1.1.5 Chronicles of the late XV–XVI centuries. All-Russian official chronicle
The beginning of the all-Russian chronicle of the Grand Dukes of Moscow, which laid the foundations for the official chronicle of the 16th century, dates back to the second half of the 15th century.
Based on a comparison of the Ermolinskaya chronicle with the Archive (or Rostov, 17th century), Simeonovskaya and Voskresenskaya chronicles (both 16th century), as well as the so-called two-volume London list (16th century), a hypothetical protograph was identified that underlay them. Its composition is clarified by referring to the Museum (late 15th - early 16th centuries) and Vorontsovsky collections, as well as the Lavrovsky, Vologda-Perm (late 15th - mid-16th centuries) and Nikanorovsky chronicles. They preserved the text of a brief chronicler, which is considered the earliest edition of the Moscow grand-ducal chronicle. Based on a number of indirect data, it was possible to establish that it was compiled approximately in 1472 and was based on the code of 1418. It enshrined the Moscow tradition of covering the events of Russian history (including the circumstances of the feudal war in the second quarter of the 15th century), which then penetrated in all all-Russian chronicles. The most direct reflection of the Moscow vault of the early 70s of the 15th century. found in the Vorontsov and Museum collections, the Nikanorov and Vologda-Perm chronicles, as well as in Lavrovsky’s list (late 15th century). At the same time, its earliest version (until May 1472) was preserved in the first two lists, while the common source of the Nikanorovsky and Vologda-Perm chronicles was a later (autumn 1472) processing of the code that formed the basis of the Lavrovsky chronicle.
The next stages of the grand ducal chronicle writing were the codes of 1477 and 1479. From the code of 1477, only the final part has been preserved in the so-called “Chronicle of the 72nd language”. The initial part of it can only be judged tentatively - on the basis of the text of the code of 1479. The latter has reached us in its entirety (up to Article 6926), but in a modified form. It is restored according to the late Uvarovsky (XVI century), Archive (XVII century, the so-called Rostov Chronicle) and Hermitage (XVIII century) lists. In the latter it was preserved unchanged. In the Uvarov list, the Moscow chronicle of 1479 continues to 7000 (1492).
The sources of the code of 1479 include the code of 1477, a special edition of the code of 1418 (in which the compromise tendencies of the latter were eliminated), the Rostov code of the early 15th century. (reflected in the Moscow Academic Chronicle) and the Novgorod vault, close to the Novgorod I and IV chronicles. The processing of the 1418 code could not be carried out at the metropolitan court, since mainly biblical quotations and religious maxims were excluded from the narrative. The official and secular nature of the treatment allows us to characterize the new edition as a monument to the grand ducal chronicle. Apparently, the tradition of creating metropolitan all-Russian vaults is fading away for a while.
In the code of 1479, anti-Latin and anti-Novgorod tendencies were strengthened, which is explained by the historical conditions in which it was compiled, but there was no systematic processing of the previous presentation in the spirit of contemporary political views, which distinguished subsequent Moscow codes of the 16th century. Subsequently, the text of this code formed the basis of the entire official all-Russian chronicle - grand ducal and royal. It was reflected in the lists of the Pogodinskaya, Mazurinskaya, Simeonovskaya, Novgorod IV (V), Sofia I, Sofia II and Lvov chronicles, as well as in the main codes of the 16th century: Resurrection, Joasaph, Nikonov and other chronicles. In addition, fragments of the vault from the 80–90s of the 15th century. were included in unofficial codes.
Moscow chronicle code of the late 15th century. presents detailed reports about the most important acts of the grand ducal policy, the grand ducal family, construction in Moscow and other cities, etc. Almost all the assessments given here are of a completely official nature, justifying the actions of the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Some discrepancies found in parallel texts of this code gave rise to the assumption that there were two editions of it. The first of the editions was reflected in the Museum list, the Sofia I Chronicle according to the Tsarsky list, the Pogodinsky Chronicle, the second - in the Simeonovsky, Mazurinsky and similar chronicles. The first edition was compiled after the events of 1494 related to some kind of political intrigue in which Sophia Paleologus was involved. The nature and time of compilation of the second edition are clarified on the basis of a comparison of the Novgorod Uvarov Chronicle and the Novgorod Chronicle of 1539 (Novgorod IV Chronicle according to Dubrovsky's list, Fragment of the chronicle according to the Voskresensky New Jerusalem list, the second part of the so-called Rostov Chronicle) with messages from the Sophia I Chronicle according to the Tsar's list . Most likely, the grand ducal code in the new edition ended with article 7008 (1500).
The next edition of the grand ducal code was completed in 7017 (1508). It was associated with the end of Vasily III’s struggle for the throne. The code of 1508 was reflected in the final part of the Sophia I Chronicle according to the Tsar’s list.
From the beginning of the 16th century. in Rus' there is already only one all-Russian chronicle tradition associated with the grand ducal chancellery. Chronicles of the 16th century. they almost never disagree with each other in their assessments and characteristics. They are complete and have a purely official character, obediently responding to changes in government policy.
From the first decades of the 16th century. The metropolitan chronicle is being reactivated. In 1518, a new code appeared, which forms the basis of the Sofia II and Lviv Chronicles, as well as the Uvarov version of the “Chronicle of the 72nd language”. Most likely, it was an official code, completely loyal to the authorities. It was compiled in the church environment, possibly under Metropolitan Varlaam. A number of critical comments made by the compiler of the code towards Metropolitans Philip and Gerontius allow us to doubt its official nature. The code of 1518 was based on the grand ducal chronicle of the first decades of the 15th century. and the unofficial Rostov code of 1489, expanded by materials from the metropolitan archive. Along with them, one of the most important sources of the code of 1518 was a special church code of the 80s of the 15th century, in opposition to the grand ducal power.
