Chronicles are the focus of the history of Ancient Russia, its ideology, understanding of its place in world history - they are one of the most important monuments of both writing, and literature, and history, and culture in general. Only the most literate, knowledgeable, wise people undertook to compile chronicles, i.e., weather reports of events, able not only to state different things year after year, but also to give them an appropriate explanation, to leave to posterity a vision of the era as it was understood by the chroniclers.

The chronicle was a matter of state, a matter of princes. Therefore, the task of compiling a chronicle was given not only to the most literate and intelligent person, but also to someone who would be able to carry out ideas close to one or another princely branch, one or another princely house. Thus, the objectivity and honesty of the chronicler came into conflict with what we call "social order". If the chronicler did not satisfy the tastes of his customer, they parted with him and transferred the compilation of the chronicle to another, more reliable, more obedient author. Alas, work for the needs of the authorities was born already at the dawn of writing, and not only in Russia, but also in other countries.

Chronicle writing, according to the observations of domestic scientists, appeared in Russia shortly after the introduction of Christianity. The first chronicle may have been compiled at the end of the 10th century. It was intended to reflect the history of Russia since the emergence of a new dynasty there, the Rurikovich, and until the reign of Vladimir with his impressive victories, with the introduction of Christianity in Russia. Since that time, the right and duty to keep chronicles were given to the leaders of the Church. It was in churches and monasteries that the most literate, well-prepared and trained people were found - priests, monks. They had a rich book heritage, translated literature, Russian records of old tales, legends, epics, legends; they also had the grand ducal archives at their disposal. It was most convenient for them to carry out this responsible and important work: to create a written historical monument of the era in which they lived and worked, linking it with past times, with deep historical sources.

Scientists believe that before the chronicles appeared - large-scale historical works covering several centuries of Russian history, there were separate records, including church, oral stories, which at first served as the basis for the first generalizing works. These were stories about Kiev and the founding of Kyiv, about the campaigns of Russian troops against Byzantium, about the journey of Princess Olga to Constantinople, about the wars of Svyatoslav, the legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb, as well as epics, lives of saints, sermons, traditions, songs, all kinds of legends .

Later, already at the time of the existence of chronicles, they were joined by more and more new stories, legends about impressive events in Russia, such as the famous feud in 1097 and the blinding of the young prince Vasilko, or about the campaign of Russian princes against the Polovtsy in 1111. The chronicle also included memoirs Vladimir Monomakh about life - his Teaching to Children.

The second chronicle was created under Yaroslav the Wise at the time when he united Russia, laid the temple of Hagia Sophia. This chronicle absorbed the previous chronicle and other materials.

Already at the first stage of the creation of chronicles, it became obvious that they represent a collective work, they are a set of previous chronicle records, documents, various oral and written historical evidence. The compiler of the next annalistic code acted not only as the author of the corresponding newly written parts of the annals, but also as a compiler and editor. It was his ability to direct the idea of ​​a vault in the right direction that was highly valued by the Kievan princes.

Another annalistic code was created by the famous Illarion, who wrote it, apparently under the name of the monk Nikon, in the 60-70s. XI century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. And then a vault appeared already in the time of Svyatopolk, in the 90s. 11th century

The vault, which the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor took up and which entered our history under the name "The Tale of Bygone Years", thus turned out to be at least the fifth in a row and was created in the first decade of the 12th century. at the court of Prince Svyatopolk. And each collection was enriched with more and more new materials, and each author contributed his talent, his knowledge, erudition to it. The Code of Nestor was in this sense the pinnacle of early Russian chronicle writing.

In the first lines of his chronicle, Nestor posed the question "Where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv first began to reign and where did the Russian land come from." Thus, already in these first words of the chronicle, it is said about the large-scale goals that the author has set for himself. Indeed, the chronicle did not become an ordinary chronicle, of which there were many in the world at that time - dry, dispassionately fixing facts - but an excited story of the then historian, introducing philosophical and religious generalizations into the narrative, his image system, temperament, his own style. The origin of Russia, as we have already said, Nestor draws against the backdrop of the development of the entire world history. Russia is one of the European nations.

Using the previous sets, documentary materials, including, for example, the treaties of Russia with Byzantium, the chronicler unfolds a wide panorama of historical events that cover both the internal history of Russia - the formation of an all-Russian statehood with a center in Kyiv, and the international relations of Russia. A whole gallery of historical figures takes place on the pages of the Nestor Chronicle - princes, boyars, posadniks, thousands, merchants, church leaders. He talks about military campaigns, about the organization of monasteries, the laying of new churches and the opening of schools, about religious disputes and reforms in domestic Russian life. Constantly concerns Nestor and the life of the people as a whole, his moods, expressions of dissatisfaction with the princely policy. On the pages of the annals, we read about uprisings, the murders of princes and boyars, and cruel public fights. The author describes all this thoughtfully and calmly, trying to be objective, as much as a deeply religious person can be objective, guided in his assessments by the concepts of Christian virtue and sin. But, frankly, his religious assessments are very close to universal assessments. Murder, betrayal, deceit, perjury Nestor condemns uncompromisingly, but extols honesty, courage, fidelity, nobility, and other wonderful human qualities. The entire chronicle was imbued with a sense of the unity of Russia, a patriotic mood. All the main events in it were evaluated not only from the point of view of religious concepts, but also from the standpoint of these all-Russian state ideals. This motive sounded especially significant on the eve of the beginning of the political disintegration of Russia.

In 1116–1118 the chronicle was rewritten again. Vladimir Monomakh, then reigning in Kyiv, and his son Mstislav were dissatisfied with the way Nestor showed the role of Svyatopolk in Russian history, by order of which the Tale of Bygone Years was written in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery. Monomakh took away the chronicle from the Cave monks and transferred it to his ancestral Vydubitsky monastery. His abbot Sylvester became the author of a new code. Positive assessments of Svyatopolk were moderated, and all the deeds of Vladimir Monomakh were emphasized, but the main body of The Tale of Bygone Years remained unchanged. And in the future, Nestor's work was an indispensable component both in the Kiev chronicle and in the annals of individual Russian principalities, being one of the connecting threads for the entire Russian culture.

In the future, as the political collapse of Russia and the rise of individual Russian centers, the annals began to fragment. In addition to Kyiv and Novgorod, their own chronicles appeared in Smolensk, Pskov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Galich, Vladimir-Volynsky, Ryazan, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl-Russian. Each of them reflected the peculiarities of the history of their region, their own princes were brought to the fore. Thus, the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles showed the history of the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest; Galician chronicle of the beginning of the XIII century. became, in essence, a biography of the famous warrior prince Daniel of Galicia; the Chernigov Chronicle narrated mainly about the Chernigov branch of the Rurikovich. And yet, in the local annals, all-Russian cultural sources were clearly visible. The history of each land was compared with the entire Russian history, "The Tale of Bygone Years" was an indispensable part of many local annals. Some of them continued the tradition of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th century. So, shortly before the Mongol-Tatar invasion, at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries. in Kyiv, a new annalistic code was created, which reflected the events that took place in Chernigov, Galich, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, Ryazan and other Russian cities. It can be seen that the author of the collection had at his disposal the annals of various Russian principalities and used them. The chronicler also knew European history well. He mentioned, for example, Frederick Barbarossa's Third Crusade. In various Russian cities, including in Kyiv, in the Vydubytsky monastery, entire libraries of annals were created, which became sources for new historical works of the 12th-13th centuries.

The preservation of the all-Russian chronicle tradition was shown by the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle of the beginning of the 13th century, covering the history of the country from the legendary Kyi to Vsevolod the Big Nest.

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 was called the Lavrentievskaya after the name of 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 Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and 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. First of all, 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 European chronicles, where this fact would certainly have been pointed out? 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.

