Each person is concerned about the history of his people, his origins. The history of Russia is one of the richest histories in the world. "How did it start?" "Where are the origins?" are the most intriguing and vital questions for many of us. Of course, there are many answers, but the chronicle is a document of history that has survived to this day and has a complete account of our origins.

So, the topic that interested me was the chronicle.

In order to delve into the study of this topic, I set a goal: to realize and be able to explain from the point of view of banal erudition what a chronicle is and its significance in the history of the Russian people.

To achieve the goal, I also formulated the following tasks:

• - Find and define the word "chronicle";
• - To study and consider the historical significance of the chronicle;
• - Explain the term "subjectivity" chronicles;
• - Consider aspects of the change in the chronicle from the X-XV centuries;
• - Find arguments for the comparison "Chronicle vs. Bible (Orthodox).

I also studied the literature of Moiseeva L.A., Buganov V.I., Danilevsky I.N., Eremin I.P., Likhachev D.S. These works are the richest source of information about chronicle writing in Ancient Russia and the main pillar of my work.

I also watched films about the formation of chronicle writing in Russia: The film “Chronicle of Nestor” 2006, Air Force Moscow and the film “Believing the Chronicle. Wolf Princess 1982 Lenfilm.

Chronicles - historical works of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the narration was conducted over the years. The story about the events of each year in the chronicles usually began with the words: "in the summer" - hence the name - chronicle. The words "chronicle" and "chronicler" are equivalent, but the compiler of such a work could also be called a chronicler. Usually the annals outlined Russian history from its beginning, sometimes the annals opened with biblical history and continued with ancient, Byzantine and Russian history. Chronicles played an important role in the ideological substantiation of princely power in Ancient Russia and in promoting the unity of the Russian lands. The chronicles contain significant material about the origin of the Eastern Slavs, about their state power, about the political relations of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.

A characteristic feature of the chronicle is the belief of the chroniclers in the intervention of divine forces. New chronicles were usually compiled as collections of previous chronicles and various materials (historical stories, lives, epistles, etc.) and were concluded with records of contemporary events for the chronicler. At the same time, literary works were used as sources in chronicles. Traditions, epics, treaties, legislative acts, documents of the princely and church archives were also woven into the fabric of the narrative by the chronicler.

Rewriting the materials included in the chronicle, he sought to create a single narrative, subordinating it to a historical concept that corresponded to the interests of the political center where he wrote (the courtyard of the prince, the office of the metropolitan, bishop, monastery, hut, etc.).

However, along with the official ideology, the annals reflected the views of their direct compilers.

Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries.

Great importance was attached to the compilation of annals; they were addressed in political disputes and in diplomatic negotiations.

The mastery of historical narration has reached a high perfection in them.

At least 1,500 lists of chronicles have survived. Many works of ancient Russian literature have been preserved in their composition: "Instruction" by Vladimir Monomakh, "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev", "Journey Beyond the Three Seas" by Afanasy Nikitin, etc.

Ancient chronicles of the XI-XII centuries. survived only in later lists. The oldest list of chronicles with a date is a short chronicler of Patriarch of Constantinople. Nikifor, supplemented by Russian articles until 1278, contained in the Novgorod helmsman 1280.

The most famous of the early chronicles, which has come down to our time, is The Tale of Bygone Years. Its creator is considered to be Nestor, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery in Kyiv, who wrote his work ca. 1113.

In Kyiv in the XII century. the annals were kept in the Kiev-Pechersk and Vydubitsky Mikhailovsky monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galicia-Volyn chronicle in the XII century. concentrated at the courts of the Galician-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle has been preserved in the Hypatian Chronicle, which consists of The Tale of Bygone Years, continued mainly by the Kyiv News (ending in 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending in 1289-92).

In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with The Tale of Bygone Years, continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal News until 1305, as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (ed. 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated with a large number of drawings. Chronicle writing was greatly developed in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches. The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, Moscow. In the annalistic vaults reflected ch. local events (the birth and death of princes, the election of posadniks and thousandths in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the appointment and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.), crop failure and famine , epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such annals. Novgorod Chronicle XII-XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions. The older, or earlier, version has been preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charate) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger edition came in the lists of the 15th century.

In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with the posadniks and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral.

In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of the Tver princes and bishops. An idea about him is given by the Tver collection and the Rogozhsky chronicler.