An important stage in completing the unification of Russian chronicles under the auspices of Moscow was the Nikon Chronicle. It was compiled in the late 20s of the 16th century. in Moscow, at the court of Metropolitan of “All Rus'” Daniil Ryazants (1522–1539). Subsequently, the Nikonovsky code was repeatedly supplemented with borrowings from the official chronicle and was completed until 1558. Its original is Obolensky’s list, the presence of which made it possible to clarify the dating and place of compilation of the code, to establish the scriptorium in which it was written, and the identity of the compiler. The purpose of creating the chronicle was to prepare for the council of 1531, at which the views of non-possessors on church land ownership were condemned. The main sources of the Nikon vault were the Simeonovskaya, a special edition of the Novgorod V (the so-called Novgorod Chronographic) and the Joasaph Chronicle, the Vladimir Chronicler, the Ustyug vault and the Russian Chronograph. Among the sources of the Nikon vault is also the Western Russian chronograph of the mid-50s of the 16th century. In addition, the Nikon Chronicle included a number of literary works: translations of Maxim the Greek, a collection of words and teachings of Metropolitan Daniel, a copy book of the Moscow Metropolitan See, several words and legends. The Nikon Chronicle is the most complete collection of information on Russian history, some of which is unique. The use of numerous sources, including unknown ones, makes us treat information gleaned from the Nikon Code with special caution. This is especially true for “redundant” information. Nevertheless, the Nikon Chronicle is one of the most important sources on the history of the Russian Middle Ages.
Between 1542 and 1544 The Resurrection Chronicle was compiled - the official chronicle of the first half of the 16th century. It should be noted that in addition to the grand-ducal chronicle of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. its creators used the Rostov code of the 80s (reflected in the Typographical Chronicle) and extra-chronicle monuments. In particular, it included the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” (20s of the 16th century), which united legends about the origin of the Russian grand-ducal dynasty from the Roman Emperor Augustus through the legendary Prus (allegedly a relative of Rurik) and about the Monomakh regalia, which allegedly were sent by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh to the Kyiv Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich. In the original (unpreserved) editions it reached the 30s of the 16th century. The later editions were completed first until 1541, and then until 1560. The Moscow Chronicle of 1508 is the basis for the presentation of the Resurrection Chronicle.
By the end of the 50s of the 16th century. include the appearance of the “Chronicle of the Beginning of the Kingdom,” compiled, apparently, with the direct participation of A.F. Adashev. It covers a short period (from 1533 to 1556) and mainly covers two topics: the strengthening of the “autocracy” of Ivan IV and the annexation of Kazan. The main ideas of the Chronicler are close to the official ideological guidelines of the initial period of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Substantially edited texts of the Chronicler were used in compiling the last two volumes of the Facial Code.
The Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles represent a fully formed unified Russian official chronicle tradition. These qualities determine, first of all, the nature and interpretation of the information preserved in them, and, consequently, the attitude towards them on the part of a historian studying the history of the late 15th - first half of the 16th centuries using these chronicles. In this unified form, the all-Russian chronicle existed until the 60s of the 16th century, until drastic changes during the years of the oprichnina led first to an urgent revision of the official chronicle, and then to its complete cessation.
In the early 60s of the 16th century. The newly compiled new list of the Nikon (Patriarchal) Chronicle was used to create the “Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy” - a unique literary and historical work, the very appearance of which testified to certain changes in the approach to historical material and the extinction of the chronicle genre. Compiled in the entourage of Metropolitan Macarius (possibly by Metropolitan Athanasius), the “State Book ...” combined chronicle texts with hagiographic ones and supplemented them with oral traditions. The name of the book comes from the fact that its text is divided into 17 “degrees” (steps) along which the history of the Russian land moved. Its main idea is to present Russian history as the deeds of the holy Moscow sovereigns and their ancestors. The tendentiousness of its creator influenced the accuracy and reliability of the presentation of historical material, and therefore the source value of the information given in it is extremely low. “The Degree Book...” had a great influence on subsequent historical and journalistic works.
The largest chronicle-chronographic work of medieval Russia was the so-called Facial Vault of Ivan the Terrible (an illustrated edition of the Nikon Chronicle). This “historical encyclopedia of the 16th century.” (A.E. Presnyakov) included ten volumes, almost every page of which is decorated with miniatures (more than 16 thousand miniatures in total). The first three volumes are devoted to world history, and the next seven are devoted to Russian history. They were created in the royal book-writing workshop at the cathedral Church of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda for almost a whole decade: from 1568 to 1576. The complexity of studying the Facial Vault, in particular, is determined by the fact that its volumes are currently stored in various manuscript repositories of the country: Chronograph of the State Historical Museum (Museum collection), Synodal Chronicle ("Nikonovskaya with drawings") and the Royal Book - in the Manuscript Department of the State Historical Museum (Moscow); The BAN chronograph and two volumes of the Ancient Chronicler (“Osterman’s Chronicler”) are in the Library of the Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg); GPB chronograph, Golitsynsky, Laptevsky and Shumilovsky volumes - in the National Public Library (St. Petersburg). They all represent a single whole and cover history from the creation of the world to 7075 (1568). The volume containing the initial Russian history, the presentation of which begins with the events of 6622 (1114), is missing. The last two volumes - the Synodal Chronicle and the Royal Book - include two editions of descriptions of the same events associated with the beginning of the reign of Ivan I V. In both volumes, there are cursive editorial notes in the margins. This served as the basis for the hypothesis of D.N. Alshits, popular at one time, about their double editing by the tsar himself. However, later it was possible to prove that the volume was edited only once, but when bound, the rough and whitened sheets turned out to be mixed up: some of the sheets of the Synodal Chronicle ended up in the Royal Book.
