Reading about Boris and Gleb year of writing. Holy passion-bearers Boris and Gleb: on the history of canonization and writing of lives

The creation of the cult of Boris and Gleb, which required the writing of lives dedicated to them, pursued two goals. On the one hand, the canonization of the first Russian saints raised the ecclesiastical authority of Rus' (primarily in the face of jealously watching over the preservation of its dominant position among the Orthodox countries of Byzantium), testifying to the fact that Rus' was “honored before God” and was honored with its “holy saints.” On the other hand, the cult of Boris and Gleb had an extremely important and relevant political connotation: it “sanctified” and affirmed the more than once proclaimed state idea, according to which all Russian princes are brothers, but this does not exclude, but, on the contrary, presupposes the obligatory nature of “conquering” younger princes to "elders". This is exactly what Boris and Gleb did: they unquestioningly obeyed their older brother Svyatopolk, honoring him “in his father’s place,” but he used their brotherly obedience for evil. Therefore, the name of Svyatopolk the Accursed becomes in the entire ancient Russian literary tradition a common noun for a villain, and Boris and Gleb, who accepted the crown of martyrdom, are declared the holy patrons of the Russian land.
Let us now consider in more detail the events reflected in the lives of Boris and Gleb. According to the chronicle version (see PVL, pp. 90–96), after the death of Vladimir, one of his sons, the Pinsk (according to other sources, Turov) appanage prince Svyatopolk, seized the grand-ducal throne and planned to exterminate his brothers in order to “accept Russian power” alone.
Svyatopolk's first victim was the Rostov prince Boris, whom Vladimir, shortly before his death, sent with his squad against the Pechenegs. When the news of his father’s death came to Boris, the “brother’s squad” was ready to forcefully obtain the throne for the young prince, but Boris refused, saying that he could not raise his hands against his older brother and was ready to honor Svyatopolk as a father. The squad leaves Boris, and he, left with a small detachment of his “youths,” was killed by order of Svyatopolk.
Svyatopolk sends a messenger to the Murom prince Gleb with the message: “Go away, your father will call you, you won’t be upset.” Gleb, not suspecting deception, goes to Kyiv. In Smolensk, an ambassador from Yaroslav catches up with him with terrible news: “Don’t go, your father died, and your brother was killed by Svyatopolk.” Gleb bitterly mourns his father and brother. Here, near Smolensk, he is overtaken by the killers sent by Svyatopolk. On their orders, the princely cook “took out a knife and stabbed Gleb.” Svyatopolk also dealt with his third brother, Svyatoslav. But Yaroslav enters the fight against the fratricide. Rival troops meet on the banks of the Dnieper. Early in the morning, Yaroslav’s warriors cross the river, “throwing the boat away from the shore” and attack Svyatopolk’s army. In the ensuing battle, Svyatopolk is defeated. True, with the help of the Polish king Boleslav, Svyatopolk manages to temporarily expel Yaroslav from Kiev, but in 1019 Svyatopolk was defeated again, flees Rus' and dies in an unknown place “between the Lyakhs and the Czechs.”
Two actual hagiographic monuments are dedicated to the same subject: “Reading about the life and destruction of... Boris and Gleb,” written by Nestor, the author of “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk,” and “The Tale of Boris and Gleb.” The author of the Legend is unknown. According to most researchers, it was written at the beginning of the 12th century.
The tale is very different from the chronicle story discussed above, and these differences demonstrate the features of the hagiographic narrative: exceptional emotionality, deliberate conventionality of plot situations and etiquette of speech formulas, explained by strict adherence to the hagiographic canon. If in “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” living details helped to believe in the truth of even the most frank miracle, here, on the contrary, the heroes act contrary to the truth of life, exactly as their role as a holy martyr or torturer requires, there are few details and details, the action takes place as if “in the cloth”, all the attention of the author and the reader is focused on the emotional and spiritual life of the heroes.
Feudal feuds in Rus' at that time were quite common, and their participants always acted as sober calculation, military experience or diplomatic talent told them: in any case, they fiercely resisted, defending their rights and lives. The passivity of Boris and Gleb in the face of Svyatopolk is already unusual; it is a tribute to the hagiographic canon, according to which the martyr, fearing death, at the same time humbly awaits it.
Indeed, if the chronicle says that Boris is ready to go to Kiev to Svyatopolk, perhaps trusting his flattering words (“I want to have love with you, and I will give it to you,” Svyatopolk assures him), and only before his death does he learn about danger threatening him (“does he already know that he wants to destroy him?”), then in the Legend Boris, having barely learned about his father’s death, already begins to think: who to turn to in his grief? To Svyatopolk? “Well, I think, I study about the vanities of the world and think about my beating. Yes, if I spill my blood and strive for my murder, I will be a martyr to my Lord. Because I do not resist, it is already written: “The Lord resists the arrogant, but gives grace to the humble.”
Boris's fate is predetermined in advance: he knows about the death awaiting him and is preparing for it; everything that happens in the future is just the death of a doomed prince stretched out over time and resigned to his doom. To enhance the emotional impact of the life, the hagiograph even triples the death of Boris: he is pierced with spears in the tent, then the murderers call on each other to “put an end to what was commanded” and it is said that Boris “succumbed, having betrayed his soul in the hand of God alive,” and finally, when Boris's body, wrapped in a carpet, is being transported in a cart, Svyatopolk, noticing that Boris has raised his head (does that mean he is still alive?), sends two Varangians, and they pierce Boris with swords.
The lengthy prayers of Boris and Gleb are distinguished by a purely etiquette character, with which they turn to God directly in the face of the murderers, and they seem to patiently wait until their victim finishes praying. The artificiality of such collisions, of course, was understood by readers, but they also accepted them as a detail of a hagiographic ritual. And the more verbose and inspired the righteous man prayed in his dying moments, the more persistently he asked God to forgive his destroyers their sin, the brighter the holiness of the martyr shone and the more clearly the godless cruelty of his tormentors was seen.
What attracted attention was the “defenseless youth of Gleb”, who begs for mercy, “as children ask”: “Don’t do me... don’t do me.” But this is also a purely literary device, because according to the text of the Legend itself, Boris and Gleb, born from a Bulgarian woman, one of the wives of Vladimir the pagan, were no longer young men: after all, 28 years passed from Vladimir’s baptism to his death.
The noted difference in the techniques of hagiographic narration in the “Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” and “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” is apparently explained not so much by the difference in the manner of the authors (“Reading about Boris and Gleb”, written by the same Nestor, is similar in its techniques to the Tale) as much as the specifics of the genre. The story about a holy ascetic laboring in the desert, a monastery, etc., traditionally allowed for a greater reflection of the material world, a more vivid description of the characters, etc., than the life of the martyria (the story of martyrdom), where all attention was focused on the image the sufferings of the saint and, above all, the greatness of his spirit in the face of death. Hence the greater sparingness of details, the greater conventionality of the characteristics, and - on the other hand - the greater emotionality of prayers or denunciations.
On the high level of literary skill of ancient Russian writers of the 11th–12th centuries. This is clearly demonstrated by the lives discussed above, which are among the highest achievements of Christian medieval hagiography.