In Rostov, the chronicle was kept at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, including the Yermolinsky Chronicle of the XV century. New phenomena in the annals are noted in the 15th century, when the Russian state was taking shape with its center in Moscow.

Politics of Moscow led. princes was reflected in the all-Russian annals. The first Moscow all-Russian collection is given by the Trinity Chronicle n. 15th century (disappeared in a fire in 1812) and the Simeon Chronicle in the list of the 16th century. The Trinity Chronicle ends in 1409. A variety of sources were involved in compiling it: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, etc.

The origin and political orientation of this chronicle are emphasized by the predominance of Moscow news and the general favorable assessment of the activities of Moscow princes and metropolitans.

The all-Russian annalistic code, compiled in Smolensk in the end of the 15th century, was the so-called Chronicle of Abraham; another code is the Suzdal Chronicle (late 15th century). Chronicle, based on the rich Novgorodian writing, "Sophia Time", appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle code appeared in Moscow in the XV - n. 16th century Especially known is the Resurrection Chronicle, ending in 1541 (the compilation of the main part of the chronicle refers to 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lviv Chronicle, which included "The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich", until 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 1540-60s, the Front Chronicle Code was created, i.e., chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Facial Code are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the Chronograph and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the Facial Code, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the "Royal Book".

The text of the Facial Code is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicle news, stories, lives, etc.

In the XVI century. chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Caves Monastery near Pskov.

In the XVI century. new types of historical narrative appeared, already departing from the annalistic form, - "The Power Book of the Royal Genealogy" and "The History of the Kazan Kingdom". In the 17th century there was a gradual withering away of the annalistic form of narration. At this time, local chronicles appeared, of which the Siberian chronicles are the most interesting. The beginning of their compilation refers to the 1st floor. 17th century Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are better known. In the end of the XVII century. Tobolsk boyar son S.U. Remezov compiled "Siberian History". In the 17th century chronicle news are included in the power books and chronographs. The word "chronicle" continues to be used by tradition even for works that bear little resemblance to the Chronicles of the past. Such is the New Chronicler, who tells about the events of the end of the 16th century. 17th century (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many rebellions". M.N. Tikhomirov. Orthodox worldview in the Russian chronicle tradition "Russian history strikes with its extraordinary consciousness and logical course of phenomena," wrote K.S. Aksakov more than 120 years ago. We often forget about this awareness, involuntarily blaspheming our ancestors, subverting their high spirituality to our misery. Meanwhile, history has conveyed to us numerous evidence of their harmonious worldview.

Among such testimonies, the annals are distinguished by their special historical completeness. In the development of Russian chronicle writing, it is customary to distinguish three periods: the most ancient, regional and all-Russian. Despite all the peculiarities of Russian chronicle traditions, whether it be the Tale of Bygone Years as edited by the Monk Nestor the chronicler, Novgorod chronicles with their conciseness and dryness of language, or Moscow chronicle collections, there is no doubt about the general worldview basis that determines their views. Orthodoxy gave the people a firm sense of the commonness of their historical destiny, even in the most difficult times of appanage strife and Tatar rule. At the basis of the Russian chronicles lies the famous "Tale of Bygone Years" - "the Russian land went to eat, who in Kyiv began to reign first and from where the Russian land began to eat." Having more than one edition, "The Tale" formed the basis of various local annals. As a separate monument, it has not been preserved, having reached us as part of later chronicle codes - Lavrentiev (XIV century) and Ipatiev (XV century). The story is an all-Russian annalistic code compiled by 1113 in Kyiv on the basis of annalistic codes of the 11th century. and other sources - presumably of Greek origin. Rev. Nestor the chronicler, the holy ascetic of the Kiev Caves, completed his work a year before his death. The chronicle was continued by another holy monk - St. Sylvester, abbot of the Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery in Kyiv. The Holy Church celebrates their memory on October 27 and January 2, respectively, according to Art. Art. The "Tale" clearly shows the desire to give, if possible, a comprehensive concept of the course of world history. It begins with the biblical account of the creation of the world. Having thus declared his commitment to the Christian understanding of life, the author proceeds to the history of the Russian people. After the Babylonian pandemonium, when the peoples were divided, the Slavs stood out in the Japheth tribe, and the Russian people stood out among the Slavic tribes. Like everything in the created world, the course of Russian history is made according to the will of God, the princes are the instruments of His will, virtues are rewarded, sins are punished by the Lord: famine, pestilence, a coward, an invasion of foreigners. Everyday details do not occupy the author of the chronicle. His thought hovers over vain cares, dwelling with love on the deeds of holy ascetics, the valor of Russian princes, and the struggle against foreigners of other faiths. But all this attracts the attention of the chronicler not in its bare historical "givenness", but as evidence of God's care for Russia.

