How reliable are the old Russian chronicles? What features of chronicles can you highlight? Can you name the distinguishing features of the "lecture" genre?

15.10.2019

Features of the chronicle genre.

The chronicle genre is a historical genre ancient Russian literature, which existed in the 11th-17th centuries.

Chronicle - a special kind of historical narrative by years (years). Russian chronicle arose in the 11th century. and continued until the 17th century. Having reached significant development in the 11th-12th centuries, chronicle writing then fell into decay due to the Mongol-Tatar invasion. In many chronicle centers it is dying out altogether, in others it is preserved, but it has a narrow, local character.

The revival of chronicle work begins only after the Battle of Kulikovka (1380). Old Russian chronicles have come down to us as part of later (mainly 14th-15th centuries) chronicle collections. The largest chronicle Old Russian state is The Tale of Bygone Years (written at the beginning of the 12th century).

Russian medieval chronicles are the largest monuments of spiritual culture. It is wrong to limit their value only as sources of our information about the events of the past. Chronicles are not just a listing of historical facts. They embodied a wide range of ideas and concepts of medieval society. Chronicles are monuments of both social thought and literature, and even the rudiments of scientific knowledge. They represent, as it were, a synthetic monument of medieval culture, and it is no coincidence that for more than two centuries the attention of researchers of the most diverse aspects of the historical past of our country has been riveted to them. It can be said without exaggeration that we do not have more valuable and at the same time interesting monuments of the spiritual culture of the past than our chronicles - from the famous "Tale of Bygone Years" by the Kiev monk Nestor to the last chronicles of the 17th century. The fact that chronicles turned out to be such a synthetic work of culture was a natural manifestation of the characteristic features of medieval social consciousness.

All-Russian chronicle codes - chronicle monuments of the 11th-16th centuries. They outlined the history of individual regions and principalities from an all-Russian point of view. The name was given by A. A. Shakhmatov. The first all-Russian annalistic code that has survived to this day is The Tale of Bygone Years. Also known is the Front Chronicle of the 16th century. The book tells about world history from biblical times to the time of Ivan the Terrible. World history is considered inseparably from the history of the Russian state. A whole workshop worked on the books: about 15 scribes and 10 artists. Thumbnails not only illustrate the text, but also complement it. Some events are not written, but only drawn. The front chronicle is not only a monument of the Russian handwritten book, it is a literary, historical, artistic monument of world significance. Many countries would like to have such ancient description history of their country, but, unfortunately, not everyone is as lucky as Russia. This handwritten book is also interesting from the point of view that at that time books began to be printed. The annalistic code, as it were, completes the time of the handwritten book. During the time of Ivan the Terrible, the book was kept in the Kremlin, then came to different owners. It is known that one volume belonged to Peter I, then he gave it to his daughter.

Weather recording is the oldest form of storytelling (records are arranged in a weather grid - by year).

As D.S. Likhachev shows, an ancient Russian literary work is often formed according to the “principle of enfilade construction”. The scientist writes about "the prevalence in ancient Russian literature of compilations, vaults, connection and stringing of plots - sometimes purely mechanical. Works were often mechanically connected to each other, as separate rooms were connected into one enfilade." The researcher extends the principle of "enfilade", or "ensemble" to the sphere of the genre, and connects this principle with the problem of the status and boundaries of a work in ancient Russian literature. “The concept of a work,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “was more complex in medieval literature than in modern literature. A work is both a chronicle and individual stories, lives, messages included in the chronicle. This is a life, and separate descriptions of miracles, "praise", chants that are included in this life. Therefore, individual parts of the work could belong to different genres. "

The "enfilade" or "ensemble" character of an ancient Russian literary work can be comprehended from the point of view of the principle and types of artistic integrity. Old Russian works of traditional genres - chronicles, stories, lives, teachings, etc. - are far from always complete in the sense in which the works of Russian literature are integral - internally, organically. classical literature. The Old Russian work is internally (structurally and constructively) open - both at the level of text and at the level of image and plot - to the world of handwritten tradition and other texts, to the world of medieval symbols and motifs, narrative and genre canons, plot and thematic interest. Genuine artistic integrity in Old Russian literature can be achieved at levels that are different and structurally higher than the level of an individual work in a separate list or a separate edition. This integrity can be found at the level of the system of all editions of a work, at the level of a cycle of works, at the level of a manuscript collection, and finally, at the level of a system of all works of a certain genre (for example, a system of chronicles).

Both chronicles and chronicles (chronographs) were vaults, or compilations. The chronicler could not describe all the events according to his own impressions and observations, if only because both chronicles and chronicles tried to start the presentation from the “very beginning” (from the “creation of the world”, from the formation of this or that state, etc. ), and, consequently, the chronicler was forced to turn to sources that existed before him, telling about more ancient times.

On the other hand, the chronicler could not simply continue the chronicle of his predecessor. Firstly, he could not, because each chronicler, as a rule, pursued some political trend of his own and, in accordance with it, reworked the text of his predecessor, not only omitting materials that were insignificant or did not suit him politically, but also supplementing it with extracts from various sources, thus creating its own, different from the previous version of the chronicle narrative. Secondly, so that his work does not acquire an exorbitant volume from the combination of many extensive sources, the chronicler had to sacrifice something by issuing messages that seemed to him less significant.

The first chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years".

The Tale of Bygone Years, like most chronicles, is a collection, a work based on previous chronicle writings, which included fragments from various sources, literary, journalistic, folklore, etc. The Tale of Bygone Years, as a monument of historiography , permeated with a single patriotic idea: chroniclers strive to present their people as equal among others Christian nations, proudly recall the glorious past of their country - the valor of the pagan princes, the piety and wisdom of the Christian princes. The chroniclers speak on behalf of all of Russia, rising above petty feudal disputes, resolutely condemning the strife and "which", describing with pain and anxiety the disasters brought by the raids of nomads. In a word, The Tale of Bygone Years is not just a description of the first centuries of the existence of Russia, it is a story about great beginnings: the beginning of Russian statehood, the beginning of Russian culture, about the beginnings, which, according to the chroniclers, promise in the future the power and glory of their homeland.

