We draw information about early Russian history from chronicles. What, exactly, do we know about them? To this day, researchers cannot come to a consensus about both their authorship and their objectivity.

Old Russian Chronicles: Main Secrets

Magazine: History “Russian Seven” No. 6, August 2016
Category: Secrets
Text: Russian Seven

Who is author?

For people who do not delve deeply into history, there is only one chronicler - Nestor, a Monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The consolidation of this status for him was facilitated by his canonization as a saint under the name Nestor the Chronicler. However, this monk as the author of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is mentioned only in one of its later (16th century) lists, and besides the “Tale” there are many other chronicle texts created in different centuries and in different, far distant places. other places.
Nestor alone could not have been torn apart in time and space to write them all. So in any case he is just one of the authors.
Who are the others? The creator of the Laurentian Chronicle is listed as the monk Lavrenty, the Trinity Chronicle is attributed to the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Epiphanius the Wise. And in general, judging by the fact that almost all the chronicles were kept in monasteries, they owe their origin to church people.
However, the style of writing some texts gives reason to look for authors in a secular environment. For example, in the Kyiv Chronicle, very little attention is paid to church issues, and the language is as close as possible to the folk language: common vocabulary, the use of dialogues, proverbs, quotes, pictorial descriptions. The Galician-Volyn Chronicle contains many special military words and is clearly aimed at expressing certain political ideas.

Where is the original?

The fact that all chronicles are known to us in lists (copies) and editions (editions) does not simplify the search for authors. In no collection in the world will you find “The Tale of Bygone Years,” written by Nestor’s hand at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. There are only the Laurentian list of the 14th century, the Ipatievsky list of the 15th century, and the Khlebnikovsky list of the 16th century. etc.
And Nestor himself was hardly the first author of the Tale.
According to philologist and historian A.A. Shakhmatov, he merely revised the Initial code of 1093 of the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery John and supplemented it with the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties and legends that came to him in the oral tradition.
John, in turn, supplemented the arch of the monk Nikon. And that version had its predecessor - the Most Ancient Code of the first half of the 11th century. But no one can give one hundred percent guarantee that it is not based on another, more ancient text.
This is the essence of the Russian tradition of chronicle writing. Each subsequent copyist uses old manuscripts, oral traditions, songs, eyewitness accounts and compiles a new, more complete - from his point of view - collection of historical information. This is clearly visible in the “uneven” Kyiv Chronicle, in which the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery, Moses, melted down the texts of authors of very different levels of education and talent.

Why do the chronicles contradict each other?

The answer to this question flows smoothly from the previous one. Since there are a lot of chronicles, their lists and editions (according to some sources, about five thousand), their authors lived at different times and in different cities, did not have modern methods of transmitting information and used sources available to them, it was difficult even unintentionally to avoid some inaccuracies. What can we say about the desire to pull the blanket over oneself and present this or that event, city, ruler in a favorable light...
Before this, we touched on issues related to the history of the chronicles themselves, but there are many mysteries in their content.

Where did the Russian Land come from?

The Tale of Bygone Years begins with this question. However, even here there are reasons for interpretation, and scientists still cannot come to a consensus.
On the one hand, it seems to be said quite clearly: “ And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.<…>The Chud, the Slovenians, the Krivichi and all said to the Russians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and came.<…>And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed».
The Norman theory of the origin of the state of Rus' - from the Varangians - is based on this passage.
But there is another fragment: “ ... From the same Slavs are we, Rus'... But the Slavic people and the Russians are one, after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called glades, the speech was Slavic" According to which it turns out that although we got our name from the Varangians, even before them we were a single people. This (anti-Norman or Slavic) hypothesis was adhered to by M.V. Lomonosov and V.N. Tatishchev.

To whom did Vladimir Monomakh write his “teaching”?

“The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh” is part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” and contains three parts: a teaching to children, an autobiographical story and a letter, the addressee of which is usually the prince’s brother, Oleg Svyatoslavovich. But why include personal correspondence in a historical document?
It is worth noting that Oleg’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the letter, and the content of the text is of a penitential nature.
Perhaps by retelling this complex story with the brother who killed his son, Monomakh wanted to show a public example of humility and forgiveness, rhyming with the first part. But on the other hand, this text is included only in one of the lists of the “Tale” and was clearly not intended for a large number of eyes, so some scientists consider this a personal written confession, preparation for the Last Judgment.

Who wrote “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and when?

