time already lived 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 should not depend on Moscow. In connection with the establishment of the archbishopric, a chronicle was compiled, which is called the Laurentian chronicle. Lavrenty, a monk of the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, compiled it for Archbishop Dionysius.
Lawrence's chronicle paid much attention to the founder of Nizhny Novgorod, Yuri Vsevolodovich, the 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 Lavrentiy, we have not only the oldest copy of the Tale of Bygone Years, but also the only copy of the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh to Children.
In Tver, the chronicle was kept from the 13th to the 15th centuries and is most fully preserved in the Tver collection, the Rogozh chronicler and the Simeonovskaya chronicle. Scientists associate the beginning of the chronicle with the name of the Tver bishop Simeon, 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 chronicle in Tver.
The Tver Chronicle contains many records about the construction of churches, fires and civil wars. But the Tver chronicle entered the history of Russian literature thanks to the 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 is 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 Kyiv, since 1301 - in Vladimir). The records of Moscow chroniclers were short and dry. They concerned the construction and painting of churches - a lot of construction was going on in Moscow at that time. They reported about fires, about illnesses, and finally about the family affairs of the Grand Dukes of Moscow. However, gradually - this began after the Battle of Kulikovo - the chronicle of Moscow leaves the narrow framework of its principality.
Due to his position as the 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 originals; chronicles were brought from monasteries and cathedrals. Based on all the material collected in In 1409, the first all-Russian code was created in Moscow. It included news from the chronicles of Veliky Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Suzdal and other cities. He illuminated the history of the entire Russian people even before the unification of all Russian lands around Moscow. The code served as ideological preparation for this unification.
A. When and who wrote the chronicles?
It would be a good idea to start by looking at the text itself. I would like to remind the reader: historians do not have a single idea about who, when, where and on the basis of what sources the Tale of Bygone Years was written. Or rather, not now. For a long time, from the beginning of the 20th century, after the classical works of A. A. Shakhmatov on the history of Russian chronicles, it was believed that there were three editions of the PVL, brought, respectively, until 1111 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor (or rather, Nester, so , as A.L. Nikitin rightly pointed out, the name of the author of “Readings about Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius” was actually written, until 1116 by the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester and until 1118 by a certain clergyman close to Mstislav Vladimirovich. In addition, it was assumed that there were more ancient chronicles used by the authors of the Tale. Shakhmatov considered the year 1073 to be the oldest date in the chronicle corpus (“the most ancient” according to his designation). Later historians might disagree with the authorship of a particular edition or the dating of the previous codes (while often delving them into antiquity, right up to the end of the 10th century), but the main provisions of Chess’s concept remained unchanged.
Only in the second half of the 20th century, primarily through the efforts of A.G. Kuzmin, was it shown quite convincingly that Nestor had nothing to do with the first edition of the PVL. This follows at least from the fact that the works that clearly belong to him (“Readings about Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius”) were written not only in a different style, but even in fact differ from the Tale of Bygone Years. I will refer those interested to “The Initial Stages of Old Russian Chronicles.” And here, in order not to be unfounded, I will at least mention that in the chronicle Boris (the first Russian saint) reigned in Rostov, and in the “Readings...” - in Vladimir Volynsky. And his brother Gleb lived, according to “Readings...”, in Kyiv and fled from there to the north by ship. According to the chronicle, he was in Murom and from there he went to Kyiv, strictly in the opposite direction. The same applies to the lives of the Pechersk monks. In the "Life..." the new Pechersk Monastery was founded by Theodosius, and according to the chronicle - by Varlaam. And so on.
It is interesting that the list of such inconsistencies was compiled by N.I. Kostomarov, that is, it is known to Shakhmatov. It was also known that the author of the chronicle, according to his own statement, came to the monastery under Theodosius, and Nestor - under his successor, Stefan. But Shakhmatov ignored this, simply stating that Nestor wrote the chronicle at a time that was “separated from his first literary experiments by a gap of 25 years. The techniques of his creativity during this time could have changed and improved.”. What does this have to do with techniques if we are talking about very specific facts? Including those relating to the life of Nestor himself. After 25 years, did he know better which abbot he came to the monastery with?
So it is quite possible to abandon Nestor as the first chronicler. Rather, it should be recognized that his name made it into the headlines of some chronicles later, when the real author had already been forgotten. And Nestor, thanks to his works, in which he did not forget to mention himself, was a famous “writer.” Who else, if not him, could be credited with creating the chronicles? This is what some scribes and successors did. Note: not all. In a number of chronicles the name Nestor is not in the title.