In this series, a message about a visit to the Russian land of St. app. Andrew the First-Called, who predicted the greatness of Kyiv and the future flourishing of Orthodoxy in Russia. The factual authenticity of this story is not verifiable, but its inner meaning is certain.

Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian people acquire the "first-called" apostolic dignity and purity of faith, subsequently confirmed by the Equal-to-the-Apostles dignity of Saints Methodius and Cyril, the Enlighteners of the Slavs, and the Holy Right-believing Prince Vladimir the Baptist. The message of the chronicle emphasizes the nature of the Baptism of Russia, tacitly assuming for her the corresponding religious duties, the duty of Orthodox Church obedience. The author notes the voluntary nature of the acceptance of service. This is served by the famous story about the choice of faiths, when "Volodimer summoned his own boyars and the startsy Grad". The chronicle does not cite any circumstances restricting freedom of choice. “Even if you want to try much more,” the “bolyars and elders” tell Vladimir, “by sending someone to test ... service and how it serves God.” The desire for a charitable life, the desire to find an unfalse path to God is Vladimir's only motive. The story of the ambassadors who returned after the trial of faith is extremely indicative. Muslims are rejected, because "there is no joy in them, but sadness", Catholics - because they have "beauty not seen by anyone." This, of course, is not about worldly "fun" - Muslims have it no less than anyone else, and not about worldly "sorrow". It is about the living religious experience received by the ambassadors. They were looking for that joy that the Psalmist speaks of: "Heed to the voice of my supplication, my King and my God ... And let all who hope in You rejoice, forever rejoice; and you will dwell in them, and those who love Your name will boast in You" .

This is the joy and joy of a charitable life - quiet, familiar to every sincerely believing Orthodox person from a touching personal experience that cannot be explained in words. And among the Catholics, the ambassadors were not struck by the lack of material beauty - although in terms of beauty and splendor, Catholic worship cannot be compared with Orthodox ones. A sound religious instinct unmistakably determined the inferiority of Catholicism, which cut itself off from the conciliar totality of the Church, from its blessed fullness. “Behold what is good, or what is red, but let the brethren live together,” the Holy Scripture testifies. The absence of this beauty was felt by the well-intentioned ambassadors. All the more striking was the contrast for them from the presence at the liturgy in the Hagia Sophia in Tsargrad: "We have come to the Greeks and we know where we serve our God." The divine service so impressed the Russians that they repeat in confusion: “And we don’t know whether we were in heaven or on earth - for there is no such beauty on earth - only we know for sure that God dwells there with people ... And we don’t we can forget that beauty." Their hearts, seeking religious consolation, received it in unexpected fullness and irresistible certainty. The outcome of the case was decided not by external economic considerations (the validity of which is very doubtful), but by living religious experience, the abundant presence of which is confirmed by the entire subsequent history of the Russian people. A fairly complete picture of the views of contemporaries on the course of Russian life is given by the Lavrentiev Code. Here, for example, is a picture of the campaign of Russian princes against the Polovtsians in 1184: "In the same summer, God put in the heart of a Russian prince, for all the Russian princes go to the Polovtsians." In the 70s of the XII century. the onslaught of the Polovtsians on the borders of the Russian principalities intensifies. The Russians are undertaking a number of retaliatory campaigns. Several local defeats of the Polovtsian troops follow, the result of which is their unification under the rule of one khan - Konchak. The military organization of the Polovtsians receives uniformity and harmony, weapons are improved, throwing machines and "Greek fire" appear: Russia faces a united strong enemy army face to face. The Polovtsy, seeing their superiority, take the fortunate circumstances as a sign of God's good will. "Behold, God is far away, there are Russian princes and their regiments in our hands." But the Providence of God is not connected with considerations of human wisdom: the unreasonable Gentiles "do not know," "as if there is no courage, no thoughts against God," the chronicler complains. In the battle that began, the Polovtsy "ran away" with the wrath of God and the Holy Mother of God. The victory of the Russians is not the result of their own care: “The Lord has done great salvation for our princes and their howls over our enemies. The former foreigner was defeated” with the help of God under the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos, covering with His care the God-loving Russian army. And the Russians themselves are well aware of this: "And Vladimir said: this is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and rejoice in it. As the Lord has delivered us from our enemies and subdued our enemies under our feet." And the Russian troops returned home after the victory, "glorifying God and the Holy Mother of God, the quick intercessor of the Christian race." It is hardly possible to more fully and clearly express the view of Russian history as an area of ​​the all-encompassing action of God's Providence.