Disputes about the origin of the “Word” began immediately after its discovery by Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin at the end of the 18th century. The text of this literary monument is so unusual and complex that its authorship has not been attributed to anyone: Igor himself, Yaroslavna, Vladimir Igorevich and other princes or non-princes; fans of this campaign and, conversely, those who condemned Igor’s adventure; the name of the author was “deciphered” and isolated from the acrostics. So far to no avail.
It's the same with writing time. Did the time of the events described coincide with the time when they were described? Historiographer B.A. Rybakov considered “The Lay” almost a report from the scene, and B.I. Yatsenko moved the date of its creation ten years further, since the text mentions events that were not known in 1185, the year of the campaign. There are also many intermediate versions.

Where is Kitezh-Grad located?

The legend of Kitezh, the Russian Atlantis, has come to us in the literary adaptation of the Old Believers - in a monument called “The Book of the Verb Chronicler.” It says that this city was built by Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich, and then during the attack of Khan Batu

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 Kiev, 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 textualism. 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; you need 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 Kiev 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, the 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, along with Mikifor Kyyanin, who 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: “But Izyaslav was a man with a handsome look and a large body, a gentle disposition, hating 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 about 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 Kiev, 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 Kiev. The church in the monastery was consecrated in 1088. The monastery, founded by Prince Vsevolod, became the spiritual center of the princely branch, the 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 happened 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 Kiev 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”.

Our contemporaries draw knowledge about the past from chronicles and archaeological excavations. Of course, these are not the only sources of information, but they are still the most important.

The main Russian chronicle is “The Tale of Bygone Years”, the rest of the chronicles (Ipatiev, Lavrentiev and others) only complement and clarify it. The Kyiv Chronicle is also called the Initial Chronicle, although, of course, there is nothing in it about the beginnings of Russian history; it only contains the history of Kievan Rus, and even then not completely. You need to know that “The Tale” was written by more than one author. This is a collection of documents dating back to different times and, accordingly, written by different authors.

At least the names of two of them are known: the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor and the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Vydubetsky Monastery in Kyiv - Sylvester. Nestor lived in the mid-11th – early 12th centuries (died in 1114) and is the author of the lives of Saints Boris and Gleb, as well as the life of St. Theodosius, founder of the Kyiv Lavra. He was the superintendent of chronicles in Kievan Rus and, according to researchers, the compiler of the “Tale of Bygone Years” (he did not so much write chronicles as collect them into a single collection). For his ascetic labors, Nestor was canonized by the Church as a saint. His memory is celebrated on October 27. The relics of Nestor rest in the Near Caves of the Lavra. A graphic reconstruction was made of his skull. The chronicler's appearance turned out to be much simpler and more modest than in the famous sculpture of Mark Antokolsky. The ancient Russian writer, abbot of the St. Michael's Vydubetsky Monastery Sylvester (year of birth unknown, died in 1123) was close to the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh, at his behest he went to Pereyaslav in 1118 (present-day Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky in Ukraine, during the time of Kievan Rus the capital of the appanage principality ), in order to become a bishop there.

The chronicle begins with the first author, an expert in the Holy Scriptures. It tells how the Earth was divided between the sons of Noah, the righteous man who escaped after the Great Flood. The writer seeks to insert into this biblical version of the development of mankind the ancestors of our people - the ancient Rus. It turns out not very smooth and unconvincing. But the author was obliged to connect the Rus and the ancient Jews together, perhaps at the risk of his own life. The second author—let’s call him an “ideologist”—talked about the settlement of the Slavs. A Kiev monk who lived in the 11th – 12th centuries could not help but know about the Baltic ancestral home of the Rus: pilgrims from all over the Slavic world, including Kiev, went there, to Arkona on the island of Ruyan, even before the 13th century. But it was precisely this fact that he needed to pass over in silence, and at the same time portray the East Slavic peoples who remained faithful to their original religion (for example, the Drevlyans or Vyatichi) as bloodthirsty and savage monsters. But the Polyans, who are rather indifferent to questions of faith, but who were baptized in the Dnieper, look like an ideal people.

Excavations showed that the named peoples did not live like cattle: they developed many crafts, the items of which the Slavs traded both with Western Europe and with the countries of the East.

Further more. If you believe the chronicle, then the Russian princes are Varangians from overseas. They were first called by the Novgorod Slovenes, and then they themselves moved south and captured Kyiv. And so they, the Varangians, having subjugated the Slavs, suddenly began to be called Russia. Moreover, the Slavs and Rus' are one and the same. It is simply impossible to understand, but it was necessary to believe. Unclear passages in the chronicle are simply enthusiastically used by nationalist societies of pseudo-historians for unseemly purposes.

