1339 In the summer of 6847. Great Prince Ivan Danilovich went to the Horde. That same summer, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Tverskoy went to the Horde, and sent his son Theodore as ambassador. Toe In the winter, Tuvlub, the Totar army, went to Smolensk, with him Prince Ivan Korotopolii. And the Great Prince Ivan Danilovich sent many to Smolensk, according to the Tsar’s word. And they stood a lot near the city. And, without taking the city, they moved away and the volosts fought.
1340 Toe In the spring, Prince Semyon Ivanovich and his brothers went to the Horde. Toe In the autumn, Prince Semyon Ivanovich came out and began his great reign in Volodymyr and Moscow.
1341 In the summer of 6849. Tsar Azhbyak died and Tsar Zhenibek died in the Horde, and killed his brethren.
1342 In the summer of 6850, Metropolitan Theognast went to the Horde to the new king Zhenibek for the payment of ceremonies.forged.
1353 In the summer of 6861. That same summer, Ivan Ivanovich and Prince Konstyatin of Suzdas went to the Horde about the great reign.
1358 In the summer of 6866, Prince Ivan Ivanovich left the Horde for his great reign.
1359 In the summer of 6867. King Zhenibek died, and his son Berdebek reigned over the kingdom with his guardian Tuvlubiy and killed 12 of his brethren. That same year, Murat, Tsar Alexei, was in the Horde and became a metropolitan and suffered a lot from the filthy totars; and by the grace of God the most pure Mother of God came healthy to Rus'. Toe During the winter, the princes of Rusti came to the Horde to Tsar Berdebuk: Prince Andrei Kostyantinovich and all the princes of Rusti with him.
1361 In the summer of 6869. The Rusti princes went to the Horde to King Kidar. And King Kidar was killed by his son Temir the Master and swept away by the entire Horde. And Prince Andrey Kostyantinovich fled from the Horde. And the princes of Orda attack him. And God help Prince Andrey. And Tsar Temir ran across the Volga, and with Mamai the whole Horde. At the same time, the princes of Rostov were robbed in the Horde and released to Rus' naked.
1362 In the summer of 6870. Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich of Suzdal, having spoken about the great reign of Moscow, sent his boys to the Horde. And Tsar Murat received a letter from Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich for the great reign. And Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich was in Pereslavl at that time. The great prince went to war against him. He fled to Suzzdal, to his estate in Suzzdal.Toe In the winter of Epiphany, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich came to Volodymyr and began his great reign. The next summer, an ambassador from the Horde came to him. That same summer, Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich came to Volodymer for his great reign, buying with him a Tsar’s ambassador named Ilyak and with him three hundred Totarins. The Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich gathered together many people and drove Prince Dmitry to Suzhdal, and then to Nizhny Novgrad. That same summer, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich expelled Prince Dmitry Galitsky and Prince Ivan Starodubsky from his reign, and those princes came to Nizhny Novgrad to visit Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich.
1363 In the summer of 6871, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich marched with his brothers to Suzhdal.
1368 In the summer of 6876. That same summer, Great Prince Dimitri Ivanovich went to Tver and Tver. And Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy fled to Lithuania. Toe In the winter, Prince Olgird of Lithuania went with his army to Moscow, and Prince Semyon Kropiva and Prince Ivan Starodubskaya and all the commanders swept him away with force, and stood near the city for three days, did not take the city, burned the settlements and fought the volosts. Toe During the same winter, Prince Volodimer Andreevich took the city of Rzhev.
1371 In the summer of 6879. Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy left the Horde for the great reign of Moscow and wanted to sit down in Volodymyr. And he didn’t like the spring. Prince Mikhail of Tver sent his army to Kostroma and fought in Mologa and Uglich. That same summer, the Naugorod Lyapuns plundered Yaroslavl and Kostroma. That same summer, Grand Duke Dimitrey Ivanovich sent his governor, Prince Dimitrey Volynsky, and with him howled a lot against Prince Olga of Ryazan. The people of Ryazan, in their pride, do not want to take sabers and spears with them, but want to have belts and pinions. And the Poltsy on Skornishchevo were scattered, and they were slaughtered fiercely. And God help Prince Dmitry of Volyn, governor of the Grand Duke of Moscow. Oleg ran past Ryazan into the field. Great Prince, place Prince Volodimer Pronskago in Ryazan.
1372 In the summer of 6880. Prince Olga of Ryazan gathered many and drove Prince Volodymyr Pronsky from Ryazan, and he sat down in Ryazan. That same summer, Prince Mikhailo Aleksandrovich of Tverskoy brought the Lithuanian princes in secret with many forces: Prince Kestutya, Prince Andrei of Polotsk, Prince Dmitry Vruchsky, Prince Vitoft Kestutyevich and many other princes and with them the Poles, and Zhomot, and Zholnyryans, and went to Pereslavl, Posads Pozhgosha, and the boyar, they led a lot of people in full. And the Pereslavians of Lithuania were beaten, and many drowned in the river in Trubezh.
1373 In the summer of 6881, Prince Olgird of Lithuania assembled many people, and with him in the Duma, Prince Mikhail Tverskoy, and went to Moscow. Hearing the Great Prince Dimitrey Ivanovich, he gathered many howls and marched from Moscow against Olgird, having first driven out Olgird’s guard regiments, and met up at Lyubutzk. The wallpaper has shelves and if the enemy happens to be deep between them, it’s tough, you can’t fight with a regiment, step down. And they stood for a long time, and Olgird made peace with the Grand Duke, and became weary.
1375 In the summer of 6883. That same summer, Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tverskoy sent his ambassador to Moscow to Grand Duke Dimitry Ivanovich, and sent his own apostates to Torzhek, and the ambassador’s army to Uglich. Having heard this, the Great Prince Dimitrei Ivanovich gathered together and went to Tver, and with him Prince Dimitrei Kostentinovich, his father-in-law, Suzdal, Prince Volodymer Andreevich, Prince Boris Konstantinovich Gorodetsky, Prince Semyon Dimitrievich, the Grand Duke's brother-in-law, Prince Andrei Fedorovich b Moscow, Prince Vasilei Konstantinovich Rostovsky, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich and his brother Prince Alexander Smolensky, Prince Vasilei Vasilyevich and his son Prince Roman Yaroslavsky, Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Belozerskaya, Prince Vasilei Romanovich Kashinsky, Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Mozhaiskaya, Prince Andrei Fedorovich Starodubskoy, Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Belozerskaya , Prince Vasily Mikhailovich Kashinskoy, Prince Roman Semenovich Novoselskoy, Prince Semyon Konstantinovich Obolenskoy and his brother Prince Ivan Turavskoy. And all those princes serve Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich with their regiments. And the prince went to Tver in the month of Maya on the 29th day, fighting on all sides. The foot soldiers took up arms to plunder and took the city of Mikulin, and completely led the Mikulin people. And all the forces came to Tver and burned the settlements. At the same time, the Naugorodians came with much force to Tver, according to the word of the Grand Duke, and built two bridges on the Volga, abusing their old offense. And Prince Mikhail shut himself up in the city. I rolled up to the city, and made a sign, and lit the archery. And the people of Tver were quenched and the turs were cut to pieces, and they themselves fought quite hard. Here Prince Semyon Bryansk is killed. And the prince stood for a great month, beating every day. And the whole land was empty. And Prince Mikhailo, waiting for Totar and Lithuania, did a lot of harm to himself. And, seeing his inexhaustibility, he sent Bishop Euthymius and his boys to beat the Grand Duke with their foreheads. And the great prince, despite the bloodshed and destruction of the city, made peace with Prince Michael with all his will, as he wanted, and retreated fromTver September on the 8th day. That same summer, the boyar of Naugorodtskoye Prokopeia 70 attacked the river, brought peace to Ustyug, and plundered Kostroma and Nizhny Novgorod.
1378 In the summer of 6886. From the Horde Arpash Saltan went to Novugrad to Nizhny in the strength of the great. Having heard this, Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich Suzhdalsky, father-in-law of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, and sent word to Moscow, calling for help. And Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich went with many forces. And there would be no way to lead the saltana to Arpasha. And Prince Dmitry Kostyantinovich sent his children, Prince Ivan and Prince Semyon, with many forces against the Totars in the field. And I’ll go across the river for Piana, “Arpasha,” they said, “stands on Volchei Voda.” They made a mistake and started drinking honey, fishing, and playing in the wasteland. And the proverb has been nicknamed to this day - “stand drunk across the Drunken River.” And at that time of depravity, the Mordovian prince Alabuga came with an army unknown from Mamaev's horde against the Russian princes and killed Prince Mikhail, and Prince Semyon and Ivan Danilovich drowned on the river. Prince Dmitry, having made a mistake, did not lay down the siege, and after a small escape to Suzhdal with the princess. That same summer, Totarov took Pereslavl Ryazan.
1379 In the summer of 6887. Prince Mamai of the Horde sent the army of his prince Bichig to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich. The Great Prince gathered together many people and marched against them. And they met by the river near Vozha. Totarov crossed the river and rushed towards the Russian shelves. The Russian prince was hit in the face by them, and from the right country, Timofey Vasilyevich Okolnichei, and from the left country, Prince Danilo Pronskoy. And that hour the Totars ran away, and the great prince chased them across the river to Vozha, and the Totars sank into the river countless times. And the great prince overtook the carts and Totar tents in the field and caught a lot of goods, but they did not see any other carts, the darkness was great then. And then they caught a lot of wealth and returned to Moscow.
AND So, maybe there was silence for many summers, but not very much. There is still a civil war going on in Rus'. According to custom, the princes wet each other, attracting both Tatars and Lithuanians. Novgorodians, Tver, Vladimir, Ryazan... They all burn each other, rob, and take them away. And the Horde? It's similar there: Tsar Zhenibek, and beat his brethren.King Zhenibek died, and his son Berdebek reigned with his guardian Tuvlubiy and killed 12 of his brethren. And King Kidar was killed by his son Temir the Master and swept away by the entire Horde. And Tsar Temir ran across the Volga, and with Mamai the whole Horde. In general, it’s a complete mess, or ZAMYATNYA:
1361 PSRL. T-34. MOSCOW CHRNICALER In the summer of 6869 Prince Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow went to the Horde to see Tsar Khydyr, and left the Horde before the mess. That same summer, Grand Duke Dmitry Kostyantinovich and his elder brother Prince Andrey, and Prince Kostyantin of Rostov, and Prince Mikhailo of Yaroslavl came to the Horde, and with them there was great confusion in the Horde. King Khydyr was killed by his son Temir-Khozhin and took over the kingdom on the 4th day, and on the 7th day of his kingdom, his temnik Mamai was crushed by his entire kingdom, and there was a great rebellion in the Horde. And Prince Ondrei Kostyantinovich at that time left the Horde for Rus', and on the way the prince hit him with a retaliation, God help Prince Andrei, he will come healthy to Rus'. And Temir-Khozha ran across the Volga and was quickly killed there. And Prince Mamai came beyond the Volga to the mountainous country, and the whole Horde was with him, and the king with him was named Avdulya, and the 3rd king of the east was Kildebek, the son of King Chyanibek. You beat a lot of people, then you end up killed yourself. And other princes shut themselves up in Sarai, calling themselves king Amurat. And Bulak-[Te]mir, the prince of the Horde and Bulgarian, took all the cities along the Volza and Ulysy, and took away the entire Volga route. And the prince of Ardyn Tagai, having taken away the country of Naruchyadsk for himself, remained there. There is a great hunger in them and a lot of confusion, and I will not stop fighting and killing myself by God’s permission for them. Then in the Horde you robbed the princes of Rostov.
