In what form are Russian chronicles written? Russian chronicles of the XI-XII centuries. "The Tale of Bygone Years" and its editions. "The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir"

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: Saint Constantine the Philosopher, named Cyril, he and the letters created, and translated books, and Methodius, his brother ”(Tales of the beginning of Slavic writing. M., 1981). Quite a lot 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 writings" 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 an 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 (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 St. Sophia Cathedrals in Kyiv and Novgorod, which became the property of science only in the 20th century, where Glagolitic letters are found along with Cyrillic inscriptions. The Latin influence on Glagolitic writing can be judged, for example, by the Kiev Glagolitic Sheets, 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 annalistic monuments are also involved in the restoration of early chronicles: the Ipatiev, Radzivilov, Novgorod first junior editions (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 are 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 using 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 textual analysis of any monument requires the researcher to have a broad intellectual background, without which the text will not reveal its content, and if it does, it will be in a distorted or simplified form. For example, to study 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 chronicle code, the first historical work dedicated to the Russian land, from which all chronicles and all Russian historiography originate, has always been one of the most difficult. In the XVII-XIX centuries. The first Russian chronicler was considered the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor, who allegedly wrote his chronicle at the beginning of the 12th century. In the second half of the 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 domestic 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 Vruchey, 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 chronicle 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 Prince Vseslav of Polotsk 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 Kiev buildings also speak. For example, about the place where Kiy sat, it is said “where is now the court of Borichov” (Ustyug chronicler under 6360 (852)); about the grave of Askold, located on the mountain - “even now it is called Ugorskoe, 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 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 were other courtyards, where the courtyard of the 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, was working 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 hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester in 6624. First of all, it is necessary to check whether the specified 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 tales 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 the honest, such is the case, as if we are acquiring the initial Kievan chronicler, like all the temporal life 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. S. 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 Kiev 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 Gyuryat 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, the 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 pays special attention to 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 Laurentian 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".

The published book "Memoirs of the children of military Stalingrad" has become a real revelation not only for the current generation, but also for war veterans.

War broke into Stalingrad suddenly. August 23, 1942. Even the day before, residents heard on the radio that fighting was taking place on the Don, almost 100 kilometers from the city. All enterprises, shops, cinemas, kindergartens were working, schools were preparing for the new academic year. But on that day, in the afternoon, everything collapsed overnight. The 4th German Air Army launched its bombing strike on the streets of Stalingrad. Hundreds of aircraft, making one call after another, systematically destroyed residential areas. The history of wars has not yet known such a massive destructive raid. There was no accumulation of our troops in the city at that time, so all the efforts of the enemy were aimed at destroying the civilian population.

No one knows how many thousands of Stalingraders died in those days in the basements of collapsed buildings, suffocated in earthen shelters, burned alive in their houses.

“We ran out of our underground shelter,” recalls Gury Khvatkov, he was 13 years old. “Our house burned down. Many houses on both sides of the street were also engulfed in flames. Father and mother grabbed my sister and me by the hands. There are no words to describe the horror we felt. Everything around us burned, crackled, exploded, we ran along the fiery corridor to the Volga, which was not visible because of the smoke, although it was very close. Around were heard the cries of people distraught with horror. A lot of people gathered on the narrow edge of the shore. The wounded lay on the ground with the dead. Overhead, ammunition wagons exploded on the railroad tracks. Railroad wheels flew over our heads, burning debris. Burning streams of oil moved along the Volga. It seemed that the river was on fire ... We ran down the Volga. Suddenly they saw a small tugboat. We had scarcely climbed the ladder when the steamer departed. Looking around, I saw a solid wall of a burning city.

Hundreds of German planes, descending low over the Volga, shot down residents who tried to cross to the left bank. Rivermen took people out on ordinary pleasure steamers, boats, barges. The Nazis set fire to them from the air. The Volga became a grave for thousands of Stalingraders.

In his book "The Secret Tragedy of the Civilian Population in the Battle of Stalingrad" T.A. Pavlova cites the statement of an Abwehr officer who was taken prisoner in Stalingrad:

"We knew that Russian people should be destroyed as much as possible in order to prevent the possibility of any resistance after the establishment of a new order in Russia."

Soon the destroyed streets of Stalingrad became a battlefield, and many residents who miraculously survived during the bombing of the city faced a difficult fate. They were captured by the German occupiers. The Nazis drove people out of their homes and drove them in endless columns across the steppe into the unknown. Along the way, they plucked burnt ears of corn and drank water from puddles. For life, even among small children, there was a fear - if only not to fall behind the column - those who straggled were shot.

In these cruel circumstances, events took place that are fit to study psychologists. What fortitude a child can show in the struggle for life! Boris Usachev at that time was only five and a half years old when he and his mother left the destroyed house. The mother was about to give birth. And the boy began to realize that he was the only one who could help her on this difficult road. They spent the night in the open air, and Boris dragged straw to make it easier for mother to lie on the frozen ground, collected ears and corn cobs. They walked 200 kilometers before they managed to find a roof - to stay in a cold barn in a farm. The kid went down the icy slope to the hole to bring water, collected firewood to heat the barn. In these inhuman conditions, a girl was born ...

It turns out that even a young child can instantly realize what a danger that threatens death is ... Galina Kryzhanovskaya, who was not even five then, recalls how she, sick, with a high temperature, lay in the house where the Nazis were in charge: “I remember how one the young German began to swagger over me, bringing a knife to my ears, nose, threatening to cut them off if I moan and cough. In these terrible moments, not knowing a foreign language, with one instinct the girl realized what danger threatened her, and that she should not even squeak, let alone shout: “Mom!”

Galina Kryzhanovskaya talks about how they survived being under occupation. “From hunger, the skin of my sister and I rotted alive, our legs were swollen. At night, my mother crawled out of our underground shelter, got to the garbage pit, where the Germans dumped cleanings, bits, guts ... "

When, after suffering, the girl was bathed for the first time, they saw gray hair in her hair. So from the age of five she walked with a gray strand.