For example, modern Ukrainian historical books talk about how the Scandinavian king Helga (this is the Prophetic Oleg, if you didn’t understand) deceived two Ukrainian rulers Askold and Dir from the city and executed them. It is clear that Askold and Dir are the most common Ukrainian names, and under the name Helgu hides the “damned Muscovite”, who already oppressed the freedom-loving Ukrainian people in the early Middle Ages. Alas, a generation is growing up that is firmly convinced: Kievan Rus is Ukraine, all the princes who ruled in Kyiv are Ukrainians. But there were and are no Russians, at least in the medieval history of Ukraine. Alas, the Christian propaganda of the chronicle gave rise to nationalist Ukrainian propaganda, and the fact that ends meet, well, this has never bothered the ignorant.

Christian authors condemn the ancient custom of burning corpses. They also report that our ancestors, before worshiping the gods - Perun, Veles and others - allegedly worshiped “ghouls and beregins.” Of course, this is a caricature and should not be taken literally. Why would there be so many blood-sucking vampires in Rus' that in search of salvation it was necessary to run for help to some coastlines, who either gave a talisman against ghouls, or themselves drove away these reptiles with aspen stakes. At the same time, these words conceal the basis of Russian pre-Christian culture. The gods, whatever they may be, are an official cult, the faith of the highest. And the actual popular faith, which existed before the veneration of Perun and Veles, has survived to this day.

Let us explain what we are talking about. Of course, vampires and amulets against them have nothing to do with it. We are talking about hostages, the walking dead and drowned virgins, that is, about those who died an unrighteous, wrong death. These are suicides, sorcerers or babies who died before naming (later - those who died unbaptized). Sometimes mothers who died during childbirth. The righteous ancestors, whose corpses were burned after death, went to heaven and left the world of the living forever. And the unrighteous - those who did not live out their lives or, on the contrary, who lived for too long, could not find peace. These are sorcerers and witches - they allegedly robbed people of the time of their lives - and in this sense they can be called ghouls; they died extremely painfully, and even then only if they transferred their skill to someone.

Therefore, at the basis of all “spirits of nature” are the souls of ancestors who have not found peace. The brownie is the first person to die in the house (in ancient times he was buried in the underground). Mermaids are drowned women, victims of unhappy love. This name itself is later, South Slavic in origin. The Russian designation for the maidens whom people met on the shore is bereginii.

Leshy were different, but often they were people who got lost and ran wild in the forest. Not to mention the dead, who for one reason or another, after death, continued to come to their house, frightening the living.

All these unrighteous ancestors were certainly buried outside the cemetery - often on the side of the road, on the slope of a ravine. Moreover, this enduring custom was known to many peoples, both Asian and European. The oldest and most vital part of our mythology is about our ancestors, surrounding us invisibly, but always and everywhere. Well, ancestors are different, both during life and after it: some are good, others are evil.

If you and I found ourselves in ancient Kyiv, for example, in 1200 and wanted to find one of the most important chroniclers of that time, we would have to go to the suburban Vydubitsky monastery to the abbot (chief) Moses, an educated and well-read man.

The monastery is located on the steep bank of the Dnieper. On September 24, 1200, the completion of work to strengthen the bank was solemnly celebrated here. Hegumen Moses delivered a beautiful speech to the Grand Duke of Kyiv Rurik Rostislavich, his family and boyars, in which he glorified the prince and architect Peter Milonega.

Having recorded his speech, Moses completed his great historical work with it - a chronicle that covered four centuries of Russian history and was based on many books.

In ancient Rus' there were many monastic and princely libraries. Our ancestors loved and appreciated books. Unfortunately, these libraries were destroyed by fire during Polovtsian and Tatar raids.

Only through a painstaking study of surviving handwritten books did scientists establish that in the hands of the chroniclers there were many historical and church books in Russian, Bulgarian, Greek and other languages. From them, chroniclers borrowed information on world history, the history of Rome and Byzantium, descriptions of the life of various peoples - from Britain to distant China.

Abbot Moses also had at his disposal Russian chronicles compiled by his predecessors in the 11th and 12th centuries.