The beginning of keeping chronicles in Russia 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, which is directly reported in the Tale of the 10th century. “About the writings” of the Chernorizet Khrabr: “After all, before the Slavs, when they were pagans, did not have letters, but (read) and guessed 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 lists of the Legend. Initially, it was read only "guessed with the help of features and cuts." Such an initial reading is confirmed by the subsequent presentation in the Legend: “When they were baptized, they tried to write down Slavic speech in Roman and Greek letters, without order. But how well can you write “God” or “belly” in Greek letters (the Slavs have letters, for example, “zh”, which are absent in these languages). Further, the Chernorizet (monk) Brave reports about Constantine (Cyril) the Philosopher, who created the alphabet for the Slavs: “thirty letters and eight, some on the model of 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: St. 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 of their Lives, created in connection with their canonization, is known about the brothers Cyril and Methodius, the creators of Slavic writing. Cyril and Methodius are saints for all Slavic peoples. The elder Methodius (815-885) and Constantine (827-869) were born in the city of Thessalonica. Their father, a Greek, was one of the commanders of this city and the regions adjacent to it, 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 mother, a Bulgarian). The fate of the brothers initially developed 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 lead the Khazar mission (861 BC). ). Together with him, his brother Methodius went to the Khazars. One of the goals of the mission was to spread and promote Orthodoxy among the Khazars. In Kherson (Crimea), an event occurred that gave rise to endless scientific disputes in modern times. This event is described in the Life of Constantine as follows: “He found here the gospel and the psalter, written in Russian letters, and found a man speaking that language, and talked with him, and understood the meaning of this speech, and, comparing it with his own language, distinguished the letters vowels and consonants, and, praying to God, he soon began to read and expound (them), and many marveled at him, praising God ”(Tales. S. 77-78). What language is meant in the expression "Russian letters" is not clear, some suggest the Gothic language, others Syriac, etc. (there is no definite answer). The brothers completed the Khazar mission successfully.

In 863, at the invitation of Prince Rostislav, the Moravian mission was sent to Moravia, headed by the brothers Constantine and Methodius, its main goal was to spread Christianity among the Slavs of the Moravian state. In the course of this mission, the brothers created an alphabet for the Slavs, and Konstantin "translated the entire church rite and taught them matins, hours, Mass, Vespers, Compline, and secret prayer." In 869, the brothers visited Rome, where Constantine died, before his death he took monasticism under the name of Cyril.

For a long time it was believed that our modern alphabet is based on the alphabet created by Cyril, 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. Glagolic writing is the original Slavic (primarily Western Slavs) writing, it is based on the alphabet, the origin of which has not yet been clarified. It is quite possible that this is an artificial alphabet, and therefore it must have a clue 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 ninth century the Slavs simultaneously had two alphabets and, consequently, two writing systems - Glagolitic and Cyrillic. The first was distributed mainly among the Western Slavs (the Croats used this original script for many centuries), the second among the South Slavs. The Glagolitic alphabet developed under the strong influence of the Roman Church, while the Cyrillic alphabet developed under the Byzantine one. All this is directly related to the written culture of Ancient Russia. In the 11th century, when the first and fairly thorough steps were taken to assimilate 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, along with the inscriptions in Cyrillic, there are also Glagolitic ones. The Latin influence on Glagolitic writing can be judged, for example, by the Kyiv Glagolitic Leaflets, which is a Slavic translation of the Latin Missal. Approximately in the XII century. Glagolitic is falling out of use among Russian people, and in the XV century. it is perceived as one of the variants of cryptography.

The adoption of Christianity under Prince Vladimir in 988 was of decisive importance in the appearance of their written language, 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. For worship, books were needed, which were originally 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 Church of the Tithes (Prince Vladimir gave her a tenth of all his income for maintenance). It is assumed that it was at this church that the first Russian chronicle was compiled.

When dealing with the history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th century, it is necessary to remember the simultaneous existence of two scripts that had rows of numbers that differed from each other, which could lead to confusion when translating numbers from Glagolitic to Cyrillic (in Ancient Russia there was a letter designation of numbers borrowed from Byzantium ).

The circle of reading among the Russian people at the time of the birth of chronicle writing was quite extensive, as evidenced by the manuscripts of the 11th century that have come down to us. These are, first of all, liturgical books (Gospel Aprakos, Service Menaia, Paroemia, Psalter) and books for reading: (Gospel Tetrs, Lives of Saints, collection of Chrysostom, where there are many words and teachings of John Chrysostom, various collections, the most famous of which are collections of 1073 and 1076, Paterik of Sinai, Pandects of Antiochus of Chernorizets, Parenesis of Ephrem the Syrian (Glagolitic), Words of Gregory the Theologian, etc.). This list of books and works that existed in Ancient Russia in the 11th century should be expanded with those books and works that have come down to us in later lists. It is to such works, created in the 11th century, but which have come down to us in manuscripts of the 14th-16th centuries, that the early Russian chronicles also belong: not a single Russian chronicle of the 11th-13th centuries. not preserved in manuscripts synchronous to these centuries.

The range of chronicles used by researchers to characterize the early history of Russian chronicle writing has long been outlined. Here are the most significant of them. In the first place are two chronicles that have come down to us in manuscripts on parchment of the 14th century. - Lavrentievskaya and Novgorod Harateynaya. But the latter, due to the loss of sheets at the beginning of the manuscript (weather records begin with a half-phrase of the news of 6524 (1016)) and because of the brevity of the text (the description of the events of the 11th century takes 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 the Russian chronicles, namely: years that had no news were put down 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 Haratean Chronicle is as follows:

“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 serpent's sign appeared in heaven. Etc.

A similar arrangement of news is sometimes found in the Easter tables (the definition of the day of Easter for each year). In such tables, brief entries were made in the margins of the annalistic type. M.I. Sukhomlinov in the 19th century. suggested that it was from the Easter tables that the Russian tradition of designating years without records of events originated. An unambiguous explanation for this has not been found, perhaps this is an invitation for subsequent chroniclers to fill in these years with events from new sources?

The second oldest Russian chronicle is Lavrentievskaya, its code is RNB. F. p. IV. 2 (code indicates: the manuscript is in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg; F - the size of the manuscript (in folio) per 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 in the IX-XII centuries. the most authoritative among the other chronicles, but as the analysis conducted by A.A. Shakhmatov, its text is very unreliable for restoring the original text of the PVL from it.

The following chronicle monuments are also involved in the restoration of early annalistic collections: the Ipatievskaya, Radzivilovskaya, Novgorodskaya first junior edition (N1LM), the chroniclers of Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Suzdal and Ustyug. Not all of these monuments are considered equivalent. For example, the use of the last three chroniclers remains controversial for characterizing early chronicles. The assessment of the significance of chronicle monuments 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 the key to solving many problems of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th century. The main position of the scientist is that the chronicle of the 70s is presented in N1LM. XI century, which preceded the PVL, presented in the Lavrentiev (LL) and Ipatiev (IL) chronicles.