German troops pressed our divisions to the Volga, capturing one after another the streets of Stalingrad. And new columns of refugees under the protection of the invaders stretched to the west. Strong men and women were herded into wagons to be taken as slaves to Germany, children were driven aside with butts ...

But there were also families in Stalingrad who remained at the disposal of our fighting divisions and brigades. The leading edge passed through the streets, the ruins of houses. Caught in trouble, the inhabitants took refuge in basements, earthen shelters, sewer pipes, ravines.

This is also an unknown page of the war, which is revealed by the authors of the collection. In the very first days of the barbarian raids, shops, warehouses, transport, roads, and water supply were destroyed. The supply of food to the population was cut off, there was no water. I, as an eyewitness of those events and one of the authors of the collection, can testify that during the five and a half months of the defense of the city, the civil authorities did not give us any food, not a single piece of bread. However, there was no one to extradite them - the leaders of the city and districts immediately evacuated across the Volga. No one knew if there were inhabitants in the fighting city and where they were.

How did we survive? Only by the mercy of a Soviet soldier. His compassion for the hungry and tormented people saved us from hunger. Everyone who survived the shelling, explosions, the whistle of bullets remembers the taste of frozen soldier's bread and the brew from a millet briquette.

The inhabitants knew what mortal danger the fighters were exposed to, who, on their own initiative, sent with a cargo of food for us across the Volga. Having occupied Mamaev Kurgan and other heights of the city, the Germans sank boats and boats with aimed fire, and only rare of them sailed at night to our right bank.

Many regiments, fighting in the ruins of the city, found themselves on meager rations, but when they saw the hungry eyes of children and women, the soldiers shared their last with them.

Three women and eight children were hiding in our basement under a wooden house. Only older children, who were 10-12 years old, left the basement for porridge or water: women could be mistaken for scouts. Once, I crawled into the ravine where the soldiers' kitchens stood.

I waited out the shelling in the craters until I got to the place. Fighters with light machine guns, boxes of cartridges were walking towards me, rolling guns. By smell, I determined that there was a kitchen behind the dugout door. I stomped around, not daring to open the door and ask for porridge. An officer stopped in front of me: “Where are you from, girl?” Hearing about our basement, he took me to his dugout on the slope of a ravine. He put a bowl of pea soup in front of me. “My name is Pavel Mikhailovich Korzhenko,” said the captain. “I have a son, Boris, the same age as you.”

The spoon shook in my hand as I ate the soup. Pavel Mikhailovich looked at me with such kindness and compassion that my soul, bound by fear, went limp and trembled with gratitude. Many more times I will come to him in the dugout. He not only fed me, but also talked about his family, read letters from his son. It happened that he talked about the exploits of the fighters of the division. He seemed like a family to me. When I left, he always gave me porridge briquettes for our basement with him ... His compassion for the rest of my life will become a moral support for me.

Then, as a child, it seemed to me that the war could not destroy such a kind person. But after the war, I learned that Pavel Mikhailovich Korzhenko died in Ukraine during the liberation of the city of Kotovsk ...

Galina Kryzhanovskaya describes such a case. A young soldier jumped into the underground where the Shaposhnikov family was hiding - a mother and three children. "How did you live here?" - he was surprised and immediately took off his duffel bag. He put a piece of bread and a block of porridge on the trestle bed. And immediately jumped out. The mother of the family rushed after him to thank him. And then, in front of her eyes, a fighter was struck to death by a bullet. “If he hadn’t been late, he wouldn’t have shared bread with us, maybe he would have managed to slip through a dangerous place,” she lamented later.

The generation of children of wartime was characterized by an early awareness of their civic duty, the desire to do what was in their power to "help the fighting Motherland", no matter how high-flown it sounds today. But such were the young Stalingraders.

After the occupation, finding herself in a remote village, eleven-year-old Larisa Polyakova went to work in a hospital with her mother. Taking a medical bag, in frost and snowstorm every day Larisa went on a long journey to bring medicines and dressings to the hospital. Having survived the fear of bombing and hunger, the girl found the strength to take care of two seriously wounded soldiers.

Anatoly Stolpovsky was only 10 years old. He often left the underground shelter to get food for his mother and younger children. But the mother did not know that Tolik was constantly crawling under fire into the neighboring basement, where the artillery command post was located. The officers, noticing the firing points of the enemy, by telephone transmitted commands to the left bank of the Volga, where the artillery batteries were located. Once, when the Nazis launched another attack, the telephone wires were torn apart by an explosion. In front of Tolik, two signalmen died, who, one after the other, tried to restore communication. The Nazis were already tens of meters from the command post when Tolik, wearing a camouflage coat, crawled to look for the place of the cliff. Soon the officer was already transmitting commands to the gunners. The enemy attack was repulsed. More than once, at the decisive moments of the battle, the boy under fire connected the broken connection. Tolik and his family were in our basement, and I witnessed how the captain, having handed over loaves of bread and canned food to his mother, thanked her for raising such a brave son.

Anatoly Stolpovsky was awarded the medal "For the Defense of Stalingrad". With a medal on his chest, he came to study in his 4th grade.

In basements, earthen burrows, underground pipes - everywhere where the inhabitants of Stalingrad hid, despite the bombing and shelling, there was a glimmer of hope - to live to see victory. This, despite the cruel circumstances, was also dreamed of by those who were driven away by the Germans from their native city hundreds of kilometers away. Iraida Modina, who was 11 years old, talks about how they met the soldiers of the Red Army. In the days of the Battle of Stalingrad, their family - a mother and three children, was driven by the Nazis into the barracks of a concentration camp. Miraculously, they got out of it and the next day they saw that the Germans had burned the hut along with the people. The mother died of disease and starvation. “We were completely exhausted and resembled walking skeletons,” wrote Iraida Modina. - On the heads - purulent abscesses. We could hardly move... One day our older sister Maria saw a rider outside the window, on whose cap was a five-pointed red star. She opened the door and fell at the feet of the soldiers who had entered. I remember how she, in a shirt, hugging the knees of one of the fighters, shaking with sobs, repeated: “Our saviors have come. My family!” The fighters fed us and stroked our cropped heads. They seemed to us the closest people in the world.