Moses was a true historian. He often used several chronicles to cover an event. Describing, for example, the war between the Moscow prince Yuri Dolgoruky and the Kyiv prince Izyaslav Mstislavich, he took notes made in hostile camps, and found himself, as it were, above the warring parties, above the feudal borders. One of the princes was defeated in a bloody battle and fled “no one knows where.” But “unknown” to the victors and to the chronicler of the victorious side, Moses picked up another chronicle, written for the defeated prince, and wrote down from there into his consolidated chronicle everything that this prince did after the defeat. The value of such a chronicle is this. that his readers learn everything from different chronicles, united in one historical work.

The chronicle corpus paints a broad picture of feudal civil strife in the mid-12th century. We can also imagine the appearance of the chroniclers themselves, from whose records the code was compiled. He will be very far from the ideal image of the chronicler Pimen from Pushkin’s drama “Boris Godunov”, who

Calmly looks at the right and the guilty,

Knowing neither pity nor anger,

Listening indifferently to good and evil...

Real chroniclers served the princes with their pens, like warriors with weapons; they tried to whitewash their prince in everything, present him as always right, and confirm this with collected documents. At the same time, they did not hesitate in their means to show the enemies of their prince as oathbreakers, insidious deceivers, inept, cowardly commanders. Therefore, in the code there are sometimes conflicting assessments of the same people.

Reading the description of the princely feuds of the mid-12th century in the vault of Moses, we hear the voices of four chroniclers. One of them was obviously a humble monk and looked at life from the window of the monastery cell. His favorite heroes are the sons of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh. Continuing the old tradition, this chronicler explained all human affairs as “divine providence”; he did not know life and the political situation properly. Such chroniclers were exceptions.

Excerpts from the book of the court chronicler of the Seversk prince Svyatoslav Olgovich (d. 1164) sound differently. The chronicler accompanied his prince on his numerous campaigns, sharing with him both short-term success and the hardships of exile. He probably belonged to the clergy, since he constantly introduced various church moral teachings into the text and designated every day as a church holiday or the memory of a “saint.” However, this did not prevent him from working on the princely household and on the pages of historical work writing about the exact number of haystacks and horses in the princely villages, about the stocks of wine and honey in the palace storerooms.

The third chronicler was a courtier of the Kyiv prince Izyaslav Mstislavich (d. 1154). He is a good expert in strategy and military affairs, a diplomat, a participant in secret meetings of princes and kings, a writer with a good command of the pen. He made extensive use of the princely archive and included in his chronicle copies of diplomatic letters, recordings of meetings of the Boyar Duma, diaries of campaigns and skillfully compiled characteristics of his contemporaries. Scientists suggest that this chronicler-secretary of the prince was the Kiev boyar Peter Borislavich, whom the chronicle mentions.

Finally, the chronicle contains excerpts from the chronicle compiled at the court of Moscow Prince Yuri Dolgoruky.

Now you know how history was written in the 12th-13th centuries, how a consolidated chronicle was compiled from many sources that reflected the conflicting interests of warring princes.

FIRST HISTORICAL WORKS

It is very difficult to determine how history was written in more ancient times: the first historical works have reached us only as part of later collections. Several generations of scientists, painstakingly studying the consolidated chronicles, managed to identify the most ancient records.

At first they were very short, in one phrase. If during the year - “summer” - nothing significant happened, the chronicler wrote: “In the summer... there was nothing,” or: “In the summer... there was silence.”

The very first weather records date back to the 9th century, during the reign of the Kyiv prince Askold, and tell about both important and minor events:

“In the summer of 6372, Oskold’s son was killed by the Bulgarians.”

“In the summer of 6375 Oskold went to the Pechenegs and beat them up a lot.”

By the end of the 10th century, by the era of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, glorified by epics, many records and historical tales, including epics, had accumulated. Based on them, the first chronicle was created in Kyiv, which included weather records for a century and a half and oral legends spanning about five centuries (starting with the legend of the founding of Kyiv).

In the XI-XII centuries. History was also taken up in another ancient Russian center - Novgorod the Great, where literacy was widespread. The Novgorod boyars sought to separate themselves from the power of the Kyiv prince, so the chroniclers of Novgorod tried to challenge the historical primacy of Kyiv and prove that Russian statehood originated not in the south, in Kyiv, but in the north, in Novgorod.

For a whole century, disputes continued between Kyiv and Novgorod historians on various occasions.

From the Novgorod chronicles of subsequent times, the 12th-13th centuries, we learn about the life of a rich, noisy city, political storms, popular uprisings, fires and floods.