At the same time, the chronicler, as a church man, remained far from primitive fatalism. Acting in history in a decisive way, the Providence of God at the same time does not suppress or restrict the freedom of personal choice, which lies at the basis of a person's responsibility for his deeds and actions. The historical material, against which the concept of the religious and moral conditionality of Russian life is affirmed, becomes in the annals the events associated with the changeable military happiness. The following year, after a successful campaign against the Polovtsy, committed by the combined forces of the princes, Igor Svyatoslavich, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky, organizes an unsuccessful independent raid. The famous "Tale of Igor's Campaign" gives an exceptionally beautiful and lyrical description of this campaign. In the annals of the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich, two stories have been preserved. One, more extensive and detailed, is in the Ipatiev Code. Another, shorter - in Lavrentievskoye. But even his condensed narrative quite clearly reflects the chronicler's view of the freedom of the human will as a force that, along with the inconceivable Providence of God, determines the course of history. This time, "won ours with the wrath of God," which found on the Russian troops "for our sin." Recognizing the failure of the campaign as a natural result of evading one's religious duty, "sighing and weeping spread" among the Russian soldiers, who recalled, but according to the chronicler, the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Lord, in sorrow, remember Thee."

Sincere repentance was soon accepted by the merciful God, and "prince Igor ran away from the Polovtsy" - that is, from the captivity of the Polovtsian - "for the Lord will not leave the righteous in the hands of sinners, the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear Him (look), and His ears are in their prayer (to their prayers they are obedient). “Behold, having committed a sin for our sake,” the chronicler sums up, “because our sins and iniquities have multiplied.”

God admonishes sinners with punishments, the virtuous, conscious of their duty and fulfilling it, has mercy and preserves. God does not force anyone: a person determines his own destiny, the people themselves determine their history - this is how the views of the annals can be summarized briefly. It remains only to reverently marvel at the purity and freshness of the Orthodox attitude of the chroniclers and their heroes, who look at the world with childish faith, about which the Lord said: Father, for this was your good pleasure" (Luke 10:21). Developing and supplementing each other, Russian chroniclers sought to create a coherent and consistent picture of their native history. In its entirety, this desire was reflected in the Moscow chronicle tradition, as if crowning the efforts of many generations of chroniclers. "The Great Russian Chronicler", the Trinity Chronicle, written under Metropolitan Cyprian, the collection of 1448 and other chronicles, more and more suitable for the name "general Russian", despite the fact that they retained local features, and were often written not in Moscow, are as if the steps along which Russian self-consciousness ascended to understanding the unity of the religious fate of the people. Mid 16th century became the era of the greatest church-state celebration in Russia. The primordially Russian lands were brought together, the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms were annexed, the way to the east was opened - to Siberia and Central Asia. Next in line was the opening of the western gates of the state - through Livonia.

All Russian life passed under the sign of reverent churchness and inner religious concentration. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was during the reign of John IV Vasilyevich that a grandiose chronicle was created, reflecting a new understanding of Russian fate and its innermost meaning.

He described the entire history of mankind as a succession of great kingdoms. In accordance with the importance attached to the completion of such an important work for the national self-consciousness, the chronicle collection received the most luxurious design. Its 10 volumes were written on the best paper, specially purchased from the royal stocks in France. The text was adorned with 15,000 skilfully executed miniatures depicting history "in faces", for which the collection received the name "Facial Vault". The last, tenth, volume of the collection was devoted to the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich, covering the events from 1535 to 1567. When this last volume (known in science under the name of the "Synodal List", since it belonged to the library of the Holy Synod) was basically ready, it underwent a significant editorial editing. Someone's hand made numerous additions, insertions and corrections right on the illustrated sheets. On a new, purely rewritten copy, which entered science under the name "Royal Book", the same hand again made many new additions and corrections. It seems that Ivan IV himself was the editor of the Facial Code, consciously and purposefully working to complete the "Russian ideology."