The victory in Stalingrad became an event of a planetary scale. Thousands of greeting telegrams and letters came to the city, wagons with food and building materials went. Squares and streets were named after Stalingrad. But no one in the world rejoiced at the victory as much as the soldiers of Stalingrad and the inhabitants of the city that survived the battles. However, the press of those years did not report how hard life remained in the destroyed Stalingrad. Having got out of their wretched shelters, the inhabitants walked for a long time along narrow paths among endless minefields, charred chimneys stood in the place of their houses, water was carried from the Volga, where a putrid smell still remained, food was cooked on fires.

The whole city was a battlefield. And when the snow began to melt, on the streets, in the craters, factory buildings, everywhere where the fighting was going on, the corpses of our and German soldiers were found. They should have been buried.

“We returned to Stalingrad, and my mother went to work at an enterprise that was located at the foot of Mamaev Kurgan,” recalls Lyudmila Butenko, who was 6 years old. - From the first days, all workers, mostly women, had to collect and bury the corpses of our soldiers who died during the storming of Mamaev Kurgan. One need only imagine what the women experienced, some who became widows, and others, who every day expected news from the front, worried and praying for their loved ones. Before them were the bodies of someone's husbands, brothers, sons. Mom came home tired, depressed.

It is hard to imagine this in our pragmatic times, but just two months after the end of the fighting in Stalingrad, brigades of volunteer builders appeared.

It started like this. Alexandra Cherkasova, a kindergarten worker, offered to restore a small building on her own in order to quickly accept the kids. Women took up saws and hammers, plastered and painted themselves. The name of Cherkasova began to be called voluntary brigades, which raised the ruined city free of charge. Cherkasov brigades were created in broken workshops, among the ruins of residential buildings, clubs, and schools. After their main shift, the residents worked for another two or three hours, clearing the roads, manually dismantling the ruins. Even children collected bricks for their future schools.

“My mother also joined one of these teams,” recalls Lyudmila Butenko. - The inhabitants, who had not yet recovered from the suffering they had endured, wanted to help rebuild the city. They went to work in rags, almost all barefoot. And surprisingly, you could hear them singing. Is it possible to forget this?

There is a building in the city that is called Pavlov's House. Being almost surrounded, the soldiers under the command of Sergeant Pavlov defended this line for 58 days. The inscription remained on the house: “We will defend you, dear Stalingrad!” Cherkasovites, who came to restore this building, added one letter, and it was inscribed on the wall: “We will rebuild you, dear Stalingrad!”

Over time, this selfless work of the Cherkasov brigades, which included thousands of volunteers, seems to be a truly spiritual feat. And the first buildings that were built in Stalingrad were kindergartens and schools. The city cared about its future.

Ludmila Ovchinnikova

And we will keep you
Russian speech,
Great Russian word.

Anna Akhmatova

But it was! It was! It was!

Nikolay KLYUEV

Chronicles are man-made literary monuments of the Russian people, in essence, their historical memory embodied and forever preserved for many generations.

Inscribed at different times with a pen on parchment or especially strong linen paper, they captured in documentary texts the events of past centuries and the names of those who created real Russian history, forged glory or, on the contrary, covered the Fatherland with shame. Rare chronicles have preserved the names of their creators, but they were all living people with their own passions and sympathies, which was inevitably reflected in the handwritten texts that came out from their pen. In the archives of our great writer Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol, who at one time dreamed more than anything else of becoming a professor of history at the capital's university, there are many preparatory notes for future lectures. Among them are reflections on the nameless Russian chroniclers and scribes:

“Scribes and scribes constituted, as it were, a special guild among the people. And since those scribes were monks, others were completely unlearned, and only just knew how to dirty, then great inconsistencies came out. They worked out of penance and for the remission of sins, under the strict supervision of their superiors. Correspondence was not only in monasteries, it was like a day laborer's craft. Like the Turks, without understanding, they attributed their own. Nowhere did they do so much copywriting as in Russia. There are many who do nothing.<другого>during the whole day and thus only earn food. There was no printing then, let alone<теперь?>. And that monk was truthful, he wrote only that<было>, did not philosophize slyly and did not look at anyone. And the followers began to paint it ... ".

Many nameless scribes worked day and night in the monastery cells, replicating the captured historical memory of centuries (Fig. 80), decorating manuscripts with expressive miniatures (Fig. 81) and initial letters (Fig. 82), creating priceless literary masterpieces on the basis of chronicle codes. It is in this way that the “Life of Boris and Gleb” and other Russian saints, “Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”, “Russian Truth”, “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky”, “The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev”, “The Journey of the Three Seas of Athanasius” have survived to this day. Nikitin" and other works. All of them are not an alien appendage, but components of an organic whole in the context of the chronicle narrative, creating a unique coloring of a particular chronicle and allowing one to perceive the events of a literary monument as an integral link in a monolithic chronological chain.

Literary critics of the 19th and especially the 20th century, pursuing their own highly specialized goal, taught the reader to perceive the masterpieces of Russian spirituality interspersed in the annals as isolated. Their publications fill all modern collections and collections, creating the illusion of some special and independent literary process that has been going on for almost seven centuries. But this is deception and self-deception! Not to mention the fact that the chronicles themselves are artificially dissected, modern readers lose their orientation and cease to understand the origins of the culture of their own people in its organic integrity and real consistency.

The collective image of the ascetic-chronicler is recreated in Pushkin's "Boris Godunov" in the person of Pimen, a monk from the Moscow Chudov Monastery, who devoted his life to the correspondence of old and the compilation of new chronicles:

One more last word -
And my chronicle is over,
Fulfilled the duty bequeathed by God
Me, a sinner. Not without reason for many years

The Lord made me a witness
And enlightened book art;
Someday a monk industrious
Will find my hard work, nameless,
He will light, like me, his lamp -
And, brushing off the dust of centuries from the charters,
Will rewrite true stories,
Yes, the descendants of the Orthodox know
Native land past fate ...