In the section on the question who wrote "the tales of Boris and Gleb? asked by the author Black Hundred the best answer is The lives of Boris and Gleb meant “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” (“Reading about Boris and Gleb”), written by the monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery Nestor
and "The Legend and Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyr Boris and Gleb" ("The Legend of Boris and Gleb"), the author of which is unknown.
The Legend of Boris and Gleb is the most interesting and literary perfect monument from the cycle of works dedicated to the story of the death of the sons of Vladimir I Svyatoslavich Boris and Gleb during the internecine struggle for the grand princely Kiev table in 1015. The Boris-Gleb cycle includes: The Legend about Boris and Gleb, the chronicle story about Boris and Gleb, reading about the life and death of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb Nestor, prose stories, paremia readings, words of praise, church services. To one degree or another, directly or indirectly, all these texts are interconnected, and the Tale occupies the central place among them. The earliest list of the Legend that has come down to us is a text found in the Assumption collection of the 12th-13th centuries. , where it is entitled as follows; On the same day, the legend and passion and praise of the holy martyr Boris and Gleb (Title options in other lists: The month of July on the 24th day. The legend of the passion and praise of the holy martyr Boris and Gleb; The legend of the passion-bearer holy martyr Boris and Gleb; The month of July on the 24th day Life and murder, praise of the passion-bearing saints Boris and Gleb, etc.).

Answer from 22 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: who wrote “the tales of Boris and Gleb?”

They were not the first saints of the Russian land. Later, at different times, the Church began to honor the Varangians Fyodor and John, martyrs for the faith who died under the pagan Vladimir, Princess Olga and Prince Vladimir as equal-to-the-apostles enlighteners of Rus'. But Saints Boris and Gleb were the first married elects of the Russian Church, its first miracle workers and recognized heavenly prayer books “for the new Christian people.” As one of their lives says, they “took away reproach from the sons of the Russians,” who had been entrenched in paganism for so long. At the same time, their veneration is immediately established as nationwide, forestalling church canonization. Moreover, this canonization was carried out, undoubtedly, not at the initiative of the highest hierarchy, that is, the Greek metropolitans, who harbored some doubts about the holiness of the new miracle workers.

Already after Prince Yaroslav’s story about the first miracles, Metropolitan John was “terrified and in doubt.” Nevertheless, it was this John who transferred the incorrupt bodies of the princes to the new church, established a holiday for them (July 24) and himself composed a service for them (1020 and 1039). So few years had passed since the murder of the princes (1015), and the doubts of the Greeks were so persistent that even in 1072, with the new transfer of their relics, Metropolitan George “without believing, like the blessed one.” The Russian people needed a strong faith in their new saints in order to overcome all the canonical doubts and resistance of the Greeks, who were generally not inclined to encourage the religious nationalism of the newly baptized people.

It must be admitted that the doubts of the Greeks were quite natural. Boris and Gleb were not martyrs for Christ, but fell victims of a political crime, in a princely strife, like many before and after them. At the same time, the third brother Svyatoslav fell at the hands of Svyatopolk, whose canonization there was no talk of. Svyatopolk, who began to beat his brothers in an effort to establish autocracy in Rus', was only imitating his father Vladimir the pagan, as Saint Boris himself recalls. On the other hand, the Greek Church knows extremely few lay saints. Almost all the saints of the Greek calendar are among the martyrs for the faith, venerables (ascetics) and saints (bishops). Laymen in the rank of “righteous” are extremely rare. We must remember this in order to understand all the exclusivity, all the paradoxical nature of the canonization of princes killed in civil strife, and, moreover, the first canonization in the new Church of yesterday a pagan people.

The canonization of Boris and Gleb thus poses a big problem for us. It cannot be dismissed by citing the irrationality of holiness, the lack of knowledge of the fate of the Church, or miracles as the main basis of veneration. The unknown author of the life of Prince Vladimir, compiled in the 12th century, explains the absence of miracles at his tomb by the lack of popular veneration: “If we had diligence and offered prayer for him on the day of his repose, then God, seeing our diligence for him, would have glorified him.” . Only two miracles were recorded before the canonization of St. Boris and Gleb, and already Slavic and Varangian Rus' flocked to Vyshgorod in hopes of healing. But miracles do not constitute the main content of their lives. It is to these lives, the most ancient monuments of Russian literature, that we must turn for an answer to the question: in what did the ancient people and the entire Russian people see the holiness of the princes, the very meaning of their Christian feat?

Three hagiographic monuments dedicated to the holy princes in the first century after their martyrdom have reached us: 1) a chronicle story from 1015, 2) “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb,” written by the famous Nestor the Chronicler - end of the 11th century, 3) “The Legend, Passion and Praise of St. martyrs Boris and Gleb,” a work by an unknown author of the same era, attributed by Metropolitan Macarius to the monk Jacob. Of these, the chronicle story, which formed the basis of other lives, is an independent literary work, included in the chronicle in 1015, with a very dramatic, sometimes artistic development of the action, with moral and religious coverage of events, with a frame from the texts of the Holy Scriptures and an akathist final doxology.

“The Legend” in its style and main idea is closest to the chronicle. It further dramatizes the action and expands the prayerful and lyrical parts, which sometimes have the character of a folk lament. This is a “word about the death” of the innocent and at the same time a religious understanding of free sacrificial death. Nestor gave a more learned narrative, closer to the Greek hagiographic tradition. An extensive introduction provides a wonderful world-historical scheme, marking the place of the Russian people in the history of the Church of Christ. The suffering of the princes is preceded by a brief sketch of their Christian life - the life itself, but the main idea of ​​​​the chronicle and the "Tale" is preserved. Distinguished by fewer literary merits, Nestor’s work was much less widespread in Ancient Rus': for one hundred and fifty known copies of the “Tale,” there are only thirty manuscripts of the “Reading.” This detail shows us where we should first of all look for the ancient folk-church understanding of the feat of the passion-bearers. Let us say in advance that the church services to the passion-bearers also agree with this understanding, although they are much less expressive in their Greek solemnity.