But The Tale of Bygone Years is not only a monument of historiography, it is also an outstanding literary monument. The compositional originality of The Tale of Bygone Years is manifested in the combination of many genres in this work. In the annalistic text one can distinguish, as it were, two types of narration, which are essentially different from each other. One type is weather records, i.e. brief information about the events that have taken place. So, article 1020 is one message: "Born a son to Yaroslav, and named him Volodimer." This is a record of historical fact, nothing more. Sometimes a chronicle article includes a number of such fixations, a list of various facts, sometimes it even reports in sufficient detail about an event that is complex in its structure: for example, it is reported who took part in a military action, where the troops gathered, where they moved, how that event ended. or another battle, what messages were exchanged between princes-enemies or princes-allies. There are especially many such detailed (sometimes multi-page) weather records in the Kiev Chronicle of the 12th century. But the point is not in the brevity or detail of the narrative, but in its very principle: whether the chronicler informs about the events that have taken place and whether he talks about them, creating a plot narrative. The Tale of Bygone Years is characterized by the presence of just such plot stories.

The Tale of Bygone Years is complex in its composition and the diversity of its components, both in origin and genre. The Tale, in addition to short weather notes, includes the texts of documents, and retellings of folklore legends, and plot stories, and excerpts from monuments of translated literature. We will meet in it a theological treatise - “the speech of a philosopher”, and a hagiographical story about Boris and Gleb, and paterinic legends about the Kiev Caves monks, and a church eulogy of Theodosius of the Caves, and a laid-back story about a Novgorodian who went to tell fortunes to a magician .

The nature of the chronicle genre is very complex; the chronicle is one of the “unifying genres”, subordinating the genres of its components - a historical story, life, teaching, a laudable word, etc. Nevertheless, the chronicle remains an integral work that can be studied as a monument of one genre, as a monument literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. When and who wrote chronicles?

It would be nice to start by parsing the text itself. I would like to remind the reader that historians do not have a common idea of who, when, where and on the basis of what sources the Tale of Bygone Years was written. Or rather, no now. For a long time, from the beginning of the 20th century, after the classic works of A. A. Shakhmatov on the history of Russian chronicle writing, it was believed that there were three editions of the PVL, brought, respectively, to 1111 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor (or rather, Nester, so , as A. L. Nikitin rightly pointed out, the name of the author of “Readings on Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius”) was actually written, until 1116 by hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester and until 1118 by some clergyman close to Mstislav Vladimirovich. In addition, the presence of more ancient chronicles used by the authors of the Tale was assumed. Shakhmatov considered the year 1073 to be the oldest date in the annalistic code (“the most ancient”, according to its designation). Later historians could not agree with the authorship of one or another edition, the dating of the previous codes (while often deepening them into antiquity, right up to the end of the 10th century), but the main provisions of the chess concept remained unchanged.

Only in the second half of the 20th century, primarily through the efforts of A. G. Kuzmin, was it sufficiently convincingly shown that Nestor had nothing to do with the first edition of the PVL. This follows at least from the fact that the works that clearly belong to him (“Readings about Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius”) are not only written in a different style, but even differ in facts from the Tale of Bygone Years. I will refer those who are interested to the “Initial Stages of Ancient Russian Chronicle Writing”. And here, in order not to be unfounded, I will at least mention that in the annals Boris (the first Russian saint) reigned in Rostov, and in the Readings ... in Vladimir Volynsky. And his brother Gleb lived, according to "Readings ...", in Kiev and fled from there to the north on a ship. According to the chronicle, he was in Murom and from there he went to Kiev, strictly in the opposite direction. The same is about the life of the Pechersk monks. In the "Life ..." the new Caves Monastery was founded by Theodosius, and according to the annals - by Varlaam. Etc.

It is interesting that the list of such inconsistencies was compiled by N.I. Kostomarov, that is, it is known to Shakhmatov. It was also known that the author of the chronicle, according to his own statement, came to the monastery under Theodosius, and Nestor - under his successor, Stefan. But Shakhmatov ignored this, simply stating that Nestor wrote the chronicle at a time that was “separated from his first literary experiments by an interval of 25 years. The techniques of his work during this time could change and improve ". What does it have to do with the tricks, if we are talking about very specific facts? Including those relating to the life of Nestor himself. Did he know better in 25 years which of the abbots he came to the monastery?

So from Nestor, as the first chronicler, it is quite possible to refuse. Rather, it should be recognized that his name hit the headlines of some annals later, when the real author was already forgotten. And Nestor, thanks to his works, in which he did not forget to mention himself, was a famous "writer". To whom, if not to him, was it left to attribute the creation of the annals? This is what some scribes and successors did. Note: not all. In a number of chronicles, the name of Nestor is not in the title.

Further, it was proved that Sylvester could be nothing more than a copyist of the chronicle, but by no means its successor. Well, at least because his postscript (“Hegumen Sylvester of St. Michael wrote these chronicle books…”) is at the end of the Laurentian Chronicle, where it stands after the unfinished chronicle entry of 1110. And Ipatievskaya, in which the weather article was completed, does not contain it. Now, perhaps, the majority of researchers admit: Ipatievskaya not only goes back to the same prototype, but is also a more complete and older presentation of it. A. A. Shakhmatov believed that later editors completed the Laurentian Chronicle, creating the Ipatiev Chronicle from it. Or even used different editions of PVL. Modern historians, especially after the works of M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, reasonably notice: it is easier to assume a contraction than an expansion. Moreover, the text shows that the Laurentian Chronicle is drier and less detailed. What, then, to consider that the ancient author of the Ipatiev Chronicle deliberately embellished the text and at the same time invented facts? It is much more logical to admit that the person who wrote the Laurentian Chronicle made extracts from the full version, leaving only the main thing.

Note that Aleshkovsky was even more categorical. “The text of the Tale of Bygone Years in the Laurentian Chronicle seems to be ... the result of a reduction in the text that has been preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. This abbreviation is not of an editorial nature, is not natural, is not the result of deliberate editing, and, perhaps, appeared not in the 12th century, but later and as a result of not one, but several scribes. he wrote. That is, he did not consider Sylvester to be an editor at all, only a copyist, and even then one of many.

And it is even more problematic to recognize the presence of a third editor. He was previously identified by various historians with various characters. So, B. A. Rybakov considered him “Vasily, the husband of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich”, M. Kh. Aleshkovsky - “Vasily from Novgorod, an attentive reader of the Chronicle of Amartol”, and so on. Now its existence is generally questioned.