Laurentian Chronicle according to M.D. Priselkov

In the initial part of LL and IL, the news is given without indicating any dates: the resettlement of the sons of Noah (Sim, Ham, Afet), between whom the whole earth was divided. Russia and other tribes were in the Afetova part. This is followed by reports about the settlement of the Slavs, about the way from the Varangians to the Greeks, about the stay of the Apostle Andrew in Russia and about the blessing of this land by him, about the founding of Kyiv, about the neighbors of the Eastern Slavs, about the arrival of the Khazars on Russian land. 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 small preface, followed immediately by the first weather record under 6362 (854) with the indication “The Beginning of the Russian Land”, which reports the legend of the founding of Kyiv, the arrival of the Khazars to 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 that is in the LL-IL in the introduction. The beginning of the Ustyug chronicler is closer to the text of N1LM, but it has neither a heading, nor a preface, nor an introductory part, the chronicler begins directly with the news of 6360 (852) - “The Beginning of the Russian Land”. The text of the Ustyug chronicler also lacks the legend of the Apostle Andrew. When comparing the beginnings of the listed chronicles, it is clear that they have significant differences. It is quite difficult to decide whether the readings of this or that chronicle were primary or secondary, especially given the established historiographical tradition that continues to recognize the primary nature of the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev chronicles. Most often, the most weighty arguments in favor of the primacy of a particular chronicle in a given historiographical situation can be obtained by drawing on 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 of LL-IL, which are based on different editions of the PVL, that it was not in the earlier chronicles. We find confirmation of this in the Life of Boris and Gleb, written by the monk Nestor in the 70s. XI century, where it is stated that none of the apostles preached on the Russian land and that the Lord himself blessed the Russian land.

As already noted, the most effective method of analyzing written historical sources is comparative textual. Only on the material obtained by comparing two or more texts with each other, you can prove your point of view. You cannot limit yourself to the results of comparing the lists of the monument you are interested in, it is necessary to correlate them with the data of other literary and historical monuments that are synchronous with the text you are analyzing, and it is always necessary to look for similar phenomena and facts in the written heritage of other cultures. Let me explain the last position on the example of the legend about the founding of the city of Kyiv by the three brothers Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv. More A.-L. Schlozer 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 makes it possible to unequivocally 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 methods of work of this or that chronicler, but also to recreate, restore the text written by him.

The textological 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 the Russian chronicle of the XI 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.

A significant amount of annals significantly complicates their analysis and use. Suppose you are interested in some news of the 11th century, in different chronicles it is read differently, you can understand the essence of these discrepancies only in the context of the discrepancies of 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, some one of her news. Indispensable help in this case are the works of A.A. Shakhmatova, where a description is given of the texts of almost all Russian chronicles.

First Chronicle. The question of the first annalistic code, the first historical work dedicated to the Russian land, from which all chronicles and all domestic 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 XIX century. I.I. Sreznevsky suggested that already at the end of the 10th century. in Russia, some kind of historical work was created with news about Russian history. I.I. Sreznevsky was further developed in the works of M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnin, B.A. Rybakova and others. For example, M.N. Tikhomirov believed that at the end of the X century. was created in Kyiv by one of the secular people "The Legend of the Russian Princes." Arguments in favor of this assumption are taken from the texts of LL-N1LM-Ustyug chronicler. These are general arguments that run counter to such well-known facts as: that the writing of the Eastern Slavs appeared in connection with the adoption of Christianity in 988, therefore, it took time 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 XI century. Written monuments of the Eastern Slavs have come down to us. The inscription on the korchaga from Gnezdovo, represented by a single word (“pea”) and allegedly dating from the 10th century, cannot serve as an argument for the existence of a developed written culture, and this is precisely what is meant when it comes to creating an original historical work.

D.S. Likhachev calls the hypothetical monument “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity” the first work dedicated to the history of Russia, referring its creation to the end of the 40s. 11th century

When deciding on the issue of the first Russian historical work, the researcher should 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 one of the most difficult issues of our historiography through them - the creation of the first national historical work.

The oldest chronicle code of 1037 (1039) Most researchers agree that the first chronicle in Russia was created in Kyiv in the first half of the 11th century. The point of view of A.A. Shakhmatova. The key point in his argument was the analysis of the text of the annalistic article LL-IL 6552 (1044), consisting of two news, which allowed him to outline two stages of annalistic work in the 11th century. The first news of this year says: “In the summer of 6552. Vygrebosh 2 princes, Yaropolk and Olga, the son of Svyatoslav, and baptized the bones with it, and I laid it 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 buried on the spot near the city of Vruchog, and there is his grave to this day at Vruchey." 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 near Vruchev and did not know about the reburial of the remains of the princes in 1044 ., which means that he worked until 1044. Thus, the first step was taken in substantiating the chronicle code. Further A.A. Shakhmatov and after him M.D. Priselkov clarified the time of the creation of the vault, 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 compilation of a historical note about this event. It was precisely such a note that the first annalistic code was compiled in Kyiv, surrounded by the metropolitan in 1037. So, two arguments were put in support of the code of 1037: the existence of a grave before 1044 and the Byzantine tradition in compiling documents. Both arguments are imperfect. Under the grave, the researcher means a grave in the modern sense of the word - a pit for burial, but the pagan grave of a prince is a barrow. The mound (grave) could have remained even after the reburial of the remains, so the expression "to this day" in relation to the grave could be 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 in the analysis of chronicles is mandatory. The meaning of words changes over time. In the Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. (Issue 9. M., 1982. S. 229) the word "grave" is said: 1) burial place, burial mound, barrow; 2) a pit for the burial of the dead. This word is common Slavic - hill, elevation, grave hill. (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 commanded neither to create feasts, nor to pour graves.” The argument about the establishment of the metropolis is also imperfect, since the questions about the first Russian metropolitan, about the foundation of the metropolis 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. T. 1. The first half of the volume. M., 1997. S. 257-332.)

The solution of the issue of the first annalistic code 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 annalistic 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 are baptized and the whole Russian land from end to end, and how Baba Volodimerova Olga is baptized before Volodimer. Written off by Jacob Mnich” (hereinafter referred to as “Memory and Praise” by Mnich Jacob). This is a work of the middle of the XI century. and when writing it, some kind of chronicle was used, as evidenced by chronicle news related to the reign of Vladimir (the spelling of the prince's name differed from the modern one). If these annalistic news from “Memory and Praise” are put together, then the following picture will turn out: “And gray hair (Volodimer) in the place of his father Svyatoslav and his grandfather Igor. And Svyatoslav Prince Pechenez was killed. And Yaroplk sits down on Kiev in the place of his father Svyatoslav. And Olga walking from the howl at Vrucha city, break off the bridge from the howl, and Olga strangled in rowing. And Yaroplka killed Kiev's husband Volodimerov. And Prince Volodimer sat down in Kiev in the 10th summer after the death of his father Svyatoslav, the month of June at 11, in the summer of 6486. Cry, Prince Volodimer in the 10th summer after the murder of his brother Yaroplk. And repenting and weeping, blessed Prince Volodimer of all this, he did so much in filth, not knowing God. By holy protection, blessed Prince Volodimer lived for 28 years. For another summer, go along the roof to the rapids. On the third Karsun city vzya. For the fourth summer lay down Pereyaslal. In the ninth year of the tithe, the blessed Christ-loving Prince Volodimer to the Church of the Holy Mother of God and on his own behalf. About that, the Lord himself also said: if there is your treasure, then your heart will be. And have peace with the world of the month of July on the 15th day, in the summer of 6523 in Christ Jesus, our Lord. (Quoted from the book: Priselkov M.D. The history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-15th centuries. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 57.)

None of the chronicles that have come down to us contain exactly the same text. There are several discrepancies, one of the most significant: the message that Prince Vladimir took Korsun for the third summer after baptism. All other chronicles unanimously report the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Korsun after the capture of this city. It is assumed that some chronicle text that has not come down to us was reflected in the “Memory and Praise”. But another assumption can be made: “Memory and Praise” by Jacob’s mnicha is one of the first historical works of Ancient Russia, it was created before the appearance of the first annalistic 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 proposition must be proved, and such propositions can be proved only on the basis of modern textual criticism.

The question of the first historical work, the first annalistic code has not yet been resolved, the proposed options are unproven, but it can be said with confidence that such a solution will be found.