Only Nestor, in his desire for completeness of life, provides some information about the life of the holy princes before their murder. This information is very scarce: time has erased all specific features. Boris and Gleb are depicted as having close spiritual friendship. Young Gleb (“childish in body”) is not separated from Boris, listening to him day and night. Boris, taught to read and write, reads the lives and torments of the saints, praying to God to walk in their footsteps. The alms that princes love to give is explained by the influence of Father Vladimir, about whose love of poverty Nestor immediately reports well-known chronicle details. Boris shows the same mercy and meekness when reigning in his volost, where Vladimir sends him, already married (by the will of his father). The absence of all these facts in the “Tale”, widespread in Rus', shows that it was not the lay piety of the princes, but only their mortal feat that remained in the people’s memory.

The external situation of this feat is depicted by all our sources and its essential features in the same way - with minor deviations from Nestor.

The death of Prince Vladimir (1015) finds Boris on a campaign against the Pechenegs. Having not met any enemies, he returns to Kyiv and on the way learns about Svyatopolk’s intention to kill him. He decides not to oppose his brother, despite the persuasion of the squad, which then leaves him. On the Alta River he is overtaken by murderers, Vyshgorod residents loyal to Svyatopolk. In his tent, the prince spends the night in prayer, reading (or listening) to Matins, waiting for the killers. Putsha and his comrades burst into the tent and pierce him with spears (July 24). His faithful servant, “Ugric” (Hungarian) George, who tried to cover his master with his body, was killed on his chest. Wrapped in a tent, Boris's body is taken on a cart to Kyiv. Under the city they see that he is still breathing, and two Varangians finish him off with swords. He is buried in Vyshgorod near the Church of St. Vasily.

The killers overtake Gleb on the Dnieper near Smolensk, at the mouth of the Medyn. According to the chronicle and the “Legend”, the prince travels by water, along the Volga and Dnieper, from his volost (Murom), fraudulently summoned by Svyatopolk. The warning from his brother Yaroslav, which caught him near Smolensk, does not stop him. He does not want to believe in the villainy of brother Svyatopolk. (According to Nestor, Gleb is in Kyiv at the death of his father and flees to the north, fleeing from Svyatopolk.) The boat of the killers meets the boat of Gleb, who is vainly begging for compassion. By order of Goryaser, Gleb’s own cook cuts his throat with a knife (September 5). The prince’s body was thrown on the shore “between Two Decks,” and only a few years later (1019 – 1020), incorrupt, was found by Yaroslav, who had avenged his brother’s death, and buried in Vyshgorod next to Boris.

Even a short chronicle story cites the prayers and reflections of the holy princes, which should explain their almost voluntary death. “The Legend” develops these passages into pathetic lyricism, where the motifs of psalms and prayers are mixed with groans and lamentations in a purely folk spirit. In these inserts, freely arranged and developed parts of the hagiographic tradition, one should look for a folk-church understanding of the feat of the passion-bearers.

It is easy and tempting to get carried away by the closest moral and political idea that all sources instill in us: the idea of ​​obedience to an older brother. Already in the chronicle, Boris tells his squad: “Don’t let me raise my hands against my elder brother: if my father dies, then take my father’s place.” This motif, also present in the Tale, is especially developed by Nestor. Finishing his “Reading”, the author returns to it, drawing from it a political lesson for his contemporaries: “You see, brothers, since conquest is high, the holy hedgehog is holy to the eldest brother. Even if they quickly resisted him, they were hardly capable of such a miraculous gift from God. Many are now childish princes, not submitting to the elders and resisting them; and we kill: you are not of such endowed grace as this saint.”

The memory of Saints Boris and Gleb was the voice of conscience in inter-princely appanage accounts, not regulated by law, but only vaguely limited by the idea of ​​ancestral seniority. However, this very political significance of the “seniority” motif warns against its religious revaluation. Undoubtedly, chroniclers and storytellers must have emphasized him as a practical - even the only practical - role model. But we do not know how effective the principle of seniority was in the princely and Varangian-druzhina environment at the beginning of the 11th century. Prince Vladimir violated it. St. Boris was the first to formulate it on the pages of our chronicle. Perhaps he is not so much inspired by tradition as he is the originator of it, transferring personal family feelings into the sphere of political relations. In any case, the power of the elder brother, even the father, never extended in the ancient Russian consciousness beyond the limits of what was morally permissible. The criminal brother could not demand obedience to himself. Resistance to him was always justified. Such is the righteous vengeance of Yaroslav in our lives. On the other hand, the dynasties that were popular in Rus', the dynasties that created the autocracy, were all the lines of younger sons: Vsevolodovich, Yuryevich, Danilovich. This shows that the idea of ​​eldership did not have exceptional significance in the ancient Russian consciousness and was not understood by analogy with monarchical power. It is absolutely clear that the voluntary act of Vladimir’s two sons could not be their political duty.

In Boris’s reflections, according to the “Tale,” another, evangelical, justification for the feat is given. The prince recalls humility: “The Lord resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”(); about love: “Like the saying: I love God, but hates my brother, that’s a lie.”(); And: “Perfect love will take away fear”(). The ascetic moment of the vanity of the world and the meaninglessness of power is strongly emphasized: “If I go to my father’s house, then the multitude of pagans will turn my heart, as if to drive out my brother, just as my father was before holy baptism, for the sake of glory and the reign of this world, and all that is passing by.” and worse than learning... What did my father’s brothers or my father gain first? Where are their lives and the glory of this world and the scarlet and britches (decorations), silver and gold, wine and honey, honest trade and fast horses, and house redness and greatness, and many estates and tribute, and lavish honors and pride, even about your fans? Already, everything that they had was no longer there, everything had disappeared with them... Thus Solomon, having gone through everything, having seen everything, having acquired everything, said: “All vanity and vanity be vanity, only help comes from good deeds and from orthodoxy and from unfeigned love." In this reflection of the prince there is no hint of the idea of ​​political duty, of the religious calling of power. Even the reign of Saint Vladimir passes like a change of worldly vanities, leaving no trace.

But what Boris feels most strongly is the thought of martyrdom: “If my blood is shed, I will be a martyr to my Lord,” he repeats these words twice in “The Legend.” The night before the murder, he reflects on the “torment and passion” of the holy martyrs Nikita, Vyacheslav and Varvara, who died at the hands of their father or brother, and finds consolation in these thoughts. Free torment is the imitation of Christ, the perfect fulfillment of the Gospel. On the morning of the murder, Boris prays before the icon of the Savior: “Lord Jesus Christ, who in this way appeared on earth, deigned to be nailed to the cross and accept passion for our sakes! Grant me the gift of accepting passion.” With tears, he goes “to a bitter death,” thanking God for having made him worthy to “suffer all through love for the sake of Thy word.” The servants who mourn him also agree with him: “I do not want to resist love for the sake of Christ, but hold the colic in my hand.” The murderers are already in the tent, and the last words of the saint are still the same: “Glory to You, for you have made me worthy to escape from the charms of this flattering life... make me worthy of the labor of the holy martyr... For your sake we kill all day long, counting me as a ram. food Believe me, my Lord, for I do not resist, not contrary to the verb.”