D and this is not the same Horde that was under Batu. Everyone there has already converted to Islam. Instead of the election of the tsar, there was a forceful seizure of power by different parties, attempts to establish hereditary power. Certain parts of the Horde begin to show separatism. In addition to the title tsar, the chronicles begin to sound soltan, prince. That is, the Soltans and princes themselves begin to do whatever comes into their heads. The Russian component disappears completely, dissolving in the Kipcha environment, except for those who went to Russia.
T However, the Horde office is still working, and princes regularly visit there, as is customary. Naturally, with gifts and military reinforcements, receiving diplomas. It is no longer clear what the Horde actually is. Already every soltan -prince and his horde. So Mamai’s horde loomed on the horizon. Thus, the patronage of the Horde in relation to Rus' is replaced by the usual relations of vassalage. And attempts to confirm it.
T How Rus' is attacked:
1378 In the summer of 6886. From the Horde Arpash Saltan went to Novugrad to Nizhny in the strength of his greatness.There were opportunities to repel this attack if the Russian army had not gotten too drunk.Nothing is said about the fate of Novgorod. Apparently Arpasha Saltan drank with the princes.
D more: And at that time of depravity, the Mordovian prince Alabuga came with an army unknown from Mamaev's horde against the Russian princes and killed Prince Mikhail, and Prince Semyon and Ivan Danilovich drowned on the river. Prince Dmitry, having made a mistake, did not lay down the siege, and after a small escape to Suzhdal with the princess. That same summer, Totarov took Pereslavl Ryazan.And here is the prologue of the Massacre of Mamayev.
1379 In the summer of 6887. Prince Mamai of the Horde sent the army of his prince Bichig to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich. And here is the battle on Vozha, where Dmitry Ivanovich defeated Mamai’s army, commanded by Bichig. And Dmitry Ivanovich defeated Mamai’s army without any doubt that he did not defeat the army of the king of the Horde. That is, the king of the Horde is a sovereign in relation to whom Dmitry Ivanovich is a vassal. And in relation to Mamai there is no vassalage. It's just an enemy and nothing more. Mamai is not a king. This is a renegade. He fled from the king of the Horde to the Black Sea steppes and to the Crimea. There this separatist created his horde.
T Thus, the impending battle on the Kulikovo Field is not a battle with the Tatars at all -Mughal yoke for the liberation of Rus'. No way! This is a battle against a certain army that has nothing to do with the Horde. This is just an aggressor from the south and the war is not at all liberating in nature. Now let's see what the battle was like.
1380 In the summer of 6888.The filthy Horde prince Mamai went as an army to the Russian land against the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, and with him all the dark princes of the Horde and with all the Totar forces, and also a hired army Besermeni, Armenian, Fryazi, Cherkasy, Brutasy, Mordovians, Cheremis and other many powers. And the Lithuanian prince Jagailo, with all his Lithuanian strength and husk, went to his adviser Mamai to help the Grand Duke and with him, alone, Prince Oleg Ryazansky, and Mamai to the aid.
The accursed Mamai became proud with great force, imagining himself as a king, and saying: “We are going to Rus', and we will consume the Russian land, and we will destroy the faith, we will burn the churches, we will flog the Christians and completely dissolve them. And there will be no Christian faith, as under Batu there was Christianity in the past.” And combine your strength and gain strength ten hundred thousand.
Hearing that word and praise of Mamaev, the Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich and the ambassador sent letters throughout the entire city of his reign to all the princes and bolyars, and governors, and boyar children and ordered them to quickly go to Moscow. And he himself went to the cathedral church to the Most Pure Mother of God and to the tomb of the great, St. Peter the Metropolitan and prayed with tears to the all-merciful Savior and His Most Pure Mother and St. Peter, asking for help for Poganov Mamai. And bless him, Metropolitan Cyprian.
And he went to the Monk Sergius, abbot, and he blessed him to go to Mamai and gave him two monk brothers to help: Peresvet and Oslyabya. And the great prince went with all his might to Kolomna, and Vladyka Euthymia of Kolomensky blessed him to go against those who were repugnant for the Christian faith, and all the princes, and the governor, and all his people, bless him, and let him go, and see him off. And Vladyka Euphemia commanded all churches to sing prayers for the Grand Duke and for all his people.
The great prince exude his howl one hundred thousand, and the princes who serve him are those 2000 . And the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich went with all his might to the river to the Don.
Prince Andrey Olgirdovich of Polotsk heard this and sent the message to his brother, Prince Dmitry Olgirdovich Bryansky, loudly: “Let’s go, brother, to the aid of Grand Duke Dmitry of Moscow. The filthy Mamai is coming to the Russian land, he wants to captivate Christianity, like Batu.” And, having heard, Prince Dmitry Olgirdovich Bryansky was glad to come. And the two Olgirdovich brothers came to the Grand Duke for help, and the forces were with them 40 000 , and reached the Grand Duke at Don. The great prince Dmitry Ivanovich, with his brother and prince Volodimer Andreevich, traveled across the Oka River and came to the river Don. Olgirdovichi immediately reached. And the great prince greeted and kissed the princes of Lithuania.
The rotten Mamai sent to the Grand Duke to ask for a way out, and expecting to see the Grand Duke Jagiel of Lithuania and Prince Olga of Ryazan, the Christian enemy. At the same time, a blessed letter arrived from the holy great miracle worker Sergius, the abbot of the Trinity minister, who sent an elder to the Grand Duke with the bread of the Mother of God, saying: “Great Prince, fight with the filthy Mamai, God help you, the Holy Trinity and the holy martyrs of Russia, princes Boris and Gleb . And don’t expect strength on yourself.”
At the same time, the Lithuanian princes of Volyn came with a governor named Dmitry Bobrok, a man who was sensible and full of reason. And he said to the Grand Duke: “If you want to fight hard, then we will be transported across the Don to the Totars.” And the great prince praised his word. And they crossed the Don of September on the 7th day. The Grand Duke ordered Dmitry Bobrokov to organize and organize the regiments, he also organized the regiments.
And the filthy Mamai went to the Don with all his might. On the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the 8th day in the second hour, the Russian regiments marched with the filthy on the Nepryadva River near the Don. And the slaughter was great. The blood flows more quickly, but a horse can’t gallop from a human corpse. Great forces attacked the Russian regiments ninety miles, and a human corpse at 40 versts. And the battle was from the second hour until the ninth. And the fall of the Grand Duke of strength two hundred fifty thousand, and there are no Totar numbers. The accursed Mamai ran away, and the Grand Duke's forces chased him to the Mechi River. And many Totarov drowned in the river, and Mamai himself was chased away by the forest. The strength of the Grand Duke will return.
The great prince fought with the totara and will not be found alive. And the princes began to cry for him. Prince Volodimer Andreevich said: “Brothers, princes and bolyars and boyar children! Let’s look for the body of our sovereign, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, and whoever finds the body of the Grand Duke will be among our leaders.” And many princes and bolyars and boyar children were scattered through the oak grove to deceive the sovereign. And two sons of the boyars of Kostroma jumped away a mile away, and the name of one was Sobur, and the other was Grigory Kholpishchev, and ran over the sovereign, sitting under a birch tree under the cut, wounded, very bloody, in a single gray hair. And having gotten to know him, I recited to him: “Rejoice, Sovereign Prince Dmitry Ivanovich.” He looked at them: “Oh, dear squad! Whose victory? They said: “Yours, Grand Duke, a hundred on the bones of the Totars, your princes and bolyars and governors.” Grigorei Kholpischev ran with the news to Prince Volodimer Andreevich and to all the princes and bolyars and told them: “Long live the Great Prince!”
Radi, once upon a time, mounted a horse, ran over the sovereign, sitting in an oak grove, bloody, and Sabur standing over him. And all the princes and bolyars and the whole army bowed to him. And he washed him with warm water and put him in the ports. And she rode on horses, and stood on Totar bones under the black sign, and captured a lot of Totar wealth: horses and armor, and returned with victory to Moscow.
Then the prince of Lithuania Jagailo was not quick to help Mamai and ran back, not by hearing God’s help to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich. And he didn’t reach Mamai 30 miles. At the same time, the murdered princes, and the governor, and the boyars, and the children of the boyars: Prince Fyodor Romanovich and his son Prince Ivan Belozersky, Prince Fyodor and his brother Mstislav of Turov, Prince Dmitry Manastyrev, the elders Alexander Peresvet, his brother Oslebya and many other princes and boyars Orthodox and all sorts of people. And the great prince stood over the Russian people and bones for eight days and ordered the boyars to put them in logs, and to bury many people. And the people of Ryazan, playing dirty tricks on the Grand Duke, crossed the bridges on the rivers. Then the Grand Duke wanted to send an army against Olgird of Ryazan. He ran to a distant place with the princess and from the Bolyars, leaving his patrimony, and the Ryazan people finished off the great prince, and the great prince installed his governors in Ryazan.
1381 In the summer of 6889. Damned Mamai still gathered a lot of strength and went to Rus'. And a certain king named Takhtamysh came out from the eastern country from the Blue Horde with many forces. And may he be right with Momai. And Tsar Tokhtamysh recaptured him, and Mamai ran and ran to Kafa. And there you were a certain guest from Fryazen, and you told many that you had done a lot of evil to Christianity. And there I killed him. And Tsar Tokhtamysh is sitting on the Horde.
Modern Russian historical science about ancient Rus' is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, and on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can you trust such sources for everything?
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest listing was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.
It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.
In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.
One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.
The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.
Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.
Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.
They are called a valuable source “for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Rus'.” Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.
On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.
Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.
It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message sounds like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”
Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?
Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”
It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?
But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it's not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...
Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.
In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.
Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:
“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? The real history of Ancient Rus' is still not known to us; it has to be reconstructed literally bit by bit.
Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:
“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.
In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.
Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.
Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!
Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.
This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.
The Tale of Bygone Years - The beginning of ancient Russian chronicle writing is usually associated with a stable general text, which begins the vast majority of chronicle collections that have survived to our time. The text of The Tale of Bygone Years covers a long period - from ancient times to the beginning of the second decade of the 12th century. This is one of the oldest chronicle codes, the text of which was preserved by the chronicle tradition. In different chronicles, the text of the Tale reaches different years: to 1110 (Lavrentievsky and lists close to it) or to 1118 (Ipatievsky and lists close to it). This is usually associated with repeated editing of the Tale. The chronicle, which is usually called the Tale of Bygone Years, was created in 1112 by Nestor, presumably the author of two famous hagiographic works - Readings about Boris and Gleb and the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk.