Are there irrefutable data on the keeping of chronicles in the 11th century? Such an indication is in the text of the already mentioned annalistic article of 6552 (1044), where the Polotsk prince Vseslav is mentioned as alive, and his death was reported under 6609 (1101). Therefore, the entry under 1044 was made before 1101, then is 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 an annalistic code in the 11th century. topographic indications of Kyiv buildings also speak. For example, about the place where Kiy sat, it is said “where is the Borichov court now” (Ustyug chronicler under 6360 (852)); about the grave of Askold, located on the mountain - “even now it is called Ugrian, where there is the Almel courtyard, on that grave Alma put the goddess of St. Nicholas. And Dir’s grave is behind St. Irina ”(Ustyug chronicler under 6389 (881), in LL not “Alma”, but “Olma”). In the Ustyug chronicler under 6453 (945) we read: “... and the pristasha (drevlyans) near Borichev, then the water flowed, near Mount Kiev, and to the guilt of the gray-haired people on the mountain. The city then was Kyiv, where is now the court of Goryatin and Nikiforov, and the court was better princes in the city, where now the court is Vrotislavl alone outside the city. And outside the city there was a court of friends, where the court of domestics behind the Holy Mother of God above the mountain, the courtyard of the tower, be that the tower was stone. In LL, in addition to discrepancies in the names of the owners, there is a small addition - “dvor 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 60s and 70s. 11th century It is he who, along with Mikyfor Kyyanin, is mentioned in Pravda Yaroslavichi ("Truth is lined with the Russian land, when Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav, Kosnyachko, Perenyt, Mikyfor Kyyanin, Chudin Mikula" bought everything). In LL under 6576 (1068) the governor Kosnyachko and his court are mentioned, which confirms the approximate dating of topographic indications of the 60s of the 11th century.

Another indication of the maintenance of chronicles in the 60s. the exact dates of non-church events appearing at this time (year, month, day) can serve. Under 6569 (1061) we read: “The Polovtsy came first to the Russian land to fight; Vsevolod, however, went against them on the 2nd day of the month of February.

All of the above observations made by different researchers speak of one thing - in the 60s. 11th century in Kyiv, an annalistic code was compiled. It has been suggested in the literature that around these years the famous Hilarion, the first Russian metropolitan, worked on the chronicle.

Chronicle of 1073 The dating of events up to a day, which appears in the text from the 1060s, is attributed by researchers to the annals 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 Yaroslavichi; September 15, 1068 - the release of Prince Vseslav, November 1 of the same year - the victory of Prince Svyatoslav over the Polovtsy; May 2, 1069 - the day of the return of Prince Izyaslav to Kyiv, etc.

Chronicle of the 1070s. none of the researchers doubts. It was compiled in the Caves Monastery, which since that time has become one of the centers of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-12th centuries. The Kiev Caves Monastery was founded by the monk Anthony under Prince Yaroslav the Wise. One of the first abbots were Theodosius of the Caves and Nikon, who ordained Theodosius himself to the priesthood. It is this Nikon who is credited with compiling the annalistic code of 1073. A.A. did this. Shakhmatov, who drew attention to one curious circumstance. From the "Life of Theodosius of the Caves", 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. Chronicle since the 60s. there are detailed stories about the events that took place in distant Tmutarakan. A.A. Shakhmatov, comparing the data of the Life of Theodosius of the Caves with those given in the annals, made an assumption about Nikon's participation in compiling 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 for the last time to Tmutarakan. The Tmutarakan news of the Life of Theodosius of the Caves and chronicles are unique. Basically, it is only thanks to them that 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 Chronicles to chance - the biography of one of the Russian chroniclers was associated 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 annals under 1094. The question of these news and the chronicler who included them in his work has not yet been finally resolved. Some of the records clearly indicate, if not an eyewitness to the events described, then a person who is well acquainted with them. Especially 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 I exist Tmutorokani and receive tribute from Kasots and from other countries, who was afraid of this, sending a catpan with flattery. To him who came to Rostislav and trusted him, honor and Rostislav. The only one drinking Rostislav with his retinue, the speech of the kotopan: “Prince! I want to drink.” Onomu same rekshyu: "Piy." He drank half, and gave half to the prince to drink, pressing his finger into the cup, for having mortal dissolution under the nail, and go to the prince, doom death to the bottom of this. I drank it to him, the kotopan, when Korsun came, tell him that Rostislav would die on this day, as it were. This kotopan was beaten with a stone by corsunstia people. Be bo Rostislav is a husband of doble, raten, grow up lep and red face, and merciful to the poor. And I died on the 3rd day of the month of February, and there it was laid in the church of the Holy Mother of God. (Kotopan - head, leader, some official in Korsun. Quoted from the book: Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia. XI - beginning of the XII century. M., 1978. S. 180.)

Chronicle 1093 (1095) After the compilation of 1073, the following annalistic code was compiled in the Pechersky Monastery - 1093 by A.A. Shakhmatov at one time considered this text to be the original text in the history of Russian chronicle writing, which is why it is sometimes called the Initial Code. The compiler of this monument, according to the researcher, was hegumen of the Caves Monastery Ivan, therefore it is sometimes also called Ivan's vault. 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 annals 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 Caves Monastery is indicated to the nearest hour - at 2 pm on May 3, on 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 bishop of Vladimir (in the south of Russia) is indicated - at the 6th hour of the night on April 27, 6612. All these dates of events are related to the Pechersk monastery and are made, possibly , by the same person.

In the vault of 1093 there is a whole series of skillfully executed literary portraits. For example, under 6586 (1078) we read: “Because Izyaslav’s husband is red in his eyes and great in body, mild in temper, hate crooked, loving the truth. Do not flatter in him, but simply the husband with his mind, not repaying evil for evil. How much did the kiyane do to him: he drove out himself, and plundered his house, and did not take evil against that ”(Monuments, p. 214). Or, for example, under 6594 (1086) about Prince Yaropolk: “We will accept many troubles, without guilt we will expel from our brothers, we will offend, plunder, other things and bitter death are pleasant, but be worthy of eternal life and peace. So the blessed prince was quiet, meek, humble and brotherly-loving, giving tithe to the Holy Mother of God from all his name for the whole year, and always praying to God ... ”(Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia. XI - the beginning of the XII century. M., 1978. S. 218). The chronicler also created a similar portrait for Prince Vsevolod in a message about his death under 6601 (1093), after which such descriptions disappear from the chronicle text for a long time.

A rare annalistic code has as many data confirming its existence as the annalistic code 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 annalistic article, and double dating at the beginning of the weather record (In summer 6601, indiction of 1 summer ...). And, perhaps most importantly, it is here that the use of one of the extra-chronicle sources, Paremiynik, ceases. The paremiionnik 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 paremiion was used in Russian liturgical practice until the 15th century, after which it began to fall into disuse. For the first time, the most complete question of the use of Paremiynik as an extra-chronicle source in Russian chronicle writing of the 11th century. was developed by A.A. Shakhmatov. The main provisions of his observations are as follows: borrowings from Paremiynik were made by one chronicler, borrowings can be traced back to 1093. If the first provision can be disputed to some extent (readings from Paremiynik in the Vladimir Chronicler are peculiar and differ from borrowings in LL-IL), then the second one is no doubt. After 1093, there are no borrowings from Paremiynik in Russian chronicles, therefore, this observation serves as another argument in favor of the end of the annalistic code of 1093. Borrowings from 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 Paremiynik can serve as a clear example of how one of the chroniclers, who brought his work to 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 Paremiynik (according to a manuscript of the 12th century) and the chronicle:

This paroemia reading includes another example of borrowing, noted by A.A. Shakhmatov (Prov. 1, 29-31 under 955), since he breaks one whole text into two fragments.

When comparing the texts, it becomes obvious that Paremiynik was the source of the chronicle, from which the chronicler borrowed the materials he needed, and citing them almost verbatim.