It is remarkable that the martyrdom of the holy princes is devoid of any semblance of heroism. Not a firm expectation of death, not a challenge to the forces of evil, which is so often heard in the sufferings of ancient martyrs... On the contrary, the “Tale,” like the chronicle, uses all its considerable art to depict their human weakness, pitiful defenselessness. Boris weeps bitterly for his father: “His whole face was filled with tears and spilled with tears... “Alas for me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face. My heart is burning, my soul is confused, and I have no one to turn to.” Even more touching, even more heartbreaking is Gleb’s cry: “Woe is me, woe is me! I cry a lot for my father, but even more so I cry and despair for you, brother and master Boris, how broken you are, how you gave yourself up without mercy, not from the enemy, but from your brother... I would not die with you, rather than being alone and secluded from you to live in this life!” He addresses them, his murdered father and brother, with a dying prayer of farewell. This blood, family love deprives the ascetic rejection of the world of all severity. This rejection - not a monastic one - includes the human world, especially the blood and beloved.

But “The Legend” goes further. It vividly depicts the painful difficulty of breaking away from life, the bitterness of saying goodbye to this “lovely light.” Boris cries not only for his father, but also for his dying youth. “As you walked along the path, you thought about the beauty and kindness of your body, and burst into tears all over, although you could not restrain yourself. And everyone, so clearly, wept for his noble body and his honest mind... Who would not weep for that destructive death... bringing before the eyes of his heart... his sad look and the contrition of his heart.” This is his last day before his death, which he spends, abandoned by everyone, “in ace and sadness, dejected at heart.” There is always a struggle in him between two orders of feelings: self-pity and a sublime calling to participate in the passion of Christ. Constant tears are evidence of this struggle. After Vespers on the last night, “his sleep was filled with many thoughts and sorrow, stronger and heavier and more terrible”... The prayer of Matins strengthens him. The rending psalms of the sixth psalm give rise to his own despair. He already prays to Christ to grant him the privilege of “accepting passion.” But, sensing “the whisper of evil around the tent,” he again “became trembling,” although his prayer is now about gratitude. After the first blows of the killers, Boris finds the strength “in shock” to leave the tent (a detail preserved by Nestor). And here he also begs the killers: “My dear and beloved brothers, give me a little time, and let me pray to my God.” Only after this last sacrificial prayer (“Treasure me like a ram for food”), he finds the strength, although still “watered with tears,” to say to the executioners: “Brotherhood, when you have begun, finish your service and bring peace to my brother and you, brothers."

The death of Gleb in “The Tale” is even more striking in its tragic realism. Everything is said here to pierce the heart with acute pity, in justification of the words of Gleb himself: “Behold, there is no murder, but cheese cutting.” A young, almost childish life trembles under the knife of a murderer (how characteristic that this murderer is chosen as a cook), and not a single trait of courageous reconciliation or free choice softens the horror of the massacre - almost until the very end. Before meeting the murderers, Gleb, even after mourning Boris, does not believe in Svyatopolk’s cruel plan. Having already seen the boats of the killers, he “rejoiced in his soul” - “he hoped to receive kisses from them.” The stronger his despair, the more humiliating his pleas: “Do not harm me, my dear brothers, do not harm me, you have done nothing evil... Have mercy on my humiliation, have mercy, my Lord. You will be my masters, and I will be your slave. You will not reap me from a life that is not yet ripe, you will not reap a life that is not yet ripe... You will not cut the vines that are not yet fully grown...” However, this lamentation ends with an expression of good-natured non-resistance: “If you want to be satisfied with my blood, you are already in my hand, brothers , and to my brother, and to your prince.” After saying goodbye to his father and brother who have already departed, he prays, and this, having begun with a bitter complaint: “For we are tempered, we know not why,” ends with an expression of conviction that he is dying for Christ: “Weigh you, Lord, my Lord.” . You have come to your apostles for My name’s sake, For My sake they will lay hands on you and you will become family and friends, and brother will betray brother to death.” It seems that, in full agreement with the ancient storyteller, we can express Gleb’s dying thought: every disciple of Christ is left in the world to suffer, and every innocent and free suffering in the world is suffering for the name of Christ. And the spirit of free suffering - at least in the form of non-resistance - triumphs in Gleb over his human weakness.

Nestor minimizes the presence of this human weakness. He leaves tears, but knows neither lamentations nor pleas addressed to the murderers. In it, Boris invites the murderers to “put an end to the will of the sender” after matins and farewell to loved ones. Even Gleb does not show weakness in front of. Nestor wants to give a hagiographic image of the martyrs, an object not of pity, but of reverent surprise. However, in him we find all the same motives for heroism, albeit with a slightly different emphasis. The author, apparently, values ​​the practically edifying lessons arising from the feat of the passion-bearers. He dwells a lot on the idea of ​​obedience to his elder brother, and understands the love for which saints die in a utilitarian sense. The princes refuse to resist so as not to be the cause of the death of the squad. “I have no choice but to die,” says Boris, “than the table of souls.” And Gleb “is the only one who will die for everything, and for this reason I will let him go.”

But the idea of ​​sacrifice is also present in Nestor. His Boris is the “accomplice of the passion” of Christ, and Gleb prays in the last hour: “As of old in this day Zechariah was slain before Thy breviary, and now I have been slain before Thee, O Lord.” But in the “Tale,” cleared of morally practical applications, even of the idea of ​​courageous performance of duty (for this it was necessary to emphasize human weakness), the idea of ​​sacrifice, distinct from heroic martyrdom, appears with particular force.

Between these two shades in understanding the feat of the passion-bearers, ancient Rus' made its choice. “The Legend” overshadowed the “Reading” in people’s love.

Numerous church services held in Rus' for the holy brothers, beginning with the service of Metropolitan John, who canonized them, contain indications of the same motives of heroism, dissolved in the solemn Byzantine hymn: “For Christ’s sake, he has abandoned the corruptible glory of the earth. Having hated the kingdom of earth and loved purity and endured unrighteous murder, in no way resisting the brother who slaughtered you...”; “Slain to the undefiled lamb, who devoured us for the Savior of our souls.”