Chronicle collections that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years: the text of the chronicle collection that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years has been preserved as part of the Novgorod First Chronicle. The Tale of Bygone Years was preceded by a codex that was proposed to be called the Initial Code. Based on the content and nature of the chronicle's presentation, it was proposed to date it to 1096-1099. It was this that formed the basis of the Novgorod First Chronicle. Further study of the Initial Code, however, showed that it was also based on some kind of work of a chronicle nature. From this we can conclude that the Primary Code was based on some kind of chronicle compiled between 977 and 1044. The most probable year in this period is considered to be 1037, under which the Tale contains praise for Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich. The researcher proposed to call this hypothetical chronicle work the Most Ancient Code. The narrative in it was not yet divided into years and was plot-based. The annual dates were added to it by the Kiev-Pechersk monk Nikoi the Great in the 70s of the 11th century. chronicle narrative ancient Russian
Internal structure: The Tale of Bygone Years consists of an undated “introduction” and annual articles of varying length, content and origin. These articles may be of the following nature:
- 1) brief factual notes about a particular event;
- 2) an independent short story;
- 3) parts of a single narrative, distributed over different years when timing the original text, which did not have a weather grid;
- 4) “annual” articles of complex composition.
The Lviv Chronicle is a chronicle collection covering events from ancient times to 1560. Named after the publisher N.A. Lvov, who published it in 1792. The chronicle is based on a code similar to the 2nd Sophia Chronicle (in part from the end of the 14th century to 1318) and the Ermolinsk Chronicle. The Lvov Chronicle contains some original Rostov-Suzdal news), the origin of which may be associated with one of the Rostov editions of all-Russian metropolitan codes.
Facial chronicle vault - chronicle vault 2nd floor. XVI century The creation of the arch lasted intermittently for more than 3 decades. It can be divided into 3 parts: 3 volumes of a chronograph containing a statement of world history from the creation of the world to the 10th century, a chronicle of the “old years” (1114-1533) and a chronicle of the “new years” (1533-1567). At different times, the creation of the code was led by outstanding statesmen (members of the Elected Rada, Metropolitan Macarius, okolnichy A.F. Adashev, priest Sylvester, clerk I.M. Viskovaty, etc.). In 1570, work on the vault was stopped.
The Laurentian Chronicle is a parchment manuscript containing a copy of the chronicle code of 1305. The text begins with the “Tale of Bygone Years” and extends to the beginning of the 14th century. The manuscript lacks news for 898-922, 1263-1283 and 1288-1294. Code 1305 was the Grand Duke of Vladimir, compiled during the period when the Grand Duke of Vladimir was the Prince of Tver. Mikhail Yaroslavich. It was based on the code of 1281, supplemented with 1282 chronicle news. The manuscript was written by the monk Lawrence in the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod or in the Vladimir Nativity Monastery.
The Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal is a chronicle monument preserved in one manuscript of the 15th century. entitled "Chronicle of Russian Tsars". The beginning of the Chronicler (before 907) is found in another list of the 15th century. But the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal actually covers the events of 1138-1214. The chronicle was compiled in 1216-1219 and is one of the oldest that has survived to this day. The Chronicle is based on the Vladimir Chronicle of the early 13th century, which is close to the Radziwill Chronicle. This code was revised in Pereslavl-Zalessky with the involvement of local and some other news.
The Chronicle of Abraham is an all-Russian chronicle; compiled in Smolensk at the end of the 15th century. It received its name from the name of the scribe Avraamka, who rewrote (1495) at the behest of Smolensk Bishop Joseph Soltan a large collection, which included this chronicle. The direct source of the Chronicle of Abraham was the Pskov Code, which united the news of various chronicles (Novgorod 4th, Novgorod 5th, etc.). In the Chronicle of Abraham, the most interesting articles are 1446 -1469 and legal articles (including Russian Truth), combined with the Chronicle of Abraham.
Chronicle of Nestor - written in the 2nd half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. by the monk of the Kyiv Cave (Pechersk) Monastery Nestor, a chronicle filled with patriotic ideas of Russian unity. It is considered a valuable historical monument of medieval Rus'.
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 beginning of chronicle keeping in Rus' is directly related to the spread of literacy among the Eastern Slavs. Within the framework of this manual, the following indisputable facts of the assimilation of writing by the Slavs, including the Eastern ones, can be noted. Before the appearance of two alphabets - Glagolitic and Cyrillic - in the 9th century. The Slavs did not have a written language, as is directly stated in the Legend of the 10th century. “About the writings” of the monk Khrabr: “After all, before the Slavs, when they were pagans, did not have writings, but (read) and told fortunes with the help of features and cuts.” It is worth paying attention to the fact that the verb “read” is in brackets, that is, this word was absent in the early copies of the Legend. Initially it was only read “fortune-telling with the help of lines and cuts.” This initial reading is confirmed by the subsequent presentation in the Legend: “When they were baptized, they tried to write down the Slavic speech in Roman and Greek letters, without order. But how can one write “God” or “belly” well in Greek letters (the Slavs have letters, for example, “w”, which are absent in these languages). Further, the monk (monk) Brave reports about Constantine (Cyril) the Philosopher, who created an alphabet for the Slavs: “thirty letters and eight, some modeled on Greek letters, others in accordance with Slavic speech.” Together with Cyril, his elder brother monk Methodius also took part in the creation of the Slavic alphabet: “If you ask the Slavic scribes who created the letters for you or translated the books, then everyone knows and, answering, they say: Saint Constantine the Philosopher, named Cyril, he and the letters created and translated books, and Methodius, his brother” (Tales of the beginning of Slavic writing. M., 1981). Quite a lot is known about the brothers Cyril and Methodius, the creators of Slavic writing, from their Lives, created in connection with their canonization. Cyril and Methodius are saints for all Slavic peoples. The elder Methodius (815-885) and Constantine (827-869) were born in the city of Thessaloniki. Their Greek father was one of the military leaders of this city and the surrounding areas, where many Bulgarians lived at that time, so it is assumed that they knew the Slavic language from childhood (there is also a legend about their Bulgarian mother). The fate of the brothers initially turned out differently. Methodius becomes a monk early; he is known only by his monastic name. Constantine received an excellent education for that time in Constantinople, where he attracted the attention of the emperor and Patriarch Photius with his abilities. After several brilliantly executed trips to the east, Constantine was assigned to head the Khazar mission (861 BC). ). His brother Methodius also went with him to the Khazars. One of the goals of the mission was to spread and propagate Orthodoxy among the Khazars. An event occurred in Kherson (Crimea) that gave rise to endless scientific disputes in modern times. This event in the Life of Constantine is described as follows: “I found here the gospel and the psalter, written in Russian letters, and I found a man speaking that language, and talked with him, and understood the meaning of this speech, and, comparing it with my language, distinguished the letters vowels and consonants, and, making a prayer to God, soon began to read and expound (them), and many were surprised at him, praising God” (Tales. pp. 77-78). What language is meant in the expression “Russian letters” is unclear, some suggest Gothic, others Syriac, etc. (there is no definite answer). The brothers completed the Khazar mission successfully.
In 863, at the invitation of Prince Rostislav, a Moravian mission led by the brothers Constantine and Methodius was sent to Moravia, its main goal was to spread Christianity among the Slavs of the Moravian state. During this mission, the brothers created an alphabet for the Slavs and Constantine “translated the entire church rite and taught them matins, the hours, mass, vespers, compline, and secret prayer.” In 869, the brothers visited Rome, where Constantine died, having taken monasticism under the name of Cyril before his death.
For a long time it was believed that our modern alphabet was based on the alphabet created by Kirill, hence its name - Cyrillic. But after doubts and disputes, another point of view became generally accepted: Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolitic alphabet, and the Cyrillic alphabet appeared at the end of the 9th century. on the territory of Bulgaria. Glagolitic writing is the original Slavic (primarily Western Slavs) writing; it is based on an alphabet, the origin of which has not yet been clarified. It is quite possible that this is an artificial alphabet, and therefore must have a key to the explanation. It is curious that some signs found on stones and objects found in the Black Sea steppes are very similar to individual letters of the Glagolitic alphabet.
From the end of the 9th century. The Slavs simultaneously had two alphabets and, therefore, two writing systems - Glagolitic and Cyrillic. The first was widespread mainly among the Western Slavs (the Croats used this original writing system for many centuries), the second among the southern Slavs. The Glagolitic alphabet developed under the strong influence of the Roman church, and the Cyrillic alphabet - the Byzantine one. All this is directly related to the written culture of Ancient Rus'. In the 11th century, when the first and quite thorough steps were taken towards the assimilation of writing by the Eastern Slavs, they simultaneously used both writing systems - Glagolitic and Cyrillic. This is evidenced by the inscriptions on the walls (graffiti) of the Cathedrals of St. Sophia in Kyiv and Novgorod, which became the property of science only in the 20th century, where Glagolitic inscriptions are also found along with inscriptions in Cyrillic. The Latin influence on Glagolitic writing can be judged, for example, from the “Kyiv Glagolitic Leaves,” which is a Slavic translation of the Latin Missal. Around the 12th century. Glagolitic goes out of use among Russian people, and in the 15th century. it is perceived as one of the variants of secret writing.
The adoption of Christianity under Prince Vladimir in 988 was decisive in the emergence of writing, the spread of literacy, and the emergence of original national literature. The adoption of Christianity is the starting point of the written culture of the Russian people. Books were needed for worship, which were originally found in churches and cathedrals. The first church in Kyiv was the Church of the Mother of God (the full name is the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God), the so-called Tithe Church (Prince Vladimir gave it a tenth of all his income for its maintenance). It is assumed that it was at this church that the first Russian chronicle was compiled.
When studying the history of Russian chronicles of the 11th century, it is necessary to remember the simultaneous existence of two writing systems, which had different rows of numbers, which could lead to confusion when translating numbers from the Glagolitic alphabet to the Cyrillic alphabet (in Ancient Rus' there was a letter designation for numbers borrowed from Byzantium ).
The range of reading among Russian people at the time of the birth of chronicles was quite extensive, as evidenced by the manuscripts that have reached us from the 11th century. These are, first of all, liturgical books (Gospel aprakos, service menaion, paremia book, psalter) and books for reading: (Gospel tetras, lives of saints, the collection of Chrysostom, where there are many words and teachings of John Chrysostom, various kinds of collections, the most famous of which are collections of 1073 . and 1076, Patericon of Sinai, Pandects of Antiochus Chernorizets, Parenesis of Ephraim the Syrian (Glagolitic), Words of Gregory the Theologian, etc.). This list of books and works that existed in Ancient Rus' in the 11th century should be expanded to include those books and works that have come down to us in later lists. It is precisely such works, created in the 11th century, but which have come down to us in manuscripts of the 14th-16th centuries, that include the early Russian chronicles: not a single Russian chronicle of the 11th-13th centuries. not preserved in manuscripts contemporaneous with these centuries.
The range of chronicles used by researchers to characterize the early history of Russian chronicles has long been outlined. The most significant of them are noted here. In the first place are two chronicles that have come down to us in manuscripts on parchment from the 14th century. - Lavrentievskaya and Novgorodskaya Kharateynaya. But the latter, due to the loss of leaves at the beginning of the manuscript (weather records begin with a semi-phrase of news 6524 (1016)) and due to the brevity of the text (the description of the events of the 11th century takes up three pages of printed text, and in other chronicles several dozen pages ), is almost not involved in the restoration of the first stages of chronicle writing. The text of this chronicle can be used to show one feature of Russian chronicles, namely: years that had no news were entered in the text, and sometimes the list of “empty” years occupied a significant place in the manuscript, and this despite the fact that parchment was a very expensive material for writing . Sheet 2 of the Novgorod Charatean Chronicle looks like this:
“In the summer of 6529. Defeat Yaroslav Brichislav.