It took many years to create such chronicle lists. Chroniclers (Fig. 83) worked for the glory of the Lord in the capitals of specific principalities, large monasteries, fulfilling the orders of secular and ecclesiastical rulers and, to please them, often reshaping, erasing, erasing and shortening what was written before them. Each chronicler with the slightest respect for himself, creating a new code, did not just copy his predecessors word for word, but made a feasible author's contribution to the charter, that is, the manuscript. That is why many chronicles, describing the same events, differ so much from each other - especially in assessing what happened.

Officially, chronicle writing in Russia lasted a little over six centuries. The first chronicles, modeled on Byzantine chronographs, were created in the 11th century, and by the end of the 17th century, everything ended by itself: the time of Peter's transformations began, and printed books replaced handwritten creations. Over the course of six centuries, thousands and thousands of chronicle lists were created, but about one and a half thousand of them have survived to this day. The rest - including the very first ones - died as a result of pogroms and fires. There are not so many independent chronicles: the vast majority of lists are handwritten replication of the same primary sources. The oldest surviving chronicles are considered to be: Synodal list of the Novgorod First (XIII-XIV centuries), Lavrentievskaya (1377), Ipatievskaya (XV century), illustrated Radzivilovskaya (XV century).

The original annals have their own names - by the names of the creators, publishers or owners, as well as by the place of writing or initial storage (nowadays all annals are in state libraries or other repositories). For example, the three most famous Russian chronicles - Lavrentievskaya, Ipatievskaya and Radzivilovskaya - are named like this: the first - after the name of the scribe, monk Lavrenty; the second - at the place of storage, the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery; the third - by the name of the owners, the Lithuanian grand ducal family of the Radziwills.

* * *
The author does not intend to bore readers with special textual, philological and historiographic questions. My task and the purpose of the whole book, as will become clear a little later, is quite different. However, for a better orientation of non-specialist readers, I consider it necessary to make some terminological clarifications. Those who know these terms can safely skip them. Those who are new or unfamiliar with a number of concepts can refer to the explanatory dictionary below whenever they need to.

In scientific and everyday life, the words "chronicle", "chronicler", "temporary", "chronograph" are used almost as synonyms. So it is, in general, it is, but still there are some differences.

chronicle- a historical work in which the narration was conducted over the years. Separate parts (chapters) of the chronicle text, tied to a specific year (summer), are currently commonly referred to as articles (in my opinion, the name chosen is not the most successful). In Russian chronicles, each such new article began with the words: “In the summer such and such ...”, referring to the corresponding year. The reckoning was conducted, however, not from the Nativity of Christ, that is, not from the new era, but from the biblical Creation of the world. It was believed that this happened in 5508 before the birth of the Savior. Thus, in the year 2000, the year 7508 from the Creation of the world began. The Old Testament chronology in Russia lasted until the Peter the Great calendar reform, when a common European standard was adopted. In the annals, the counting by years was conducted exclusively from the Creation of the world, the old chronology ended officially on December 31, 7208, followed by January 1, 1700.

Chronicler- terminologically the same as the chronicle. For example, the Radzivilov Chronicle begins with the words: “This book is a chronicler” (Fig. 84), and the Yermolinsky Chronicle: “The entire chronicle of Rusia from beginning to end.” The Sofia First Chronicle also calls itself: “Chronicler of the Russian Lands…” (Writing of the word itself in handwritten originals: in the first two cases with a “soft sign”, in the last one without it). In other words, many chronicles were originally called chroniclers, but over time, their other (more solid, or something) name was established. In later times, the chronicler, as a rule, sets out the events in a concise manner - this is especially true of the initial periods of world and Russian history. Although the words "chronicle" and "chronicler" are native Russian, as concepts they are also applied to foreign historical works of the same kind: for example, a translated compilation monument popular in Russia, outlining the events of world history, was called "Chronicler of Elinsky and Roman", and the name multi-volume historical work dedicated to the Mongol conquests, the famous Persian historian Rashid ad-Din is translated as "Collection of Chronicles".

Vremnik- used to be used as synonyms for the words "chronicle" and "chronicler" (for example, "Russian Time", "Ivan Timofeev's Time"). So, the Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition opens with the words: “Vremennik hedgehog is called the annals of the prince and the land of Ruskia ...”. Since the 19th century, this term has been applied mainly to annual periodicals: for example, “Vremennik of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities”, “Vremennik of the Pushkin Commission”, etc.

Chronograph- a medieval historical work in Orthodox countries - Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, a synonym for "chronicles". Some late Russian chronicles are also called chronographs; as a rule, the events of world history, borrowed from Byzantine compendiums, are described in more detail than in ordinary chronicles, and domestic history, in essence, is mechanically fastened to translated texts.

Chronicle (in old Russian - kronika)- the meaning is the same as "chronograph" or "chronicle", but it was distributed mainly in Western European countries, as well as in Slavic countries gravitating towards the West (Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, etc.). But there are exceptions: in Ancient Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia, translations of the Chronicles by the Byzantine historians John Malala and George Amartol were extremely popular, from where the basic knowledge of world history was drawn.

It is also useful to understand a few more concepts.

Chronicle- combining into a single narrative of various chronicles, documents, acts, fiction stories and hagiographic works. The vast majority of chronicles that have come down to us are vaults.

chronicle list- rewritten at different times, by different persons (and also in different places) the same chronicle texts (Fig. 85). It is clear that the same chronicle can have many lists. For example, the Ipatiev Chronicle is known in eight copies (at the same time, not a single primary list, called a protographer, of the initial chronicles by the time professional historians took up them, was preserved).

chronicle- an editorial version of a text. For example, the Novgorod First and Sofia Chronicles of the older and younger editions are known, which differ from each other in terms of language features.