No matter how obvious the evangelical origin of this idea is - a free sacrifice for Christ (although not for the faith of Christ), it turns out to be impossible to find hagiographic examples for it. We read from Nestor that Boris and Gleb in their youth were inspired by the suffering of the martyrs. The author of the “Tale” names the names of St. Nikita, Vyacheslav, Barbara (Nestor in another connection - St. Eustathius Placida). Only St. Vyacheslav (Vaclav), killed by his older brother, may recall with his death the Kyiv tragedy. Undoubtedly, in Rus' they knew about the life and death of the Czech prince. Ancient Slavic translations of his lives are known. But to name the name of St. Vyacheslav stands only to emphasize the main difference. St. Vyacheslav is a ready-made, perfect example of a saint and without martyrdom. His legends are true lives, that is, stories about life, and not just about death. It itself cannot in any way be called free. When his brother rushes at him with a sword, he, like a knight, disarms him and throws him to the ground, and only the conspirators who run up finish him off on the threshold of the temple. The feat of non-resistance is a national Russian feat, a genuine religious discovery of the newly baptized Russian people.

Nestor, in his world-historical prologue to his life, recalls the entire history of the redemption of mankind in order to “in the last days” introduce the Russian people as “workers of the eleventh hour.” These workers were able, with the ingenious simplicity of infants, to be captivated by the image of Christ and the absolute beauty of the gospel path. We see the same, but paler reflection of the gospel light in Prince Vladimir’s holy doubts about executing the robbers. Greek bishops who resolved the doubts of St. Vladimir: “It is worthy for you to execute the robbers,” they would hardly have demanded from his sons his aimless sacrificial death. Saints Boris and Gleb did what the Church did not require of them, as a living Christian tradition that established a truce with the world. But they did what the Vinedresser expected of them, the last workers, and “took away reproach from the sons of the Russians.” Through the lives of the holy passion-bearers, as through the Gospel, the image of the meek and suffering Savior entered the heart of the Russian people forever as its most cherished shrine...

Saints Boris and Gleb created in Rus' a special, not entirely liturgically identified rank of “passion-bearers” - the most paradoxical rank of Russian saints. In most cases, it seems impossible to talk about free death: one can only talk about non-resistance to death. This non-resistance, apparently, imparts the character of a free slaughter to a violent death and purifies the slaughtered victim where infancy does not provide natural conditions for purity.

It is remarkable that the Russian Church, which loved the passion-bearers, did not single out its martyrs from the ranks of saints, who in the Greek Church (as in the Roman) always occupy first place in both liturgical and popular veneration. Most Russian martyrs for the faith are either locally revered or forgotten by the Russian people. How many Orthodox people know the Varangians Fyodor and John, the Pechersk monk Evstratiy, Kuksha, the enlightener of the Vyatichi, Abraham, the Bulgarian martyr, the Lithuanian martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius, or the Kazan martyrs John, Stephen and Peter? None of them could ever equal Boris and Gleb, the passion-bearers, in church glorification. This means that the Russian Church did not make a distinction between faith in Christ and death in following Christ, treating the second feat with special reverence.

The last paradox of the cult of passion-bearers is that the holy “non-resisters”, after death, become the head of the heavenly forces defending the Russian land from enemies: “You are our weapon, the Russian land has taken away both the affirmation and the sharp sword of both, and we will overthrow the filthy insolence” (“Legend”). Everyone remembers the vision of Pelgusius on the night before the Battle of the Neva (1240), when St. Boris and Gleb appeared in a boat among the rowers, “clothed in darkness,” placing their hands on each other’s shoulders... “Brother Gleb,” said Boris, “tell us to row, and let us help our relative Alexander.”

But this paradox, of course, is an expression of the basic paradox of Christianity. The cross is a symbol of all passion-bearers; from an instrument of shameful death it becomes a sign of victory, an invincible apotropaia against enemies.

The appearance of original hagiographic literature was associated with the general political struggle of Rus' to assert its religious independence, the desire to emphasize that the Russian land has its own representatives and khoda-tais before God. Surrounding the prince's personality with an aura of holiness, the lives contributed to the political strengthening of the foundations of the feudal system.

An example of an ancient Russian princely life is the anonymous “The Tale of Boris and Gleb,” created, apparently, at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. The “Tale” is based on the historical fact of Svyatopolk’s murder of his younger brothers Boris and Gleb in 1015. When in the 40s of the 11th century. Yaroslav achieved the canonization of the murdered brothers by the Byzantine Church; it was necessary to create a special work that would glorify the feat of the passion-bearers and the avenger for their death, Yaroslav. Based on a chronicle story at the end of the 11th century. and was written by an unknown author “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”.

The author of “The Tale” maintains historical specificity, setting out in detail all the vicissitudes associated with the villainous murder of Boris and Gleb. Like the chronicle, the Tale sharply condemns the murderer - "okay" Svyatopolk and opposes fratricidal strife, defending the patriotic idea of ​​unity "The Great Russian Country".

The historicity of the narrative “The Tale” compares favorably with the Byzantine martyriums. It carries an important political idea of ​​clan seniority in the system of princely inheritance. “The Legend” is subordinated to the task of strengthening the feudal legal order and glorifying vassal fidelity: Boris and Gleb cannot break fidelity to their elder brother, who replaces their father. Boris refuses the offer of his warriors to seize Kyiv by force. Gleb, warned by his sister Predslava about the impending murder, voluntarily goes to his death. The feat of vassal loyalty of Boris’s servant, the youth George, who covers the prince with his body, is also glorified.

The “Tale” does not follow the traditional compositional scheme of a life, which usually described the entire life of an ascetic - from his birth to death. It describes only one episode from the life of its heroes - their villainous murder. Boris and Gleb are portrayed as ideal Christian martyred heroes. They voluntarily accept the “crown of martyrdom.” The glorification of this Christian feat is presented in the manner of hagiographic literature. The author equips the narrative with abundant monologues - the cries of the heroes, their prayers, which serve as a means of expressing their pious feelings. The monologues of Boris and Gleb are not devoid of imagery, drama and lyricism. This is, for example, Boris’s cry for his deceased father: “Alas for me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face, the bridle of my despondency, the punishment of my misunderstanding! Alas for me, my father and lord! Who will I resort to? Who will I contact? Where will I be satisfied with such good teaching and teaching of your mind? Alas for me, alas for me! No matter how far away the world is, I won’t dry you!..” This monologue uses rhetorical questions and exclamations characteristic of church oratorical prose, and at the same time reflects the imagery of people's lament, which gives it a certain lyrical tone, allowing it to more clearly express the feeling of filial grief.

Gleb’s tearful appeal to his murderers is filled with deep drama: “You won’t reap me, I’m not ripe from life! You will not reap class, not already ripe, but carrying the milk of innocence! You won’t cut the vines until they’re fully grown, but you’ll still have the fruit!”

Pious reflections, prayers, laments, which are put into the mouths of Boris and Gleb, serve as a means of revealing the inner world of the heroes, their psychological mood.

The characters pronounce many monologues “thinking in your mind”, “saying in your heart.” These internal monologues are a figment of the author's imagination. They convey pious feelings and thoughts of ideal heroes. The monologues include quotes from the Psalter and the Book of Proverbs.