As a result, the history of Russian chronicle writing found itself practically in the same situation as it was before Shakhmatov: nothing is known about the place, time, and author. Everyone puts forward their own versions. The version of A. L. Nikitin seems to be the most developed at present. According to it, the author of the PVL is a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery and cell-attendant of the Monk Theodosius Hilarion. This character is quite historical, since it was Nestor who mentioned it: “And here are the same black Hilarion with confessions, for better and books are smart to write, these days and nights writing books in the cell of our blessed father Theodosius, to whom I sing the psalter with my mouth quietly and spinning the wave with my hands or doing some other thing”. True, apart from these lines, we do not know anything about the hypothetical chronicler. Nikitin deduces all the "data of his biography" from the text of the chronicle, first considering a priori that the chronicler is Hilarion.

But among the diversity of hypotheses there are common points. With the exception of very big dreamers, most recognize that the annals in Russia were written no earlier than the second half of the 11th century. Without going into lengthy justifications, let us at least point out that the chronicles in Europe began to be compiled after the adoption of Christianity. When Russia was baptized, remember? At the end of the X century. Chronicles were written at royal courts and monasteries. Simply because there you could afford not to think about your daily bread, but to slowly but surely fill in the sheets with stories about the past and the present. Previously, everyone had to work, not to write here! And in Russia, just during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, by the middle of the 11th century, such conditions developed. Here, for his sons, obviously, the first Russian chronicles were written. Well, or with them, since the chroniclers in Russia worked at monasteries, and not at palaces. Therefore, by the way, there are not so many secular data in the annals. Basically just listings of who was born and died when.

A. L. Nikitin, for example, after researching the issue, came to the conclusion that chronicles began to be written in the last quarter of the 11th century. “The absence in the Kiev-Pechersk chronicle of Hilarion, beginning PVL, of any obvious borrowings from hypothetical chronicles of the 11th century, Novgorod or Kiev, as well as the absence of any reliable evidence of those who worked simultaneously with him within 1070-1140. chroniclers, since no evidence of the chronicle activity of Sylvester has yet been found, gives the right to consider the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Hilarion the first Russian chronicler who literary depicted the events of the early centuries of history Russian state», he points out. And I pay attention: literary! “A factual and textual analysis of the plots included in the PVL ... leads to the conclusion that they are all built exclusively on legendary or fictional material”, Nikitin says. That is, individual legends could, of course, be written down, some documents could be preserved (such as agreements with the Greeks, and even those were most likely brought from Greece). But certainly not weather records. The rest was thought out based on the memoirs of contemporaries of the events and oral folk art.

In addition, researchers recognize that the texts of the chronicles that have come down to us are, so to speak, collective creativity. In the sense that they are not only brought together from several sources, but also edited by different people and in different time. Moreover, the editor did not always carefully monitor how organically the information taken from various places was combined. And the scribe could make elementary mistakes, not understanding what he was copying. How much time has passed!

So, of course, one cannot trust the annals, one needs a “criticism of the source”.

From the book I take my words back the author Suvorov Viktor

Chapter 6 No one wrote about the war like that! It is necessary to specifically prove that Zhukov was an outstanding strategist. But no one has ever substantiated this, so for now we can take it as a fact that the “Marshal of Victory” understood this area insofar as (and he himself is insanely boring

From the book the Letter went five millennia [ill. Lev Haylov] author Kublitsky Georgy Ivanovich

How Shakespeare wrote The great English playwright Shakespeare wrote with a quill pen. He lived four hundred years ago. Pushkin worked in the first half of the last century. However, on his desk there were still the same goose feathers. There was an expression "to creak with a pen." But a good goose feather

From the book The Great Trouble. End of Empire author

12.2. Which Samarkand was the capital of Timur when the chronicles speak of the events of the 15th century? Recall once again that the names of cities used to travel quite often on a geographical map. In other words, the same names could refer to different cities. Above we

From the book Reconstruction of True History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

From the book of Molotov. semi-dominant ruler author Chuev Felix Ivanovich

He wrote everything himself - Stalin knew the ancient world and mythology very well. This side is very strong. He worked hard on himself... Politics? He was engaged in politics all his life ... He spoke quietly a little, but if there is acoustics .... Didn't like fast. Thoughtfully and at the same time

From the book Reconstruction of True History author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

33. What Shakespeare actually wrote about In [SHEK] we show that such outstanding Shakespearean plays as Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Henry VIII, Titus Andronicus "(the action of which today is mistakenly attributed to the distant past and to the wrong

From the book Secrets of the Pyramids [The Constellation of Orion and the Pharaohs of Egypt] author Bauval Robert

II WHO WROTE THE PYRAMID TEXTS? Very often, when studying ancient written monuments, "experts" do not allow texts to speak for themselves. They spend many hours studying the content of the sources, but it all ends with some work on philology or

From the book Rus and Rome. Revolt of the Reformation. Moscow is the Jerusalem of the Old Testament. Who is King Solomon? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2. Reconstruction of the history of the creation of the modern Bible Who, where and when wrote the Pentateuch? Specialists in the history of Judaism know from medieval evidence that this religion at one time was divided into two (at least) different currents. One of them is called

From the book Everyday Life of Russian Gendarmes author Grigoriev Boris Nikolaevich

I wrote to you, what more? The daily life of the tsarist gendarmes and police officials is quite vividly characterized by the personal correspondence of some of them, which, although partially, was safely attached to the archives of the Police Department and is now available

From the book of the KGB - CIA - Secret springs of perestroika author Shironin Vyacheslav Sergeevich

WHAT IS THE "PRISONER OF MOABITE" WRITING ABOUT? By the way, special mention should be made of Shevardnadze as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. During the period of “perestroika” and the reformation of the USSR, Mr. Shevardnadze (as later Mr. Kozyrev) made a lot of efforts to distort

From the book Book 1. Empire [Slavic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia as a medieval metropolis Great Empire] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

13.2. Which Samarkand was the capital of Timur when the chronicles speak of the events of the 15th century? Let us recall once again that the names of cities could move around the geographical map and were “attached” to different cities in different eras. Above, we presented texts where, under Samarkand, there is clearly

From the book Book 2. Changing dates - everything changes. [New Chronology of Greece and the Bible. Mathematics reveals the deception of medieval chronologists] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich

4. When Niccolò Machiavelli lived and what he actually wrote about in his "Sovereign" Today it is believed that Niccolò MACHIAVELLI, Machiavelli (Machiavelli) lived in 1469-1527. Encyclopedia reports: “Italian political thinker, writer, historian, military theorist. From