The diagram shown in Figure 86 gives an idea of ​​the genetic connection between various codes, lists, editions of Russian chronicles. That is why, when the reader picks up a modern edition of the Primary Chronicle, named after the first line of the Tale of Bygone Years, he must remember and understand that he will have to read (or re-read) the by no means original creation of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Nestor (Fig. 87), to whom, according to tradition (although not shared by everyone), the creation of this literary and historiographic masterpiece is attributed. However, Nestor also had predecessors, not to mention the fact that the “father of Russian chronicle writing” relied on the richest oral tradition. It is assumed (and this was substantiated by the outstanding researchers of Russian chronicles - A.A. Shakhmatov and M.D. Priselkov) that before dipping a pen in an inkwell, Nestor got acquainted with three chronicles - the Ancient One (1037), the Nikon Code (1073) and vault of Ivan (1093).

In addition, it is useful not to lose sight of the fact that The Tale of Bygone Years does not exist on its own, that is, in isolation from specific chronicles. Modern "separate" editions are the product of artificial preparation, as a rule, on the basis of the Laurentian Chronicle with the addition of minor fragments, phrases and words taken from other chronicles. The volume is the same - The Tale of Bygone Years does not coincide with all the chronicles in which it was included. So, according to the Laurentian list, it was brought up to 1110 (the text of Nestor himself with later inserts of the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, the “protocol record” about the blinding of Prince Vasilko Terebovlsky, etc.) + the postscript of 1116 of the “editor-in-chief” - hegumen Sylvester. This is not the end of the Laurentian Chronicle (Fig. 88): what follows is a text written by completely different chroniclers, brought up to 1305 and sometimes referred to as the Suzdal Chronicle. The latter is due to the fact that the entire chronicle as a whole (that is, The Tale of Bygone Years + addition) was copied onto a parchment copy in 1377 by the monk Lavrenty by order of the Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich. According to the Ipatiev list, The Tale of Bygone Years was brought up to 1115 (according to scientists, after the last entry made by Nestor's hand, some unknown monk added events for another five years). The Ipatiev Chronicle itself was brought up to 1292. The Radzivilov Chronicle, which describes practically the same events, but has many discrepancies, has been brought up to 1205.

Traces of Nestor's protographer are lost immediately after the death of the great Russian ascetic. Thoroughly processed and edited, it became the basis of the annalistic code, compiled by Sylvester, abbot of the Mikhailovsky Vydubetsky monastery in Kyiv, and then bishop in Pereyaslavl South, on the instructions of Vladimir Monomakh. One can imagine how hard the Chernorizets, close to the Grand Duke's court, tried to please the customer, redrawing and in many places rewriting Nestor's protographer. The Sylvester code, in turn, also thoroughly processed and edited (but already to please other princes), two hundred and fifty years later served as the basis for the Laurentian and other chronicles. Scholars-historians have singled out a textual substratum from many chronicle lists, presumably belonging to Nestor, and made many additions to it, which, in their opinion, improve the content of The Tale of Bygone Years.

It is with this literary chimera (in a positive sense) that the modern reader is dealing. What is surprising: if the original Nestor's text is no longer given to anyone to see and read, then everyone can see Nestor himself. The relics of the first Russian chronicler, wrapped in mourning robes, are open for viewing in the underground galleries of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. They rest in a recessed grave niche, covered with transparent glass and illuminated by subdued light. Following the traditional excursion route, you can walk just a meter from the founder of Russian historical science. Over the past life, I had the opportunity to stand next to Nestor three times (for the first time - at the age of 14). I would not want to blaspheme, but I will not hide the truth either: every time (especially in adulthood) I felt a current of energy and a surge of inspiration.

Among the genres of drl, the chronicle occupied a central place. The purpose of the chronicle is the desire to tell about the past of the Russian land and leave a memory. Initially, the first chronicles were created as historical encyclopedias for the Kiev nobility. The creation of annals is a state matter. Scholars define the time of creation in different ways: B.A. Rybakov connected the temporary beginnings of annals with the moment the state was born, but most researchers believe that annals appeared only in the 11th century. The 11th century is the beginning of the chronicles, which will be kept systematically until the 18th century.

Basically chronicles were compiled at monasteries and at the courts of princes. Almost always chronicles were written by monks - the most educated people of their time. Chronicles were created on a special assignment. The basis of the chronicle narrative is the arrangement of historical material by years / years. This principle was suggested by Paschalia. The chroniclers told all the historical events of Russia, arranging the material by years. The chronicler strove to show the uninterrupted course of life itself. The Old Russian scribe knew that history has its beginning and its end (the Last Judgment). The ancient Russian chronicles also reflected these eschatological thoughts.

The sources of Russian chronicles are divided into 2 types:

Sources of oral character: tribal traditions, squad poetry, local legends related to the origin of villages and cities.

Written sources: sacred writings (New Testament, Old Testament), translated Byzantine chronicles, various historical documents and letters.

Very often in the scientific literature, chronicles are called chronicle compilations, since the chronicles combined the annals of the previous time and the annalistic records of events recent or contemporary to the chronicler. Many scholars write about the fragmentation of the chronicle. The weather principle of the arrangement of the material led to the fact that the chronicle was made into many articles and fragments. Hence such features as fragmentary and episodic chronicle style.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is a work on the creation of which

more than one generation of Russian chroniclers worked, this is a monument to the collective

creative creativity. In the beginning, in the first half of the 40s. XI century, a complex of articles was compiled, which Academician D.S. Likhachev suggested calling it "The Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Russia." It included stories about the baptism and death of Princess Olga, a legend about the first Russian martyrs - the Varangian Christians, a legend about the baptism of Russia, a legend about princes Boris and Gleb, and extensive praise for Yaroslav the Wise. gg. 11th century and is associated with the activities of the monk of the Kiev Caves

Nikon monastery. Nikon added to the "Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Russia" legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople, the so-called "Varangian legend", according to which the Kiev princes descended from the Varangian prince Rurik, invited to Russia, to stop the internecine strife of the Slavs. The inclusion of this legend in the chronicle had its own meaning: Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kiev - the heir and descendant of Rurik. Finally, according to the researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.

Around 1095, a new chronicle code was created, which A.A. Shakhmatov suggested calling it "Initial". The compiler of this collection continued the annalistic presentation with a description of the events of 1073-1095, giving his work, especially in this part supplemented by him, a clearly publicistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, for not caring about the defense of the Russian land.