Another chronicle collection, which was supposed to create a coherent conception of Russian life along with the "Facial Vault", was the Book of Powers. At the basis of this enormous work was the idea that the entire Russian history from the time of the Baptism of Russia to the reign of Ivan the Terrible should appear in the form of seventeen degrees (chapters), each of which corresponds to the reign of one or another prince. Summarizing the main thoughts of these vast chronicles, we can say that they boil down to two most important statements that were destined to determine the course of all Russian life for centuries:

• 1. God is pleased to entrust the preservation of the truths of Revelation, necessary for the salvation of people, to individual peoples and kingdoms, chosen by Himself for reasons unknown to the human mind. In Old Testament times such a ministry was entrusted to Israel. In New Testament history, it was successively entrusted to three kingdoms. Initially, the ministry was taken over by Rome, the capital of the world during the time of early Christianity. Having fallen into the heresy of Latinism, he was removed from the ministry, successively granted to the Orthodox Constantinople - the "second Rome" of the Middle Ages. Having encroached on the purity of the preserved faith because of selfish political calculations, having agreed to a union with Catholic heretics (at the Council of Florence in 1439), Byzantium lost the gift of service, which passed to the "third Rome" of recent times - to Moscow, the capital of the Russian Orthodox kingdom. The Russian people are determined to keep the truths of Orthodoxy "until the end of time" - the second and glorious Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the meaning of his existence, all his aspirations and forces must be subordinated to this;
• 2. The service assumed by the Russian people requires a corresponding organization of the Church, society and state. The God-established form of existence of the Orthodox people is autocracy. The King is the Anointed One of God. He is not limited in his autocratic power by anything, except for the fulfillment of the duties of a service common to all. The gospel is the "constitution" of the autocracy. The Orthodox Tsar is the personification of God's chosen and God-bearing of the whole people, his prayer chairman and guardian angel.

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

The main Russian chronicle is The Tale of Bygone Years, the rest of the chronicles (Ipatievskaya, Lavrentievskaya and others) only supplement and clarify it. The Kievan chronicle is also called the Primary, although, of course, there is nothing in it about the beginnings of Russian history; it only contains the history of Kievan Rus, and even that is far from complete. You need to know that the "Tale" was written by more than one author. This is a collection of documents relating to different times and, accordingly, written by different authors.

At least the names of two of them are known: this is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor and the hegumen of the Mikhailovsky Vydubetsky monastery in Kyiv - Sylvester. Nestor lived in the middle of the 11th - early 12th century (he died in 1114) and is the author of the life of Saints Boris and Gleb, as well as the life of St. Theodosius, the founder of the Kyiv Lavra. He was the superintendent of chronicle writing in Kievan Rus and, according to researchers, the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years (not so much writing chronicles as collecting 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 graphical reconstruction was made from his skull. The appearance of the chronicler turned out to be much simpler and more modest than on the famous sculpture of Mark Antokolsky. The ancient Russian writer, abbot of the Mikhailovsky 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 (the current Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky in Ukraine, during the time of Kievan Rus, the capital of the specific principality ) to become a bishop there.

The chronicle begins with the first author, a connoisseur of the Holy Scriptures. He tells how the Earth was divided between the sons of Noah, the righteous man who escaped the Great Flood. In this biblical version of the development of mankind, the writer seeks to insert the ancestors of our people - the ancient Rus. It turns out not very complicated and unconvincing. But the author was obliged to link together the Rus and the ancient Jews, perhaps at the threat of his own life. The second author - let's call him an "ideologist" - told about the resettlement of the Slavs. A Kyiv monk who lived in the 11th-12th centuries could not help but know about the Baltic ancestral home of the Rus: there, to Arkona on the island of Ruyan, even before the 13th century, pilgrims from all over the Slavic world, including Kyiv, set off. But it was precisely this fact that he had to pass over in silence, and at the same time depict the East Slavic peoples who remained faithful to their original religion (for example, the Drevlyans or Vyatichi) as bloodthirsty and wild monsters. On the other hand, the Polans, who are rather indifferent to questions of faith, but who were baptized in the Dnieper, look like an ideal people.