In the summer of 6530.
In the summer of 6531.
In the summer of 6532.
In the summer of 6533.
In the summer of 6534.
In the summer of 6535.
In the summer of 6536. The sign of the serpent appeared in heaven.” Etc.
A similar arrangement of news is sometimes found in Easter tables (defining the day of Easter for each year). In such tables, brief notes were made in the margins of the chronicle type. M.I. Sukhomlinov in the 19th century. suggested that it was from the Easter tables that the Russian tradition of designating years without recording events originated. A clear explanation for this has not been found; perhaps this is an invitation for subsequent chroniclers to fill in these years with events based on new sources?
The second oldest Russian chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, its code: RNL. F. p. IV. 2 (code means: the manuscript is in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg; F - the size of the manuscript (in folio) in a sheet; the letter "p" - indicates the material of the manuscript - parchment; IV - the fourth section, where manuscripts of historical content are placed; 2 is the serial number in this section). For a long time it was believed that the text of the Laurentian Chronicle within the IX-XII centuries. the most authoritative among other chronicles, but as shown by the analysis carried out by A.A. Shakhmatov, its text is very unreliable for reconstructing the original text of the PVL from it.
To restore early chronicle codes, the following chronicle monuments are also used: the Ipatiev, Radzivilov, Novgorod first junior chronicles (N1LM), the Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Suzdal and Ustyug chroniclers. Not all of these monuments are considered equal. For example, the involvement of the last three chroniclers remains controversial to characterize the early chronicles. The assessment of the significance of chronicle monuments has changed over time, for example, the authority of N1LM is recognized by everyone after many years of research by A.A. Shakhmatova. Its text turned out to be key for resolving many issues in Russian chronicles of the 11th century. The main position of the scientist is that N1LM presents the chronicle collection of the 70s. XI century, which preceded the PVL, presented in the Laurentian (LL) and Ipatiev (IL) chronicles.
Laurentian Chronicle according to M.D. Priselkov
In the initial part of LL and IL, news is given without indicating any dates: the resettlement of the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, Afet), between whom the whole earth was divided. Rus' and other tribes were in the Afetova part. This is followed by messages about the settlement of the Slavs, about the path from the Varangians to the Greeks, about the stay of the Apostle Andrew in Rus' and about his blessing of this land, about the founding of Kyiv, about the neighbors of the Eastern Slavs, about the arrival of the Khazars on Russian soil. Some of this news is taken from translated Byzantine chronicles, the other part is based on legends and traditions. The initial text of N1LM differs significantly from the text of LL-IL, it opens with a short preface, immediately followed by the first weather record for 6362 (854) with the indication “The Beginning of the Russian Land,” which tells the legend about the founding of Kyiv, the arrival of the Khazars on the Russian land . N1LM does not know the legend about the stay of the Apostle Andrew on Russian soil. This is followed by the news found in LL-IL in the introduction. The beginning of the Ustyug chronicler is closer to the text of N1LM, but there is no title, no preface, no introductory part; the chronicler begins directly with the news of 6360 (852) - “The Beginning of the Russian Land.” In the text of the Ustyug chronicler there is also no legend about the Apostle Andrew. When comparing the beginnings of the listed chronicles, it is clear that they have significant differences. It is quite difficult to resolve the issue of the primacy or secondary nature of the readings of a particular chronicle, especially given the established historiographical tradition, which continues to recognize the primacy of the Laurentian and Ipatiev chronicles. Most often, the most powerful arguments in favor of the primacy of a particular chronicle in a given historiographical situation can be obtained by involving other written sources of the 11th century. For example, when comparing the texts, it was found that the legend of the Apostle Andrew appears only in the texts LL-IL, which are based on different editions of the PVL, and that it did not exist in earlier chronicles. We find confirmation of this in the Life of Boris and Gleb, written by the monk Nestor in the 70s. XI century, where it is stated that none of the apostles preached on the Russian land and that the Lord himself blessed the Russian land.
As already noted, the most effective method of analyzing written historical sources is comparative textual. Only on the material obtained by comparing two or more texts with each other can you prove your point of view. You cannot limit yourself to the results of comparing lists of the monument you are interested in; it is necessary to correlate them with data from other literary and historical monuments that are synchronous with the text you are analyzing, and you must always look for similar phenomena and facts in the written heritage of other cultures. I will explain the last point using the example of the legend about the founding of the city of Kyiv by the three brothers Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv. Also A.-L. Schlözer noted that the legend of the three brothers accompanies the emergence of new cities in many European countries. Comparison of data from Russian chronicles with data from other cultures allows us to unambiguously perceive the news of the three brothers as a legend.
Comparison of texts provides material for analysis, reveals various additional sources of the chronicler, allows us to talk not only about the working methods of this or that chronicler, but also to recreate and restore the text written by him.
Textual analysis of any monument requires the researcher to have a broad intellectual background, without which the text will not reveal its content, and if it does, it will be in a distorted or simplified form. For example, to study Russian chronicles of the 11th century. It is necessary, if possible, to know all Russian manuscripts and monuments of the 11th century, as well as works of the historical genre created at that time in Byzantium and Europe.
The significant volume of chronicles significantly complicates their analysis and use. Let’s say you are interested in some news from the 11th century; it is read differently in different chronicles; you can understand the essence of these discrepancies only in the context of discrepancies in the entire chronicle as a whole, that is, you must understand for yourself the history of the text of the entire chronicle in order to use for their historical constructions one piece of her news. Indispensable help in this case are the works of A.A. Shakhmatov, where the texts of almost all Russian chronicles are characterized.
The first chronicle. The question of the first chronicle, the first historical work dedicated to the Russian land, from which all chronicles and all Russian historiography originate, has always been one of the most difficult. In the XVII-XIX centuries. The first Russian chronicler was considered the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who allegedly wrote his chronicle at the beginning of the 12th century. In the second half of the 19th century. I.I. Sreznevsky suggested that already at the end of the 10th century. In Rus', some kind of historical work was created with news about Russian history. Assumption I.I. Sreznevsky was further developed in the works of M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, B.A. Rybakova and others. For example, M.N. Tikhomirov believed that at the end of the 10th century. was created in Kyiv by one of the secular people, “The Tale of the Russian Princes.” Arguments in favor of this assumption are taken from the texts of the LL-N1LM-Ustyug chronicler. These are arguments of a general order, contrary to such well-known facts as: that the writing of the Eastern Slavs appeared in connection with the adoption of Christianity in 988, therefore, time was required for the spread of literacy; that church people (priests, monks) were the first literate people, since the first Russian books were liturgical or theological. The indisputable fact remains that only from the 11th century. Written monuments of the Eastern Slavs have reached us. The inscription on the pot from Gnezdovo, represented by one word (“goroukhsha”) and supposedly dating back to the 10th century, cannot serve as an argument for the existence of a developed written culture, and this is precisely what is implied when it comes to the creation of an original historical work.
D.S. Likhachev calls the first work dedicated to the history of Rus' a hypothetical monument - “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity,” placing its creation at the end of the 40s. XI century
When deciding the question of the first Russian historical work, a researcher must proceed from the analysis of chronicle material, without resorting to the creation of scientific fictions in the form of hypothetical monuments. The introduction of hypothetical monuments into scientific circulation is possible, but they cannot be abused, just as it is impossible to solve through them one of the most difficult issues of our historiography - the creation of the first domestic historical work.
The oldest chronicle code 1037 (1039) Most researchers agree that the first chronicle in Rus' was created in Kyiv in the first half of the 11th century. The most well-reasoned point of view is A.A. Shakhmatova. The key point in his argument was the analysis of the text of the chronicle article LL-IL 6552 (1044), consisting of two news items, which allowed him to outline two stages of chronicle work in the 11th century. The first news of this year reports: “In the summer of 6552. I raked out 2 princes, Yaropolk and Olga, the son of Svyatoslavl, and baptized the bones with it, and I laid them in the church of the Holy Mother of God.” This news of 1044 was compared with the news of 6485 (977) about the tragic death of one of the brothers, Oleg, near the city of Vruchev: “And Olga was buried in a place near the city of Vruchog, and there is his grave to this day near Vruchev.” The researcher drew attention to the expression “to this day,” which is often found in Russian chronicles and is very important for the analysis of the chronicle text, and made the following assumption: it belongs to the chronicler who knew about the existence of the grave at Vruchev and did not know about the reburial of the remains of the princes in 1044 ., which means he worked until 1044. This is how the first step was taken in substantiating the chronicle code. Further A.A. Shakhmatov and behind him M.D. Priselkov clarified the time of creation of the code, indicating 1037 as the year of foundation of the metropolitan department in Kyiv. According to the Byzantine tradition, the establishment of a new metropolitan see was accompanied by the preparation of a historical note about this event. It was precisely such a note that was the first chronicle code, compiled in Kyiv surrounded by the metropolitan in 1037. So, the code of 1037 was supported by two arguments: the existence of a grave before 1044 and the Byzantine tradition in the compilation of documents. Both arguments are flawed. By grave, the researcher means a grave in the modern sense of the word - a burial pit, but the pagan grave of a prince is a mound. The mound (grave) could remain even after the reburial of the remains, so the expression “to this day” in relation to the grave could have been used by any chronicler of the 11th century. and even the 12th century, who saw him near the city of Vruchev. As already noted, reference to dictionaries when analyzing chronicles is mandatory. The meaning of words changes over time. In the Dictionary of the Russian Language XI-XVII centuries. (Issue 9. M., 1982. P. 229) about the word “grave” it is said: 1) burial place, burial mound, mound; 2) a pit for burying the dead. This is a common Slavic word - hill, elevation, burial mound. (See: Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages: Proto-Slavic Lexical Fund. Vol. 19. M, 1992. S. 115-119). In the Ustyug chronicler, the sacred words of Princess Olga, spoken to her son Svyatoslav before her death, are conveyed as follows: “And Olga’s commandment was neither to perform funeral feasts nor to fill graves.” The argument about the establishment of the metropolitanate is also imperfect, since questions about the first Russian metropolitan, about the founding of the metropolitanate in Kyiv remain controversial and unclear, that is, these data cannot be used for any statements. (See: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. Vol. 1. First half of the volume. M., 1997. P. 257-332.)