Paremia borrowings in chronicle articles of 1037, 1078, 1093 are in extensive digressions made by one of the ancient Russian chroniclers. In the first two cases, when characterizing the personality and activities of the two princes Yaroslav and Izyaslav, and in the third case, in the story of the third invasion of the Polovtsy on Kyiv (by the way, the count of the Polovtsy invasions stops here). All three digressions, unlike other cases of borrowings from Paremiynik, complete the weather accounts of events.

Between the annalistic 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 gave 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 of all medieval literature.

PVL and its editions. At the beginning of the XII century. in Kyiv, an annalistic code was compiled, which at its beginning had an extensive heading: “Behold the tale of temporary years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kiev began the first prince, and from where did the Russian land begin to eat.” At the time of the compilation of the first edition of the PVL, the list of princes placed under 6360 (852) indicates 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 Svyatopolchi, 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 are mentioned made it possible for researchers to assert that the chronicler worked in 1113, immediately after the death of Prince Svyatopolk. Judging by the text of the LL (second edition of the PVL), he brought his work 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 below about him). Judging by the exact dating of events to the nearest hour (1113) IL and the indication of the indict at the beginning of the weather record of 6620 (1112), the author of the first edition of the PVL could bring the presentation of events up to and including 1113.

The beginning of Russian chronicle writing according to M.D. Priselkov

The author of the first edition of the PVL continued the work of his predecessor and supplemented it with various additional sources. Among them, not the last place is occupied by 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 Vyshatychi. About the son of the voivode Vyshata Yan, he writes in an annalistic article of 6614 (1106): live according to the law of God, not the worst of the first righteous. I also heard many words from him, and I wrote seven in the annals, but I heard from him. For the husband is good, and meek, gentle, robbing all sorts of things, and his coffin is in the Pechersk monastery, in the vestibule, where his body lies, it is supposed to be the month of June at 24. If we take into account the long years lived by Elder Yang, then he could tell the chronicler a lot.

One of the written additional 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 text of N1LM. Chronicle of George Amartol - a monument of Byzantine literature of the 9th century, which tells the history of the world. It was compiled by the monk George and in the XI 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 borrowings from the Chronicle in the annals, there are 26 of them. Borrowings are often literal, for example, after a reference to the annals of George, the text follows:

(An example of a comparison of texts is given according to the work of A.A. Shakhmatov “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // TODRL. T. 4. M .; L., 1940. P. 46).

Borrowings from the Chronicle are distributed by the chronicler throughout the text of the chronicle, sometimes a large fragment of the work is taken, sometimes a small clarifying detail. It is impossible to find all these borrowings without knowing their source, at the same time, without knowing about them, one can take the fact of someone else's history as 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 entered into his chronicle news of various kinds of heavenly signs, some of which can be verified according to astronomy. For example, under 6599 (1091) we read: “In this summer there was a sign in the sun, as if he would perish, and his remains were few, like a month was, at hour 2 in the day, the month of May was 21 days.” It was on this day that an annular eclipse was filed by astronomy. (Svyatsky D.O. Astronomical phenomena in Russian chronicles from a scientific-critical point of view. St. Petersburg, 1915, p. 104.) 1115) - IL. All these records must be checked against astronomical data to determine the accuracy of the chronology of the chronicle.

The second edition of the PVL is presented in the LL. We learn about the time, place and circumstances of its compilation from the postscript located after the annalistic article of 6618 (1110): “Hegumen Silivester of St. at that time I was abbess at St. Michael in 6624, indiction of the 9th year; and if you read this book, then be with me in prayers.

For all its brevity, this postscript requires great attention, which implies various kinds of verification and clarification. From the postscript it can be seen that the chronicler was the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester in 6624. First of all, it is necessary to check whether the indicated chronological data correspond to each other. Yes, they correspond: this year Prince Vladimir (1113-1125) was on the throne of Kiev, and 6624 corresponds to indict 9. 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 it by chance? No, if we turn to the primary sources (monuments of writing, synchronous to the time being analyzed), it turns out that everywhere, with one controversial exception, there is a title - 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 a different name - “Behold the stories of temporary years ...”, therefore, it is not Sylvester who probably owns the title - PVL.

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 the table 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", get the first idea about the history of Orthodox monasteries. You should definitely ask about the name "Sylvester" - in honor of St. Sylvester, the Pope of Rome (314-335) was named hegumen of the Vydubytsky monastery: the Orthodox honor his memory on January 2, and the Catholics on December 31. There is also an exhaustive work on Christian names: Archbishop Sergius (Spassky). Complete Menologions Vostok (In 3 vols. Vladimir, 1901. Reprint. 1997). Having found out the origin of the name, one should get acquainted with the biography of the hegumen. You can learn about all the participants in the literary process of Ancient Russia from the dictionary: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia (Issue 1. XI - the first half of the XIV century, L., 1987. S. 390-391). This dictionary will give us scant facts from the life of Sylvester: after being abbess, he was appointed bishop in Pereyaslavl South, where he died in 1123. An unanswerable question is important in this case: what was the name of Sylvester before he became a monk? At a later time, there was a tradition to keep the first letter of the secular name in the first letter of the monastic name. But whether this tradition was active in the 11th century is not known. The monastery of St. Michael is the Vydubitsky St. Michael Monastery, located near Kyiv on the banks of the Dnieper. Given, it was founded by Prince Vsevolod in 1070, at the place where the idol of Perun, thrown into the Dnieper, sailed from Kyiv. The church in the monastery was consecrated in 1088. The monastery, founded by Prince Vsevolod, became the spiritual center of the princely branch, the founder of which was Vsevolod. Almost all princely branches had their monasteries in Kyiv or in its suburbs. During the reign of Vsevolod's son Prince Vladimir in Kyiv, the Vydubitsky Monastery began to record chronicles 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 is the word "written". What degree of participation in the work on the chronicle does it indicate? The question, as it turns out, is not easy. In the XI century. “written” could mean “rewrote”, that is, the work of a copyist, 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 took Sylvester's postscript, inserting the following words into the description of Edigey's invasion of Moscow in 1409: compelling and creeping, acquiring and rewarding for blessings and unforgettable; we are not vexing, nor defamatory, nor envious of honesty, such is the case, as if we are acquiring the initial Kievan chronicler, like all the temporal existence of the zemstvo, not hesitating to show; but our rulers without anger commandingly all the good and the unkind, having come to write, and others will be the images of the phenomena, even under Volodymyr Manomas of this great Sylvester Vydobyzhsky, without decorating the writer, and even if you want, PSRL, T. 11. Nikon Chronicle, Moscow, 1965, p. 211). An earlier text of this digression is found in the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL. T. 15. M., 2000. P. 185). It can be seen from the quotation that one of the Russian chroniclers considered Sylvester to be the author of the Kievan chronicle, calling him "the chronicler". In 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 scribe, others - the author of the original work.

The third edition of the PVL is presented in the text of the IL, in which, unlike the Laurentian, the events after 6618 (1110) are not interrupted by Sylvester's postscript. The timing of this revision is determined as follows. Researchers drew attention to the fact that one of the Kyiv chroniclers under 6604 and 6622 speaks of his presence in the north, in the Novgorod land. Under 6604 (1096) we read: “Behold, I want to say, I have heard before these 4 years, even with the words of Gyuryata Rogovich Novgorodets, saying to this, like “The message of his youth to Pechera, people, who are the tribute to Novgorod. And my servant came to them, and from there I went to Ougra. Ougras are the people of the language, and they are neighbors with Samoyed on the midnight sides ... ”(PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 224-225). Then follows a story about what he saw in the north, about the customs of Yugra, about their traditions. The expression “I have heard before now for 4 years” is understood by researchers as follows: the author wrote his chronicle 4 years after his trip to Novgorod land. The answer to the question - in what year this chronicler visited the north - is the annalistic article of 6622 (1114) (it is in the Ipatiev Chronicle, but not in the Laurentian Chronicle): Prince Mstislav. I came to Ladoga, told me to Ladoga ... ”(PSRL. T. 2. M., 2000. Stb. 277). It can be seen from the text that the chronicler arrived in Ladoga in 6622 (1114), therefore, he worked on the chronicle in 6626 (1118). is obvious, in both articles we are talking about Yugra, about Samoyed, and their customs.