From the book Book 2. Development of America by Russia-Horde [Biblical Russia. The Beginning of American Civilizations. Biblical Noah and medieval Columbus. Revolt of the Reformation. dilapidated author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

1. Reconstruction of the history of the creation of the modern Bible Who, where and when wrote the Pentateuch Let's sum up the analysis biblical history. The scheme of our reconstruction is shown in fig. 3.1. Rice. 3.1. A new chronology of major biblical events. The events of the New Testament are more ancient,

From the book Life of Constantine the author Pamphilus Eusebius

CHAPTER 8

From the book Myths and mysteries of our history author Malyshev Vladimir

Wrote in Russian The scientist wrote his works in Russian, and for a long time nothing was known about them in Europe. For this reason, the priority in obtaining an electric arc was unreasonably attributed to the English scientist X. Davy, who did this only in 1808 and described his

From the book I Call the Living: The Tale of Mikhail Petrashevsky author Kokin Lev Mikhailovich

He was writing… …Is there really nothing left for him besides his memory? He could not, was incapable of stirring it up endlessly and doing nothing but that; was incapable of looking at himself. The same, however, as well as others. Neither himself nor others - he absolutely did not know how, such was

Russian chronicles

Annals- weather, more or less detailed account of events.

Chronicles have been preserved in a large number of so-called lists of the XIV-XVIII centuries. The list means "rewriting" ("writing off") from another source. These lists, according to the place of compilation or the place of the events depicted, are exclusively or mainly divided into categories (original Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.). Lists of the same category differ from each other not only in expressions, but even in the selection of news, as a result of which the lists are divided into editions (excerpts). So, we can say: the Primary Chronicle of the southern version (the Ipatiev list and similar ones), the Initial Chronicle of the Suzdal version (the Lavrentiev list and similar ones). Such differences in the lists suggest that the annals are collections and that their original sources have not come down to us. This idea, first expressed by P. M. Stroev, now constitutes the general opinion. The existence in a separate form of many detailed annalistic tales, as well as the ability to point out that in the same story cross-links from different sources are clearly indicated (bias is mainly manifested in sympathy first for one, then for the other of the opposing sides) - further confirm this is an opinion.

Basic chronicles

Nestor's list

S. D. Poltoratsky received this list from the famous bibliophile and collector of manuscripts P. K. Khlebnikov. Where this document came from Khlebnikov is unknown. In 1809-1819, D. I. Yazykov translated it from German into Russian (the translation is dedicated to Alexander I), since the first printed edition of the Nestor Chronicle was published on German A. L. Shletser, "a German historian in the tsarist service".

Laurentian list

Ipatiev list

Radziwill List

It is named after the first known owner from the Radziwill family. Radziwill Chronicle It was written in a semi-ustav of the end of the 15th century and richly illustrated (604 drawings). Because of the illustrations, this list is called facial. By order of Peter I, a copy was made, but during the Seven Years' War, the original was also acquired. Seven years later, in the publication " Russian Historical Library. ancient chronicles» this chronicle was printed in full, "without any redirection in syllable and utterances".

The first in time are considered to have come down to us in numerous lists (the most ancient - the XIV century.) vault Lavrentievskiy, named after the monk Lawrence, who wrote it off, as can be seen from his postscript, in the city, and Ipatievskiy. This latter scientists refer to the end of the XIV or the beginning of the XV century. Both of these lists are accompanied by various extensions: Lavrentiev - Suzdal, Ipatiev - Kiev and Volyn-Galician. The compilation of the original code dates back to the beginning of the 12th century. , on the basis of a postscript (in the Laurentian list and in Nikonovsky) after the year, in which we read:

« Abbot Sylvester St. Michael wrote a book and a chronicler, hoping to receive mercy from God, with Prince. Volodymyr, who reigns for him in Kiev, and at that time I am the abbess at St. Michael, in 6624, indiction 9 years (1116)».

Thus it is clear that at the beginning of the XII century. Selyvestre, abbot of the Mikhailovsky Vydubetsky monastery in Kiev, was the compiler of the first chronicle code. Word " writing” cannot be understood in any way, as some scientists thought, he copied in the meaning: the abbot of the Vydubetsky monastery was too big a person for a simple copyist. This collection has a special title:

« all the stories of bygone years(in other lists added: chernorizets of the Fedosiev Monastery of the Caves) , where did the Russian land come from, who was the first in Kiev to begin the reign and where did the Russian land come from ”.

The words " Chernorizets of the Fedosiev Monastery of the Caves“Many were forced to consider Nestor the first chronicler, whose name, according to Tatishchev, was in the headings of some lists known to him, but now lost; at the present time we find it in one, and then very late, list ( Khlebnikov). Nestor is known for his other writings: Tales of Boris and Gleb», « Life of Theodosius". These writings are in conflict with the annals indicated by P. S. Kazansky. So, the author of the work included in the chronicle says that he came to Theodosius, and Nestor, in his own words, came under the successor of Theodosius, Stephen, and tells about Theodosius according to legend. The story about Boris and Gleb in the chronicle does not belong to Nestor, but to Jacob Chernorizets. The narratives of both have been preserved in a separate form, and it is easy to compare them. As a result, one has to abandon the idea that Nestor was the compiler of the first code. However, the name of the compiler is not important; much more important is the circumstance that the vault is a product of the twelfth century and that even more ancient materials are found in it.

Some of his sources have come down to us in a separate form. Yes, we know Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb"Iakov Chernorizets," Life of Vladimir”, attributed to the same Jacob,“ Chronicle of George Amartol”, known in ancient Slavic translations, the Lives of the Holy Primal Teachers of the Slavic, known under the name of Pannonian. Moreover, there are clear traces of the fact that the compiler used other people's works: for example, in the story of the blinding of Vasilko Rostislavich, some Vasily tells how Prince David Igorevich, who held Vasilko captive, sent him on an errand to his prisoner. Consequently, this story constituted a separate legend, like the stories about Boris and Gleb, which, fortunately for science, have been preserved in a separate form. From these surviving works it is clear that we began early to record the details of events that struck contemporaries, and the features of the life of individuals, especially those who became famous for their holiness.