The chronicle is a collection: apparently, its creator skillfully worked with a rich arsenal of sources (Byzantine chronicles, Holy Scripture, historical documents, etc.), moreover, later scribes could make their own changes to the created text, making its structure even more heterogeneous . For this reason, many researchers call the chronicle a compilation, and consider compilability to be a distinctive feature of chronicle texts. D.S. Likhachev accompanies his literary translation of the PVL with the names of chronicle fragments, in which, along with the names of an eventful nature (the reign of Oleg, the second campaign of Prince Igor against the Greeks, the revenge of Princess Olga, the beginning of the reign of Yaroslav in Kyiv, etc.), there are proper genre names (the legend about the founding of Kyiv , the parable of Obrah, the legend of the Belgorod jelly, the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovskiy, etc.)

From the point of view of the forms of chronicle writing, Eremin divided all chronicle material into 5 groups: weather record (a small documentary record, devoid of artistic form and emotionality), chronicle legend (oral historical tradition in the literary processing of the chronicler), chronicle story (factual narrative, in which the personality of the author is manifested: in the assessment of events, attempts to characterize the characters, comments, individual style of presentation), chronicle story (narration about the death of the prince, which gives a hagiographically enlightened image of the ideal ruler), documents (contracts and letters).

Curds, on the other hand, criticized the classification developed by Eremin, built on the nature of the combination of methods of depicting reality opposed to each other as not being confirmed by chronicle material, and proposed a typology by the nature of the story.

The first type of narration is weather records (only informing about events), the other is chronicle stories (telling about events with the help of a plot narrative).

Tvorogov distinguishes 2 types of storytelling: chronicle tales characteristic of "PVL" and chronicle stories. A distinctive feature of the former is the depiction of a legendary event. Chronicle stories are devoted to depicting the events of contemporary chroniclers. They are more extensive. They combine factual records, sketches of episodes, religious reasoning of the author.

The plot narrative of "PVL" is built with the help of art. Receptions: accentuation of a strong detail, causing visual representations, characterization of heroes, direct speech of characters.

Plot stories are common in PVL, but the style of monumental historicism is characteristic of chronicle writing as a whole.

Thus, on the basis of the theoretical study of the works of researchers, we obtained a number of genres (forms of narration) with characteristic features assigned to them, which became the basis for distinguishing types of presentation in Russian chronicles. To date, we have identified the following types in the PVL: hagiographic, military, business, didactic, documentary, folk-poetic, reference. 1. Hagiographic: the deeds of the saint or his life path as a whole act as the main subject of the image; involves the use of certain motives, for example, the motives of teaching (mentoring), prophecy.

Example: a fragment about Theodosius of the Caves (ll. 61v.-63v.).

2. Military: depiction of a historical event associated with the struggle of the Russian people against external enemies (mainly Pechenegs and Polovtsy), as well as princely strife; the central character is usually a real historical figure, usually a prince.

Example: a fragment about the captivity of Thrace and Macedonia by Simeon (l. 10).

3. Business: texts of documents included in the PVL.

Example: a fragment containing the text of the treaty between the Russians and the Greeks (ll. 11-14).

4. Didactic: contains edification, i.e. morality (teaching) moral/religious.

Example: a fragment about the unrighteous life of Prince Vladimir before he adopted Christianity (l. 25).

5. Documenting: a statement of the fact of an event that deserves mention, but does not require a detailed presentation; fragments of this type are distinguished by the protocol of the image, the lack of artistic form and emotionality.

Example: a fragment about the reign of Leon and his brother Alexander (fol. 8v.).

6. Folk poetic: a narrative about real or possible events, usually based on one vivid episode, may contain fiction.

Example: a fragment about the revenge of Princess Olga (ll. 14v.-16).

7. reference: fragments taken from authoritative sources (Byzantine chronicles, biblical texts, etc.).

September 2017

Briefly about Russian chronicle writing

The beginning of Russian chronicle writing

It is not known exactly when the tradition of chronicle writing began in Russia. Scholars have different opinions. Most often, the opinion is expressed that the beginning of chronicle writing should be attributed to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. Other scholars are inclined to believe that the chronicle originated already in the reign of St. Vladimir. Finally, third scholars, such as Academician Rybakov, believe that chronicle writing originated even before the Baptism of Russia by Prince Vladimir.

Chronology

Until 1700, Russia had a Byzantine chronology - from the creation of the world. According to the Byzantine tradition, the world was created 5508 years before the birth of Christ. Therefore, if the annals indicate, for example, the year 6496, then to translate into our chronology, the number 5508 should be subtracted from the number 6496. It turns out 988. At the same time, you should know that before 1700, the new year in Russia began not on January 1, but on September 1. Even earlier, the new year began, in accordance with Roman tradition, in March (not necessarily on March 1). Probably the transition to the September New Year is associated with the adoption of a new paschal in 1492.

According to the antiochian tradition of reckoning adopted in antiquity in Bulgaria, 5,500 years passed from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ. It is possible that sometimes Russian chronicles give dates according to this chronology.

There was also another chronology in Russia - from the cash of the new Paschalia, that is, from 1492 from the Nativity of Christ. If the sources contain the date 105, then this is 1597 according to the calendar from the Nativity of Christ.

Manuals on Russian chronology are the following books:

1. Cherepnin L.V. Russian chronology. - M., 1944.

2. Berezhkov N.G. Chronology of Russian annals. - M., 1963.

3. Tsyb S.V. Old Russian chronology in The Tale of Bygone Years. - Barnaul, 1995.

Terminology

chronicle- this is a historical work with a weather account of events, covering in its presentation the entire history of Russia, represented by a manuscript (the volume is significant - more than 100 sheets). Chronicler- a small in volume (several tens of sheets) chronicle work, as well as the chronicle, covering in its presentation the entire history of Russia. To some extent, the chronicler is a brief synopsis of the chronicle that has not come down to us. chronicler- a very small (up to 10 sheets) annalistic work, dedicated either to the person who composed it, or to the place of its compilation, while the weather of the presentation is preserved. chronicle fragment- part of any chronicle work (often found in ancient Russian collections). The significance of chroniclers and chronicle fragments for the history of Russian chronicle writing is significant, since they brought to us information about non-preserved chronicle works. The ancient Russian chroniclers themselves called their works differently: in the 11th century, the Chronicler (for example, the Chronicler of the Russian Land), or the Vremnik, later the Tale of Bygone Years, the Sofia Vremennik, the Chronograph, sometimes the chronicles did not have any name.