At the stage of creating the third edition of the PVL, the legend of the founder of the princely dynasty, Rurik, was included in the chronicle. This was quite convincingly shown in his studies by A.A. Chess.

What was the reason for the emergence of this legend? With all the controversy of the issue of Prince Rurik, 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. not Rurik, but Oleg, sometimes Igor, is called the ancestor of the Russian princely dynasty. Prince Rurik is not known to either Metropolitan Hilarion or monk Jacob. For example, in the “Sermon on Law and Grace”, Metropolitan Hilarion calls Igor the oldest Russian prince (“Let us also praise<...>the great kagan of our land Volodimer, 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 of the beginning of the Russian land, also mentions the first Russian prince, who, in his opinion, was Prince Oleg.

Thus, various historical and literary works of Ancient Russia give us several versions about the ancestor of the princely dynasty: according to one - this is Rurik, according to others - Oleg, according to the third - Igor.

In the first centuries of Russian history, as in later times, there was a tradition to name newborns in honor of glorious ancestors. According to the Laurentian Chronicle, 8 princes were named after Oleg in the pre-Mongolian period (11 according to the Nikon Chronicle), and 5 princes bore the name Igor according to LL (6 according to the Nikon Chronicle). In honor of Rurik, supposedly the founder of the Russian princely dynasty, only two princes have been named in the entire history of Russia: one in the 11th century, the other in the 12th century. (the number of princes bearing the name Rurik is taken from the literature on Russian genealogy).

On the basis of chronicle material, we will try to deal with the princes who bore the name Rurik. The first mention of the real Rurik is in the chronicle article of 6594 (1086): V.Z.) I will rethink to Rurik ... ”It is believed that this Rurik, who was sitting in Przemysl, was the brother of Volodar and Vasilko Rostislavich. But in the annalistic article of 6592 (1084) it is not about three, but about two Rostislavich brothers (“Rostislavich’s runaway two from Yaropolk”). It can be assumed that the same prince is mentioned under two different names: the princely name is Rurik, the Christian name is Vasilko. It happened in the following way: one of the chroniclers (in the first case) traditionally called the prince a princely name, and another chronicler preferred to call him a 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, written down 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 XI 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 Vsevolod Yaroslavich. The Icelandic sagas and annals report the second marriage of Yaroslav and the offspring from him in most detail: “1019. King Olaf the Holy married Astrid, daughter of King Olaf of Sweden, and King Yaritsleif in Holmgard married Ingigerd”, “... Ingigerd married King Yaritsleif. Their sons were Valdamar, Vissivald and Holti the Bold ”(Jackson T.N. Icelandic royal sagas as a source on the history of Ancient Russia and its neighbors in the 10th-13th centuries. // 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 the sons of Yaroslav Vladimir and Vsevolod, the third son, Holti the Bold, remains a controversial figure.

Summing up everything known to us, we obtain 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 the descendants from the marriage of Yaroslav and the daughter of the Swedish king Ingigerd have the name Rurik. At least two Russian chroniclers (priest Vasily and hegumen Sylvester), who took part in the creation of the PVL, knew the representatives of this particular princely branch well (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 Aldeygyuborg, that is, Ladoga, as a dowry.

In the second half of the XI 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 translate it as "victorious"), and a 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 landmarks, quite likely, could be found, but the Swedish “historical texture” completely lost these landmarks when transferred to Russian soil.

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 a legend about Prince Rurik, the ancestor 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 the creation of the legend is clear: to justify the primacy and, thus, the supremacy of representatives of the princely branch, which originated from the marriage of Prince Yaroslav with Ingigerda. In the Lavrentiev and close to it in their original history chronicles, it is stated that Prince Vladimir was the eldest son of Yaroslav. Yes, older, but from a second marriage. In the Ustyug chronicler, the list of the sons of Prince Yaroslav is rightfully headed by Prince Izyaslav.

This legend, as already noted, was entered into the Russian chronicle around 1118 by one of the Kievan chroniclers. It was at this time that Prince Vladimir Monomakh, the grandson of Ingigerda, ruled in Kyiv. The chronicler introduced the legend into the story about the beginning of Russian history created by his predecessors, 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 of tradition, eventually turned into a historical fact. In addition, the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh ruled in the northeast. In turn, the artificial historical fact has become a starting point both for ancient Russian people and for researchers of modern times when they create other artificial intellectual structures.

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 Russia. It follows that any historical fact found in the annals requires preliminary painstaking analysis, the basis of which is the history of the text of the annals as a whole and a clear knowledge of the stage at which the historical fact of interest to us was entered into the annals. Before using this or that fact, which is within the framework of the PVL, for historical constructions, one should find out the textual characteristics given to it in the works of A.A. Shakhmatova.

Sources of PVL. Identification of individual non-annalistic sources of PVL was carried out by several generations of domestic scientists. The final work, deep and detailed, on this topic is the study of A.A. Shakhmatova "The Tale of Bygone Years and Its Sources" (TODRL. T. IV. M.; L., 1940. S. 5-150), which provides an overview and characterization of 12 non-annalistic sources. These are the following monuments and works: 1) Books “St. Scriptures”, where, in addition to the mentioned Paremiion, all quotations from the Psalter, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Epistles are noted; 2) Chronicle of George Amartol and his successors; 3) "The chronicler soon" of 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 Slavonic (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 (“Chronicler soon” of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus) / Orthodox Palestine collection. Issue. 97 (34). SPb., 1998). The first date of Russian history, 6360 (852), was taken from the Chronicler soon into the chronicle, and some data for the chronicle articles of 6366, 6377, 6410 were also transferred; 4) Life of Basil 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) An article by Epiphanius of Cyprus about 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 about the transposition of books into the Slavic language", borrowings from it are in the introduction and in article 6409 (896);

8) The "Revelation" of Methodius of Patara, the chronicler twice refers to it in the story about Ugra under 6604 (1096). This is the chronicler who traveled to Ladoga in 6622 (1114);