Such a separate legend could (according to Solovyov) have a title, now attributed to the entire chronicle “ Se story...". The original story, compiled partly from the Greek chronicle of Amartol, partly, perhaps, from Pannonian sources (for example, the legend about the initial life of the Slavs on the Danube and the invasion of the Volohs), partly from local news and legends, could reach the beginning of Oleg's reign in Kiev. This story has the obvious purpose of linking the North with the South; that is why, perhaps, the very name of Russia was transferred to the north, while this name has always been the property of the south, and we know the northern Russ only from the story. The rapprochement of Askold and Dir with Rurik is also curious, made in order to explain the right of the Rurik dynasty to the southern regions by the conquest of Kiev by Oleg. The story is written without years, which is a sign of its individuality. The compiler of the compendium says: from here we shall begin and put the numbers. These words accompany an indication of the beginning of the reign of Michael, during which there was a campaign against Constantinople. Another source for the compiler was brief, yearly notes of incidents that certainly had to exist, because otherwise how would the chronicler know the years of the death of princes, campaigns, celestial phenomena, etc. Between these dates there are those whose authenticity can be verified (for example, comet d.). Such notes have been kept at least since Oleg occupied Kiev: in the brief chronological tablet included in the annals, the account begins directly with " the first year of Olgov, more recently gray in Kiev". The account was kept, as can be concluded from this table and partly from other sources (“ Praise to Volodymyr", Jacob) by years of reigns. This account was transferred to the years from the creation of the world by the compiler of the code, and maybe even earlier, by another coder. Of the folk tales, some could be written down, others were preserved, perhaps in songs. From all this material the whole was formed; now it is difficult to say how much the labor of one person participated in this whole. The code of the XII century was compiled mainly from sources from Kiev, but it also shows traces of chronicles kept in other parts of Russia, especially Novgorod. The Novgorod vaults have come down to us in the lists not earlier than the XIV century, to which the charate, the so-called Synodal list, belongs. There are also traces of a 13th-century vault: in the so-called Sofia Vremennik and some other annalistic collections there is a common title " Sofia Vremennik” and a preface ending with a promise to tell “ all in a row from Tsar Michael to Alexander(i.e. Alexei) and Isakiah. Alexei and Isaac Angels reigned in when Constantinople took the Latins; a special legend about this was included in many annalistic collections and, obviously, was part of the code of the XIII century.

Novgorod Chronicles

Pskov chronicles

The Pskov chronicles began later than the Novgorod ones: their beginning can be attributed to the 13th century, when the story about Dovmont was composed, which formed the basis of all Pskov collections. The Pskov Chronicles (especially the Second Chronicle) are rich in vivid details about the social life of Pskov; only news about the times before Dovmont is not enough, and even those are borrowed. For a long time, the “Tale of the City of Vyatka” was attributed to the chronicles of Novgorod by origin, which concerns only the first times of the Vyatka community, but its authenticity is questioned: its manuscripts are too late, and therefore it is better not to consider it among reliable sources.

Pskov Chronicles, vols. 1-2 (in DJVu format) on the Pskov State. Local Lore Archive»

Kiev Chronicles

The Kiev Chronicle has been preserved in several lists very close to each other, in which it directly follows the original Chronicle (that is, The Tale of Bygone Years). This Kiev collection ends in all of its lists with r. It consists mainly of detailed stories, which, in their presentation, have much in common with the stories included in The Tale of Bygone Years. In its present form, the vault contains many traces of the annals of various Russian lands: Smolensk, Chernigov, Suzdal.

There are also separate legends: “The legend of the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky”, written by his adherent (Kuzmishch Kiyanin, probably mentioned in it). The story about the exploits of Izyaslav Mstislavich should have been the same separate legend; In one place of this story we read: “Speech the word, as if before hearing; the place does not go to the head, but the head goes to the place". From this we can conclude that the story about this prince was borrowed from the notes of his comrade-in-arms and interrupted by news from other sources; fortunately, the stitching is so unskillful that the pieces are easy to separate. The part following the death of Izyaslav is devoted mainly to the princes from the Smolensk family who reigned in Kiev; perhaps the source, which was mainly used by the matcher, is not devoid of connection with this genus. The exposition is very close to The Tale of Igor's Campaign - as if a whole literary school had been developed then. Kiev news later than 1199 are found in other chronicle collections (mainly northeastern Russia), as well as in the so-called "Gustyn Chronicle" (later compilation). The Suprasl Manuscript (published by Prince Obolensky) contains a brief Kievan chronicle dated to the 14th century.

Galician-Volyn chronicles

Closely connected with "Kievskaya" is "Volynskaya" (or Galician-Volynskaya), which is even more distinguished by its poetic coloring. It, as one might suppose, was written at first without years, and the years are placed later and arranged very unskillfully. So, we read: “Danilov, who came from Volodimer, in the summer of 6722 there was silence. In the summer of 6723, by God's command, the princes of Lithuania were sent. It is clear that the last sentence must be connected with the first, which is indicated both by the form of the dative independent and the absence of the sentence “be quiet” in some lists; therefore, and two years, and this sentence is inserted after. The chronology is confused and applied to the chronology of the Kiev Chronicle. Roman was killed in the city, and the Volhynian chronicle dates his death to 1200, since the Kievan chronicle ends in 1199. These chronicles were connected by the last archer, didn’t he set the years? In some places there is a promise to tell this or that, but nothing is told; so there are gaps. The chronicle begins with vague allusions to the exploits of Roman Mstislavich - obviously, these are fragments of a poetic legend about him. It ends at the beginning of the 14th century. and is not brought to the fall of the independence of Galich. For the researcher, this chronicle, due to its inconsistency, presents serious difficulties, but in terms of the details of the presentation, it serves as precious material for studying the life of Galich. It is curious in the Volhynia annals that there is an indication of the existence of an official annals: Mstislav Danilovich, having defeated the rebellious Brest, imposed a heavy fine on the inhabitants and adds in the letter: “and the chronicler described them in the koromola”.

Chronicles of North-Eastern Russia

The chronicles of northeastern Russia probably began quite early: from the 13th century. In the "Message of Simon to Polycarp" (one of the constituent parts of the Paterik of the Caves), we have evidence of the "old chronicler of Rostov." The first set of the northeastern (Suzdal) edition that has survived to us dates back to the same time. Lists of it until the beginning of the XIII century. -Radzivillovsky, Pereyaslavsky-Suzdalsky, Lavrentevsky and Trinity. At the beginning of the XIII century. the first two stop, the rest differ from each other. The similarity up to a certain point and the difference further testify to a common source, which, therefore, extended to the beginning of the thirteenth century. Izvestia of Suzdal is also found earlier (especially in The Tale of Bygone Years); therefore, it should be recognized that the recording of events in the land of Suzdal began early. We do not have purely Suzdal chronicles before the Tatars, just as we do not have purely Kiev ones. The collections that have come down to us are of a mixed nature and are designated by the predominance of events in one or another locality.