CHRINICAL NESTOR

The most famous of the Russian chroniclers is Nestor, a monk of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery, who lived in the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries.

The beautiful marble statue of Nestor was made by the sculptor M. Antokolsky. Nestor Antokolsky is not a dispassionate recorder of human affairs. Here he pressed his fingers on several pages in different places of the book: he searches, compares, critically selects, reflects... Yes, this is how this most talented historian of 12th-century Europe appears before us.

Nestor began to compile the chronicle, being already a famous writer. He decided, in addition to the chronicle - descriptions of events year after year - to give an extensive historical and geographical introduction to it: about the Slavic tribes, the emergence of the Russian state, about the first princes. The introduction began with the words: “This is the story of the bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who in Kiev began to reign first, and where the Russian land came from.” Later, Nestor’s entire work - both the introduction and the chronicle itself - began to be called “The Tale of Bygone Years.”

The original text of Nestor has reached us only in Fragments. It is distorted by later alterations, insertions and additions. And yet we can approximately restore the appearance of this remarkable historical work.

At the beginning, Nestor connects the history of all Slavs with world history and draws with bright strokes the geography of Rus' and the routes of communication from Rus' to Byzantium, to Western Europe and Asia. He then moves on to the placement of Slavic tribes in the distant period of the existence of the Slavic “ancestral home”. With great knowledge of the matter, Nestor depicts the life of the ancient Slavs on the Dnieper around the 2nd-5th centuries, noting the high development of the glades and the backwardness of their northern forest neighbors - the Drevlyans and Radimichi. All this is confirmed by archaeological excavations.

Then he reports extremely important information about Prince Kiy, who lived, in all likelihood, in the 6th century, about his journey to Constantinople and about his life on the Danube.

Nestor constantly monitors the fate of the entire Slavic people, who occupied the territory from the banks of the Oka to the Elbe, from the Black Sea to the Baltic. The entire Slavic medieval world does not know of another historian who, with the same breadth and deep knowledge, could describe the life of the eastern, southern and western Slavic tribes and states.

Obviously, central to this broad historical picture was the emergence of the three largest feudal Slavic states - Kievan Rus, Bulgaria and the Great Moravian Empire - and the baptism of the Slavs in the 9th century, as well as the emergence of Slavic writing. But, unfortunately, the part of the chronicle devoted to these important issues suffered the most during the alterations and only fragments remained from it.

Nestor's work has been widely known for many centuries. Historians of the 12th-17th centuries rewrote it hundreds of times. Nestorov’s “The Tale of Bygone Years”, they placed it in the title part of the new chronicle collections. In the era of the heavy Tatar yoke and the greatest feudal fragmentation, “The Tale” inspired the Russian people to fight for liberation, telling about the former power of the Russian state, about its successful fight against the Pechenegs and Polovtsians. Even the name Nestor became almost a household name for the chronicler.

For centuries, descendants have kept the memory of the talented patriotic historian. In 1956, the 900th anniversary of Nestor’s birth was celebrated in Moscow.

"WINDOWS TO A VISANDED WORLD"

In the XII-XIII centuries. Illustrated manuscripts appear, where events are depicted in drawings, so-called miniatures. The closer the event depicted is to the time of the artist’s own life, the more accurate the everyday details and portrait resemblance. The artists were literate, educated people, and sometimes a miniature drawing tells a more complete story about an event than a text.

The most interesting illustrated chronicle is the so-called Radziwill Chronicle, taken by Peter I from the city of Konigsberg (modern Kaliningrad). It was copied in the 15th century. from an earlier, also illustrated original of the 12th or early 13th century. There are over 600 drawings for it. Researchers call them “windows to a vanished world.”

Medieval chroniclers - monks, townspeople, boyars - could not break out of the circle of ideas common to that time. So, for example, most major events - the invasion of the “filthy” (Tatars), famine, pestilence, uprisings - they explained by God’s will, the desire of the formidable god to “test” or punish the human race. Many chroniclers were superstitious and interpreted unusual celestial phenomena (eclipses of the sun, comets) as “signs” foreshadowing good or evil.

Typically, chroniclers had little interest in the lives of the common people, since they believed that “historians and poets should describe wars between monarchs and glorify those who died courageously for their master.”

But still, the majority of Russian chroniclers opposed feudal fragmentation, against endless princely feuds and strife. The chronicles are full of patriotic calls for a joint struggle against the greedy hordes of the steppes.