9) “Teaching on the executions of God” - such a name was given by A.A. Chess teaching, which is in article 6576 (1068). The basis of the annalistic teaching was the "Word about the bucket and the executions of God" (it is in Simeonovsky Zlatostruy and in other lists of Zlatostruy - a collection of works by various authors, including John Chrysostom ). The insertion of the Teaching breaks a single chronicle story about the invasion of the Polovtsians and the Yaroslavichs’ rebellion against them (Beginning: “For the sake of our sins, God let the filthy ones fall on us, and the Russian princes ran away ...”). The lecture occupies about two pages of text and ends with the phrase traditional in such cases: “We will return to the present pack”; 10) Agreements 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 non-chronicle sources was 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 collection, which has come down to us in the Laurentian and Ipatiev 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 the Caves. After a long study of the written heritage of Nestor, it turned out that many historical facts described in two Lives diverge from the corresponding chronicle facts: in the Life 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 the Caves, Nestor came to the monastery under the hegumen Stefan, that is, between 1074 and 1078, and according to the chronicle article of 1051, he entered the monastery under the hegumen 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 them from the Life of Theodosius: he came to the Caves Monastery under Abbot Stephen (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 beginning of the XIII century. (meaning the original edition of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon that has not come down to us) it is mentioned twice that Nestor worked on the chronicle: in the second letter of the monk Polycarp to the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Akindin we read “Nester, who wrote the chronicler”, and in the story Polycarp about Saint Agapit the doctor - "blessed Nester wrote in the chronicler." Thus, we see that the monks of the monastery, albeit in the form of a legend, knew about the work of Nestor in creating some kind of chronicler. Pay attention, the chronicler, and not the Tale of Bygone Years. To these indisputable data of Nestor's biography, one more fact can be added, obtained by researchers in the analysis of 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. 11th century So, there is little biographical information. Then the question arises, where did all the researchers of the XVIII-XX centuries. take other data of Nestor's biography (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 these data were taken by researchers from two published in the 17th century. books, from the Paterik of the Kiev-Pechersk and Synopsis, where all the information from the annalistic articles of 1051, 1074 and 1091 was used without prior 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 the monks of the 11th century appeared in it. For example, in the edition of the Paterik of 1637, among other additional data, there was a mention of the younger brother Theodosius. As shown by V.N. Peretz, this fact of the biography of Theodosius, like other similar facts, is a figment of the imagination of the publisher of Paterik Sylvester Kossov. In 1661, in a new edition of the Paterik, a life of Nestor written especially for this purpose was published (at that time, 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. No dates are indicated in the text of the Life of Nestor, his biography is characterized on the basis of chronicle articles of 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 Caves Monastery, and therefore it is impossible to use the data of these articles to characterize Nestor. It is curious how the compiler of the Life of Nestor, who worked in the 17th century, managed to remove the contradiction between the report of the chronicle under 1051 about the appearance of a 17-year-old monk in the monastery under Abbot Theodosius and the Life of Theodosius about the arrival of Nestor at the monastery under Abbot Stephen: Nestor allegedly came to the monastery under Theodosius as a 17-year-old youth and lived in the monastery as a layman, and he took the monastic form under Stefan. 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. About the time of death in the Life it is reported very vaguely - "according to the years of the temporal satisfied, I died for eternity." The Life also gives a general description of the chronicle, which Nestor allegedly compiled: “write us about the beginning and the 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 Paterik, in the story about the circumstances of the inclusion of the name Theodosius in the Synodikon for national commemoration, the author of this Synodikon was also allegedly Nestor. In this story, there are names of specific historical persons, for example, Prince Svyatopolk, who was sitting in Kyiv in 1093-1113, and dates (the last date is 6620 (1114) - the year of the appointment of hegumen of the Pechersk Monastery Theoktist, on whose initiative the name of Theodosius and was submitted to the Synodik, to the bishopric in Chernigov). If we collect all the biographical data of Paterik, then we get a fairly complete biography of Nestor: at the age of 17 he came to the Caves Monastery under Abbot Theodosius and lived at the monastery until his death, remaining a layman; under hegumen Stefan (1074-1078) he was tonsured a monk and became a deacon; in 1091 he was a participant in the acquisition of the relics of Theodosius; died after 1112. On the content of the chronicler written by Nestor, Paterik also gives general but exhaustive information: the entire story about the initial history of Russia, together 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 description of his chronicler is the result of the creative activity of several generations of monks of the Caves Monastery, their conjectures, assumptions, conjectures, and mistakes. An irrepressible thirst for knowledge, despite the complete absence of data, about one of his glorious brothers - this is the basis of the search.

All researchers of the 18th-20th centuries, speaking of Nestor, directly or indirectly used the data from the Life of Nestor, created, as already noted, in the 17th century, while they often supplemented it on the basis of 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 not true. I will give one more 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) the following text is read in the story about Prince Rurik and his brothers: “... old Rurik sat in Ladoza, and the other sits with us on Beleozero, and the third Truvor in Izborsk. V.N. Tatishchev considered the incorrect reading of the Radzvilovskaya chronicle - “sitting with us on Beleozero” (must be Sineus on Beleozero) - considered Nestor’s self-characteristic. This is an erroneous opinion of V.N. Tatishchev allowed one of the princes Beloselsky-Belozersky to consider Nestor his countryman.

Speaking of the Patericon, it is necessary to mention another edition of the 17th century, where for the first time various kinds of conjectures appeared regarding the biography of Nestor - Synopsis. Patericon 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 entered deeply into the consciousness of several generations of Russian people.

If we compare the facts of his real biography and the events he describes, which are in the Life of Theodosius, with the data of the annalistic text N1LM, it turns out that not only will all the contradictions known until recently in the works of Nestor disappear, but the unity of the views expressed by him in these works will become obvious. . Nestor originally worked on the chronicle in 1076, bringing the weather account of events to 1075. In N1LM, the end of the chronicler Nestor was not preserved (the description of the events, more precisely, the death of Theodosius, is cut off in it, this happened, most likely due to the loss of the last sheet original), the ending is preserved in the Tver Chronicle, where we read: “In the summer of 6583<...>a start was made to make a stone church in the Pechersk monastery by hegumen Stefan demestvenik, on the basis of Feodosiev. The completion of the creation of the church is not indicated in the annals, but this happened in 1077.

Both in the annals and in the Life of Theodosius, Nestor draws Special attention on the events that took place in Tmutarakan. It can be assumed that all the Tmutarakan news belong 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 H1LM, where after the news of 1074 we see random brief records of events, which even allowed A.A. Shakhmatov to suggest the loss of the text in this place of the annals. Chronicler, created by Nestor in the second half of the 70s. XI century, was laid at the basis of all subsequent Novgorod chronicles and therefore remained in it in a more “pure form” than in the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev Chronicles.

It is known that the work of Nestor proceeded in the 70-80s. XI century, therefore 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: when writing his work in 1076, Nestor used an extra-chronicle source - Paremiynik, the same source in the form of quotations is found in the annals until 1094, after which there are no more borrowings from it. More A.A. Shakhmatov analyzed the quotes from Paremiynik and suggested that they were all made by the same author. It is possible that two chroniclers referred to this work. The first chronicler, who worked before Nestor, quoted only the first sentences from this or that proverb, while a small amount of quotations did not violate the integrity of the chronicle story, the quotations only made clarifications when characterizing the prince or event. Nestor worked with the Paremiinik in a slightly different way: all his quotations are an integral and to some extent an inseparable part of rather extensive digressions, most often of theological content, with which he completed the annalistic articles of a given year. When Nestor began to describe events as an eyewitness, and he made such records from the 70s to the mid-90s. XI century, he used quotations from Paremiynik also in voluminous digressions, most often in praise of the princes, while creating literary portraits of the “boasted”. Like quotations from Paremiynik, news of events that took place in Tmutarakan can be traced back to 1094 inclusive.

The version of Nestor's biography presented in this tutorial is preliminary, but only on the basis of the restored text entered by Nestor into the Russian chronicle, it will be possible to recreate in general terms his life path, which will differ significantly, at least in chronology, from that widely distributed in literature.

Sources : PSRL. T. 1. Laurentian Chronicle. Issue. 1-2. L., 1926-1927; PSRL. T. 2. Ipatiev Chronicle. M., 1998; Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Junior Editions - Ed. and with prev. A.N. Nasonov. M.; L., 1950 (reprint 2000 as volume 3 PSRL); Life of Theodosius of the Caves // Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. - Ed. prepared O.A. Knyazevskaya, V.G. Demyanov, M.V. Lapon. Ed. S.I. Kotkov. M., 1971; The Tale of Bygone Years // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia: the beginning of Russian literature: XI - the beginning of the XII century. M., 1978; The Tale of Bygone Years / Preparation of the text, translation and comments by D.S. Likhachev. SPb., 1996.