The solution to the question of the first chronicle corpus is carried out in different directions: the assumption of hypothetical monuments, the analysis of general political and cultural events of the first half of the 11th century, the search for any indicating readings in the chronicle text. One of the directions was identified by A.A. Shakhmatov when analyzing the text “Memory and praise to the Russian Prince Volodimer, how Volodimer and his children baptized themselves and the whole Russian land from end to end, and how Volodimer’s woman Olga was baptized before Volodimer. Copied by Jacob the mnich" (hereinafter referred to as "Memory and Praise" by the mnich Jacob). This is a work from the mid-11th century. and when writing it, some kind of chronicle was used, as evidenced by the chronicle news relating to the reign of Vladimir (the spelling of the prince’s name was different from the modern one). If these chronicle news from “Memory and Praise” are put together, the following picture will be obtained: “And Sede (Volodimer) in the place of his father Svyatoslav and his grandfather Igor. And Svyatoslav killed Prince Pechenesi. And Yaroplk sits in Kiev in the place of his father Svyatoslav. And Olga, walking from the river near Vrucha Grad, broke off the bridge and strangled Olga while rowing. And Yaropelka killed the men of Kiev and Volodymer. And Prince Volodimer sat in Kiev in the 10th summer after the death of his father Svyatoslav, in the 11th month of June, in the summer of 6486. Prince Volodimer baptized in the 10th summer after the murder of his brother Yaroplk. And the blessed Prince Volodimer repented and wept for all this, as much as he did abomination, not knowing God. According to the holy rites, blessed Prince Volodimer lived for 28 years. Next summer, when it’s winter, go to the rapids. On the third Karsun the city is taken. For the fourth summer, Pereyaslal was laid down. In the ninth year, the blessed Christ-loving Prince Volodymer tithed the Church of the Holy Mother of God and in his own name. This is why the Lord himself said: “As your treasure is, so will your heart be.” And rest in peace in the month of July on the 15th day, in the year 6523 in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Quoted from the book: Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th-15th centuries. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 57.)
None of the chronicles that have reached us contain exactly the same text. There are several discrepancies, one of the most significant: the message that Prince Vladimir took Korsun in the third summer after his baptism. All other chronicles unanimously report the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Korsun after the capture of this city. It is assumed that “Memory and Praise” reflects some chronicle text that has not reached us. But another assumption can be made: “Memory and Praise” by Jacob Jacob is one of the first historical works of Ancient Rus', it was created before the appearance of the first chronicle code and the Korsun legend contained in it, it was one of the sources of the first chronicle code. It is easy to make such an assumption, but it is very, very difficult to prove it. In historical and philological science, as well as in the exact sciences, any position must be proven, and such provisions can only be proven on the basis of modern textual criticism.
The question of the first historical work, the first chronicle, does not yet have a solution, the proposed options are of little evidence, but we can say with confidence that such a solution will be found.
Is there irrefutable evidence of chronicle-keeping in the 11th century? Such an indication is in the text of the already mentioned chronicle article of 6552 (1044), where the Polotsk prince Vseslav is mentioned as alive, and his death was reported under 6609 (1101). Consequently, the entry under 1044 was made before 1101, then exists in the 11th century. until the creation of the PVL. When checking the date of death (any chronological indication should be checked), it turned out that April 14 was not a Wednesday in either March or September 6609. An explanation for this discrepancy has not yet been found.
On the creation of a chronicle in the 11th century. Topographical indications also speak about Kyiv buildings. For example, about the place where Kiy sat, it is said “where now is the Borichov courtyard” (Ustyug chronicler under 6360 (852)); about the grave of Askold, located on the mountain - “even now it is called Ugric, and there is a courtyard of Almel, on that grave put Alma the goddess of St. Nicholas. And Dirov’s grave is behind Saint Irina” (Ustyug chronicler under 6389 (881), in LL not “Alma”, but “Olma”). In the Ustyug chronicler under 6453 (945) we read: “... and the stasha (Drevlyans) near Borichev, but then the water would flow near Mount Kiev, and until the guilt of the gray people on the mountain. The city then was Kyiv, and now the courtyard of Goryatin and Nikiforov, and the courtyard of the princes in the city, and now the courtyard is Vrotislavl alone outside the city. And if there were other courtyards outside the city, but if there was a courtyard of the domestics behind the Holy Mother of God above the mountain, there would be a tower courtyard, for that tower was made of stone.” In LL, in addition to discrepancies in the names of the owners, there is a small addition - “the courtyard of Vorotislavl and Chudin”, “Chyudin” is also in N1LM. It is difficult to say whether “Chyudin” was in the original text, or was added by a subsequent chronicler. The detail is important, since this Chudin was a prominent figure in the 60-70s. XI century It is he who, along with Mikifor Kyyanin, is mentioned in the Truth of the Yaroslavichs (“The truth was set by the Russian land, when Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav, Kosnyachko, Perenet, Mikifor Kyyanin, Chudin Mikula bought it together”). In the LL under 6576 (1068) the governor Kosnyachko and his court are mentioned, which confirms the approximate dating of the topographical indications to the 60s of the 11th century.
Another indication of the keeping of chronicles in the 60s. Accurate dating of non-church events (year, month, day) that appears at this time can serve as a guide. Under 6569 (1061) we read: “The Polovtsy came first to the Russian land to fight; Vsevolod came out against them on the 2nd day of the month of February.”
All of the listed observations made by different researchers point to one thing - in the 60s. XI century In Kyiv, a chronicle was compiled. In the literature it was suggested that around these years the famous Hilarion, the first Russian metropolitan, was working on the chronicle.
Chronicle collection of 1073 The dating of events accurate to the day, appearing in the text from the 1060s, is attributed by researchers to the chronicle code of 1073. Here are some of them: February 3, 1066 - the day of the death of Prince Rostislav in Tmutarakan, July 10 of the same year - the capture Prince Vseslav Yaroslavich; September 15, 1068 - liberation of Prince Vseslav, November 1 of the same year - victory of Prince Svyatoslav over the Polovtsians; May 2, 1069 - the day of Prince Izyaslav’s return to Kyiv, etc.
Chronicle collection of the 1070s. None of the researchers doubt it. It was compiled in the Pechersky Monastery, which from that time became one of the centers of Russian chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. The Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was founded by the monk Anthony under Prince Yaroslav the Wise. One of the first abbots were Theodosius of Pechersk and Nikon, who ordained Theodosius himself to the priesthood. It is this Nikon who is credited with compiling the chronicle code of 1073. This was done by A.A. Shakhmatov, who drew attention to one curious circumstance. From the “Life of Theodosius of Pechersk,” written by the monk of the monastery Nestor in the 80s. XI century, we learn that Nikon in the 60-70s. made repeated trips from Kyiv to Tmutarakan, where he founded the monastery of the Holy Mother of God. In the chronicle from the 60s. detailed stories appear about the events that took place in distant Tmutarakan. A.A. Shakhmatov, having compared the data of the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk with the chronicles, made an assumption about Nikon’s participation in the compilation of the chronicle code of 1073. This code ended with a description of the events of 1073 (the expulsion of Prince Izyaslav from Kyiv), after which Nikon fled to Tmutarakan for the last time. Tmutarakan news of the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk and the chronicle are unique. Basically, only thanks to them we have at least some idea of the events that took place in the Tmutarakan principality. To some extent, we owe the appearance of this news in the Life and Chronicle to an accident - the biography of one of the Russian chroniclers was connected with this city. It is impossible to correlate all the news about Tmutarakan with Nikon, since he died in 1088, and the last event was entered into the chronicle in 1094. The question of this news and the chronicler who included it in his work has not yet been finally resolved. Some of the entries clearly point, if not to an eyewitness to the events described, then to a person who was well acquainted with them. Particularly vividly, with knowledge of the details, the events of 6574 (1066) are conveyed, telling about the circumstances of the death of Prince Rostislav: “To Rostislav the present Tmutorokani and the tribute received from the Kasots and from other countries, who, being afraid of the grits, sent the Kotopan with flattery. Whoever came to Rostislav and trusted him, will also honor Rostislav. As Rostislav and his retinue drank alone, the kotopan said: “Prince! I want to drink on you.” To him I say: “Pius.” He drank half, and gave half to the prince to drink, reaching his finger into the cup, because he had a mortal solution under his nail, and giving it to the prince, he pronounced death to the bottom of it. Having drunk it, he came to Korsun and told him how Rostislav would die that day, just as he had. This same kotopan was beaten with a stone by the corsunst people. For Rostislav was a noble man, a warrior, he grew up handsome and handsome in face, and was merciful to the poor. And he died on the 3rd day of the month of February, and there the Holy Mother of God was laid up in the church.” (Kotopan is the head, leader, some kind of official in Korsun. Quoted from the book: Monuments of the literature of Ancient Rus'. XI - early XII centuries. M., 1978. P. 180.)
Chronicle 1093 (1095) After the code of 1073, the following chronicle code was compiled in the Pechersk Monastery - 1093 by A.A. Shakhmatov at one time considered this text to be the original in the history of Russian chronicles, which is why it is sometimes called the Initial Code. The compiler of this monument, according to the researcher, was Ivan, the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery, which is why it is sometimes also called Ivan’s vault. At V.N. Tatishchev had a now lost copy of the chronicle, in which the description of the events of 1093 ended with the word “Amen,” that is, an indication of the completion of the work.
In the chronicle of 1093, new features of record keeping appeared. The dating of events began to be given with maximum accuracy: the death of the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery is indicated with an accuracy of an hour - at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on May 3, the second Saturday after Easter, 6582; with the same accuracy, the time of death of the successor of Theodosius, the second abbot of the Pechersk Monastery Stephen, who became the Bishop of Vladimir (in the south of Rus') is indicated - at the 6th hour of the night on April 27, 6612. All these datings of events are related to the Pechersk Monastery and were made, possibly , by the same person.
In the vault of 1093 there is a whole series of masterfully executed literary portraits. For example, under 6586 (1078) we read: “Izyaslav, the husband, has a handsome look and a large body, a gentle disposition, he hates crooked people, loving the truth. There is no need to lie, but the husband is simple in mind, not repaying evil for evil. How many things did the kiyans do: they drove him out, and plundered his house, and no harm was done against him” (Monuments. P. 214). Or, for example, under 6594 (1086) about Prince Yaropolk: “We have received many troubles, driven out from our brothers without guilt, offended, plundered, etc., and bitter death has been accepted, but we have been granted eternal life and peace. So this blessed prince was quiet, meek, humble and brotherly, giving tithes to the Holy Mother of God from all his wealth throughout the entire year, and praying to God always...” (Monuments of the literature of Ancient Rus'. XI - early XII centuries. M., 1978. P. 218). The chronicler created a similar portrait of Prince Vsevolod in the report of his death in 6601 (1093), after which such descriptions disappear from the chronicle text for a long time.
A rare chronicle has as much data confirming its existence as the chronicle of 1093. Here is the word “Amen” at the end of the list by V.N. Tatishchev, and a series of news about Tmutarakan, ending in the area of this chronicle article, and double dating at the beginning of the weather record (B summer 6601, indicta 1 summer...). And, perhaps most importantly, it is here that the use of one of the extra-chronicle sources - the Paremiynik - stops. The Paremiynik is an ancient Russian liturgical collection, compiled from various readings of the Old Testament and New Testament books; it was read during the liturgy or vespers. The paremiynik was used in Russian liturgical practice until the 15th century, after which it began to fall out of use. For the first time, the most complete question about the use of the Paremiynik as an extra-chronicle source in Russian chronicles of the 11th century. was developed by A.A. Shakhmatov (See: Shakhmatov A. A. “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // TODRL. T. 4. M.; L., 1940. P. 38-41). The main provisions of his observations are as follows: borrowings from the Paremiynik were made by one chronicler, borrowings can be traced back to 1093. If the first position can be challenged to some extent (the readings from the Paremiynik in the Vladimir Chronicler are peculiar and differ from the borrowings in LL-IL), then the second - no doubt. After 1093, borrowings from the Paremiynik are not found in Russian chronicles, therefore, this observation serves as another argument in favor of ending the chronicle corpus in 1093. Borrowings from the Paremiynik are presented in the following chronicle articles: 955, 969, 980, 996, 1015, 1019, 1037, 1078, 1093. This list of weather records with borrowings from the Paremiynik can serve as a clear example of how one of the chroniclers, who completed his work until 1093, actively worked with the material of his predecessors, in this case, supplementing it.