The brilliant author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” (late 12th century), making extensive use of chronicles, used historical examples to show the disastrous danger of princely strife and strife and fervently called on all Russian people to stand up “for the Russian Land.”

For us, ancient chronicles telling about the destinies of our Motherland over almost a millennium will always be the most precious treasure of the history of Russian culture.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

The most remarkable phenomenon of ancient Russian literature were chronicles. The first weather records date back to the 9th century, they were extracted from later sources of the 16th century. They are very brief: notes in one or two lines.

As a national phenomenon, chronicle writing appeared in the 11th century. People of different ages became chroniclers, and not only monks. A very significant contribution to the restoration of the history of chronicle writing was made by such researchers as A.A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920) and A.N. Nasonov (1898 - 1965). The first major historical work was the Code, completed in 997. Its compilers described the events of the 9th-10th centuries and ancient legends. It even includes court epic poetry praising Olga, Svyatoslav, and especially Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, during whose reign this Code was created.

One of the figures of European scale must include the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who by 1113 completed his work “The Tale of Bygone Years” and compiled an extensive historical introduction to it. Nestor knew Russian, Bulgarian and Greek literature very well, being a very educated man. He used in his work the earlier Codes of 997, 1073 and 1093, and the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. covered as an eyewitness. This chronicle provided the most complete picture of early Russian history and was copied for 500 years. It must be borne in mind that the ancient Russian chronicles covered not only the history of Rus', but also the history of other peoples.

Secular people were also involved in chronicle writing. For example, Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh. It was as part of the chronicle that such wonderful works of his as “Instruction to Children” (c. 1099; later supplemented, preserved in the list of 1377) have reached us. In particular, in the “Instructions” Vladimir Monomakh pursues the idea of ​​​​the need to repel external enemies. There were 83 “paths” - campaigns in which he participated.

In the 12th century. the chronicles become very detailed, and since they are written by contemporaries, the class and political sympathies of the chroniclers are very clearly expressed in them. The social order of their patrons can be traced. Among the most prominent chroniclers who wrote after Nestor, one can single out the Kiev resident Peter Borislavich. The most mysterious author in the XII-XIII centuries. was Daniil Sharpener. It is believed that he owned two works - “The Word” and “Prayer”. Daniil Zatochnik was an excellent expert on Russian life, knew church literature well, and wrote in a bright and colorful literary language. He said the following about himself: “My tongue was like a scribbler’s cane and my lips were as friendly as the swiftness of a river. For this reason, I tried to write about the shackles of my heart and broke them with bitterness, as in ancient times they smashed babies against a stone.”

Separately, it is necessary to highlight the genre of “walking”, which describes the travel of our compatriots abroad. Firstly, these are the stories of pilgrims who carried out their “walks” to Palestine and Pargrad (Constantinople), but gradually descriptions of Western European states also began to appear. One of the first was a description of the journey of Daniel, the abbot of one of the Chernigov monasteries, who visited Palestine in 1104-1107, spending 16 months there and participating in the wars of the Crusaders. The most outstanding work of this genre is “Walking across Three Seas” by the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin, compiled in the form of a diary. It describes many southern peoples, but mainly the inhabitants of India. A. Nikitin’s “walk” lasting six years took place in the 70s. XV century

“Hagiographic” literature is very interesting, since in it, in addition to describing the life of canonized persons, it gave a true picture of life in monasteries. For example, cases of bribery for obtaining one or another church rank or place, etc. were described. Here we can highlight the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, which is a collection of stories about the monks of this monastery.

The latest fashion trends of this year on the fashion portal "Lady-Glamour".

The world-famous work of ancient Russian literature was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the date of writing of which dates back to 1185. This poem was imitated by contemporaries, it was quoted by the Pskovites already at the beginning of the 14th century, and after the victory on the Kulikovo Field (1380) in imitation of “The Tale. ..” was written “Zadonshchina”. “The Word...” was created in connection with the campaign of the Seversk prince Igor against the Polovtsian khan Konchak. Igor, overwhelmed by ambitious plans, did not unite with the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest and was defeated. The idea of ​​unification on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion runs through the entire work. And again, as in the epics, here we are talking about defense, and not about aggression and expansion.

From the second half of the 14th century. Moscow chronicles are becoming increasingly important. In 1392 and 1408 Moscow chronicles are created, which are of an all-Russian nature. And in the middle of the 15th century. “Chronograph” appears, representing, in fact, the first experience of writing world history by our ancestors, and in “Chronograph” an attempt was made to show the place and role of Ancient Rus' in the world historical process.