Tale of Bygone Years

"The Tale of Bygone Years" (abbreviated as PVL) is an ancient all-Russian annalistic code. The names of some of its compilers are known. This is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, the Monk Nestor the Chronicler, hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester. "The Tale of Bygone Years" is part of the Lavrentiev, Ipatiev, Radziwill and some other chronicles. The "Tale" begins with a story about the sons of Noah and their offspring. Then it tells about the origin of the Slavs. Since 852, it tells about events that have a date. The Tale of Bygone Years ends with a description of the events of 1110.

The authorship of Nestor is indicated in the Khlebnikov copy of the Ipatiev Chronicle, found by Karamzin among the manuscripts of the merchant Khlebnikov. The list was compiled in the middle of the 16th century. The fact that the Monk Nestor wrote the chronicle is said in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. The version that Nestor compiled the PVL was put forward by Tatishchev in the 18th century to the first scientist.

It is clear that the PVL is multicomponent. At the beginning of the 20th century, academician Shakhmatov reconstructed the origin of The Tale of Bygone Years as follows:

1. The most ancient set, compiled at the Kiev Metropolitan See, created, according to Shakhmatov, in 1037. Then the vault was replenished in 1073 by the Kiev-Pechersk monk Nikon.

2. The initial set, compiled in 1093 by the Kiev-Pechersk Abbot John, using Greek sources and Novgorod records. This vault was revised by Nestor the Chronicler. He, according to Shakhmatov, supplemented the chronicle with the texts of treaties between Russia and Byzantium and records of oral traditions. This is how The Tale of Bygone Years appeared in its first edition. Shakhmatov dates its compilation to 1110-1112.

3. In 1116, the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester, who left an indication of his authorship in the annals, compiled the second edition of the PVL.

4. Finally, in 1118, on behalf of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich of Novgorod, the third edition of the PVL was compiled.

Shakhmatov's hypothesis about the stages of creating PVL is not supported by all scientists.

Laurentian Chronicle

The Laurentian Chronicle was written in 1377 by the scribe Lavrenty and other scribes in the Nizhny Novgorod Caves Monastery. Lawrence indicated his name in the colophon, that is, on the last page of the manuscript containing data about the manuscript. Probably the chronicle was created under the guidance of St. Dionysius, the founder of the Nizhny Novgorod Caves Monastery, later the Archbishop of Suzdal and Metropolitan of Kiev. He was a friend of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Until the beginning of the 18th century, the chronicle was kept in the Nativity Monastery in the city of Vladimir. Then it was in a private collection. In 1792, the manuscript was acquired by the collector of antiquities, Count Musin-Pushkin, who later presented it to Emperor Alexander I. The tsar gave the chronicle to the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg.

The Laurentian Chronicle begins with The Tale of Bygone Years. Then, mainly South Russian news (1110-1161) is presented. Then the chronicle contains news about events in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus (1164-1304). When describing the events of the XII century, much attention is paid to the Vladimir principality. At the beginning of the XIII century, the emphasis shifted towards the Rostov principality. The Lavrentiev Chronicle is presumably based on the Vladimir Chronicle of 1305. The Laurentian Chronicle has preserved the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, which is not found anywhere else.

Ipatiev Chronicle

The Ipatiev Chronicle is a chronicle compiled at the beginning of the 15th century. It is named after the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery, in which it was once located. The chronicle was opened in 1809 in the library of the Academy of Sciences by Karamzin. Subsequently, other lists of this chronicle were discovered. The Ipatiev Chronicle is based on the South Russian Chronicle of the end of the 13th century. Includes "The Tale of Bygone Years" with a continuation until 1117, the Kyiv collection of the end of the XII century, the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, which brings the story to 1292. The Ipatiev Chronicle contains some original information. For example, he mentions that Rurik originally sat down to reign in Ladoga.

1st Novgorod Chronicle

There are five chronicles called "Novgorod". The 1st Novgorod Chronicle is the oldest of them. It includes a brief edition of Russkaya Pravda, part of the annalistic code that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years, local Novgorod news. There is the Novgorod 1st chronicle of the older edition, preserved in one list, and the younger edition, preserved in several lists. The chronicle of the older version ends with a description of the events of the 1330s. The chronicle of the younger edition brings the description of events to 1447.

The Chronicle contains some local Novgorod news, for example, it mentions a fire in the St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, and, on the contrary, omits some Kiev and all-Russian news. So, telling in detail about the victory of Alexander Yaroslavich in 1240 over the Swedes at the Neva, the Novgorod 1st Chronicle of the senior version does not at all mention the capture of Kyiv by Batu, which took place in the same year.

The Novgorod chronicle also includes the Sofia and other chronicles.

Radziwill chronicle

There are two copies of the Radziwill Chronicle. The first of them was once owned by the Polish nobleman Janusz Radziwill. Hence its name. It was created in the 15th century. This list of chronicles is also called the Koenigsberg list, since it was then kept in Koenigsberg. In 1711, at the request of Peter I, who visited Koenigsberg, a copy of the chronicle was made for him. During the Seven Years' War, this list was brought to St. Petersburg as a trophy and ended up in the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Already in 1767 the chronicle was published in St. Petersburg. Unfortunately, this edition is of low quality and contains additions from Tatishchev's work "The History of Russia from the Most Ancient Times." Now the Koenigsberg list is in the library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. In 1989, a full-fledged scientific publication of the Radziwill Chronicle was finally carried out in the 38th volume of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles.

It is believed that the Radziwill chronicle was originally created in the 13th century either in Smolensk or in Volyn. The Koenigsberg list is a copy of this ancient chronicle, which includes The Tale of Bygone Years and its continuation, brought up to 1206.