Obviously, upon completion of work on the last - most topical - part of the vault, it was presented to the king for consideration and aroused his displeasure. The original text was “reviewed” directly into the finished version of the manuscript with the miniatures already completed in ink, but not illuminated. The additions were made in the first half of the 70s of the 16th century. and were undoubtedly based on some written sources. The surviving notes of the editor of the Front Vault give a complete picture of how the work of chroniclers and miniaturists was controlled by the customer (which, obviously, was the tsar himself) in the second half of the 16th century: not only was it indicated how to describe or depict this or that event, but and texts were given that should be included in the chronicle (for example, only from editorial notes is it known about the so-called boyar rebellion during the illness of Ivan the Terrible in 1553). These postscripts are an important source on the history of the political struggle of the 16th century. The main and direct source for the Russian articles of the Litsevoy vault was Obolensky's list of the Nikon Chronicle: in its margins there are wax marks exactly in the places where the miniatures are located in the Litsevoy vault. The Resurrection and Novgorod IV Chronicles, the Degree Book and the “Chronicle of the Beginning of the Kingdom” were used as additional sources. The chronographic part of the Facial Vault was based on the Chudovsky and Academic views of the Hellenic chronicler of the 2nd edition, supplemented by the texts of the Russian chronograph, the “Chronicle of George Amartol” (possibly as part of the Hellenic chronograph of the 1st edition), as well as the “Jewish War” by Josephus. The reasons for the cessation of work on the Facial Vault are unknown. The facial vault became the last all-Russian vault. After him, the chronicle tradition fades away. And although in the 17th - first half of the 18th centuries. Local and private records continue to be kept, outwardly resembling chronicles; they can no longer give and do not give a general picture of the history of the country.
It is possible that the chronicles originated and existed as a kind of “book of life” that should be presented at the Last Judgment. They were compiled starting from the 30s of the 11th century. immediately on the eve of the end of times (which they tried to more or less accurately calculate) as official proof of the repentance of a person for the sins he had committed or, conversely, confirmation of his sinfulness and “condemnation”. If this is so, then it becomes clear why after 7000 (1492), when eschatological expectations in Rus' reached their culmination, the chronicle quite sharply changes its character, and after 7077 (1569), in which they saw the last closest date of the end light stops altogether. Then the dates chosen for the compilation of new chronicles and their editions can also be explained: most of them correspond to the supposed dates of the second coming (the years of the coincidence of the Annunciation and Easter - the so-called kyriopascha, as well as calculated on one or another basis, on which there is no need to dwell here , 1037–1038, 1492, 1499, 1562, etc.). Perhaps this is connected with a special attitude towards chronicles. It is known, for example, that the Nikon Chronicle and other chronicles, “written and kept secret” (J. Horsey), along with other treasures, formed part of the royal treasury and, apparently, were considered as state property. However, this hypothesis does not exclude the possibility of other motives for compiling this or that chronicle collection.
All-Russian unofficial chronicle
Along with the official all-Russian chronicle from the second half of the 15th century. codes appear, compiled by private individuals.
These chronicles were not of an official nature and sometimes contradicted the grand ducal records.
One example of an independent local tradition is given by the Ermolinsk Chronicle (compiled in the 15th century; list from the beginning of the 16th century). In some cases she provides original information. Its comparison with the texts of similar abbreviated codes (Pogodinsky, Mazurinsky and Solovetsky types of the Abbreviated Chronicle Code of 1493 - only 13 lists), as well as the Ustyug chronicler, allows us to say that they all go back to a common protograph - the Northern Russian code of the 70s XV century, created, apparently, in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Along with the Moscow grand-ducal chronicle (Moscow vaults of 1472 and 1479), it was based on the Novgorod chronicles and some Rostov or Suzdal-Rostov source. The compilation of the Northern Russian code specifically in the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery is confirmed by several arguments. While not an official chronicle of the Rostov archbishops, it demonstrates an increased interest in the history of the northern, Trans-Volga regions of the Rostov-Suzdal land, where the monastery was located. Finally, its text was used in the compilation of the abbreviated “Russian Chronicler” of the 15th century in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. and short chroniclers of the 15th–16th centuries.
The unofficial nature of the Kirillo-Belozersky arch of the 70s of the 15th century. (it was not even the official code of the monastery) allowed its compilers to express independent judgments about the policies of the Grand Duke, support disgraced political and church leaders (for example, Rostov Archbishop Tryphon, Moscow governor Fyodor Basenko, etc.), and speak critically about the Yaroslavl miracle workers. Despite its seemingly private nature, this code was in fact all-Russian. This is evidenced by the range of sources used by its compilers and the breadth of topics covered in it. It was thanks to its all-Russian character that it received wide – although, naturally, unofficial – dissemination.
Another example of local independent chronicle writing is the unofficial set of 1489, compiled in circles close to the Rostov archbishopric see. It is restored by comparing the Typographical Chronicle with the Sophia II and Lviv Chronicles. A special role in its reconstruction is given to the Typographical Chronicle, known in ten copies. They are combined into two editions: the earlier one is reflected in the Academic and similar seven lists, and the later one is reflected in the Synodal and similar Library lists. The sources for this hypothetical code were the Moscow code of 1479, two unknown sources close to the Laurentian Chronicle (one of them described the Rostov-Suzdal events, unknown to other sources), and, probably, records that were kept at the Rostov cathedral. This chronicle was independent, but quite loyal to the Moscow grand-ducal power. It was the hand of the Rostov chronicler that apparently belonged to a number of stories included in all-Russian codes (in particular, about the stand on the Ugra). At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. this code was edited in circles close to Rostov Archbishop Tikhon. Perhaps it was at this time that fragments of the grand ducal chronicle were included in it.
One of the sources of the already mentioned metropolitan code of 1518 was a special code of the 80s of the 15th century. An idea of its composition and character can be obtained by removing from the coinciding texts of the Sophia II and Lvov Chronicles messages close to the Ermolin Chronicle and the abbreviated chronicles of the late 15th century. As a result, a number of original news remains, not mentioned anywhere else. The date of its composition cannot be specified (the latest news dates back to 1483). Most likely, it was created in Moscow church circles close to Metropolitan Gerontius. This collection is distinguished by its sharply critical attitude towards the grand ducal power, but it is unlikely that it was the official metropolitan chronicle.