The psychological state of the characters is also given in the author's description. So, Boris, abandoned by his squad “...in grief and sadness, I was dejected with my heart and climbed into my tent, crying with a broken heart, and with a joyful soul, letting out a pitiful voice.” Here the author tries to show how two opposing feelings are combined in the hero’s soul: grief due to the premonition of death and the joy that an ideal martyr hero should experience in anticipation of a martyr’s end. The living spontaneity of the manifestation of feelings constantly collides with etiquette. So, Gleb, seeing ships at the mouth of Smyadyn, sailing towards him, with youthful gullibility “My soul rejoiced” “and with a kiss I hope to receive acceptance from them.” When evil killers with naked swords sparkling like water began to jump into Gleb’s boat, “You lost eight oars from your hand, and died from fear.” And now, having understood their evil intention, Gleb with tears, "wiping away" body, prays to the killers: “Don’t hurt me, my dear and dear brothers! Don't let me do it, you've done nothing evil! Don't hesitate(touch) do not neglect me, brothers and Lord!” Here we have before us the truth of life, which is then combined with an etiquette dying prayer befitting a saint.

Boris and Gleb are surrounded in the “Tale” with an aura of holiness. This goal is served not only by the exaltation and glorification of Christian character traits, but also by the widespread use of religious fiction in the description of posthumous miracles. The author of “The Tale” uses this typical technique of hagiographic literature in the final part of the story. The praise with which the “Tale” ends serves the same purpose. In praise, the author uses traditional biblical comparisons, prayer appeals, and resorts to quotations from books of “holy scripture.”

The author also tries to give a generalized description of the hero’s appearance. It is built on the principle of a mechanical connection of various positive moral qualities. This is Boris’s characterization: “Telm was handsome, tall, round face, great shoulders, thick in the loins, kind eyes, cheerful face, small beard and mustache, still young, shining like a king, strong body, decorated in every possible way, like a flower blooming in its youth, in Rath is brave, wise in the world, and reasonable in everything, and the grace of God is upon him.”

The heroes of Christian virtue, the ideal martyred princes in “The Tale” are contrasted with a negative character - "damned" Svyatopolk. He is obsessed with envy, pride, lust for power and fierce hatred for his brothers. The author of the “Tale” sees the reason for these negative qualities of Svyatopolk in his origin: his mother was a blueberry, then she was cut off and taken as a wife by Yaropolk; after the murder of Yaropolk by Vladimir, she became the latter’s wife, and Svyatopolk was descended from two fathers. The characterization of Svyatopolk is given according to the principle of antithesis with the characteristics of Boris and Gleb. He is the bearer of all negative human qualities. When depicting him, the author does not spare black colors. Svyatopolk “cursed”, “trak-lyaty”, “second Cain”, whose thoughts are ensnared by the devil, he has “filthy lips”, “evil voice”. For the crime committed, the Holy Regiment bears a worthy punishment. Defeated by Yaroslav, he flees from the battlefield in panic, “...his bones were scattered, as if they were not strong enough to ride a horse. And not bury it on the bearers.” He constantly hears the tramp of horses of Yaroslav pursuing him: “Let's run away! Still to get married! Oh me! and you can’t suffer in one place.” So succinctly, but very expressively, the author managed to reveal the psychological state of the negative hero. Svyatopolk suffers legal retribution: in the desert "between the Czechs and the Poles" He "I'm going to screw up my stomach." And if the brothers he killed "they live for centuries" being the Russian land "visor" And "statement" and their bodies turn out to be incorruptible and emit a fragrance, then from the grave of Svyatopolk, which is “and to this day”, “emanate... the stench of evil upon a person’s testimony.”

Svyatopolk is opposed not only "earthly angels" And "heavenly people" Boris and Gleb, but also the ideal earthly ruler Yaroslav, who avenged the death of his brothers. The author of the “Tale” emphasizes Yaroslav’s piety by putting into his mouth a prayer allegedly said by the prince before the battle with Svyatopolk. In addition, the battle with Svyatopolk takes place in the very place, on the Alta River, where Boris was killed, and this fact takes on symbolic meaning. The Legend associates the cessation of sedition with Yaroslav’s victory (“And from then there was sedition of the throne in the Russian land”), which emphasized its political relevance.

The dramatic nature of the narrative, the emotional style of presentation, and the political topicality of the “Tale” made it very popular in ancient Russian writing (it has come down to us in 170 copies).

“Reading about the life... of Boris and Gleb” by Nestor

A lengthy presentation of the material while preserving all historical details made the “Tale” unsuitable for liturgical purposes. Especially for church services in the 80s of the 11th century. Nestor created “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” in accordance with the requirements of the church canon. Based on Byzantine examples, he opens the “Reading” with an extensive rhetorical introduction, which acquires a journalistic character, echoing in this regard the “Sermon on Law and Grace” by Hilarion.

The central part of the “Reading” is devoted to the hagiobiographies of Boris and Gleb. Unlike the “Tale,” Nestor omits specific historical details and gives his story a generalized character: the martyrdom of the brothers is the triumph of Christian humility over devilish pride, which leads to enmity and internecine struggle. Without any hesitation Boris and Gleb "with joy" accept martyrdom.

The “Reading” ends with a description of numerous miracles testifying to the glory of the passion-bearers, praise and prayerful appeal to the saints. Nestor retained the main political tendency of the “Tale”: condemnation of fratricidal feuds and recognition of the need for younger princes to unquestioningly obey the elders in the clan.

"The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk"

A different type of hero is glorified by the “Life of Theodosius of Pechersk,” written by Nestor. Feodosia is a monk, one of the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, who devoted his life not only to the moral improvement of his soul, but also to the education of the monastic brethren and laity, including princes.

The life has a characteristic three-part compositional structure: the author's introduction-preface, the central part - a narration about the hero's actions and a conclusion. The basis of the narrative part is an episode associated with the actions of not only the main character, but also his associates (Barlaam, Isaiah, Ephraim, Nikon the Great, Stephen). Nestor draws facts from oral sources, stories "of the ancient father" cellarer of the monastery Fyodor, monk Ilari-on, “carriage driver”, “certain person”. Nestor has no doubt about the truth of these stories. Processing them literary, arranging "in a row" he subordinates the entire narrative to a single task "praise" Theodosius, who “I give you eight images.” In the time sequence of the events presented, traces of the monastic oral chronicle are found. Most life episodes have a completed plot. This is, for example, the description of Theodosius’s adolescence, associated with his conflict with his mother. The mother creates all possible obstacles for the boy to prevent him from realizing his intention of becoming a monk. The ascetic Christian ideal that Theodosius strives for collides with the hostility of society and maternal love for her son. Nestor hyperbolically depicts the anger and rage of a loving mother, beating the rebellious youth to the point of exhaustion, putting iron on his legs. The clash with the mother ends with the victory of Theodosius, the triumph of heavenly love over earthly love. The mother resigns herself to her son’s act and becomes a nun just to see him.