Here is an example of a comparison of the texts of the Paremiynik (based on a 12th century manuscript) and the chronicle:
This paroemic reading also includes another example of borrowing, noted by A.A. Shakhmatov (Proverbs 1, 29-31 under 955), since he breaks one whole text into two fragments.
When comparing the texts, it becomes obvious that the Chronicle was the source of the chronicle, from where the chronicler borrowed the materials he needed, quoting them almost verbatim.
Paremic borrowings in the chronicle articles of 1037, 1078, 1093 are found in extensive digressions made by one of the ancient Russian chroniclers. In the first two cases, when characterizing the personality and activities of the two princes Yaroslav and Izyaslav, and in the third case, in the story of the third Polovtsian invasion of Kyiv (by the way, the count of Polovtsian invasions stops here). All three digressions, unlike other cases of borrowings from the Paremiynik, complete the weather presentation of events.
Between the chronicle code of 1093 and the first edition of the PVL (1113), one can note the work of another chronicler - priest Vasily, the author of the chronicle article of 1097, where he reported his name, calling himself the namesake of Prince Vasilko. This article, according to M.D. Priselkov, with a description of the princely struggle and the blinding of Prince Vasilko, should be considered a masterpiece not only of ancient Russian, but also of all medieval literature.
PVL and its editions. At the beginning of the 12th century. In Kyiv, a chronicle was compiled, which at the beginning had an extensive title: “Behold the tales of bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who began to reign first in Kiev, and where the Russian land began to eat.” At the time of compiling the first edition of the PVL, a list of princes is indicated, placed under 6360 (852), which has the following ending: “... from the death of Svyatoslavl to the death of Yaroslavl, 85 years, and from the death of Yaroslavl to the death of Svyatopolch, 60 years.” After Prince Svyatopolk, who died in 1113, no one is mentioned. The end of the list at Svyatopolk and the fact that after him none of the princes who ruled in Kyiv were mentioned allowed researchers to assert that the chronicler worked in 1113, immediately after the death of Prince Svyatopolk. He brought his work, judging by the text of the LL (second edition of the PVL), up to the events of 6618 (1110) inclusive. It is assumed that the author of the first edition of the PVL was the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor (see about him below). Judging by the precise dating of events accurate to the hour (1113) IL and the indication of the indict at the beginning of the weather record 6620 (1112), the author of the first edition of the PVL could have completed the presentation of events up to 1113 inclusive.
The beginning of Russian chronicles according to M.D. Priselkov
The author of the first edition of PVL continued the work of his predecessor and supplemented it with various additional sources. Not least among them are the stories of eyewitnesses or participants in the events. For example, the chronicler was familiar with representatives of one of the most prominent families in Kyiv - the Vyshatichi. About the son of the governor Vyshata Yan, he writes in a chronicle article of 6614 (1106): “Yan, a good old man, died this summer, lived 90 years, suffered from mastitis in old age; living according to the law of God, he is no worse than the first righteous. I heard many words from him, including seven written in the chronicles, from him I heard them. For the husband is good, and meek, humble, raking all things, his coffin is in the Pechersky monastery, in the vestibule where his body lies, the date is June 24.” If we take into account the long years lived by Elder Yan, he could tell the chronicler a lot.
One of the additional written sources of the author of the first edition of the PVL was the Byzantine Chronicle of George Amartol and his successors. The author of the chronicle of the 70s did not know this Chronicle, since there are no borrowings from it in the N1LM text. The Chronicle of George Amartol is a monument of Byzantine literature of the 9th century, which tells world history. It was compiled by monk George in the 11th century. was translated into Russian. For the first time the use of this text in the Russian chronicle was pointed out by P.M. Stroev. A.A. Shakhmatov collected all the borrowings from the Chronicle in the chronicle, there are 26 of them. In the introductory part of the PVL, the chronicler directly pointed to his source - “George says in the chronicle.” Borrowings are often literal, for example, after a reference to the chronicle of George the text follows:
(An example of a comparison of texts is given in the work of A.A. Shakhmatov “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // TODRL. T. 4. M.; Leningrad, 1940. P. 46).
Borrowings from the Chronicle are distributed by the chronicler throughout the text of the chronicle, sometimes a large excerpt of a work is taken, sometimes a small clarifying detail. It is impossible to find all these borrowings without knowing their source, but at the same time, without knowing about them, one can mistake a fact of someone else’s history for an event in Russian reality.
Presumably, at the stage of creating the first edition of the PVL, treaties between the Russians and the Greeks (6420, 6453, 6479) were included in the text of the chronicle.
The compiler of the first edition of the PVL recorded in his chronicle news of various kinds of heavenly signs, some of which can be verified using astronomy data. For example, under 6599 (1091) we read: “In this summer there came a sign in the sun, that it would perish, and there was little of it left, as a month came, in the hour of 2 days, in the month of May 21 days.” It was on this day that astronomy revealed an annular eclipse. (Svyatsky D.O. Astronomical phenomena in Russian chronicles from a scientific-critical point of view. St. Petersburg, 1915. P. 104.) Similar entries were included in the chronicle under 6614 (1106), 6621 (1113), 6627 ( 1115) g. - IL. All these records must be checked against astronomy data to determine the accuracy of the chronology of the chronicle.
The second edition of the PVL is presented in LL. We learn about the time, place and circumstances of its compilation from the postscript located after the chronicle article of 6618 (1110): “Hegumen Silivester of St. Michael wrote the book of the Chronicle, hoping to receive mercy from God, under Prince Vlodimer, who reigned Kiev for him, and for me at that time abbess of St. Michael in 6624, indictment 9 years old; and if you read these books, then be in our prayers.”
Despite its brevity, this postscript requires a lot of attention, implying various types of verification and clarification. From the postscript it is clear that the chronicler was compiled by Abbot Sylvester of the Vydubitsky Monastery in 6624. First of all, it is necessary to check whether the specified chronological data corresponds to each other. Yes, they correspond: this year Prince Vladimir (1113-1125) was on the Kiev throne, and 6624 corresponds to the 9th indictment. It is also necessary to clarify each part of this postscript, paying attention to even minor details. For example, Vladimir is called a prince, not a grand prince, as his title is called in textbooks and various monographs. Is this a coincidence? No, if we turn to the primary sources (written monuments synchronous with the time being analyzed), it turns out that everywhere, with one controversial exception, the title is found - prince, and the title grand duke appears only in the 13th century. Sylvester called his work “The Chronicler”, and at the beginning of the chronicle there is another title - “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years...”, therefore, the title - PVL - probably did not belong to Sylvester.
At the first acquaintance with the postscript, the need for various knowledge on the history of the Russian church, which can be gleaned from special books, becomes obvious. For example, it is useful to have on your desk the Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary (in two volumes, pre-revolutionary edition, reprinted in 1992). Using the dictionary, you can clarify the meaning of the word “abbot” and its difference from the word “archimandrite”, and get a first idea about the history of Orthodox monasteries. You should definitely take an interest in the name “Sylvester” - the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery was named in honor of Saint Sylvester, Pope of Rome (314-335): Orthodox Christians honor his memory on January 2, and Catholics on December 31. There is also a comprehensive work dedicated to Christian names: Archbishop Sergius (Spassky). Complete monthly book East (in 3 volumes. Vladimir, 1901. Reprint. 1997). Having found out the origin of the name, you should get acquainted with the biography of the abbot. You can learn about all the participants in the literary process of Ancient Rus' from the dictionary: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus' (Issue 1. XI - first half of the XIV century. L., 1987. P. 390-391). This dictionary will give us meager facts from the life of Sylvester: after becoming abbess, he was appointed bishop in Pereyaslavl South, where he died in 1123. An important unanswered question in this case is: what name did Sylvester have before he became a monk? In later times, there was a tradition of preserving the first letter of the lay name in the first letter of the monastic name. But whether this tradition was in force in the 11th century is unknown. The Monastery of St. Michael is the Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery, located near Kyiv on the banks of the Dnieper. According to legend, it was founded by Prince Vsevolod in 1070, on the spot where the idol of Perun, thrown into the Dnieper, sailed from Kyiv. The church in the monastery was consecrated in 1088. The monastery, founded by Prince Vsevolod, became the spiritual center of the princely branch, the founder of which was Vsevolod. Almost all princely branches had their monasteries in Kyiv or its suburbs. During the reign of Vsevolod's son Prince Vladimir in Kyiv, chronicles began to be written in the Vydubitsky monastery and, naturally, the chronicler who wrote in the Vsevolodovich monastery defended the interests of this dynasty in his work.
In Sylvester’s postscript, perhaps the most key word is “written.” What degree of participation in the work on the chronicle does it indicate? The question, as it turns out, is not an easy one. In the 11th century “napisakh” could mean “rewrote,” that is, the work of a scribe, and, in the literal sense, “wrote,” that is, created a new original text. It was in the latter sense that one of the Russian chroniclers perceived Sylvester’s postscript, inserting the following words into the description of Edigeus’s invasion of Moscow in 1409: “This whole thing is written even if it seems absurd to anyone, even though from what happened in our land it is unsweetening to us and unappeased to those who spoke, but delightful and creepingly acquired and rewarding and unforgettable; We do not annoy, nor reproach, nor envy honor the honest, such is the way we are, just as we are finding the first chronicler of Kiev, like all the temporary life of the zemstvo, without hesitating to show; but also our rulers of power, without anger, command all the good and bad things that happen to be written, and other images of the phenomenon will be based on them, just like under Volodymyr Manomas of that great Selivester Vydobyzhsky, without decorating the writer, and if you want, almost there diligently, and honor Let's rest" ( PSRL. T. 11. Nikon Chronicle. M., 1965. P. 211). An earlier text of this digression is found in the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL. T. 15. M., 2000. P. 185). From the quote it is clear that one of the Russian chroniclers considered Sylvester the author of the Kyiv chronicle, calling him “the chronicler.” In the scientific literature, the question of the degree of participation of Abbot Sylvester in the creation of one of the Russian chronicles remains controversial; some consider him only a copyist, others consider him the author of the original work.
The third edition of the PVL is presented in the text of IL, in which, unlike the Laurentian edition, the events after 6618 (1110) are not interrupted by Sylvester’s postscript. The time for compiling this edition is determined as follows. Researchers noticed that one of the Kyiv chroniclers in 6604 and 6622 spoke of his presence in the north, in the Novgorod land. Under 6604 (1096) we read: “I want to say what I heard before these 4 years, what I heard Gyuryata Rogovich Novgorodets say, saying: “He sent his youth to Pechera, the people who give tribute to Novgorod. And my youth came to them, and from there I went to Ogra. Ougras are people who speak no language, and are neighbors with Samoyed on the midnight sides...” (PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 224-225). What follows is a story about what he saw in the north, about the customs of Ugra, about their legends. The expression “I have heard it before these 4 years” is understood by researchers as follows: the author wrote his chronicle 4 years after his trip to the Novgorod land. The answer to the question - in what year did this chronicler visit the north - is the chronicle article 6622 (1114) (it is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, but is missing in the Laurentian Chronicle): “In this same summer Ladoga was founded with stones on the basilica by Pavel the mayor, with Prince Mstislav. When I came to Ladoga, I told the Ladoga residents...” (PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 277). It is clear from the text that the chronicler arrived in Ladoga in 6622 (1114), therefore, he worked on the chronicle in 6626 (1118). The proximity of information about the north to 6604 (1096) and 6622 (1114). obviously, both articles talk about Ugra, Samoyeds, and their customs.