Unofficial Moscow code of the 80s of the 15th century. and the Rostov vault of 1489 were the last monuments of independent chronicle writing. Most likely, they were compiled in some monasteries, and not in the metropolitan or archbishop's office. Their opposition to the Moscow authorities caused opposition from the Grand Duke. From the end of the 15th century. independent all-Russian chronicle writing was stopped.
Local chronicle
In addition to the all-Russian chronicle and in parallel with it at the end of the 15th–16th centuries. Local chronicles continued to be kept.
So, at the very end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. At the court of the Perm bishop Philotheus, the Vologda-Perm arch was created. In the 1520s and 1550s, two more local codes were compiled on its basis. In the middle of the 16th century. The Kholmogory Chronicle appears, originally brought to 1558. Subsequently, it was continued by the text of a short Kholmogory chronicler, the presentation of which reached 1659. Individual messages in the Kholmogory Chronicle go back to the Chronicler of Fyodor of Yaroslavl in the 13th century.
The completion of the first Ustyug chronicle dates back to 1499. Separate scattered records that were kept in the Assumption Church of Ustyug the Great from the end of the 13th century to the end of the 15th century. were compiled into a coherent account of local events. From that time on, the chronicle tradition of Ustyug existed intermittently for three centuries. The first surviving Ustyug chronicle is a collection of the first quarter of the 16th century. (the last entry dates back to 1516–1517), which survived in the lists of the 17th–18th centuries. In addition to local ones, it contains all-Russian, Rostov and Novgorod news. The Ustyug vault belongs to the type of all-Russian provincial chronicles. This is an independent code, created, perhaps, in order to justify the closeness with Moscow and the non-subordination of Ustyug to the Rostov princes. It contains critical remarks relating not only to the grand ducal commanders, but also to the sovereign himself. The Ustyug Chronicle was used in the preparation of the Nikon Codex. Existence in the 16th century. Only one all-Russian chronicle tradition makes it difficult to study the political history of that time in many ways - this gap can only be partially filled with the help of other historical sources that have survived to our time.
From the book Kievan Rus author Vernadsky Georgy Vladimirovich2. Codes of laws and legal monuments A. Byzantine lawAgricultural Law(Nomos Georgikos). Ferrini, S., ed., Byzantinische Zeitschrift7 (1898), 558-571; Ashburner, W., ed., Journal of Hellenic Studies, 30 (1910), 85-108; 32 (1912), 68-95. Pavlov, A. S., ed. Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, 38 (1895), No. 3. With ancient Slavic
From the book History Begins in Sumer author Kramer Samuel N8. Codes of Laws The First “Moses” Until 1947, the oldest code of laws was considered to be the code of laws of Hammurabi, the famous Babylonian king who ascended the throne around 1750 BC. e. Written in cuneiform characters in the Semitic (Babylonian) language, this document contains
From the book Primordial Rus' [Prehistory of Rus'] author Asov Alexander IgorevichWars of the Slavs with the Byzantines and Franks at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries. Novgorod Prince Bravlin II and the sorcerer Jogaila Gan Then Novgorod Rus' was born in the North of Europe, quickly strengthened and established itself. There, near the newly built capital of Novgorod the Great, tribes settled
From the book The Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortez and the Rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the “ancient” Greeks author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichPart 2 The campaign of Ermak-Cortez and the rebellion of the Reformation at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries through the eyes of the “ancients”
From the book Great Mysteries of Rus' [History. Ancestral homelands. Ancestors. Shrines] author Asov Alexander IgorevichWars of the Slavs with the Byzantines and Franks at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries. Novgorod Prince Bravlin II and the sorcerer Jogaila Then Novgorod Rus' was born in the North of Europe, quickly strengthened and established itself. There, near the newly built capital of Novgorod the Great, Slovenian tribes settled
From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an Amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander KonstantinovichChronicles, codes, lists It is useful to plunge into the terminology used by historians. A chronicle is a handwritten work in which the narrative is told by year. The story about events in the chronicle usually began with the words “in the summer.” Most of the chronicles came in the form
From the book Witchcraft and Witches in England. Anthropology of evil author Igina Yulia Fedorovna§ 2. The idea of demonic possession and exorcist practices in England at the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries During the period of mass persecution of witches in Western Europe, including England, the perception of witchcraft as predominantly harmful witchcraft was inherent. At the core
From the book Russian Chronicles and Chroniclers of the 10th–13th centuries. author Tolochko Petr Petrovich6. Specific chronicles in the Kiev code of the end of the 12th century. The turbulent era of feudal fragmentation of Rus' was characterized not only by inter-princely litigation for tables and lands, but also by the economic and political strengthening of appanage principalities and the construction of their capitals. Phenomena,
From the book Philosophy of History author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich3.10. THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY, SOCIAL CLASSES, CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE DRIVING FORCES OF HISTORY IN THE WORKS OF ENGLISH THINKERS OF THE END OF THE 18TH - EARLY 19TH CENTURIES 3.10.1. Introductory remark Social scientific thought moved towards the discovery of social classes in various ways. French historians
From the book Century of Freedom [Russian anarchism and Jews (XIX-XX centuries)] by Goncharok MosheChapter 1 Russian anarchism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: an approach to the national question As is known, there is no single system of anarchist views. A doctrine that denies state or public power based on individual coercion,
From the book Characteristic Features of French Agrarian History author Block MarkChapter IV. CHANGES IN SEIGNORY AND PROPERTY FROM THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE FRENCH
author Team of authors1.1.2. The Tale of Bygone Years and the codes that preceded it The beginning of ancient Russian chronicle writing is associated with a stable text, which begins the vast majority of chronicle codes that have survived to our time. There are no separate lists of him. In some later
From the book Source Studies author Team of authors1.1.3. Local chronicles of the 12th–13th centuries After the separation of individual lands and principalities from the Old Russian state, the chronicle traditions of Kievan Rus were continued and developed locally. Lists of chronicles dating back to this time have not reached us.