Excavations have shown that these peoples did not live like cattle: they developed many crafts, the objects 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 the Varangians from across the sea. They were first called by the Novgorod Slovenes, and then they themselves moved south and captured Kyiv. And now they, the Varangians, having subjugated the Slavs, suddenly begin to be called Rus. Moreover, the Slavs and Russia are one and the same. It is simply impossible to understand, but it was necessary to believe. Obscure places in the annals are simply used with passion by nationalist societies of pseudo-historians for unseemly purposes.

For example, in modern Ukrainian historical books it is said how the Scandinavian king Helga (this is the Prophetic Oleg, if you didn’t understand) tricked out of the city and executed two Ukrainian rulers Askold and Dir. It is clear that Askold and Dir are the most common Ukrainian names, and under the name Helgu hides the “damned Muscovite”, who already in the early Middle Ages oppressed the freedom-loving Ukrainian people. Alas, a generation is growing up that is firmly convinced that Kievan Rus is Ukraine, all the princes who ruled in Kyiv are Ukrainians. But there were no Russians and there are none, at least in the medieval history of Ukraine. Alas, the Christian propaganda of the chronicle gave rise to nationalistic Ukrainian propaganda, and the fact that the ends do not meet, well, this never bothered the ignoramuses.

Christian authors condemn the ancient custom of cremation. They also report that our ancestors, before the veneration of the gods - Perun, Veles and others - allegedly worshiped "ghouls and coastlines." Of course, this is a caricature and should not be taken literally. Why would so many blood-sucking vampires have bred in Russia that in search of salvation it was necessary to run for help to some coastlines, which either gave a talisman against ghouls, or dispersed these reptiles with aspen stakes. At the same time, the basis of Russian pre-Christian culture is hidden in these words. The gods, whatever they may be, are the official cult, the faith of the upper classes. And the actual folk faith, which was before the veneration of Perun and Veles, has survived to this day.

Let's explain what we are talking about. Of course, vampires and amulets from them have nothing to do with it. We are talking about the mortgaged, walking dead and drowned virgins, that is, about those who died an unrighteous, wrong death. These are suicides, sorcerers or infants who died before naming (later - who died unbaptized). Sometimes mothers who die during childbirth. Righteous ancestors, whose corpses were burned after death, went to heaven and forever left the world of the living. And the unrighteous - who did not live out their lives or, on the contrary, healed for an excessively long time, could not find peace. These are sorcerers and witches - they seemed to take away the time of their lives from people - 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 heart of all the “spirits of nature” are the souls of the ancestors who have not found peace. Brownie is the first deceased 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 virgins that people met on the shore is beregini.

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 tenacious 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, the ancestors are different, both during life and after it: some are good, others are evil.

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

Old Russian chronicles: The main secrets

Magazine: History of the "Russian Seven" No. 6, August 2016
Category: Secrets
Text: Russian Seven

Who is the author?

For people who do not delve too deeply into history, there is only one chronicler - Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery. The canonization in the face of saints under the name Nestor the Chronicler contributed to securing such a status for him. However, this monk, as the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, is mentioned only in one of its later (XVI century) lists, and besides the Tale, there are many other chronicle texts created in different centuries and in different, far removed from each other other places.
One Nestor could not have been torn apart in time and space to write them all. So he's just one of the authors anyway.
Who are the rest? The monk Lavrenty is listed as the creator of the Laurentian Chronicle, the Troitskaya Chronicle is attributed to the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Epiphanius the Wise. And in general, judging by the fact that almost all chronicles were kept in monasteries, they owe their origin to church people.
However, the writing style of some texts gives reason to look for authors in a secular environment. So, 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: common vocabulary, the use of dialogues, proverbs, quotations, picturesque 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. You will not find the Tale of Bygone Years written by Nestor at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries in any collection of the world. There is only the Lavrentievsky list of the XIV century, Ipatiev - XV century, Khlebnikov - XVI century. etc.
And Nestor himself was hardly the first author of the Tale.
According to the philologist and historian A.A. Shakhmatov, he only reworked the Initial Code of 1093 of the hegumen of the Kiev Caves Monastery John and supplemented it with the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties and traditions that had come down to him in the oral tradition.
John, in turn, supplemented the code 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 an absolute guarantee that it is not based on another, more ancient text.
Such is the essence of the Russian tradition of chronicle writing. Each subsequent scribe 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 seen in the "uneven" Kievan Chronicle, in which Abbot Moses of the Vydubitsky Monastery melted down the texts of authors of very different levels of education and talent.