Chronicles were kept in many cities of the land of Suzdal (Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslavl); but according to many indications, it should be recognized that most of the news was recorded in Rostov, which for a long time was the center of education in northeastern Russia. After the invasion of the Tatars, the Trinity list became almost exclusively Rostov. After the Tatars, in general, the traces of local chronicles become clearer: in the Laurentian list we find a lot of Tver news, in the so-called Tver Chronicle - Tver and Ryazan, in the Sophia Vremennik and Voskresenskaya Chronicle - Novgorod and Tver, in Nikonovskaya - Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. All these collections are of Moscow origin (or, at least, for the most part); original sources - local chronicles - have not been preserved. Regarding the transfer of news in the Tatar era from one locality to another, I. I. Sreznevsky made a curious find: in the manuscript of Ephraim the Sirin, he met a postscript from a scribe who tells about the attack of Arapsha (Arab Shah), which took place in the year of writing. The story is not over, but its beginning is literally similar to the beginning of the chronicle story, from which I. I. Sreznevsky correctly concludes that the scribe had the same legend that served as material for the chronicler.

Moscow chronicles

The chronicles of northeastern Russia are distinguished by the absence of poetic elements and rarely borrow from poetic tales. “The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev” is a special essay, only included in some codes. From the first half of the XIV century. in most of the northern Russian codes, Moscow news begins to predominate. According to I. A. Tikhomirov, the beginning of the actual Moscow Chronicle, which formed the basis of the vaults, should be considered the news of the construction of the Church of the Assumption in Moscow. The main vaults containing the Moscow news are the Sophia Vremyanik (in its last part), the Resurrection and Nikon Chronicles (also beginning with vaults based on ancient vaults). There is the so-called Lviv Chronicle, a chronicle published under the title: "Continuation of the Nestor Chronicle", as well as "Russian Time" or the Kostroma Chronicle. The chronicle in the Muscovite state more and more received the value of an official document: already at the beginning of the 15th century. the chronicler, praising the times of "that great Seliverst Vydobuzhsky, not decorating the writer," says: "the first of our rulers, without anger, commanded all the good and unkind who happened to write." Prince Yuri Dimitrievich, in his search for the Grand Duke's table, relied in the Horde on old chronicles; Grand Duke John Vasilyevich sent the clerk Bradatoy to Novgorod to prove to the Novgorodians their lies by the old chroniclers; in the inventory of the tsarist archive of the times of Ivan the Terrible we read: “black lists and what to write in the chronicler of the new times”; in the negotiations between the boyars and the Poles under Tsar Mikhail it is said: “and we will write this in the chronicler for future births.” best example The news of the tonsure of Salomonia, the first wife of Grand Duke Vasily Ioanovich, preserved in one of the chronicles, can serve as a guide to how carefully one should treat the legends of the annals of that time. According to this news, Salomonia herself wished to have a haircut, but the Grand Duke did not agree; in another story, also, judging by the solemn tone, official, we read that the Grand Duke, seeing the birds in pairs, thought about the infertility of Salomon and, after consulting with the boyars, divorced her. Meanwhile, we know from Herberstein's account that the divorce was forced.

Evolution of chronicles

Not all annals, however, represent types of official annals. In many, there is occasionally a mixture of official narrative with private notes. Such a mixture is found in the story about the campaign of the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to the Ugra, connected with the famous letter of Vasian. Becoming more and more official, the annals finally turned into standard books. The same facts were entered into the annals, only with the omission of small details: for example, stories about the campaigns of the 16th century. taken from bit books; only news about miracles, signs, etc. was added, documents, speeches, letters were inserted. There were private books in which well-born people noted the service of their ancestors for the purposes of localism. Such annals also appeared, an example of which we have in the Norman Chronicles. The number of individual tales that pass into private notes has also increased. Another way of transmission is to supplement chronographs with Russian events. Such, for example, is the legend of Prince Kavtyrev-Rostovsky, placed in a chronograph; in several chronographs we find additional articles written by supporters of different parties. So, in one of the chronographs of the Rumyantsev Museum there are voices of those dissatisfied with Patriarch Filaret. In the annals of Novgorod and Pskov there are curious expressions of displeasure with Moscow. From the first years of Peter the Great there is an interesting protest against his innovations under the title "Chronicle of 1700".

power book

Front Chronicle

The front chronicle is a chronicle of events in world and especially Russian history, created in the 40-60s. 16th century (probably in - years) especially for the royal library of Ivan the Terrible in a single copy.

Siberian Chronicles

The beginning of the Siberian chronicle is attributed to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Tobolsk. Several Siberian chronicles have come down to us, more or less deviating from one another: Kungur (late 16th century), written by one of the participants in Yermak's campaign; Strogonovskaya (“On the capture of the Siberian land”; 1620-30 or 1668-83), based on materials that have not survived from the Stroganovs’ patrimonial archive, their correspondence with Yermak; Esipovskaya (1636), compiled by Savva Esipov, clerk of Archbishop Nekraty, in memory of Yermak; Remezovskaya (late 17th century), owned by S. U. Remezov, a Russian cartographer, geographer and historian of Siberia.

Lithuanian-Belarusian annals

An important place in Russian chronicle writing is occupied by the so-called Lithuanian (rather Belarusian) chronicles, which exist in two editions: “Brief”, starting with the death of Gediminas or, rather, Olgerd, and ending with the city and “Detailed”, from fabulous times to the city. "Brief" - legends of contemporaries. So, on the occasion of the death of Skirgaila, the author says from himself: “I didn’t know how small we were then.” Kiev and Smolensk can be considered the place of recording the news; there is no discernible bias in their presentation. The “detailed” chronicle (the so-called L. Bykhovets) presents at the beginning a series of fabulous tales, then repeats the “Short” and, finally, concludes with memoirs of the beginning of the 16th century. Many tendentious stories about various noble Lithuanian surnames are inserted into its text.