It was further proven that Sylvester could be nothing more than a copyist of the chronicle, but not its successor. Well, at least because his registration (“Hegumen Sylvester of St. Michael wrote these chronicle books...”) is at the end of the Laurentian Chronicle, where it stands after the unfinished chronicle entry of 1110. But Ipatievskaya, in which the weather article is completed, does not contain it. Now, perhaps, the majority of researchers admit: Ipatievskaya not only goes back to the same prototype, but is also a more complete and older presentation of it. A. A. Shakhmatov believed that later editors added to the Laurentian Chronicle, creating the Ipatiev Chronicle from it. Or even used different editions of PVL. Modern historians, especially after the works of M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, reasonably note: it is easier to assume a reduction than an expansion. Moreover, it is clear from the text: the Laurentian Chronicle is drier and less detailed. So, should we assume that the ancient author of the Ipatiev Chronicle deliberately embellished the text and at the same time made up facts? It is much more logical to admit: the person who wrote the Laurentian Chronicle made extracts from the full version, leaving only the main thing.
Note that Aleshkovsky was even more categorical. “The text of the Tale of Bygone Years in the Laurentian Chronicle seems ... the result of a reduction of the text that was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. This abbreviation is not of an editorial nature, is not natural, is not the result of deliberate editing and, perhaps, did not appear in the 12th century, but later as a result of not one, but several copyists,”- he wrote. That is, he did not consider Sylvester to be any editor at all, only a copyist, and even then one of many.
And even more problematic is the presence of a third editor. Previously, various historians identified him with various characters. So, B. A. Rybakov considered him “Vasily, the husband of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich,” M. Kh. Aleshkovsky - “Vasily from Novgorod, an attentive reader of the Chronicle of Amartol,” and so on. Now its existence is generally questioned.
As a result, the history of Russian chronicles found itself in almost the same situation in which it was before Shakhmatov: nothing is known about the place, time and author. Everyone puts forward their own versions. The version of A.L. Nikitin seems to be the most developed at present. According to it, the author of the PVL is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and cell attendant of the Monk Theodosius Hilarion. This character is quite historical, since it was mentioned by Nestor: “And behold, the same monk Hilarion, with his confessions, because he had so much to write about books, all these days and nights he wrote books in the cell of our blessed father Theodosius, to whose lips I sing the psalter quietly and with my hands spinning the wave or doing some other work.”. True, apart from these lines, we know nothing about the hypothetical chronicler. Nikitin derives all the “data of his biography” from the text of the chronicle, first a priori believing that the chronicler is Hilarion.
But among the variety of hypotheses, there are also common points. With the exception of very big dreamers, most admit that chronicles in Rus' were written no earlier than the second half of the 11th century. Without going into long explanations, let us at least point out that chronicles in Europe began to be compiled after the adoption of Christianity. When Rus' was baptized, remember? At the end of the 10th century. They wrote chronicles at royal courts and monasteries. Simply because there you could afford not to think about your daily bread, but to slowly but surely fill out sheets of paper with stories about the past and present. Previously, everyone had to work, there was no time for writing here! And in Rus', just during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, by the middle of the 11th century, such conditions developed. So, obviously, the first Russian chronicles were written for his sons. Well, or with them, since chroniclers in Rus' worked in monasteries, and not in palaces. That is why, by the way, there is not so much secular data in the chronicles. Mostly just listing who was born and died when.
A.L. Nikitin, for example, after researching the issue, came to the conclusion: chronicles began to be written in the last quarter of the 11th century. “The absence in the Kiev-Pechersk Chronicle of Hilarion, beginning PVL, of any obvious borrowings from the hypothetical chronicle codes of the 11th century, Novgorod or Kiev, as well as the absence of any reliable evidence about those who worked simultaneously with him within the years 1070-1140. chroniclers, since no evidence of Sylvester’s chronicling activity has yet been found, gives the right to consider the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Hilarion the first Russian chronicler to literary depict the events of the early centuries of the history of the Russian state,”- he points out. And I draw your attention: literary! “Factual and textual analysis of the plots included in the PVL... leads to the conclusion that they are all based exclusively on legendary or fictional material,”- Nikitin says. That is, of course, individual legends could have been written down, some documents could have been preserved (such as treaties with the Greeks, and even those, most likely, were brought from Greece). But certainly not weather records. The rest was figured out based on the memories of contemporaries of the events and oral folk art.
In addition, researchers recognize that the texts of the chronicles that have reached us are, so to speak, collective creativity. In the sense that they are not only compiled from several sources, but also edited by different people at different times. Moreover, the editor did not always carefully monitor how organically the information taken from various places was combined. And the copyist could make basic mistakes, not understanding what he was copying. How much time has passed!
So, of course, one cannot trust the chronicles; “criticism of the source” is needed.