Why do chronicles contradict each other?

The answer to this question follows 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 even unintentionally difficult to avoid some inaccuracies. What can we say about the desire to pull the blanket over yourself and put this or that event, city, ruler in a favorable light ...
Before that, 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 just 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 quite clearly stated: And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia.<…>The Russians said Chud, Slovenes, Krivichi and all: “Our land is great and plentiful, 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 Russia with them, and they came.<…>And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed».
This passage is based on the Norman theory of the origin of the state of Russia - from the Varangians.
But there is another snippet: ... Of the same Slavs - and we, Rus ... And the Slavic people and the Russian are one, after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called glades, but 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”?

"Teaching Vladimir Monomakh" is part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" and contains three parts: a lesson to children, an autobiographical story and a letter, the addressee of which is usually called the brother of the prince - Oleg Svyatoslavovich. But why include personal correspondence in a historical document?
It is worth noting that the name of Oleg is not mentioned anywhere in the letter, and the content of the text is of a repentant nature.
Perhaps, by retelling this complex story with his 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 in only one of the lists of the Tale and was clearly not intended for a large number of eyes, so some scholars consider this a personal written confession, preparation for the Last Judgment.

Who and when wrote "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"?

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 was not attributed to anyone: Igor himself, Yaroslavna, Vladimir Igorevich and other princes or not princes; fans of this campaign and, conversely, those who condemned Igor's adventure; the name of the writer was "deciphered" and isolated from 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 “Word” to be almost a report from the scene, and B. I. Yatsenko postponed 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.

Speaking about the scribes of books in ancient Russia, we should also mention our chroniclers

Almost every monastery had its own chronicler, who, in brief notes, enters information about the most important events of his time. It is believed that the chronicles were preceded by calendar notes, which are considered the founder of any chronicle. According to their content, the annals can be divided into 1) state annals, 2) family or tribal annals, 3) monastery or church annals.

Family chronicles are compiled in the clans of service people in order to see the public service of all ancestors.

The sequence observed in the annals is chronological: the years are described one after another.

If in some year nothing remarkable happened, then nothing is recorded against this year in the annals.

For example, in the chronicle of Nestor:

“In the summer of 6368 (860). In the summer of 6369. In the summer of 6370. Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving them tribute, and more often in their own hands; and there is no truth in them ....

In the summer of 6371. In the summer of 6372. In the summer of 6373. In the summer of 6374, Askold and Dir went to the Greeks ... "

If a “sign from heaven” happened, the chronicler noted it as well; if there was a solar eclipse, the chronicler ingenuously wrote down that such and such a year and date "the sun died."

The Monk Nestor, a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, is considered the father of the Russian chronicle. According to the studies of Tatishchev, Miller and Schlozer, he was born in 1056, entered the monastery at the age of 17 and died in 1115. His chronicle has not been preserved, but a list from this chronicle has come down to us. This list is called the Laurentian List, or the Laurentian Chronicle, because it was written off by the Suzdal monk Lavrenty in 1377.

In the Paterik of Pechersk it is said about Nestor: “that he is contented with the summer, laboring in the affairs of chronicle writing and remembering the eternal summer.”

The Laurentian Chronicle is written on parchment, on 173 sheets; up to the fortieth page it is written in an ancient charter, and from page 41 to the end - in a semi-charter. The manuscript of the Laurentian Chronicle, which belonged to Count Musin-Pushkin, was presented by him to Emperor Alexander I, who presented it to the Imperial Public Library.

Of the punctuation marks in the annals, only a period is used, which, however, rarely stands in its place.

This chronicle included events up to 1305 (6813).

The Lavrentiev chronicle begins with the following words:

“Here are the stories of bygone years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv began to reign first and where did the Russian land come from.

Let's start this story. After the flood, the first sons of Noah divided the earth .... ”, etc.

In addition to the Laurentian Chronicle, the “Novgorod Chronicle”, “Pskov Chronicle”, “Nikon Chronicle” are known, so named because “the sheets have a signature (clip) of Patriarch Nikon, and many others. friend.

In total, there are up to 150 variants or lists of annals.