From the book Source Studies author Team of authors1.1.4. Chronicles of the XIV–XV centuries. The origin of all-Russian chronicles By the 14th century. include the first chronicles that claim to cover the history of all Russian lands (in fact, they recorded, as a rule, only the events of North-Eastern Rus'). Sources for studying the origin
From the book General History of the World's Religions author Karamazov Voldemar DanilovichOfficial theology This need formed the basis of that line of Byzantine theology that can be called “official” or “school”. By its very purpose it must prove that everything is resolved and contained in the past and that there is only one link to this past.
From the book Construction and Architecture in Ancient Egypt by Clark SomersRussian chronicles of the 16th-17th centuries.
Resurrection Chronicle(Resurrection Monastery, ca. 1531. later editions - until 1541, then until 1580). Ideas of strong princely power; the later edition of the 1540s was compiled by supporters of the Shuiskys. /The official chronicle of the Russian state, in addition to the grand ducal chronicle, the Rostov vault and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” were used/
Nikonovskaya(One of the lists belonged to Patriarch Nikon. 1520 or 1539-42). About the goodness of the Moscow center. /Preparation for the Council of 1531 and the condemnation of non-possessors. includes translations of Maxim the Greek, a collection of words and teachings of Metropolitan Daniel, a copy book of the Moscow Metropolitan See / Reworking of the Resurrection, differs in some details. The Nikon Chronicle is a huge compilation. Among the sources are chronicles close to the Novgorod Fifth, Resurrection, Iosaph (since 1446), Chronograph and others, individual stories and legends about major historical events, local chronicles and works of oral folk art. The compilers of the Nikon Chronicle processed the historical materials they had and created a concept according to which the leading role in the formation of the Russian state belonged to the Moscow princes, acting in alliance with the church. In the 60-70s, the Front Chronicle of the Nikon Chronicle was compiled, which indicates a desire to give the Nikon Chronicle the character of an official interpretation of historical events.
New trends in chronicle writing:
The history of Russia fits into the world; interest in world history; searching for a place in it: Philotheus with the Third Rome; Chronograph (1512 - 1522) – It all starts with Troy, continues with Augustus, then Byzantium, then materials from Russian chronicles. Detailed notes depart from the weather principle.
Texts with lots of illustrations. (Facial vault (60-70s of the 16th century), possibly edited by Ivan the Terrible himself. 16 thousand illustrations. The first three are world history, seven are Russian)
Expanding the range of sources: contracts and other documents are involved (Likhachev: chronicle writing becomes a “service enterprise of the state archive”)
Strengthening lit. beginning (Alyosha Popovich either dies on Kalka or fights with the Polovtsians; Augustus and Prus as Rurik’s ancestors)
Erasing and falsification of local chronicles - insertions in the pro-Moscow spirit.
8. Historical works of the early 17th century (“Vremennik”, “Words of the days and kings and saints of Moscow”, “The Legend” by A. Palitsyn).
Troubles as a situation of anarchy and anarchy (which is unimaginable when power is personified) needed to be understood
- “Vremennik” by Ivan Timofeev. (late 1620s). Narration by chapter-reigns, from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail (does not describe the new dynasty).
Troubles are the product of Ivan the Terrible, who is angry and furious; he was poisoned and rightly so (the approval is not particularly obvious). Fyodor Ivanovich - the opposite of his father, the only sin - transferred power to a slave. Godunov is ambiguous - smart, but angry and flattering; unworthy of the throne by birth; Instead of serving God, he turned to worldly glory. False Dmitry - Otrepiev, Antichrist. Everything that follows is God's punishment (and for specific sins - greed, drunkenness, gluttony, sodomy and swearing). And also for the wrong behavior of the boyars (but they were interrupted by Grozny and therefore they could not resist Godunov). People changed traditions, the people stopped submitting to unrighteous rulers, the autocracy of commoners and slaves resulted in punishment. The new dynasty is an indescribable mercy. Bottom line: there is no need to disrupt the natural course of things.
- Andrey Khvorostinin “Words of the days and kings and saints of Moscow”. Justification of the repentant close associate of False Dmitry. He starts with Boris Godunov, who is ambiguous: he seems to be the ideal of a tsar (smart, merciful, tries to help, pious, etc.), but he embittered his subjects, raised slaves to become free, and destroyed many noble people. The punishment for arrogance was the destruction of the kingdom. False Dmitry is an impostor, a defrocked desecrator of the throne, but he is smart and educated. The punishment is rebellion. The foreigners took advantage of the situation and attacked. The people were inspired to liberate Moscow by Patriarch Hermogenes and Philaret (the executor).
Lecture 4. Sources on Russian history of the 16th-17th centuries
Questions:
1. Chronicles and chronographs of the 15th-16th centuries
2. Legislative acts of the 16th-17th centuries
3. Literary works
4. Resurrection Chronicle and Nikon Chronicle.
Question 1. Chronicles and chronographs of the 15-16 centuries
1612-1615 – Piskrevsky chronicler. It has been preserved and has come down to us in a single list. In his presentations he relied on the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles. The author was a Moscow printer. Lived in N-Novgorod. Belongs to the 17th century, as it covers events from 1533 to 1615. There are additional requirements. From 1625 to 1945. In addition to the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles, oral traditions are used as a source that have not reached us. Several entries were made from personal observations. Well-known researchers M. Tikhomirov said that the Piskorevsky chronicler is a Muscovite’s memories of events. The source is of a collective nature. It is interesting, first of all, for its original information. The largest chronicle work of the 18th century is the new chronicler. Covers from the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible to the patriarchate of Philaret - 1619. The chronicle itself was written in the 20-30s of the 17th century. Most likely, this new chronicler was created under Filaret and his entourage. The goal was: an attempt to provide justification for the accession of the new Romanov dynasty. Despite the fact that it is very large and covers a short period, among historians it is considered an interesting, informative source. In the 30s of the 17th century, it turns out that the material of the new chronicler was combined with the Nikon Chronicle. This included tales about the life of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. It turns out that in the new chronicle all these texts were revised. The result was a new edition of Nikon's chronicle. Most likely it was written in the Trinity-Sergeev Monastery. There is no clear direction. Some historians call the chronicle Trinity, based on the place of writing. It has come down to us in 7 lists from the 16th and 17th centuries. In the 30s of the 17th century in the western regions of Russia - the Belsky chronicler, who came to us in the only list. Its appearance is associated with the circles of the local service nobility. The chronicler's beginning and end are lost. Only the middle years from 1598 to 1632 have survived. He relied on oral stories, local chronicles, legends, and his own memories. One of the important sources on the events of the troubled times. The patriarchal chronicle continues to be kept, maintained by the patriarchal code. Which also includes materials from the Novgorod Code, the Nikon Chronicle, the New Chronicler, the Trinity Chronicle and other sources. In principle, historians have established that the patriarchal chronicle is precisely of ecclesiastical origin and came out of her office. She developed the main ideas: the defense of Orthodoxy, the union of secular and spiritual authorities. This chronicle has become a kind of reference book, educational literature.
At the end of the 17th century, the Ustyug chronicler appeared. name from the place of writing - the city of Ustyug. It is based on a Russian chronicler, supplemented by Russian legends. Can be described as a secular work. The main place was given to the description of local hikes. The devotion of the residents of Ustyug to the Moscow government was emphasized in every possible way.
The Siberian Chronicles of the 17th century occupy a special place. Stroganov Chronicle, Kumburskaya, Esipovskaya Chronicle. They begin with the source “Writing...”, which has not reached us. This is a story about Ermak's campaign. It was compiled at the end of the 16th century. Preserved in the lists of the Siberian Chronicles. The characteristics of the Siberian Chronicles have become widespread. Accordingly, they can only conditionally belong to the chronicle genre.
Controversial chronicle as a source Synopsis of Innocent Gisel. It was published in 1674 by typographic method. The first attempt to write a unified history of the Slavic-Russian people. The synopsis was compiled in Kyiv and reflected the Ukrainian trend of unification with Russia. The synopsis itself has a special feature: it is collected from different chronicles. Excerpts from a variety of chronicles, sources that go to the western regions. The work itself does not go beyond the archaic ideas of Rus'. There are even purely fantastic ideas about the ancient world. Giza adds absolutely incredible detail. He excludes everything that does not correspond to his personal views. This synopsis has gained great popularity in both Ukraine and Russia. Published until 1861. Had a fairly large circulation.
Chronographs appear. They replaced the chronicles. Completely different historical works gained popularity in the 17th century. They gradually formulate the world history of the creation of the world. They included translations of Greek chronicles, ancient Russian compilations, contained excerpts from the Holy Scriptures, information from Russian chronicles, etc. The first Byzantine chronographs are most often chronicles, they only differ in this: George Omortola, G. Sinkel and other authors. They were known in Rus' back in the 11th century. In addition to the initial arch, which dates back to the 11th century, it also included chronographic ones: the Trinity Chronograph, the Elinsky Chronicler and others.
Chronicle of George Mortola. Comparison of these chronicles produces affirmative knowledge. In principle, it is characterized as follows: a brief summary of world history, focusing primarily on sacred and church history.
The Elin Chronicle, 2 editions, dates back to the 15th century. Came to us in lists of the 15-16th centuries. Brings a chronographic list of all facts up to the 15th century. In terms of its content, it includes various sources and collections of the 15th century. The chronicler uses a rich source base. The second edition is a complete text with a fairly coherent presentation. The entire story is divided into short articles. Corresponds to the period of a particular king or emperor. The structure of the Russian chronograph is being laid. The very first type of chronograph was compiled at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries - the chronograph of 1512. In addition to knowledge about world history, it also included a significant amount of information that relates to Russian history. For example, Moscow - 3 Rome. This is a harmonious, harmonious story. Particular attention is paid to the compositional composition of the source and stylistic features. Its compiler sought to create a kind of historical encyclopedia, like a scientific work. The chronograph became widespread. There are over 100 of his listings. It was even used in later editions of the Russian chronograph. There was also a Russian edition of the chronograph, in which the entire biblical history was practically absent. But the Western Russian edition extensively outlines the history of Western European and Western Slavic states from the 11th century to 1527. Aimed at giving an overview of European nations. The actual heyday dates back to the 17th century. At the beginning of the 17th century, the revisions of 1617 and 1620 took place. They are of different types. They are beginning to displace earlier chronographs and completely replace chronicles. The chronographs of the 17th century present not only historical events, but also information of a natural scientific nature: works of ancient literature can be retold, excerpts from Russian works and Christian works are given. Various geographical data are given. These are a kind of medieval encyclopedias. Modern historians rarely use chronographs. They also have a lot of material.
RUSSIAN CHRONICLES AND MILLER-ROMANOV VERSION OF RUSSIAN HISTORY.
1. FIRST ATTEMPTES TO WRITE ANCIENT RUSSIAN HISTORY.
A good overview of the history of writing Russian history is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky, pp. 187-196. This story is little known and very interesting. We will present it here, following Klyuchevsky.
1.1. XVI-XVII CENTURIES AND DECREE OF ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH.
It is known that the modern version of Russian history dates back to the 18th century and its authors are Tatishchev, Miller and Shletser. What was known about Kievan Rus before them? It turns out - practically nothing. Meanwhile, in the 16th-17th centuries, Rus' was already interested in its ancient history.