Episode with "carrier" testifies to the attitude of the working people towards the life of the monks, who believe that the monks spend their days in idleness. Nestor contrasts this idea with the image "works" Theodosius and the surrounding monks. He pays a lot of attention to the economic activities of the abbot, his relationships with the brethren and the Grand Duke. Feodosia forces Izyaslav to take into account the monastery charter, denounces Svyatoslav, who seized the grand-ducal throne and expelled Izyaslav.

“The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” contains rich material that allows us to judge the monastic life, economy, and the nature of the relationship between the abbot and the prince. Closely connected with monastic life are demonological motifs of life, reminiscent of folk blades of grass.

Following the traditions of the Byzantine monastic life, Nestor in this work consistently uses symbolic paths: Theodosius - “lamp”, “light”, “dawn”, “shepherd”, “shepherd of the verbal flock”.

“The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” can be defined as a hagiographic story consisting of individual episodes united by the main character and the author-narrator into a single whole. It differs from Byzantine works in its historicism, patriotic pathos and reflection of the peculiarities of political and monastic life of the 11th century. In the further development of ancient Russian hagiography, it served as a model in the creation of the lives of the venerable Abraham of Smolensk and Sergius of Radonezh.

Life as a genre of literature of the 18th century

Life as a genre of medieval literature is a plot narrative about a man whom the church elevated to the rank of “saint” for his exploits. The life was based on the biography of a hero, most often a historical person known to the author personally or from the stories of his contemporaries. The purpose of the life was to glorify the hero, to make him a model for followers and admirers. The necessary idealization of a real character led to a mandatory violation of the proportions of life, to his separation from the earthly and carnal, and his transformation into a deity. “The further the hagiographic author moved away in time from his hero, the more fantastic the latter’s image became.” “The Life is not a biography, but an edifying panegyric within the framework of a biography, just as the image of a saint in the Life is not a portrait, but an icon.” Lively faces and instructive types, a biographical frame and an edifying panegyric in it, a portrait and an icon - this unusual combination reflects the very essence of the hagiographic artistic method of depiction. This same combination also explains the fact that ancient lives, close in time of writing to the era of the life and activity of their hero, were more real and vital.

It is necessary to emphasize the importance of the hagiographic genre, since it was in it that throughout the Middle Ages people were told about people. The hero of the life, regardless of his wealth or poverty, social status and learning, was perceived by any reader as his own kind. The reader could see himself in this hero, could envy him, take his example, be inspired by his exploits. The fate of a person and, moreover, attempts to look into his inner world, poeticization of spiritual achievement could not help but attract hearts and minds to this type of literature. This was the only narrative about human fate in the Middle Ages. If “within the framework of chronicles, the foundations of the historicism of Russian literature and its patriotic understanding of the heroism of military and civil feats were formed, then with equal right we can say that in line with the hagiographic tradition, the interest of Russian literature in the inner world of man, its moral optimism, its trust, and hence and high demands on man as a being by his very nature “spiritual,” altruistic and morally responsible”

Genre changes in literature are usually carried out in two ways. An old genre may stop developing and updating, its form becomes stereotyped, and its techniques become frozen and mechanized. Following this, a subsequent negation of the genre occurs, most often through parody, ridicule of its form, leading to its extinction. On the other hand, development occurs through the accumulation of successive changes in the depths of the genre itself, primarily through the expansion and transformation of its content. Changes in style, language and changes in artistic directions and methods can also occur within individual genre varieties, within one genre

A characteristic feature of the hagiographic genre was its lack of consistent evolution throughout the centuries-long period of its development. In the Lives it is almost impossible to outline the line of transition from the church to the secular, from the abstract to the concrete, etc., which is usual for some other genres. It is equally difficult when analyzing works of this genre to talk about the gradual accumulation of elements of realism and fictional plot points, which equally applies to Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Russian lives.

The main characteristic of the hagiographic genre, resulting from the religious-mythological worldview of its authors, is the symbolic nature of the imagery. All medieval art, in its essence, gravitates towards symbolism; elements of realism, fiction, etc. usually act as a violation of general normative poetics, a deviation from the method. However, sometimes these deviations are repeated so often that they eventually become a kind of pattern. The presence of such digressions, as well as symbolic imagery, also follows from the peculiarities of the worldview of the ancient authors. The worldview of medieval man is characterized by a kind of dualism; Along with religious and mythological views, real-historical views, conditioned by reality and the living environment, also manifested themselves in it. This is precisely what underlies the constant presence of realistic elements in the most ancient hagiographical stories.

An attempt to imagine a scheme for the development of the hagiographic genre, of course, conditional and limited, like any scheme, would lead us to depicting not a straight line, but a spiral. Already in the first lives, realistic elements and features of real life predominate. Following this, the hagiographic genre is canonized, and normative elements, idealized images, and symbolism sharply increase in it. In the last period in the lives there is again an increase in the vital, the real; Lives are transformed into the genre of secular stories.

Realistic elements of the image, democratic, popular character are especially clearly manifested in pre-canonical hagiographic works. Even in the oldest hagiographies, the art of ancient masters is striking, skillfully using entertaining, fictional elements to enhance the moralizing nature and idealistic orientation of the life and using realistic details to confirm the authenticity of its most incredible episodes. There is still a lot of naive truthfulness in these pre-canonical lives. They are often heavily influenced by oral folk art, especially folk tales and local legends, but also by related literary genres

Unlike Byzantine hagiographies, original Slavic hagiographies usually devote much less space to adventure moments. In their plots, the psychological motivation of the action is of great importance. It underlies the main conflict in that part of the hero’s biography that describes his life at home before leaving the world: the struggle between him and his parents, especially his mother, who keeps him at home. In these lives, realistic detail is especially common, becoming one of the constant techniques of the hagiographic canon.

The emergence of hagiographies from various sources already in Byzantine literature led to the emergence of certain varieties in the hagiographical genre itself. The enrichment of the genre scheme also occurs during its transition to other cultures. Each folk literature created new variants, its own depiction techniques, its own type of hero, etc. became favorites.

For example, Russian hagiographies move away from old schemes towards greater dramatization of the description of the saint; often only the most dramatic, impressive episodes are selected from the entire biography: internal monologues and emotional dialogues are introduced, often even changing the type of narration. It turns into a simple story, rich in historical and everyday observations, into a military-patriotic story, into a poetic fairy tale, into family memories and memoirs.