Literature : Schlözer A.-L. Nestor: Russian Chronicles in Old Slavonic... Ch. I-III. St. Petersburg, 1809-1819; Shakhmatov A.A. Research on the 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 Characteristics. Pb., 1923; Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Russia. 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. S. 75-103; Ziborov V.K. About the chronicle of Nestor. The main chronicle code in Russian annals. 11th century L., 1995; The Romanovs and the Rurikovichs (on the genealogical legend of the Rurikoviches) // Sat: The House of the Romanovs in the history of Russia. SPb., 1995. S. 47-54.

Notes

. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian Chronicle XI-XV centuries. SPb., 1996, p. 166, fig. 3.

. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian Chronicle XI-XV centuries. SPb., 1996, p. 83, fig. one.

When quoting, the letter "ѣ" is replaced by the letter "e".

Great philosophers have often said that people who do not know their past have no future. The history of your family, your people, your country should be known at least so that you do not have to make the same discoveries, make the same mistakes.

The sources of information about the events of the past are official documents of the state level, records of religious, social, educational institutions, preserved eyewitness accounts, and much more. Chronicles are considered the oldest documentary source.

The chronicle is one of the genres of Old Russian literature that existed from the 11th to the 17th centuries. At its core, this is a consistent presentation of events significant for history. The records were kept by year, and they could vary greatly in terms of volume and details of presentation of the material.

What events deserved to be mentioned in chronicles?

Firstly, these are turning points in the biography of Russian princes: marriage, the birth of heirs, the beginning of reigning, military exploits, death. Sometimes the Russian chronicles described miracles coming from the relics of the deceased princes, for example, Boris and Gleb, the first Russian saints.

Secondly, the chroniclers paid attention to the description of celestial eclipses, solar and lunar, epidemics of serious diseases, earthquakes, etc. Chroniclers often tried to establish a relationship between natural phenomena and historical events. For example, a defeat in a battle could be explained by the special position of the stars in the sky.

Thirdly, ancient chronicles told about events of national importance: military campaigns, attacks by enemies, construction of religious or administrative buildings, church affairs, etc.

Common features of famous chronicles

1) If you remember what a chronicle is, you can guess why this genre of literature got such a name. The fact is that instead of the word "year" the authors used the word "summer". Each entry began with the words "In summer", followed by an indication of the year and a description of the event. If, from the point of view of the chronicler, nothing significant happened, then a note was put - "In the summer of XXXX, there was silence." The chronicler had no right to completely skip the description of this or that year.

2) Some Russian chronicles do not begin with the emergence of the Russian state, which would be logical, but with the creation of the world. Thus, the chronicler sought to inscribe the history of his country into the universal history, to show the place and role of his homeland in the modern world for him. Dating was also conducted from the creation of the world, and not from the Nativity of Christ, as we do now. The interval between these dates is 5508 years. Therefore, the entry "In the summer of 6496" contains a description of the events of 988 - the Baptism of Russia.

3) For work, the chronicler could use the works of his predecessors. But he not only included the materials they left in his narrative, but also gave them his political and ideological assessment.

4) The chronicle differs from other genres of literature in its special style. The authors did not use any artistic devices to decorate their speech. The main thing for them was documentary and informative.

The connection of the chronicle with literary and folklore genres

The special style mentioned above, however, did not prevent chroniclers from periodically resorting to oral folk art or other literary genres. Ancient chronicles contain elements of legends, traditions, heroic epos, as well as hagiographic and secular literature.

Turning to the toponymic legend, the author sought to explain where the names of the Slavic tribes, ancient cities and the whole country came from. Echoes of ritual poetry are present in the description of weddings and funerals. Epic techniques could be used to depict the glorious Russian princes and their heroic deeds. And to illustrate the life of the rulers, for example, the feasts they arrange, there are elements of folk tales.

Hagiographic literature, with its clear structure and symbolism, provided the chroniclers with both material and a method for describing miraculous phenomena. They believed in the intervention of divine forces in human history and reflected this in their writings. Elements of secular literature (teachings, stories, etc.) were used by the authors to reflect and illustrate their views.

Texts of legislative acts, princely and church archives, and other official documents were also woven into the fabric of the narrative. This helped the chronicler to give the most complete picture of important events. And what is a chronicle if not a comprehensive historical description?

The most famous chronicles

It should be noted that the chronicles are divided into local, which became widespread during the time of feudal fragmentation, and all-Russian, describing the history of the entire state. The list of the most famous is presented in the table:

Until the 19th century, it was believed that The Tale of Bygone Years was the first chronicle in Russia, and its creator, monk Nestor, was the first Russian historiographer. This assumption was refuted by A.A. Shkhmatov, D.S. Likhachev and other scientists. The Tale of Bygone Years has not been preserved, but its individual editions are known from lists in later works - the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles.

Chronicle in the modern world

By the end of the 17th century, the chronicles had lost their historical significance. More accurate and objective ways of fixing events have appeared. History began to be studied from the positions of official science. And the word "chronicle" has additional meanings. We no longer remember what a chronicle is when we read the headings “Chronicle of the life and work of N”, “Chronicle of a museum” (of a theater or any other institution).

There is a magazine, a film studio, a radio program called Chronicle, and computer game fans are probably familiar with the game Arkham Chronicle.

The history of the chronicle in Russia goes back into the distant past. It is known that writing originated before the 10th century. The texts were written, as a rule, by representatives of the clergy. It is thanks to ancient writings that we know. But what was the name of the first Russian chronicle? How did it all start? Why is it of great historical importance?

What was the name of the first Russian chronicle?

Everyone should know the answer to this question. The first Russian chronicle was called The Tale of Bygone Years. It was written in 1110-1118 in Kyiv. The linguist Shakhmatov revealed that she had predecessors. However, it is still the first Russian chronicle. It is called confirmed, reliable.

The story describes the chronicle of the events that took place over a certain period of time. It consisted of articles that described each past year.

Author

The monk described events from biblical times to 1117. The name of the first Russian chronicle is the first lines of the chronicle.

History of creation

The chronicle had copies made after Nestor, which were able to survive to this day. They didn't differ much from each other. The original itself has been lost. According to Shakhmatov, the chronicle was rewritten just a few years after its appearance. Big changes were made to it.

In the XIV century, the monk Lavrentiy copied the work of Nestor, and it is this copy that is considered the most ancient that has come down to our time.

There are several versions of where Nestor took the information for his chronicle. Since the chronology dates back to ancient times, and articles with dates appeared only after 852, many historians believe that the monk described the old period thanks to the legends of people and written sources in the monastery.

She corresponded frequently. Even Nestor himself rewrote the chronicle, making some changes.

Interestingly, in those days, scripture was also a code of laws.

Everything was described in The Tale of Bygone Years: from exact events to biblical traditions.

The purpose of the creation was to write a chronicle, capture events, restore the chronology in order to understand where the Russian people take their roots from, how Russia was formed.

Nestor wrote that the Slavs appeared long ago from the son of Noah. In total, Noah had three of them. They divided three territories among themselves. One of them, Japheth, got the northwestern part.

Then there are articles about the princes, the East Slavic tribes that descended from the "Noriks". It is here that Rurik and his brothers are mentioned. About Rurik it is said that he became the ruler of Russia, having founded Novgorod. This explains why there are so many supporters of the Norman theory of the origin of the princes from the Ruriks, although there is no actual evidence.

It tells about Yaroslav the Wise and many other people and their reign, about wars and other significant events that shaped the history of Russia, made it what we know it now.

Meaning

The Tale of Bygone Years is of great importance today. This is one of the main historical sources on which historians are engaged in research. Thanks to her, the chronology of that period has been restored.

Since the chronicle has the openness of the genre, ranging from stories of epics to descriptions of wars and weather, one can understand a lot about the mentality and ordinary life of Russians who lived at that time.

Christianity played a special role in the chronicle. All events are described through the prism of religion. Even getting rid of idols and accepting Christianity is described as a period when people got rid of temptations and ignorance. And the new religion is the light for Russia.