Ukrainian chronicles

Ukrainian (actually Cossack) chronicles date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. V. B. Antonovich explains their late appearance by the fact that these are rather private notes or sometimes even attempts at pragmatic history, and not what we now mean by chronicle. The Cossack chronicles, according to the same scholar, have their content mainly in the affairs of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and his contemporaries. Of the annals, the most significant are: Lvovskaya, begun in the middle of the 16th century. , brought to 1649 and outlining the events of Chervonnaya Rus; the chronicle of the Samovitsa (from to), according to the conclusion of Professor Antonovich, is the first Cossack chronicle, distinguished by the completeness and liveliness of the story, as well as reliability; an extensive chronicle of Samuil Velichko, who, serving in the military office, could know a lot; although his work is arranged according to years, it partly has the appearance of a learned work; its disadvantage is the lack of criticism and ornate presentation. The chronicle of the Gadyach colonel Grabyanka begins in 1648 and is brought up to 1709; it is preceded by a study on the Cossacks, whom the author derives from the Khazars. The sources were part of the chronicle, and part, as is assumed, foreigners. In addition to these detailed compilations, there are many short, mainly local chronicles (Chernigov, etc.); there are attempts at pragmatic history (for example, The History of the Russes) and there are all-Russian compilations: Gustynskaya L., based on Ipatskaya and continued until the 16th century, Safonovich's Chronicle, Synopsis. All this literature ends with the "History of the Russes", the author of which is unknown. This work more clearly expressed the views of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 18th century.