V.O. Klyuchevsky writes: “The idea of the collective development of our history arose long before Schletser... In this regard, the 16th century is especially outstanding in our country: it was an era of lively chronicle writing... Then extensive chronicle collections were compiled, with detailed tables of contents, genealogical tables of Russian and Lithuanian sovereigns... In the chronicle narrative, glimpses of historical criticism become noticeable; they are trying to introduce a methodological plan into it, even to carry out a well-known political idea in it... An extensive chronicle collection is being undertaken, beginning with the legend of the crowning of Vladimir Monomakh as the crown of the Byzantine emperor," p.188
Apparently, at this time a version of Russian history was created, starting with Vladimir Monomakh. We will return to how this version was created in subsequent chapters. Here we note that this version, apparently, did not yet include early Kievan Rus. That is, the story BEFORE Vladimir Monomakh.
Then there is a break until the middle of the 17th century, when:<<Указом 3 ноября 1657 года царь Алексей Михайлович повелел учредить особое присутственное место, Записной приказ, а в нем сидеть дьяку Кудрявцеву и "записывать степени и грани царственные с великого государя царя Федора Ивановича", то есть продолжать Степенную книгу, прерывающуюся на царствовании Иоанна Грозного. Начальник нового приказа должен был вести это дело с помощью двух старших и шести младших подъячих...
This, so to speak, historiographical commission was arranged with difficulty and was far from being according to the tsar’s decree. She was allocated a room in a cramped and rotten “hut”, where, moreover, next to the historiographers sat prisoners with archers guarding them. Junior clerks were not appointed at all, and the Ambassadorial Order resolutely refused to issue the paper. A lot of trouble was involved in searching for sources... [Kudryavtsev] contacted one order after another, but received the answer that there were no books except for the orders, although later there were manuscripts and documents very suitable for the job...
At the end of 1658, the tsar himself drew the attention of his historiographer to an important repository of historical monuments, to the Patriarchal Library... Kudryavtsev took out an inventory of this book depository and used it to mark the manuscripts he needed. But... the royal command again remained unfulfilled... The Patriarchal Order replied that “no notes were found in that order with the required information about patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops from the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich.” Other orders, despite persistent reports from Kudryavtsev, did not give such an answer...
Handing over his position at the beginning of 1659, Kudryavtsev left almost no tangible fruits of his 16-month historiographical efforts, “there was no place in the Record Order for the sovereign’s business and the beginning was not done at all,” as his successor put it. The order didn't even include the OLD BOOK, which he was instructed to continue, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW HOW IT ENDED AND WHERE TO START ITS CONTINUATION. But the second clerk did nothing either>>, p.189-190.
From all this the following is clear.
1) Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov is the FIRST Tsar, from whose time direct instructions to “start writing history” have been preserved. This was in the middle of the 17th century.
2) The people who carried out his order did not find sources on the history of Russia in the capital EVEN OVER THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.
3) It is strange that the famous Degree Book has disappeared.
4) The working conditions created by this first historiographical commission mysteriously did not correspond to its status. The royal decree was practically sabotaged!
Apparently, V.O. Klyuchevsky was right when he wrote that “in Moscow at that time...neither minds nor documents were ready for such a thing,” p.190. This means that the DOCUMENTS APPEARED LATER. OR WERE MADE?
No wonder Kudryavtsev could not find anything. Apparently, the decree of Alexei Mikhailovich was the impetus that prompted the start of the production of documents. Therefore, at the end of the 17th century they already “appeared”. Klyuchevsky writes directly: “AFTER there were very useful manuscripts and documents there,” pp. 189-190.
Of course, Klyuchevsky seems to be speaking here only about sources from the late 16th - early 17th centuries. That is, about documents from the era immediately preceding Alexei Mikhailovich. And he comes to the conclusion that documents from this era appeared AFTER Alexei Mikhailovich. But then it is natural to assume that if the commission could not find documents from the 16th-17th centuries, then the worse the situation was with the EARLIER ERA. For example, a natural question arises. In the era of clerk Kudryavtsev, did the above-mentioned “extensive chronicle code” exist, describing history starting from Vladimir Monomakh, as well as the “Royal Book”, describing the time of Ivan the Terrible? Perhaps they were also written, or significantly edited, after Kudryavtsev?
Apparently, here we are happily groping for the very BEGINNING OF THE CREATION of the overwhelming majority of “ancient” Russian chronicles. And the famous Tale of Bygone Years was probably not even written at that time. See below. Today it is very difficult to say what genuine historical evidence formed the basis of all these future “ancient” chronicles. Of course, such evidence at that time still existed, but, most likely, most of them did not reach us.Today we judge Russian history of the pre-Romanov era, peering at it through the distorted prism of chronicles written or edited after clerk Kudryavtsev.
Looking ahead, let's say that some ancient documents of the 15th-16th centuries have reached us. Acts, texts of contracts, printed books, church sources, etc. But, as we will see, upon close reading, a completely different picture of Russian history emerges from them. It is very different from the one that was born after the decree of Alexei Mikhailovich and the works of historians of the 18th century - Tatishchev, Bayer, Miller, Schletser, and which is taught in schools today. More on this below.
1.2. XVIII CENTURY: MILLER.
After clerk Kudryavtsev, Klyuchevsky passes, bypassing Tatishchev, directly to Miller, who began work on Russian history under Elizaveta Petrovna. Let us ask ourselves: why, in fact, does Klyuchevsky not mention Tatishchev? After all, he lived under Peter I, that is, before Elizabeth Petrovna. We all know from childhood that Tatishchev was the first Russian historian. Where does such disdain for him come from? It turns out, however, that Klyuchevsky is absolutely right.
The fact is that Tatishchev’s book “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times to Tsar Michael” WAS FIRST PUBLISHED ONLY AFTER TATISHCHEV’S DEATH AND BY NOT ANYONE BUT MILLER. See below. Thus, the first version of Russian history was made public by the German Miller.
Klyuchevsky writes: “Let’s fast forward to another era, to the first years of the reign of Empress Elizabeth. At the Academy of Sciences, the visiting scientist Gerard Friedrich Miller worked diligently on Russian history. He traveled through the cities of Siberia for almost ten years, sorting out the local archives, traveled more than thirty thousand miles and In 1743 he brought to St. Petersburg an immense mass of documents copied there,” p. 191. Miller is considered one of the founders of our historical school, along with Bayer and Schlozer. So what do we see?