At the stage of creating the third edition of the PVL, the legend about the founder of the princely dynasty - Rurik - was included in the chronicle. This was shown quite convincingly in his studies by A.A. Shakhmatov.
What was the reason for the appearance of this legend? Despite the controversial issue of Prince Rurik and the calling of the Varangians, written monuments of the 11th century. allow us to give the following explanation.
In some ancient Russian works of the second half of the 11th century. the ancestor of the Russian princely dynasty is called not Rurik, but Oleg, sometimes Igor. Prince Rurik is not known to either Metropolitan Hilarion or the monk Jacob. For example, in his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” Metropolitan Hilarion calls Igor the oldest Russian prince (“Let us also praise<...>the great kagan of our land Volodymer, the grandson of old Igor, the son of the glorious Svyatoslav"). There is no name of Rurik in the list of Russian princes, placed under 6360 (852), where the chronicler, speaking about the beginning of the Russian land, mentions the first Russian prince, who, in his opinion, was Prince Oleg.
Thus, various historical and literary works of Ancient Rus' give us several versions about the founder of the princely dynasty: according to some, it is Rurik, according to others, Oleg, according to others, Igor.
In the first centuries of Russian history, as in later times, there was a tradition of naming newborns in honor of glorious ancestors. In the pre-Mongol period, according to the Laurentian Chronicle, 8 princes were named after Oleg (11 according to the Nikon Chronicle), and the name Igor according to LL was borne by 5 princes (6 according to the Nikon Chronicle). In honor of Rurik, supposedly the founder of the Russian princely dynasty, in the entire history of Russia only two princes were named: one in the 11th century, the other in the 12th century. (the number of princes who bore the name Rurik is taken from the literature on Russian genealogy).
Based on chronicle material, we will try to figure out the princes who bore the name Rurik. The first mention of the real Rurik is in the chronicle article 6594 (1086): “Bezha Nerades the damned (killer of Prince Yaropolk - V.Z.) I’ll change my mind to Rurik...” It is believed that this Rurik, who was sitting in Przemysl, was the brother of Volodar and Vasilko Rostislavich. But in the chronicle article of 6592 (1084) it is said not about three, but about two Rostislavich brothers (“Rostislavich’s vybegost two from Yaropolk”). It can be assumed that the same prince is mentioned under two different names: the prince's name is Rurik, the Christian name is Vasilko. It happened as follows: one of the chroniclers (in the first case) traditionally called the prince by his princely name, and the other chronicler preferred to call him by his Christian name. One can even explain the preference of the second chronicler: he was a priest and namesake of the prince by his Christian name (under 6605 (1097) the chronicle contains a detailed story about the blinding of Prince Vasilko, recorded by priest Vasily).
No matter how the issue of the names of the prince of the 11th century was resolved, the second undisputed prince Rurik, also Rostislavich, lived in the second half of the 12th century and was a descendant of Vsevolod Yaroslavich (by the way, the Christian name of this Rurik is Vasily).
If you trace the genealogy of Rurik in the 11th century. and Rurik of the 12th century, it turns out that they are representatives of the same princely branch, originating from the marriage of Yaroslav the Wise with the daughter of the Swedish “king” Ingigerda: one Rurik is a descendant of Vladimir Yaroslavich, the other is a descendant of Vsevolod Yaroslavich. The Icelandic sagas and annals report in most detail about Yaroslav’s second marriage and the offspring from him: “1019. King Olaf the Holy married Astrid, the daughter of King Olaf of Sweden, and King Jaritsleif in Holmgard married Ingigerd,” “... Ingigerd married King Jaritsleif. Their sons were Valdamar, Vissivald and Holti the Bold" (T.N. Jackson. Icelandic royal sagas as a source on the history of Ancient Rus' and its neighbors of the 10th-13th centuries. // The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR: Materials and research (1988-1989). M., 1991. P. 159). Researchers believe that Valdamar and Vissivald can be identified with Yaroslav’s sons Vladimir and Vsevolod; the third son, Holti the Bold, remains a controversial figure.
Summarizing everything we know, we get the following results: for the first time, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, Rostislav, named his son Rurik (approximately in the 70s of the 11th century). Only among the descendants from the marriage of Yaroslav and the daughter of the Swedish king Ingigerd is the name Rurik found. At least two Russian chroniclers (priest Vasily and abbot Sylvester), who took part in the creation of the PVL, knew well the representatives of this particular princely branch (priest Vasily is the namesake of Vasily-Rurik, and Sylvester is the abbot of the monastery of the princely branch of the Vsevolodovichs) and, as can be assumed , defended their political interests. One of the chroniclers, as we know, visited Ladoga. According to Icelandic sources, Ingigerda, having married Yaroslav, received Aldeigyuborg, that is, Ladoga, as a dowry.
In the second half of the 11th century. there could be two legends about Rurik: a generic one, associated with one of Ingigerda’s ancestors (we are talking about her grandfather Eric, whose nickname Victorious is close in meaning to the name of one of the brothers of the Russian legend - Sineus; some researchers consider the word “Sineus” not a name, but one of the nicknames of Rurik and translates it as “victorious”), and the legend about the founder of the city of Ladoga. Both legends initially have a single basis - Swedish. They lack any chronology, which is typical for legends. Within the framework of Swedish history, chronological guidelines could quite possibly be found, but the Swedish “historical texture”, when transferred to Russian soil, completely lost these guidelines.
Two legends of the second half of the 11th century. about Rurik and served as the initial material for one of the Russian chroniclers to create the legend about Prince Rurik, the founder of the Russian princely dynasty. The chronicler was a supporter of this particular princely branch; moreover, he personally knew one of the “real” Ruriks of the second half of the 11th century. The main purpose of creating the legend is clear: to justify the primacy and, thereby, the primacy of the representatives of the princely branch, descended from the marriage of Prince Yaroslav with Ingigerda. In the Laurentian chronicles and those close to it in their original history, it is stated that Prince Vladimir was the eldest son of Yaroslav. Yes, the eldest, but from his second marriage. In the Ustyug chronicler, the list of sons of Prince Yaroslav is rightfully headed by Prince Izyaslav.
This legend, as already noted, was included in the Russian chronicle around 1118 by one of the Kyiv chroniclers. It was at this time that Ingigerda’s grandson, Prince Vladimir Monomakh, ruled in Kyiv. The chronicler introduced the legend into the story created by his predecessors about the beginning of Russian history, taking as a basis the first mentions of Oleg and Igor.
The chronicle collection, known as PVL, which included the legend of Rurik, is presented in almost all Russian chronicles, and therefore the artificially created legend, consecrated by centuries-old tradition, ultimately turned into a historical fact. In addition, the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh ruled in the northeast. In turn, the artificial historical fact became the starting point for both ancient Russian people and modern researchers when they created other artificial intellectual structures.
The example of the legend of Rurik shows how the chronicler, defending the interests of one princely branch of the 12th century, actively changed the text of his predecessors, introducing artificial facts into their work, and thereby into the history of Rus'. It follows that any historical fact found in the chronicle requires a preliminary painstaking analysis, the basis of which is the history of the text of the chronicle as a whole and a clear knowledge of the stage at which the historical fact of interest to us was entered into the chronicle. Before using this or that fact within the framework of PVL for historical constructions, you should find out the textual characteristics given to it in the works of A.A. Shakhmatova.
Sources of PVL. The identification of individual extra-chronicle sources of PVL was carried out by several generations of domestic scientists. The final work, deep and thorough, on this topic is the study of A.A. Shakhmatov “The Tale of Bygone Years and Its Sources” (TODRL. T. IV. M.; L., 1940. P. 5-150), which provides an overview and description of 12 extra-chronicle sources. These are the following monuments and works: 1) Books of “St. Scriptures", where, in addition to the mentioned Paremien, all quotations from the Psalter, Gospels, and Apostolic Epistles are noted; 2) Chronicle of George Amartol and his successors; 3) “The Chronicler Soon” by Patriarch Nicephorus (d. 829), which is a chronological list of the main events of world history from Adam to the death of the author. This monument would have been translated into Latin in 870, and into Slavic (in Bulgaria) at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. There is a modern study dedicated to “The Chronicler Soon”: Piotrovskaya E.K. Byzantine chronicles of the 9th century and their reflection in the monuments of Slavic-Russian writing (“The Chronicler Soon” by Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) / Orthodox Palestinian collection. Vol. 97 (34). St. Petersburg, 1998). From the “Chronicle Soon” the first date of Russian history was taken into the chronicle - 6360 (852), and some data for the chronicle articles 6366, 6377, 6410 was also transferred; 4) Life of Vasily the New. This source was first pointed out by A.N. Veselovsky in 1889. The borrowing was made in article 6449 (941); 5) A chronograph of a special composition - a hypothetical monument of Russian historiography of the 11th century, containing a story about world history; 6) Article by Epiphanius of Cyprus about the 12 stones on the robe of the Jerusalem High Priest. The expression “great Scythia” is taken from this work (in the introduction and in article 6415 (907));
7) “The Legend of the Translation of Books into the Slavic Language,” borrowings from it are in the introduction and in article 6409 (896);
8) “Revelation” by Methodius of Patara, the chronicler refers to it twice in the story about Ugra in 6604 (1096). This is the chronicler who traveled to Ladoga in 6622 (1114);
9) “Teaching about the executions of God” - this name was given by A.A. Shakhmatov’s teaching, found in article 6576 (1068). The chronicle teaching was based on “The Word of the Bucket and the Plagues of God” (it is found in Simeon’s Zlatostruy and in other lists of Zlatostruy - a collection of works by various authors, including John Chrysostom ). The insertion of the Instruction breaks the single chronicle story about the invasion of the Polovtsians and the Yaroslavichs’ speech against them (Beginning: “For our sakes, God let the filthy ones fall on us, and the Russian princes escape...”). The teaching takes up about two pages of text and ends with the traditional phrase in such cases: “We will return to what is before us”; 10) Treaties between Russians and Greeks; 11) “Speech of the Philosopher” under 6494 (986); 12) The legend of the Apostle Andrew (it is in the introduction). Work on identifying quotations from extra-chronicle sources continued after A.A. Shakhmatova (G.M. Barats, N.A. Meshchersky).
Nestor- a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery is traditionally considered the author of the most significant chronicle of the Old Russian period - the Tale of Bygone Years. This set, which has come down to us in the Laurentian and Hypatian Chronicles, was allegedly created by Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century, more precisely, in 1113. In addition, Nestor wrote two more works: the Life of Boris and Gleb and the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. After a long study of the written heritage of Nestor, it turned out that many historical facts described in the two Lives diverge from the corresponding chronicle facts: in the Lives of Boris and Gleb, Prince Boris reigned in Vladimir Volynsky, and according to the chronicle he reigned in Rostov; according to the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, Nestor came to the monastery under Abbot Stefan, that is, between 1074 and 1078, and according to the chronicle article of 1051, he entered the monastery under Abbot Theodosius. There are up to 10 such examples of various kinds of contradictions, all of them have long been known in the literature, but have no explanation.