On the basis of the lives, within the genre itself, a process of formation takes place, and individual lives come closer and closer to various literary or folklore genres. Some lives begin to resemble stories, others like historical, military, everyday or psychological stories, others like action-packed short stories, others like poetic fairy tales, some take on the form of funny fables, others have a legendary character or acquire a distinctly preachy instructive sound, others do not give up on being entertaining and certain elements of humor and irony. All this diversity, violating the canonical framework of the religious genre, separates it from the church line and brings it closer to secular stories and stories.

The exceptional diversity of hagiographic material, which served as the basis for constant intra-genre development and changes that occurred and grew in the depths of the genre itself, made hagiography fertile ground for the emergence of the sprouts of new secular narrative literature.

LIVES OF BORIS AND GLEB. Boris and Gleb are one of the first saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, the youngest sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Shortly after their father's death in 1015, they were both killed by their elder brother Svyatopolk. Boris died on the river. Alta on July 24, and Gleb on September 5 near Smolensk. As a result of a four-year war, Svyatopolk was defeated by Vladimir's son, Yaroslav the Wise. Obviously, under Yaroslav the first attempt was made to canonize the holy brothers. It was then that the first stories about their death began to take shape. The emergence of the local cult of Boris and Gleb in Vyshgorod, where they were buried, dates back to the time of Yaroslav. The transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb to the new temple by the sons of Yaroslav on May 20, 1072 is considered the moment of their final canonization. The dates of their memory, July 24, and later May 2 (the day of the second transfer of the relics in 1115), become all-Russian holidays. Initially they were revered as healers, but very soon Boris and Gleb became the patrons of all Russian princes as their holy relatives. They are helpers in battles; in their name they call for the unity of Rus' and an end to internecine wars.

A number of ancient Russian monuments are dedicated to the life and martyrdom of Boris and Gleb. This is the so-called “Chronicle Tale” - a story about the death of princes, read in the composition “Tales of Bygone Years”(Article 1015), “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” by Nestor and the anonymous “Tale and passion and praise of the holy martyr Boris and Gleb.” There are different opinions about the relationship between these texts in science.

In literary terms, the most perfect is “The Legend.” It opens with a brief historical exposition telling about the Kiev prince Vladimir and his sons. Before his death, Vladimir sends his “blessed and quick-to-obey” son Boris against the Pechenegs. Returning to Kiev, Boris is met by a messenger reporting the death of his father. The hagiograph cites Boris’s lengthy lament, filled with the highest praise for the deceased and sorrowful lamentations about his death. And then Boris, as if foretelling his fate, on the one hand, expresses his readiness to “bitter sadness” “stretch out” to his brother Svyatopolk, on the other hand, he states that he is “thinking about beating.” This creates a typically hagiographical collision: without being deceived by Svyatopolk’s insidious intentions, Boris mourns his impending death, but in no way thinks about resisting his older brother . Prompted by the devil, Svyatopolk sends assassins to Boris, and he, in anticipation of his death, recalls analogies from hagiographic literature when a righteous man was killed by his loved ones. Boris is overcome by heavy forebodings, he prays passionately, sings psalms and, already hearing the whispers of the murderers approaching the tent, he only thanks God for allowing him to accept death from his brother. The murder of Gleb is described in a similar way. But here the hagiographer introduces a new shade: He depicts Gleb as very young, almost a youth, begging the killers: “Do not destroy me, in the life of a young man, do not reap the ear, not yet ripe, filled with the juice of goodness.” Further in the “Tale” the story is told about the battle on Alta with Yaroslav’s Svyatopolk, about the latter’s victory and the evil death of Svyatopolk “in the desert between Czechs and Lyakhs.” The “Tale” ends with praise to the saints. In the oldest known list - in the Assumption collection of the 12th-13th centuries. - “The Legend” is combined with the “Tale of Miracles” of the saints. It also contains the history of the construction of the temples dedicated to them. Since both monuments - the “Tale” itself and the “Tale of Miracles” - were usually copied together, some researchers (for example, N.N. Voronin) believed that they were written at the same time, and dated the creation of the “Tale” to the period after 1115 This conclusion is contradicted by the stylistic differences between the monuments and the compositional completeness of both J. himself and the Tale of Miracles. The latter has its own preface and does not have a concluding part, obviously because the text was conceived as an open structure: new stories about miracles could be added to it. Therefore, most researchers believe that the “Tale of Miracles” was compiled independently of J., possibly on the basis of records kept at the Vyshegorodskaya church.

Of all the works of the Boriso-Gleb cycle, the story closest to the “Tale” is about the murder of the brothers in “The Tale of Bygone Years,” which, obviously, arose before the “Tale” and “Reading.” The “Tale” itself was most likely timed to coincide with the ceremonial transfer of the relics in 1072.

The “reading” written by Nestor is outwardly more consistent with the hagiographic canon (for example, it opens with a lengthy discussion about the eternal struggle between good and evil, which, according to the hagiographer, is the content of world history; the depiction of the martyred princes is more traditional, devoid of living, natural shades , present in the “Tale”). According to D.S. Likhachev, “Reading” is a journalistic work imbued with the desire to “convince the princes to stop the strife that is destructive for the Russian people” (Russian Chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. - M.; L., 1947. - P. 149 ). “Reading” did not receive wide distribution in book literature, but “Legend,” on the contrary, was preserved in almost two hundred copies.

Both the “Tale” and “Reading” are distinguished by a collision that is unusual for hagiography: by type they are martyrium hagiographies, but if in such hagiographies the killer is usually a representative of a different religion or a pagan, then Svyatopolk is a Christian, and the conflict takes on a completely different, political connotation. “The behavior of Boris and Gleb, who did not raise their hands against their elder brother even in defense of their lives, sanctified the idea of ​​clan seniority in the system of the princely hierarchy: princes who did not violate their commandment became saints” (Dmitriev L.A. Comment // PLDR: The Beginning of Russian Literature: XI - early XII century.-L., 1978.-P. 452).

Ed.: Lives of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them / Ed. for publication D.I. Abramovich - Pgr, 1916; The Legend of Boris and Gleb / Prep. text, translation and comm. L. A. Dmitrieva // PLDR - The beginning of Russian literature of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. - M, 1978 - P 278-303, 451-456; The Legend of Boris and Gleb. Facsimile reproduction of hagiographic stories from the Sylvester collection//Introduction by L. A. Dmitriev - M, 1985.

Lit.: Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles - St. Petersburg, 1908 - P. 29-97; Serebryansky. Princely Lives-S. 81-107; Voronin N.N. Anonymous legend about Boris and Gleb, its time, style and author // TODRL.-1957-T. 13-С 11-56; Eremin I.P. The Legend of Boris and Gleb // Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus'. Sketches and characteristics - M.; L, 1966-S 18-27; Dmitriev L. A. The Tale of Boris and Gleb // Dictionary of Scribes - Issue 1 - P 398-408.

N. I. Milyutenko