1) MILLER WAS THE FIRST to publish the complete version of Russian history as it exists today.
2) It is very strange that for some reason Miller brings historical documents, and not even the documents themselves, but their handwritten copies made by himself, “from Siberia.” Does this mean that he could not find old chronicles in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and indeed in central Russia? Isn’t history repeating itself again with the decree of Alexei Mikhailovich, when his clerk could not find historical sources in the capital?
3) Since Miller, the version of Russian history has remained virtually unchanged. Therefore, its further re-statements, carried out by Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and many others, from this point of view are of little interest to us. In fact, they were just retelling Miller.
1.3. BRIEF CONCLUSIONS.
The version of ancient Russian history available today was created in the middle of the 18th century on the basis of sources written or edited in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Apparently, the time from the end of the 17th to the middle of the 18th century is the era of the creation of ancient Russian history. Starting from the creation of primary sources and ending with the full version. In other words, today's version of Russian history was written in the era of Peter I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. After the publication of “History” by N.M. Karamzin, this version became known in society. Before this, only a narrow circle of people knew her. Gradually it was introduced into the school curriculum.
Our analysis shows that this version of Russian history is erroneous. We will talk about this in subsequent chapters.
Source - A4. CHRON 4. New chronology of Rus'. Nosovsky and Fomenko
Partner News
In the 16th century all-Russian chronicle writing became centralized: chronicle writing was carried out in Moscow (most likely, by the joint forces of the grand ducal and metropolitan chancellery); chroniclers in other cities and in monasteries, when describing the events of the time close to them, were forced to almost literally convey the official grand-ducal (from the mid-16th century - royal) chronicle.
Unified all-Russian chronicle of the 16th century. was represented by a series of successive vaults. These are the code of 1508 (the final part of which was reflected in the Sofia First Chronicle according to the Tsarsky list), the code of 1518 (text for the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century in the Second Sofia, Lvov and Uvarov Chronicles), the code of 1534 (the end of the Voskresensky list of the Second Sofia Chronicle).
In the 20s XVI century a chronicle was compiled that, unlike most codes, did not cover all of Russian history from ancient times, but only the time of the three Moscow Grand Dukes (Vasil II, Ivan III and Vasily III) - the Joasaph Chronicle.
In the 20s the compilation of the most extensive Russian chronicle, which received the name Nikonovsky from historians, also begins; The initial edition of this chronicle (Obolensky's list) was created, apparently, at the court of the famous church figure (from 1526 - Metropolitan) Daniel, but became the basis of the official grand-ducal chronicle.
In 1542, during the childhood of Ivan IV and the “boyar rule”, a new chronicle was compiled - the Resurrection Chronicle. The next stages in the history of chronicling dated back to the time of the political power of Ivan IV.
Around 1555, the “Chronicle of the Beginning of the Kingdom” was compiled, covering the time from the death of Vasily III to the Kazan victory of 1552; the compilation of this monument may, apparently, be associated with the activities of Ivan the Terrible’s associate, Alexei Adashev.
In the middle of the 16th century. “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom” was revised and included in the second edition of the Nikon Chronicle (Patriarchal and other lists), brought up to 1558.
In the 60s the most official, multi-volume, richly illustrated edition of the Nikon Chronicle was created - the Facial Vault; the presentation of this grandiose code (which included not only the chronicle narrative, but, in its initial part, also biblical and chronological texts) was suddenly interrupted in 1567.
Traces of some urgent and responsible revision of the Front Vault were a special, not completed (the text ends in 1553) edition of its last volume, which has come down to us as part of the “Royal Book”. The reason for this cessation of maintaining the Litsevoy vault, and at the same time the entire royal chronicle, was obviously some drastic political changes during the period of the oprichnina, which made it impossible to provide any consistent and stable explanation of the political history of the last period.
Along with the all-Russian chronicle, unified from the beginning of the 16th century. and ceased in the 60s, local chronicles continued to exist in Rus' - in Novgorod and especially in Pskov (Pskov First Chronicle - collection 1547 and Pskov Third Chronicle - collection 1567).
Pskov chronicle of the 16th century. deserves attention not only as a historical source, but also as a literary phenomenon. As in the chronicles of the 15th century, lively details and journalistic attacks here invade the traditional narrative.
Thus, the story about the annexation of Pskov in 1510 begins in the Pskov First Chronicle (collection of 1547) with a lament for Pskov: “O most glorious one in the great city of Pskov, why are you mourning, why are you crying? And the city of Pskov answered: Why should we not complain, why should we not cry? A multi-winged eagle flew to me... and made our land empty.”
But then this lyrical lament turns into a satirical description of the activities of the Moscow governors and its consequences: “And among the governors and their tiuns and the clerks of the Grand Duke, their truth, the kiss of the cross, flew up to heaven, and falsehood began to walk in them... And you governors, their tiuns and people wrote a lot of blood from Pskov; and some foreigners lived in Pskov, and they were tired of their own land..., only the Pskovites remained, but the land did not give way, and they could not fly upward.”
Even more frank was the journalistic nature of the story about the events of 1510 in the Pskov Third Chronicle (collection of 1567); parodying the words of his fellow countryman, supporter of Moscow Filofei, about Moscow as the “third Rome”, which will “grow and grow and expand until the end” century,” the chronicler wrote about the new Moscow state: “For this reason the kingdom will expand and villainy will multiply.”
In the official Moscow chronicle of the 16th century. we will not find such satirical elements as are found in the chronicles of previous times; the main tone of the narrative is chronicle-business or solemnly panegyric.
However, the official chroniclers of the 16th century. could be artists - especially in those cases when they had to describe living and truly dramatic events. Among the most lively scenes in the chronicles of the 16th century. stories about the death of Vasily III in 1533 and the illness of Ivan IV in 1553 can be attributed.
History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.