Very close to the Koenigsberg list is the Moscow academic list found in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy. . Until 1206, the Moscow Academic Chronicle almost coincides with the Radziwill Chronicle. Previously, it was believed that it is a copy from the Radziwill Chronicle. Subsequently, it was established that both chronicles are copies from the same protographer. The Moscow Academic Chronicle has two more parts. The text, covering the years 1206-1238, coincides with the Sofia 1st chronicle of the older edition. The third part of the Moscow Academic Chronicle, brought up to 1419, reflects the news about Rostov the Great and the Rostov Principality. At present, the Moscow Academic Chronicle is kept in Moscow, in the Russian State Library, in the fund of the Moscow Theological Academy.

The main value of the Radziwill chronicle is numerous miniatures. There are 617 of them in the Koenigsberg list. It is believed that the miniatures were copied into both lists from a common protograph. Judging by the features of execution, the originals of some of the miniatures, copies of which are in the lists of the Radziwill Chronicle, were created long ago, some even in the 11th century.

Nikon chronicle

The Nikon chronicle was compiled under Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow (1522-1539). It was named after Patriarch Nikon, to whom it belonged. The chronicle outlines the entire Russian history and is interesting in various additions. For example, the chronicle tells about Vadim the Brave, who rebelled against Rurik. It is a question of the first Metropolitan of Kiev Michael. The new edition of the chronicle was compiled around 1637 and ends with The Tale of the Life of Fyodor Ivanovich, which tells about the life of Tsar Theodore I, who died in 1598, and The New Chronicler, which tells about the events of the Time of Troubles and the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.

"The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir"

The "Tale" appeared at the beginning of the 16th century. The compiler of the "Tale" is unknown. Presumably, he could be Dmitry Gerasimov - a diplomat, theologian and translator, collaborator of St. Gennady of Novgorod and St. Maximus the Greek.

The "Tale" describes the legend of the origin of Rurik from the offspring of the legendary brother of the Roman Emperor Augustus named Prus. There is a hypothesis that this legend was created by the 15th-century writer Pachomiy Serb. The further development of the idea of ​​​​the origin of Rurik and, accordingly, his descendants from the genus Augusta is associated with the wedding of John III to the great reign in 1498 of his grandson Dmitry, whom he proclaimed his heir. In the rite of the wedding of Dmitry the grandson, motives are found that are close to the "Tale of the Princes of Vladimir". Then the legend was set forth by the writer Metropolitan Spiridon in his "Message". This Spiridon was not recognized as the Metropolitan of Kiev, ended up in Muscovite Russia, was also not recognized and died between 1503-1505 in the Ferapont Monastery on the White Lake, taking the schema with the name Savva. The "Message" of Spiridon became the main material for the compiler of the "Tale of the Princes of Vladimir". The message of Spiridon-Sava also sets forth the legend of the Monomakh's hat, which allegedly belonged to the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Monomakh and was sent by the Byzantine emperor to his grandson Vladimir Monomakh.

On the basis of the Tale, a preface to the rite of the royal wedding of John IV was compiled. The "Legend" was actively used by Russian diplomacy, until the 17th century, inclusive.

It should be said that similar legends existed in other countries. For example, the Poles claimed that Julius Caesar married his sister Julia to the ancient Polish prince Leshko and gave her the land of the future Bavaria as a dowry. Julia founded two cities, including the famous Volin, which, allegedly, was originally called Yulin. The fruit of this marriage was Pompiliusz, from whom the next generations of Polish princes descended. This legend is already reflected in the Polish "Great Chronicle", created in the XV-XVI centuries. The Lithuanians considered the ancestor of their princes to be a noble Roman, a relative of Emperor Nero. This legend arose about half a century earlier than the Moscow one. It is possible that the appearance of the Russian legend about the origin of Rurik from the brother of Emperor Augustus was a reaction to similar genealogical claims of neighbors.

"The power book of the royal genealogy"

The initiator of the creation of the "Book of Powers" is St. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia. The direct compiler was his student Archpriest Andrei, who was the confessor of Ivan the Terrible. Having become a widower, Archpriest Andrei took monastic vows with the name Athanasius. After the death of Saint Macarius, he was elected Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia. Athanasius occupied the metropolitan throne in 1564-1566, witnessing the establishment of the oprichnina by the king. He died at rest. The Book of Powers was compiled by him between 1560 and 1563.

The Book of Powers is an attempt to systematically present Russian history from the Baptist of Russia, the Holy Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, to Ivan the Terrible. The book is divided into 17 degrees. It carries out the monarchical idea, affirms the divine establishment of royal power. Rurik is declared a descendant of the Roman Emperor Augustus. The biographies of the princes are hagiographic in nature, their exploits and piety are glorified. There are also hagiographical stories about Russian metropolitans.

Several editions of the Book of Powers and quite a few lists have been preserved. The Book of Powers was first published in 1775 by Academician Miller. In 1908-1913 it was published as part of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (volume 21, parts 1-2). Another edition was carried out in the 21st century.

The Power Book was popular with the few readers who had access to it. Historians also used it: Tatishchev, Bayer, Karamzin and others.

"Facial Chronicle"

This is the most significant annalistic code created in Russia in terms of volume. Facial means - "in faces", that is, illustrated, containing images of the heroes of the annals. The code was created in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, approximately in 1568-1576. It consists of ten volumes written on paper. The number of illustrations exceeds 16 thousand. The events of world history from the creation of the world are described, including the history of Rome and Byzantium, and the events of Russian history are especially detailed. Probably, the "Face Chronicle" was not completely preserved, since the "Tale of Bygone Years" is missing and part of the reign of Ivan the Terrible is not covered.

Each of the volumes of the "Face Chronicle" exists in a single copy. Volumes 1, 9 and 10 are stored in the State Historical Museum. Volumes 2, 6 and 7 are in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Volumes 3, 4, 5 and 8 are in the National Library of Russia. The facsimile edition of the "Facing Chronicle" was first published in 2008 by the Akteon publishing house in a circulation of 50 copies.