The authentic biography of Nestor is scarce; we learn about it from the Life of Theodosius: he came to the Pechersk Monastery under Abbot Stefan (1074-1078) and before writing the Life of Theodosius, he wrote the Life of Boris and Gleb. In the records of the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery of the early 13th century. (meaning the original edition of the Kiev-Pechersk patericon that has not reached us) it is twice mentioned that Nestor worked on the chronicle: in the second letter of the monk Polycarp to the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Akindinus we read “Nester, who wrote the chronicler”, and in the story Polycarp about Saint Agapit the doctor - “blessed Nester wrote as a chronicler.” Thus, we see that the monks of the monastery, albeit in the form of a legend, knew about Nestor’s work in creating some kind of chronicler. Please note, the chronicler, not the Tale of Bygone Years. To these indisputable data from Nestor’s biography, we can add one more fact obtained by researchers when analyzing the text of the Life of Theodosius. They drew attention to the fact that the Life does not report the transfer of the relics of Theodosius in 1091, and at the same time Abbot Nikon (1078-1088) is mentioned as the current head of the monastery. From all this, a conclusion was drawn about Nestor’s work on the Life in the late 80s. XI century So, there is not much biographical information. Then the question arises, where do all the researchers of the 18th-20th centuries come from? take other data from the biography of Nestor (the time of his birth - 1050, death - the beginning of the 12th century), including the fact of his work on the Tale of Bygone Years at the beginning of the 12th century? All this data was taken by researchers from two published in the 17th century. books, from the Patericon of Kiev-Pechersk and Synopsis, where all the information from the chronicle articles of 1051, 1074 and 1091 was used without preliminary critical analysis to characterize Nestor. It should be noted that as the text of the Patericon changed, starting from the 13th century. and until the 17th century, a wide variety of facts from the life of monks of the 11th century appeared in it. For example, in the 1637 edition of the Patericon, among other additional data, a mention of the younger brother Theodosius appeared. As V.N. showed Peretz, this fact of the biography of Theodosius, like other similar facts, is a figment of the imagination of the publisher of the Paterik Sylvester Kossov. In 1661, a specially written life of Nestor was published in a new edition of the Patericon (at that time the local canonization of Nestor was taking place). In the Patericon, Nestor is credited with writing the entire first part of the monument, which, of course, is not true. The text of the Life of Nestor does not indicate any dates; his biography is characterized on the basis of chronicle articles from 1051. , 1074, 1091, the analysis of which shows that they belong to the pen of not one, but at least two monks of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, and therefore it is impossible to use the data from these articles to characterize Nestor. It is curious how the compiler of the Life of Nestor, who worked in the 17th century, was able to resolve the contradiction between the report of the chronicle in 1051 about the appearance of a certain 17-year-old monk in the monastery under Abbot Theodosius and the Life of Theodosius about the arrival of Nestor in the monastery under Abbot Stefan: Nestor supposedly came to the monastery under Theodosius as a 17-year-old youth and lived in the monastery as a layman, and he accepted the monastic image under Stephen. It should be noted that outwardly such an explanation is quite convincing, but such reasoning when removing various kinds of contradictions in written historical sources interferes with a real analysis of this source. The time of death in the Life is reported very vaguely - “after the passing of a happy time, he reposed for eternity.” The Life also gives a general description of the chronicle that Nestor allegedly compiled: “writing to us about the beginning and first structure of our Russian world,” that is, all the first events of our history described in the chronicle belong to Nestor. An indirect indication of the time of Nestor’s death is found in the first part of the Patericon, in the story about the circumstances of the inclusion of the name of Theodosius in the Synodik for national commemoration; the author of this Synodik was also allegedly Nestor. In this story there are names of specific historical figures, for example, Prince Svyatopolk, who sat in Kyiv in 1093-1113, and dates (the last date indicated is 6620 (1114) - the year of the installation of the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery Theoktistus, on whose initiative the name Theodosius and was included in the Synodik, for the bishopric in Chernigov). If you collect all the biographical data of the Paterik, you will get a fairly complete biography of Nestor: at the age of 17 he came to the Pechersk Monastery under Abbot Theodosius and until his death lived at the monastery, remaining a layman; under Abbot Stephen (1074-1078), he was tonsured a monk and became a deacon; in 1091 he took part in the discovery of the relics of Theodosius; died after 1112. Paterik also gives general but comprehensive information about the contents of the chronicler written by Nestor: the entire story about the initial history of Russia, along with the title - The Tale of Bygone Years - belongs to Nestor, he also owns all the messages about the Pechersk Monastery up to 1112. inclusive. This biography of Nestor and the characteristics of his chronicler are the result of the creative activity of several generations of monks of the Pechersk Monastery, their conjectures, assumptions, conjectures, and mistakes. An insatiable thirst for knowledge, despite the complete lack of data, about one of its glorious brothers - this is the basis of the search.
All researchers of the 18th-20th centuries, speaking about Nestor, directly or indirectly used data from the Life of Nestor, created, as already noted, in the 17th century, while they often supplemented it based on their fantasies and assumptions. For example, Nestor's memorial day - October 27 - is indicated in some books as the day of his death, which, of course, is incorrect. I will give another example of how new facts about Nestor’s biography were found. V.N. Tatishchev first wrote that Nestor was born in Beloozero. As it turned out, this imaginary fact of Nestor’s biography is based on a misunderstanding, more precisely, on an incorrect reading of the Radzivilov Chronicle, where, under 6370 (862), in the story about Prince Rurik and his brothers, the following text is read: “... old Rurik sat in Ladoz, and the other is on Beleozero, and the third is Truvor in Izborsk.” V.N. Tatishchev considered the incorrect reading of the Radzvilov Chronicle - “we have a side on Beleozero” (should be Sineus on Beleozero) - as a self-characterization of Nestor. This is the erroneous opinion of V.N. Tatishchev allowed one of the Beloselsky-Belozersky princes to consider Nestor his fellow countryman.
Speaking about the Patericon, it is necessary to mention another publication of the 17th century, where various kinds of speculation regarding the biography of Nestor first appeared - Synopsis. Paterik and Synopsis were the most popular books among Russian readers of the 17th-19th centuries, it was thanks to them that the fantastic biography of Nestor deeply entered the consciousness of several generations of Russian people.
If we compare the facts of his real biography and the events described by him, found in the Life of Theodosius, with the data of the chronicle text N1LM, it turns out that not only all the contradictions known until recently in the works of Nestor will disappear, but the unity of the views expressed by him in these works will become obvious . Nestor initially worked on the chronicle in 1076, bringing the weather account of events to 1075. In N1LM, the ending of the chronicler Nestor was not preserved (in it, the description of events, more precisely, the death of Theodosius, is cut off; this happened, most likely, due to the loss of the last sheet original), the ending was preserved in the Tver Chronicle, where we read: “In the summer of 6583<...>Hegumen Stefan the Desperate began to quickly build a stone church in the Pechersk monastery, on the foundation of Feodosievo.” The completion of the creation of the church is not indicated in the chronicle, but this happened in 1077.
Both in the chronicle and in the Life of Theodosius, Nestor pays special attention to the events that took place in Tmutarakan. It can be assumed that all Tmutarakan news belongs to the pen of one person - Nestor. A fact confirming the existence of the chronicler compiled by Nestor in the 1070s is the very existence of the chronicle text N1LM, where after the news of 1074 we see random brief records of events, which even allowed A.A. Shakhmatov suggests the loss of the text in this place in the chronicle. Chronicler created by Nestor in the second half of the 70s. XI century, was laid as the basis for all subsequent Novgorod chronicles and therefore was preserved in it in a more “purer form” than in the Laurentian and Ipatiev chronicles.
It is known that Nestor’s work took place in the 70s and 80s. XI century, so it is appropriate to ask the question: did Nestor continue to work on the chronicle after the creation of his chronicler in 1076? I answer this question positively on the basis of the following observations: Nestor, when writing his work in 1076, used an extra-chronicle source - the Paremiynik, the same source in the form of quotations is found in the chronicle until 1094, after which there are no more borrowings from it. Also A.A. Shakhmatov analyzed the quotations from the Paremiynik and suggested that they were all made by the same author. It is quite possible that two chroniclers consulted this work. The first chronicler, who worked before Nestor, quoted only the first sentences from this or that proverb, while the insignificant amount of quotations did not violate the integrity of the chronicle story; the quotations only introduced clarifications when characterizing a prince or an event. Nestor worked with the Chronicler somewhat differently: all his quotations are an integral and to some extent an inextricable part of quite extensive digressions, most often of theological content, with which he completed the chronicle articles of a given year. When did Nestor begin to describe the events as an eyewitness, and he made such notes from the 70s to the mid-90s. XI century, then he used quotes from the Paremiynik also in voluminous digressions, most often in praise of princes, while creating literary portraits of the “praised”. Like quotes from the Paremiynik, news about the events that took place in Tmutarakan can be traced back to 1094 inclusive.
The version of Nestor’s biography presented in this textbook is preliminary, but only on the basis of the restored text entered by Nestor into the Russian chronicle will it be possible to recreate in general terms his life path, which will differ significantly, at least in chronology, from what is widespread in literature.
Sources : PSRL. T. 1. Laurentian Chronicle. Vol. 1-2. L., 1926-1927; PSRL. T. 2. Ipatiev Chronicle. M., 1998; Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions - Ed. and from before A.N. Nasonova. M.; L., 1950 (reprint 2000 as volume 3 of PSRL); Life of Theodosius of Pechersk // Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. - Ed. prepared O.A. Knyazevskaya, V.G. Demyanov, M.V. Lapon. Ed. S.I. Kotkova. M., 1971; The Tale of Bygone Years // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': the beginning of Russian literature: XI - beginning of the XII century. M., 1978; The Tale of Bygone Years / Text preparation, translation and comments by D.S. Likhacheva. St. Petersburg, 1996.
Literature : Schlötzer A.-L. Nestor: Russian chronicles in the ancient Slavic language... Parts I-III. St. Petersburg, 1809-1819; Shakhmatov A.A. Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1908; Review of Russian chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries. M.; L., 1938; Priselkov M.D. Nestor the chronicler: experience of historical and literary characterization. Petersburg, 1923; Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Rus'. M., 1971; Kuzmin A.G. The initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing. M. 1977; Likhachev D. S. Textology: on the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. 2nd ed. L., 1983; Danilevsky I.N. Biblicalisms of the Tale of Bygone Years // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature of the X-XVI centuries. Sat. 3. M., 1992. P. 75-103; Ziborov V.K. About the chronicle of Nestor. The main chronicle collection in Russian chronicles. XI century L., 1995; The Romanovs and Rurikovichs (about the genealogical legend of the Rurikovichs) // Collection: House of the Romanovs in the history of Russia. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 47-54.
Notes
. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th-15th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 166, fig. 3.
. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th-15th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 83, fig. 1.
When quoting, the letter “ѣ” is replaced by the letter “e”.