Our ancient princes ordered that everything that happened under them, good and bad, be entered into the annals, without any concealment or embellishment: “our first rulers without anger commanded to describe all the good and bad that happened to be described, and other images of the phenomenon will be based on them.”

During the period of civil strife, in case of any misunderstanding, the Russian princes sometimes turned to the annals as written evidence.

Modern Russian historical science about ancient Russia is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, at the same time on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can such sources be trusted in everything?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have come down to us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but the earliest list was made in 1377 monk Lavrentiy and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

It is not known where this chronicle was written, which received the name of the Lavrentievskaya after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Russia moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born, the bishop of this monastery Simon was one of the authors of a remarkable work of ancient Russian literature "Kiev-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

It remains only to guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - inEvery customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and discredit opponents, which was quite natural in the conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.

The most significant gap falls on the years 898-922. The events of The Tale of Bygone Years are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus until 1305, but there are omissions here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Russia before baptism were clearly repugnant to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another well-known chronicle - Ipatievskaya - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where our remarkable historian N.M. Karamzin discovered it. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kyiv and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicle writing. The Hypatian Chronicle is younger than the Lavrentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galicia-Volyn Rus.

Another chronicle worth paying attention to is the Radziwill Chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian Prince Radziwill, then entered the Königsberg Library and, under Peter the Great, finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older copy from the 13th century. and tells about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs until 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Lavrentiev chronicle, but is much richer framed - it contains 617 illustrations.

They are called a valuable source "for the study of material culture, political symbols and art of Ancient Russia." Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to the researchers, they are more in line with historical reality.

On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by scribes. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.

Now about the chronology accepted in antiquity. Firstly, it must be remembered that earlier the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, the reckoning was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which happened before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on which year, March or September, this event occurred, and in which month: before March 1 or before September 1 . The translation of the ancient chronology into the modern one is a laborious task, therefore special tables were compiled, which are used by historians.

It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in The Tale of Bygone Years from 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message reads as follows: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because, under this king, Russia came to Constantinople, as it is written about this in the Greek annals. That is why from now on we will start and put the numbers.

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Russia, which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, Rostov is mentioned for the first time. But does the first annalistic date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Indeed, the Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Russia against Constantinople under Emperor Michael the Third, but the date of this event is not known. To deduce it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood of 2242, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.

It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not too lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not the year 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Russia went to Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So puzzle over, where is the mistake: either in a mathematical calculation, or did you mean another, earlier campaign of Russia against Byzantium?

But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use The Tale of Bygone Years as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Russia. And it's not just a clearly erroneous chronology. The Tale of Bygone Years has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-thinking researchers are already working in this direction. So, in the journal "Rus" (No. 3-97), an essay by K. Vorotny "Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?" » credibility. To name just a few examples...

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Russia - such an important historical event - in the European chronicles, where this fact would have been drawn attention to? Even N.I. Kostomarov noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has come down to us mentions the struggle of Russia with Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in the "Word of Igor's Campaign". Why were our annals silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

In this regard, the fate of VN Tatishchev's "History of Russia from Ancient Times" is very characteristic. There is a number of evidence that after the death of the historian, it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller, under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.

His drafts were later found, in which there is the following phrase:

“The monk Nestor was not well aware of the princes of the Russian old-timers.” This one phrase makes us take a fresh look at the Tale of Bygone Years, which is the basis of most of the chronicles that have come down to us. Is everything in it authentic, reliable, was it not deliberately destroyed those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory? The real history of Ancient Russia is still not known to us, it has to be restored literally bit by bit.

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom”, published back in 1601, wrote:

"The Slavic clan is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world." This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs, set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.

In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources., of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or maybe were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and calling into question the Tale of Bygone Years.

Among other sources used by him, Orbini mentions an annalistic history of Russia that has not come down to us, written by the Russian historian of the thirteenth century Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our primary literature have also disappeared, which would help to answer where the Russian land came from.

A few years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study "Sacred Russia" by Yuri Petrovich Mirolubov, a Russian émigré historian who died in 1970, was published. He first drew attention to "boards of Isenbeck" with the text of the now famous Book of Veles. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in one English chronicle: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it ... And they went across the sea to strangers.” That is, an almost verbatim coincidence with the phrase from The Tale of Bygone Years!

Yu.P. Mirolyubov expressed a very convincing assumption that this phrase got into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.

This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the Grand Duke's throne. Court chronicler Sylvester respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.