Bibliography

See also Complete collection of Russian Chronicles

From the annals published

"Bible. ross. ist." (I, 1767, Königsberg or Radzivilov list):
"Russian chronicles according to the Nikon list" (St. Petersburg, 1762-1792),
"Royal Chronicles" (St. Petersburg, 1772) and "Other Chronicles" (St. Petersburg, 1774-1775, these two collections are variants of Nikonovskaya)
"The Royal Book" (St. Petersburg, 1769, the same)
"Russian. time" (St. Petersburg, 1790)
"Russian chronicle according to the Sofia list" (St. Petersburg, 1795)
"Russian. L. on Sunday list "(St. Petersburg, 1793-94)
"Chronicle containing Russian history from 852 to 1598" (Arkhangelogorodskaya; M., 1781)
Chronicle of Novgorod (Synodal Charatean; M., 1781; another list of this Chronicle is placed in Prod. Ancient Russian Vivliophics, II)
“Chronicle containing Russian history from 1206 to 1534” (the so-called continuation of the “Nestor Chronicle”; close to Nikonovskaya; M., 1784)
"Russian Chronicle" (published by Lvov, close to Nikonovskaya; St. Petersburg, 1792)
"Sofia Time" (1821, published by P. M. Stroev)
"Suprasl Chronicle" (M., 1836, published by Prince Obolensky; abbreviated Kiev and Novgorod)
"Pskov Chronicle" (M., 1837, published by Pogodin)
"Laurentian List" started ed. Moscow total history and ancient, but the printed sheets burned down in a Moscow fire; in 1824, on behalf of the same society, prof. Timkovsky published the beginning of this list; publication stopped after his death. Since 1841, the publication of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles begins, in the first volume of which Lavr is placed. and Tr., in II - Ipatskaya and Gustynskaya, in III - three Novgorod, in IV - the fourth Novgorod and Pskov, in V - Pskov and Sofia, in VI - Sofia, in VII and VIII - Sunday, in IX and X - Nikonovskaya, in the XV - Tverskaya, in the XVI - the so-called Annals of Abramka. In 1871, the commission published the Ipatsky list and at the same time - a photolithographic edition of the initial Chronicle according to this list; in 1872 the Lavrentievsky list was published and a photolithographic edition of the initial chronicler was made according to this list; in 1875, a photolithographic photograph of the Novgorod Synodal Chronicle (Novg. 1) was published, and then the edition of this list was published, as well as Novg. II and III. In time. Tot. ist." (IX) book. Obolensky published "Chronicle of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal"; by him in 1853, ed. in time." and separately the "New Chronicler" (similar to "Nik." and published in the XVIII century. "Chronicle of the rebellions"). In "Russian. ist. bibliot., III, arch. The commission published an annalistic excerpt about the time of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible under the title "Alexander Nevsky Chronicle".
A. I. Lebedev published in “Thurs. Tot. ist." (1895, book 8), entitled “Moscow. L. ”, a presentation of events in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, following the“ Nick. L."
Strogonovsky Siberian Chronicle. ed. Spassky (St. Petersburg, 1821)
Strogonovskaya and Esipovskaya Chronicles, according to two lists - by Nebolsin (“Otech. Zap.”, 1849);
Remezovskaya (the front in the photolithographic image) was published by the archeographic commission under the title “Brief Siberian L.” (St. Petersburg, 1880)
"The Nizhny Novgorod chronicler", published earlier, is best published by A. S. Gatsiskiy (N. N., 1880)
Dvinskaya Chronicle, published in "Dr. ross. vivl." XVIII, republished by A. A. Titov (Moscow, 1889);
“Veliky Ustyug Chronicle” (M., 1889) published by A. A. Titov
"Vologda chronicler". in Vologda in 1874 published
Lithuanian Chronicles were published: a short one - by Danilovich, “Letop. Litwy ”(V., 1827), reprinted in Russian letters in Russov’s Memoirs (1832), and A. N. Popov (“Scientific Notes of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences”); detailed - by Narbut ("Pomn. do dziejow Litew.").
Chronicle of the Seer, published by Bodyansky (in "Thurs. common history”, year 2, book. 1) and in Kiev, in 1878, with a study;
Chronicle of Velichka published in Kiev (1848-64)
Chronicle of Grabyanka - in Kiev, 1854;
small chronicles appeared in various editions (by Kulish in “Mat. to the historical resurrection of Russia”, etc.) and in the collections of V. M. Belozersky
"South Russian Chronicles" (I Kiev, 1856);
“Collection of Chronicles relating to the history of southern and western Russia” (K., 1888, edited by V. B. Antonovich).
See also Miller, “On the First Russian L.” (“Ezhem. sochin.”, ed. 1755);
"Nestor", Schlozer (there is a Russian translation by Yazykov)
P. M. Stroeva foreword. to Sofiysk. time. "," About Byzant. source of Nestor” (“Proceedings of the General History”, IV);
Olenin, “Brief reflections on the publication of the complete collection. Russian deewriters” (“Zh. M. N. Pr.”, vol. XIV);
S. M. Stroev, “On the imaginary ancient Russian Chronicle” (St. Petersburg, 1835) and “On the unreliability of Russian history” (St. Petersburg, 1835);
M. T. Kachenovsky, “On the fabulous time in Russian. ist." ("Uch. Zap. Moscow Univ.", Year III, No. 2 and 3)
M. Pogodin, “Research, lectures and remarks.” (Vol. I and IV); his own, “O Novg. L." (in "News of the 2nd sec. Akd. N.", VI);
book. Obolensky, “Foreword to Suprasl L. and L. Pereyaslavl”, as well as “Collection” (No. 9); his own, "On the original Russian L." (M., 1875);
P. G. Butkov, “Defence of Nest. L." (St. Petersburg, 1840);
A. M. Kubarev, "Nestor" ("Russian historical collection", IV); his own, “On the Patericon” (“Thursday in the General History”, year 2, No. 9);
V. M. Perevoshchikov, “On Russian L. and Chroniclers” (“Works of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, IV and separately St. Petersburg, 1836);
N. A. Ivanov, “Brief review. Russian Temp." and " General concept about chronographs” (“Uch. Zap. Kaz. Univ.”, 1843, No. 2 and 3);
I. D. Belyaev, "About Nestorovskaya L." (“Thursday in the General History”, year 2, No. 5);
P. S. Kazansky, (“Temporary”, I, III, X, XIII; “From. Zap.”, 1851, vol. LXXIV;
cf. Butkov's remarks on the opinions of Kazansky in Sovrem., 1856, No. 9);
M. I. Sukhomlinov, “Drevn. Russian L." ("Zap. II department. Academician of Sciences", III); his, “On Traditions in Ancient. Russian L." ("Osnova", 1861, No. 4);
D. V. Polenov, Bibl. review L." (“J. M. N. Pr.”, part LXIV); his own, “Review. L. Pereyasl. (“Zap. II department. Academician of sciences”);
I. I. Sreznevsky, “Thurs. about ancient Russian L." (“Zap. Akd. Sciences”, vol. II); his own, “Research. about Novg. L." ("Izv. Akd. nauk", II);
P. A. Lavrovsky, “On the language of the north. L." (St. Petersburg, 1850);
D. I. Prozorovsky, “Who was the first writer Novg. L." (“J. M. N. Pr.”, part XXXV);
Kostomarov, "Lectures" (St. Petersburg, 1861);
A. Belevsky, "Monumenta" I (preface);
Bestuzhev-Ryumin, "On the composition of Russian L." (“Let. Zan. Arch. Comm.”, IV);
Rassudov, (“Izv. Mosk. Univ.”, 1868, 9);
I. V. Lashnyukov, “Essay on Russian. historiography” (“Kiev Univ. Izv.”, 1869);
Léger, "De Nestore" (P., 1868); his own, preface to the French translation of Nestor;
I. P. Khrushchov, “On Old Russian Historical. stories" (Kiev, 1878);
A. I. Markevich, "O L." (Od. I, 1883, II, 1885; originally in Izv. Novor. Univ.);
N. I. Yanish, “Novg. L. and their Moscow alterations” (“Church in the General History”, 1874, II);
O. P. Senigov, “On the ancient. years. vault Vel. Novgorod” (in “Summer. zap. Arch. commission”, VIII), his own, “On the first. L. Vel. Novgorod "(" Zh. M. N. Pr. ", 1884, No. 6 - both were later combined in his master's thesis);
I. A. Tikhomirov, “Oh laurel. L." (“J. M. N. Pr.”, 1884, No. 10); his own, "On the Pskovskaya L." (“J. M. N. Pr.”, 1889, No. 10); his own, “On the collection called Tver L.” (“J. M. N. Pr.”, 1876, No. 12); his own, “Review. composition of the Moscow years. Codes” (“Summer. Classes Arkh. Kom.”, X; supplemented and corrected edition of articles from “Zh.M” N. Pr.” 1894-95);
A. E. Presnyakov, “Kings. book "(St. Petersburg, 1893); his own, “On the Moscow Chronicles” (“Journal. M. N. Pr.”, 1895);
about the Rostov L. note in Op. D. A. Korsakova “Measure and Growth. principality" (Kazan, 1872);
about Siberian L. in Nebolsin's book "The Conquest of Siberia" and in "Ist. Russia" Solovyov;
there are also a few notes in "Years. zan. Arch. com. On Lithuanian L. - an article by Danilovich in the publication of Stryikovsky (translated into Russian in Zhurn. M.N. Pr., vol. XXVIII), a preface by Popov, a lithographed edition by V. B. Antonovich;
Smolka, "Najdawnejsze Pomniki dziejopisarstwa Rusko-Litewskiego" ("Pamiętniki Akademii", Krakow, 1890);
Prohaska, Letopis Litewski. Rosbor kryt." (Lvov, 1890). About L. Little Russians - V. B. Antonovich, lithograph. lectures and preface to the "Collection of L.";
Karpov, "Crete. analysis of the main Russian sources, to the source. Related to Little Russia” (M., 1870); his own, “The beginning of the ist. activity Bogdan Khmelnitsky" (M., 1873).
About chronographs, there is a classic work by A. N. Popov, "Review of Chronographs" (M., 1866-69) and his own, "Izbornik" (M., 1869).
On the attitude of L. to the categories, see Karpov, “Ist. fight between Moscow and Lithuania" (1866).
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. - 2001. ISBN 5-94457-011-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's turn directly to the chronicle record for 862, which reports on the "calling of the Varangians" and mentions Rostov for the first time, which in itself seems significant to us:

“In the summer of 6370. They expelled the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to rule themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation upon generation stood up, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and other Normans and Angles, and still other Gotlanders - that's how these were called. Chud Rus, Slavs, Krivichi and all said: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."

It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Russia sprouted, degrading the dignity of the Russian people. But let's take a closer look at it. After all, it turns out to be nonsense: the Novgorodians expelled the Varangians across the sea, did not give them tribute - and immediately turn to them with a request to own them!

Where is the logic?

Given that our entire history was again ruled in the 17-18 century by the Romanovs, with their German academics, under the dictation of the Jesuits of Rome, the reliability of the current "sources" is not great.