From the book I take my words back author Suvorov ViktorChapter 6 Nobody wrote about the war like that! It is necessary to specifically prove that Zhukov was an outstanding strategist. But no one has ever substantiated this, so we can take it for now as a fact that the “Marshal of Victory” understood this area insofar as (and he himself is incredibly boring
From the book The Letter went on for five thousand years [ill. Lev Khailov] author Kublitsky Georgy IvanovichWhat did Shakespeare write with? The great English playwright Shakespeare wrote with a quill pen. He lived four hundred years ago. Pushkin worked in the first half of the last century. However, on his desk there were still the same goose feathers. There was an expression “to squeak with a pen.” But a good quill pen
From the book The Great Troubles. End of the Empire author12.2. Which Samarkand was the capital of Timur, when the chronicles talk about the events of the 15th century? Let us recall once again that the names of cities used to quite often travel along the geographical map. In other words, the same names could refer to different cities. Above we are
From the book Reconstruction of True History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book of Molotov. Semi-power overlord author Chuev Felix IvanovichHe wrote everything himself - Stalin knew the ancient world and mythology very well. This side of him is very strong. He worked hard on himself... Politics? He was involved in politics all his life... He spoke quietly a little, but if there is acoustics... Didn't like it fast. Reasonably and at the same time
From the book Reconstruction of True History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich33. What Shakespeare actually wrote about In the book [SHEC], we show that such outstanding Shakespeare plays as Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Henry VIII, Titus Andronicus "(the action of which today is mistakenly attributed to the distant past and to the wrong
From the book Secrets of the Pyramids [The Constellation of Orion and the Pharaohs of Egypt] by Bauval RobertII WHO WROTE THE “PYRAMID TEXTS”? Very often, when studying ancient written monuments, “experts” do not allow the texts to speak for themselves. They spend many hours studying the content of sources, but it all ends with some kind of work on philology or
From the book Rus' and Rome. Revolt of the Reformation. Moscow is the Old Testament Jerusalem. Who is King Solomon? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. Reconstruction of the history of the creation of the modern Bible Who, where and when wrote the Pentateuch? Specialists in the history of Judaism know from medieval evidence that this religion at one time was divided into two (at least) different movements. One of them is called
From the book Daily Life of Russian Gendarmes author Grigoriev Boris NikolaevichI wrote to you, what else? The daily life of the tsarist gendarmes and police officials is quite vividly characterized by the personal correspondence of some of them, which, although partially, was successfully added to the archives of the Police Department and is now accessible
From the book KGB - CIA - The Secret Springs of Perestroika author Shironin Vyacheslav SergeevichWHO DID “THE MOABITE PRISONER” WRITE ABOUT? By the way, special mention should be made about Shevardnadze as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. During the period of “perestroika” and reform of the USSR, Mr. Shevardnadze (as well as Mr. Kozyrev later) made a lot of efforts to distort
From the book Book 1. Empire [Slavic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Rus' as a medieval metropolis of the Great Empire] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich13.2. Which Samarkand was the capital of Timur, when the chronicles talk about the events of the 15th century? Let us recall once again that the names of cities could move along the geographical map and in different eras were “attached” to different cities. Above we presented texts where, near Samarkand, it is clear
From the book Book 2. We change dates - everything changes. [New chronology of Greece and the Bible. Mathematics reveals the deception of medieval chronologists] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich4. When Niccolò Machiavelli lived and what he actually wrote about in his “The Prince” Today it is believed that Niccolò MACHIAVELLI, Machiavelli, lived in the years 1469–1527. The Encyclopedia says: “Italian political thinker, writer, historian, military theorist. From
From the book Book 2. Conquest of America by Russia-Horde [Biblical Rus'. The Beginning of American Civilizations. Biblical Noah and medieval Columbus. Revolt of the Reformation. Dilapidated author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1. Reconstruction of the history of the creation of the modern Bible Who, where and when wrote the Pentateuch Let us summarize the analysis of biblical history. The diagram of our reconstruction is shown in Fig. 3.1. Rice. 3.1. New chronology of major biblical events. The events of the New Testament are more ancient,
From the book Life of Constantine by Pamphilus EusebiusCHAPTER 8. About what Constantine wrote to the king of Persia about the Christians there, when the latter sent ambassadors to him. When the Persian king wished to get acquainted with Constantine through an embassy and, as a sign of his friendly disposition, sent him gifts, asking for an alliance,
From the book Myths and mysteries of our history author Malyshev VladimirHe wrote in Russian The scientist wrote his works in Russian, and nothing was known about them in Europe for a long time. For this reason, priority in obtaining an electric arc was unreasonably attributed to the English scientist H. Davy, who did this only in 1808 and described his
From the book Calling the Living: The Tale of Mikhail Petrashevsky author Kokin Lev MikhailovichHe wrote... ...Does he really have nothing left except his memory? He could not, did not have the strength to stir it endlessly and do only that; I was unable to look at myself from the outside. The same, however, as others. Neither himself nor others - he absolutely couldn’t do it, that’s just the way it was